Sacramento City Council
February 24, 2026

City of Sacramento
City Council - 2PM Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2026-00455 2/24/2026
Connecting Howe Avenue Safety and Mobility Plan (T15180417) File ID: 2026-00455
Location: District 6
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution: 1) approving the Connecting Howe Avenue Safety and Mobility Plan; and 2) amending the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan to reflect the Connecting Howe Avenue Safety and Mobility Plan.

Contact: Charisse Padilla, Transportation Planner, (916) 808-6788, [email protected]; Jennifer Donlon Wyant, Mobility and Sustainability Division Manager, (916) 808-5913, [email protected]; Department of Public Works Presenter: None
Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-Resolution
3-Exhibit A - Connecting Howe Avenue Safety and Mobility Plan 4-Exhibit B - Streets for People Plan Amendments
Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: In July 2024, the City of Sacramento kicked off Connecting Howe Avenue Safety and Mobility Plan (The Connecting Howe Avenue Plan or The Plan). The purpose of The Plan is to identify a data-driven, community-supported plan that identifies future transportation investments to improve safety and mobility along the Howe Avenue corridor from Fair Oaks Boulevard to the Power Inn Light Rail Station.

The Final Draft Plan is a result of a two-year long community engagement and transportation planning process.

This is an action item to pass a Resolution approving the Connecting Howe Avenue Safety and Mobility Plan and amend the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan to include these bicycling and walking facilities. The timeline for the recently adopted Streets for People Plan was just ahead of the Connecting Howe Avenue Plan efforts. Community input specifically for this corridor resulted in

File ID: 2026-00455 2/24/2026
modifications that differed from the Streets for People Plan. The adopted Plan components will be incorporated into the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan.

Policy Considerations: The project is consistent with specific Sacramento 2040 General Plan goals and policies of promoting mobility, safety and enhancing livability, sustainability, and economic vitality:

M-1. An equitable, sustainable multimodal system that provides a range of viable and healthy travel choices for users of all ages, backgrounds, and abilities.

M-1.2 User Prioritization. The City shall prioritize mobility, comfort, health, safety, and convenience for those walking, followed by those bicycling and riding transit, ahead of design and operations for those driving.

M-1.3 Healthy Transportation System Options. The City shall plan and make investments to foster a transportation system that improves the health of Sacramento residents through actions that make active transportation, nonmotorized modes, high-occupancy, and zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) viable, attractive alternatives to automobiles that use internal combustion engines.

M-1.4 Designing to Move People. In planning, designing, and managing the transportation system, the City shall prioritize person throughput to shift trips to more efficient travel modes and upgrade the performance of limited street space.

M-3. Streets designed and maintained as places that contribute to quality of life.

M-3.2 Street Design. The City shall ensure street design and potential redesign opportunities for existing streets minimize driver speed as appropriate within residential neighborhoods and incorporate street trees wherever possible without compromising connectivity for emergency access or people bicycling, walking, and using mobility devices.

M-4. A safer transportation system.

M-4.1 Application of Safety. The City shall design, plan, and operate streets using complete streets principles to ensure the safety and mobility of all users.

M-4.2 Safer Driving Speeds. The City shall work to maximize the safety of the transportation network by designing streets for lower driving speeds and enforcing speed limits in an unbiased manner as well as promoting safer driving behavior.

M-4.3 Vision Zero. The City shall utilize a data driven, “vision zero” approach to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries by 2027, while increasing safety, health, and equitable mobility for all.

File ID: 2026-00455 2/24/2026
Additionally, this is in accordance with the following Council approved plans:

Vision Zero: This plan supports the City’s Vision Zero goals to utilize a data driven, “vision zero” approach to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries by 2027, while increasing safety, health, and equitable mobility for all. This corridor is part of the City’s Vision Zero High Injury Network.

Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (CAAP): This plan will support the City’s mode shift goals in the CAAP to achieve 6% active transportation mode share by 2030 and 12% by 2045, as well as support public transit improvements to achieve 11% public transit mode share by 2030 and maintain through 2045.

Economic Impacts: None.

Environmental Considerations:

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The action requested is review of a citywide planning study to be used as guidance for future engineering, design, and analysis. Projects consistent with the Plan will be subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act during the Preliminary Design and Environmental phase. The City Council will be asked to review and approve the Plan’s conceptual approach and provide general direction, an action which is covered by CEQA Guidelines Section 15262. That section provides an exemption from CEQA review for a project that involves "...only feasibility or planning studies for future actions which the...agency...has not approved, adopted or funded.”
Sustainability: The Connecting Howe Avenue Plan will provide for improved active transportation support, to reduce the necessity for trips by automobile and related air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, consistent with the goals outlined in the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and vehicles miles traveled by increasing active mode share citywide to 6% by 2030, 12% by 2045. The Plan will also help improve access to transit, helping achieve the CAAP goal to increase public transit mode share to 11% by 2030.

Commission/Committee Action: At its January 15, 2026 meeting, Active Transportation Commission passed a motion to forward a recommendation to City Council to adopt the Connecting Howe Avenue Safety and Mobility Plan.

Rationale for Recommendation: Howe Avenue is one of the City’s Vision Zero Top 10 corridors.

The City applied for, and was awarded, a Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant in late 2023 and started the planning effort in Spring 2024. Through engagement with the community, a twoyear long planning process has resulted in the Connecting Howe Avenue Plan. The action requested is to pass a Resolution adopting the Connecting Howe Avenue Safety and Mobility Plan.

The recommended improvements included in this Plan enhance the transportation safety and

File ID: 2026-00455 2/24/2026
mobility options for all modes of transportation along the Howe Avenue corridor. The recommendations in the Plan are captured in the attached amendment to the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan (attachment 4).

Financial Considerations: The planning level estimated cost to implement the Connecting Howe Avenue Plan is approximately $48,800,000, which includes conceptual design and environmental clearance, as well as final design and implementation.

Approval of this Plan does not obligate funding for the recommendations, and no funding for implementation of the Plan has been identified at this time.

No General Funds are obligated with this recommendation.

Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not applicable.

Background: In 2018, the City’s Vision Zero program identified the Vision Zero top 5 and top 6-10 corridors for transportation related fatalities and serious injuries. Howe Avenue between Fair Oaks Blvd and the Power Inn light rail station was in the top 6-10 corridors. From 2018-2021, staff developed, finalized and Council approved the Vision Zero Top 5 Corridors Plan. In 2023, staff focused on corridors 6-10 and applied for a planning grant. The Howe Avenue Safety and Mobility Plan received funding and began planning work in 2024.

The planning effort began with a review of relevant adopted plans, followed by an analysis of existing operations and infrastructure. This data was supplemented with robust community engagement that included digital and printed surveys, virtual and in-person workshops, pop-ins at community association meetings and other community events and destinations.

Throughout community engagement and plan development, the following common community priorities emerged for Howe Avenue:
· Improve corridor safety, particularly by slowing car speeds and increasing driver awareness
· Remove barriers for people walking, rolling, and biking to key destinations · Create low stress facilities that improve safety for people biking · Create low stress, accessible travel paths for people walking, rolling, and bicycling to reach transit
The Plan was created with communities on and around the Howe Avenue corridor. Engagement

File ID: 2026-00455 2/24/2026
included community listening and collaboration, meeting residents where they are in their neighborhoods, as well as hosting in-person and virtual workshops and interactive resources on the project website. The planning process also included frequent presentations to the City’s Active Transportation Commission.

Development of the Connecting Howe Avenue Plan Final Draft included three distinct phases of engagement:

Phase 1: Listen & Learn- Community Vision, Goals, and Information Gathering October - December 2024
To establish community vision, the project team hosted an in-person and a virtual community workshop, a Community Advisory Committee meeting with community members interested in taking a larger role in the engagement process, as well as an interactive web map and survey (Social Pinpoint) on the project website. Staff also attended a Folsom Boulevard Coalition meeting by Zoom.

Additionally, staff sent out notifications through the City Minute Blog and Transportation Planning monthly newsletter, as well as a presentation at Active Transportation Commission in November 2024.

Phase 2: Alternatives Analysis, Develop Recommendations, and Build Consensus June - July 2025
In phase 2, the project team developed a set of alternative recommendations and presented them to the community for feedback. The recommendations were a result of several data analyses combined with community input the project team received during Phase I community engagement.

Engagement was led by City Staff with support from the consultant project team. This included meeting with the Community Advisory Committee, a presentation to Sac State students, hosting a virtual workshop and two (2) in-person community workshops, and pop-ins at community events, locations, and meetings (Oki Park Food Truck Event, Power Inn Light Rail Station, Sierra Oaks Neighborhood Association Meeting).

Additionally, staff sent out notifications through the City Minute Blog and Transportation Planning monthly newsletter, the Connecting Howe Avenue mailing list, as well as a presentation at Active Transportation Commission in August 2025.

Phase 3: Public Draft Plan Review and Comment
October - November 2025
Phase III community engagement sought to encourage community members to review and provide

File ID: 2026-00455 2/24/2026
feedback on the Public Draft Plan. Engagement efforts included an interactive document review portal (Konveio) on the project webpage where community members could review the Draft Plan and leave comments in the document, City hosted virtual and in-person workshops, and pop-ins at community destinations and events (Power Inn Light Rail Station, Sac State Network Café Event, Neighbors of College Glen Trunk or Treat Event, and a Sac State presentation/ mini workshop).

Additionally, staff sent out notifications through the City Minute Blog and Transportation Planning monthly newsletter, the Connecting Howe Avenue mailing list, as well as a presentation at Active Transportation Commission in October 2025.

The Connecting Howe Avenue Safety and Mobility Plan Final Draft was developed with input from area residents, community partners, Active Transportation Commission, and analysis of existing conditions data.

The Final Draft Plan features the following:
· Adding a shared-use path along the east side of Howe Avenue · Adding a landscaping buffer with shade trees and lighting on the east side of Howe Avenue
· Filling sidewalks gaps
· Lowering posted speed limits
· Adding a shared use path through University Park and an enhanced crossing on University Avenue
· Adding signalized crosswalks at US 50 ramp crossings
· Adding a cantilever bridge on the east side of the American River Bridge and the US 50 overpass
The plan will also include additional key elements in response to community input, such as:
· Removing a travel lane in each direction between American River Drive and the American River Bridge
· Speed Diverters north of the University Ave/ American River overpass · Optical Speed Bars (where appropriate)

File ID: 2026-00455 2/24/2026
· Adding an at-grade connection south of the river between shared use path and existing trail connector
The Connecting Howe Avenue Safety and Mobility Plan Final Draft is included as Attachment 3.

RESOLUTION NO.

Adopted by the Sacramento City Council
Connecting Howe Avenue Safety and Mobility Plan Final Draft (T15180417)

BACKGROUND
A. In July 2024 the City of Sacramento kicked off the Connecting Howe Avenue Safety and Mobility Plan (The Connecting Howe Avenue Plan or The Plan).

B. The purpose of this plan is to identify a data-driven, community-supported plan that identifies future transportation investments to improve safety and mobility along the Howe Avenue corridor.

C. Through the existing conditions analysis and engagement with communities on and around the corridor, the following common priorities emerged to guide the development of the plan for Howe Avenue:
a. Improve corridor safety, particularly by slowing car speeds and increasing driver awareness
b. Remove barriers for people walking, rolling, and biking to key destinations c. Create low stress facilities that improve safety for people biking d. Create low stress, accessible travel paths for people walking, rolling, and bicycling to reach transit
D. The Final Draft Plan was developed based on community listening and engagement, technical analysis, and best practices.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The Connecting Howe Avenue Plan is approved as the City’s guiding concept plan for Howe Avenue from Fair Oaks Boulevard to the Power Inn Light Rail Station. Additional efforts will be taken for environmental clearance and final design.

Section 2. City Council hereby rescinds the following from the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan:
1) Planned Class 4 Separated Bikeway
2) Planned shared use path east of University Park Dog Park 3) Planned new sidewalks on both sides of US 50 overpass 4) Planned sidewalk (east side) between La Riviera Drive connection and College Town Drive
Section 3. City Council hereby amends the City’s Streets for People Active Transportation Plan to modify components of the bicycle and pedestrian networks as set forth in Exhibit A and B.

Exhibits A and B are adopted as part of this resolution.

Table of Contents
Exhibit A – Connecting Howe Avenue Safety and Mobility Plan Exhibit B – Streets for People Plan Amendments
DECEMBER 2025

FINAL DRAFT

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

CITY COUNCIL

KEVIN MCCARTY
MAYOR

LISA KAPLAN
DISTRICT 1

ROGER DICKINSON
DISTRICT 2

KARINA TALAMANTES
DISTRICT 3

PHIL PLUCKEBAUM
DISTRICT 4

CAITY MAPLE
DISTRICT 5

ERIC GUERRA
DISTRICT 6

RICK JENNINGS
DISTRICT 7

MAI VANG
DISTRICT 8

CITY STAFF

CHARISSE PADILLA

PROJECT MANAGER

JENNIFER DONLON WYANT

MOBILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY DIVISION MANAGER

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT TEAM (PDT)

NICK AHANTAB

ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

SHAD BENNETT

TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEER,

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

ALEX GOLOVESHKIN

ASSOCIATE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

MATTHEW ILAGAN

ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

JAMES KRAGH

ASSOCIATE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

BILL SHUNK

SENIOR ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

AMERICAN RIVER COMMONS

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO

CAMPUS COMMONS

CIVIC THREAD

COLLEGE GLEN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION

FOLSOM BLVD COALITION

MERLONE GEIER PARTNERS

NEPENTHE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

POWER INN ALLIANCE

SACRAMENTO AREA BICYCLE ADVOCATES

SACRAMENTO UNITED SOCCER CLUB

CONSULTANT TEAM

DKS ASSOCIATES

MARK THOMAS

CONTENTS
WHY HOWE AVENUE? 1
PROJECT GOALS  2
THE PROCESS 3
HOWE AVENUE TODAY 4
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 8
THE VISION  14
HOW DO WE GET THERE? 18
APPENDICES:

APPENDIX A:

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS REPORT APRIL 2025
APPENDIX B:

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT REPORT JUNE 2025
APPENDIX C:

ENGAGEMENT SUMMARIES
APPENDIX D:

CONCEPT PLAN SET
APPENDIX E:

PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 A

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. HOWE AVENUE STUDY AREA 1
FIGURE 2. HOWE AVENUE STUDY PROCESS 3
FIGURE 3. EXISTING CROSS SECTION 4
FIGURE 4. STUDY CORRIDOR BOUNDS AND SEGMENTS 4
FIGURE 5. FAIR OAKS BOULEVARD TO SWARTHMORE DRIVE/UNIVERSITY PARK DRIVE CROSS SECTION 5 FIGURE 6. SWARTHMORE DRIVE/UNIVERSITY PARK DRIVE TO LA RIVIERA ACCESS ROAD 5 FIGURE 7. LA RIVIERA ACCESS ROAD TO POWER INN LIGHT RAIL STATION CROSS SECTION 6 FIGURE 8. COLLISION CAUSES AND COLLISION TYPES 7
FIGURE 9. INTERSECTION CONTROLS 7
FIGURE 10. HOWE AVENUE’S TOP COLLISION CAUSES AND COLLISION TYPES 7 FIGURE 11. WEB-BASED ENGAGEMENT TOOLS 8
FIGURE 12. ENGAGEMENT BY LOCATION 9
FIGURE 13. ENGAGEMENT BY CATEGORY 9
FIGURE 14. ALTERNATIVE 1 – TYPICAL CROSS SECTION* 11
FIGURE 15. ALTERNATIVE 2 – TYPICAL CROSS SECTION 11
FIGURE 16. ALTERNATIVE 2 – OVERPASS/BRIDGE/INTERCHANGE STRUCTURE 11 FIGURE 17. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES BY COMMUNITY PREFERENCE 12 FIGURE 18. PHASE 3 WEB-BASED ENGAGEMENT TOOL 13
FIGURE 19. RECOMMENDED CROSS SECTION 14
FIGURE 20. ELEMENTS OF THE CONCEPT DESIGN 14
FIGURE 21. CONCEPT FIGURE – HOWE AVENUE NEAR AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE 15 FIGURE 22. CONCEPT FIGURE – HOWE AVENUE NEAR UNIVERSITY AVENUE 16 FIGURE 23. CONCEPT FIGURE – HOWE AVENUE NEAR COLLEGE TOWN DRIVE 17 CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE SAFETY AND MOBILITY PLAN • WHY HOWE AVENUE? 1 1 WHY HOWE AVENUE?
Howe Avenue is a
critical corridor
serving Sacramento
State University
and its students,
local area businesses
and residents.

More than 15,000 people,
including families, students,
and seniors, live in the
neighborhoods surrounding
Howe Avenue, giving them
access to places that shape
daily life:
• Power Inn light rail station
• Two parks and the
American River Parkway
shared use path
• Sacramento State
• Multiple recreation facilities

AMERICAN RIVER PARKW AY

SHARED USE PATH
University
Park
Sacramento
State
University
A
R
M
IV
E
E

RICAN R DR
A
R
M
IV
E
E

RICAN R DR

COLLEGE TOWN DR

COMMONS DR

UNIVERSITY AVE

UNIVERSITY AVE

UNIVERSITY AVE
Howe Avenue

FAIR OAKS BOULEVARD

FOLSOM BLVD
50 SWARTHMORE DRSWARTHMORE DR

UNIVERSITY AVE

COMMONS DR

COLLEGE TOWN DR

LA RIVIERA DR

LA RIVIERA DR

SHARED USE PATH

AME RICAN RIVER PARKWAY

NOT TO SCALE
N
Plan Corridor
City Limits
Light Rail Station
Figure 1. HOWE AVENUE STUDY AREA
Howe Avenue is a vital north-south connection across
the American River and US 50. This plan focuses on
the portion of Howe Avenue from Fair Oaks Boulevard
to the Power Inn light rail station south of Folsom
Boulevard. The street connects people to local
businesses, homes, parks, and regional destinations
like Sacramento State University (Sacramento State). It is the backbone for thousands of residents who live
and work nearby.

Today, Howe Avenue reflects an older design focused
primarily on moving cars rather than facilitating
community access to destinations along the corridor.

The street has narrow or missing sidewalks, limited
and unprotected space for biking, wide crossings, and
high vehicle speeds. The design supports high vehicle
volumes and speeds, making it an uncomfortable
environment for people walking, biking, using transit,
and in some cases, driving. People who drive on the
corridor report concerns for turning on and off the
corridor, long signal cycles, and speeds of other
drivers. People walking and bicycling report facing
barriers to mobility, including long distances between
marked and controlled crossings, limited infrastructure, and high vehicle speeds.

Improving Howe Avenue is a priority for the City of
Sacramento. It is part of the City’s Vision Zero High
Injury Network as one of the top 10 corridors in
Sacramento with the most severe and fatal collisions.

It is identified as a medium priority project in the City’s Transportation Priorities Plan, which was shaped by
extensive community input. Additionally, the corridor
plays an important role in meeting broader City goals
around climate action, community equity, and active
transportation, supporting efforts like the Climate
Action and Adaptation Plan, and the draft Streets for
People: Sacramento’s Active Transportation Plan.

The purpose of the Howe Avenue Safety and Mobility
Plan is to identify the changes needed to transform
this corridor into a place that better reflects the needs and aspirations of the communities on and near the
street. Through strong partnerships and meaningful
engagement, the Plan will help redesign Howe
Avenue as a welcoming, inclusive, and connected
corridor, making it easier and more comfortable for
people to walk, bike, take transit, and reach daily
destinations. The goal of the plan is to identify a
data-driven, community-supported plan for a future
Howe Avenue that will improve safety and mobility.

Cars driving along Howe Avenue
CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE SAFETY AND MOBILITY PLAN • Project Goals 2 2 PROJECT GOALS
SAFETY
Address transportation safety challenges. Between 2018 and 2023, a total of 201 collisions occurred, resulting in two deaths and 16 severe injuries. • Overcome safety concerns of people wanting to walk or bike along Howe Avenue by providing a separated and lower-stress environment.

MOBILITY
Connect people to school, work, parks, and essential services. • Support transit including SacRT Route 26 and Power Inn Light Rail Station that serve Howe Avenue, connecting communities with limited mobility options. • Eliminate the US 50 barrier for people walking and bicycling. • Support access to US 50 for regional travel.

COMMUNITY
Support and uplift community. More than 15,000 people live along Howe Avenue, reflecting Sacramento’s cultural and socioeconomic diversity. • Families, students, and seniors live side by side, supported by local businesses and community institutions that provide over 1,000 jobs. Neighborhoods have long faced barriers to reliable transportation, affordable housing, and essential services. • The corridor planning process centers community voices to build a safer, more connected corridor that supports opportunity and belonging.

Moving Towards Vision Zero
The City is currently working on an update to the
2018 Vision Zero Action Plan:
• Using historic collision data to pinpoint the factors contributing to traffic deaths and serious injuries.
• Identifying proven safety countermeasures to address
those factors through education, engineering,
enforcement, and evaluation.
• Taking a systematic and comprehensive approach to
our transportation environment.
2 CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE SAFETY AND MOBILITY PLAN • The Process 3 3 THE PROCESS
To achieve the project goals, the Connecting Howe Avenue Safety and Mobility Plan followed a four-step process:

UNDERSTAND EXISTING CONDITIONS

AND COMMUNITY NEEDS
A detailed technical analysis was completed to evaluate current conditions and community needs for walking,
biking, transit, and driving along Howe Avenue. These
findings were shared with the community during a
series of open houses and workshops in winter 2024/
spring 2025, where residents added valuable insights.

A full summary is provided in APPENDIX A – EXISTING
CONDITIONS REPORT.

DEVELOP AND EVALUATE CORRIDOR

DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
In response to both technical findings and community
needs, two design alternatives were created. Each
proposed new sidewalks, changes to bikeways,
enhanced crosswalks, intersection changes, and safety
improvements. These alternatives are described in
APPENDIX B – ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT REPORT.

Two alternatives were presented to the community
for input. From that input, a prefer design concept
was selected.

CONFIRM COMMUNITY SUPPORT
Based on community input, a Draft Plan was prepared
that includes an overview of the planning process and
the preferred design concept.

FINAL PLAN
Concept plans and cost estimates were prepared for
the preferred concept to position the City for next
steps towards implementation. The concept plans are
provided in APPENDIX D - CONCEPT PLAN SET, while
the cost estimates are in APPENDIX E – PLANNING
LEVEL COST ESTIMATES. Staff will present the Final
Plan to Council in Winter 2026
The project timeline is provided in FIGURE 3.
2024 2025 2026

JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS DRAFT PLAN FINAL PLAN

COMMUNITY POP-INS COMMUNITY POP-INS SURVEY AND FOCUS GROUPS, COMMUNITY POP-INS

IN-PERSON

OPEN HOUSE

VIRTUAL

OPEN HOUSE

IN-PERSON

COMMUNITY

WORKSHOPS

VIRTUAL

COMMUNITY

WORKSHOPS

IN-PERSON

COMMUNITY

WORKSHOP

VIRTUAL

COMMUNITY

WORKSHOP
Figure 2. HOWE AVENUE STUDY PROCESS
CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE SAFETY AND MOBILITY PLAN • Howe Avenue Today 4 4 HOWE AVENUE TODAY

CORRIDOR DESCRIPTION
The Howe Avenue planning area is from Fair Oaks
Boulevard in the north to the Power Inn light rail
station south of Folsom Boulevard in the south. It is
approximately 2.0 miles in length. It includes the US
50 interchange and overpass, which is one of a limited
number of crossings for the American River and US 50
in the area. These crossings make Howe Avenue a
critical connector for communities traveling to other
neighborhoods, parks and trails, and regional
destinations like Sacramento State.

The corridor primarily features three vehicle travel
lanes in each direction, except for the segment over
the river which has two in each direction, with a
landscaped center median along much of the corridor,
as shown in FIGURE 4. It passes through a mix of
single-family residential and multi-family residential
and community-serving commercial areas, such as a
shopping center near Fair Oaks Boulevard. Land use
along the corridor is primarily commercial and
neighborhood residential zoning.

Today, Howe Avenue lacks consistent and protected
sidewalks and bikeways. SacRT’s Route 26 provides
the only fixed-route transit service along the corridor and access to light rail is located at the south end of the corridor. These gaps limit mobility options and
comfort for people walking, biking, or riding transit—
especially given the corridor’s role in serving two
historically underserved communities.

The corridor was organized into three segments, as
shown in FIGURE 5, based on general characteristics
and surrounding land use.
102' ROW
SIDEWALK BIKE Median
LANE
5' 5' 16'

BIKE SIDEWALK
LANE
5' 5'

TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE
11'

TRAVEL LANE
11'

TRAVEL LANE
11' 11'

TRAVEL LANE
11'

TRAVEL LANE
11'
Figure 3. EXISTING CROSS SECTION
Detailed information
about the study corridor
and current conditions can
be found in Appendix A

AMERICAN RIVER PARKW AY

SHARED USE PATH
University
Park
Sacramento
State
University
A
R
M
IV
E
E

RICAN R DR
A
R
M
IV
E
E

RICAN R DR

COLLEGE TOWN DR

COMMONS DR

UNIVERSITY AVE

UNIVERSITY AVE

UNIVERSITY AVE
Howe Avenue

FAIR OAKS BOULEVARD

FOLSOM BLVD
50 SWARTHMORE DRSWARTHMORE DR

UNIVERSITY AVE

COMMONS DR

COLLEGE TOWN DR

LA RIVIERA DR

LA RIVIERA DR

SHARED USE PATH

AME RICAN RIVER PARKWAY
N

NOT TO SCALE
Plan Corridor
City Limits
Corridor Segments
Light Rail Station
North Segment Middle Segment South Segment
Figure 4. STUDY CORRIDOR BOUNDS AND SEGMENTS
CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE SAFETY AND MOBILITY PLAN • Howe Avenue Today 5 4 NORTH SEGMENT:

FAIR OAKS BOULEVARD TO SWARTHMORE DRIVE/UNIVERSITY PARK DRIVE Adjacent land use is residential and communityserving retail, with shopping centers near Fair Oaks Boulevard. This segment of Howe Avenue
has three vehicle travel lanes per direction.

Sidewalks are generally present in this segment
but are narrow. There are narrow, on-street bike
lanes, which include the gutter as part of the
width, along portions of this segment and other
portions where no southbound bike lanes exist
(gaps in the network). There is lighting
illuminating the street but not focused on the
sidewalk. Bus Route 26 turns from/to
American River Drive and runs in both directions
to the south.

Posted vehicle speeds are 40-50 miles per
hour. For the North Segment, the annual daily
traffic is 46,000 vehicles with a 2040 forecast
of 58,600 vehicles.

MEDIAN
16’

SIDEWALK TRAVEL LANE
5’ 11’

TRAVEL LANE
11’

TRAVEL LANE
11’

TRAVEL LANE
11’

SIDEWALK
5’
102’ ROW

TRAVEL LANE
11’

TRAVEL LANE
11’

BIKE LANE
5’

BIKE LANE
5’
Figure 5. FAIR OAKS BOULEVARD TO SWARTHMORE DRIVE/UNIVERSITY PARK DRIVE CROSS SECTION MIDDLE SEGMENT:

SWARTHMORE DRIVE/UNIVERSITY PARK DRIVE TO LA RIVIERA ACCESS ROAD Adjacent land uses include primarily residential
and office uses, with access to the American
River, the American River Parkway shared use
path and Sacramento State. This segment of
Howe Avenue transitions from three travel lanes
per direction with a center landscaped median to
two vehicle lanes per direction and two separate
structures to cross the American River.

There are narrow and discontinuous sidewalks in
this segment, with typically only a paved shoulder
on the east side of the street. Sidewalks only exist
on the east side of the street north of the bridge
and the west side of the street south of the
bridge. This lack of continuity reduces the ability
for users to easily recognize a path across the
river. There are narrow, on-street bike lanes along
both sides of the street and bridge on this
segment. There is lighting illuminating the street
but not focused on the sidewalk. Bus Route 26
operates in both directions along this segment
with stops at Swarthmore Drive.

Posted vehicle speeds are 50 miles per hour.

SIDEWALK SHOULDER TRAVEL LANE
5’ 12’
MEDIAN
25’

TRAVEL LANE
5’ 12’

SHOULDER
CURB
88’ ROW

TRAVEL LANE
12’

TRAVEL LANE
12’ 5’
Figure 6. SWARTHMORE DRIVE/UNIVERSITY PARK DRIVE TO LA RIVIERA ACCESS ROAD CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE SAFETY AND MOBILITY PLAN • Howe Avenue Today 6 4 SOUTH SEGMENT:

LA RIVIERA ACCESS ROAD TO POWER INN LIGHT RAIL STATION
Adjacent land uses include multi-family residential,
commercial and industrial uses, along with access
to Sacramento State. This segment of Howe
Avenue is three vehicle travel lanes per direction
with a narrow median.

There are sidewalks along the west side of the
street on this segment but they are narrow. There
are narrow, on-street bike lanes, which include
the gutter as part of the width, along both sides
of the street on this segment. There is lighting
illuminating the street and the sidewalk. Bus
Route 26 turns to/from College Town Drive and
this segment is also served by the Power Inn
Light Rail Station.

Posted vehicle speeds are 40 miles per hour. For
the South Segment, the annual daily traffic is
59,000 vehicles.

SIDEWALK TRAVEL LANE
5’ 12’
91’ ROW

TRAVEL LANE
12’

TRAVEL LANE
12’
MEDIAN
4’

TRAVEL LANE
12’

TRAVEL LANE
12’

TRAVEL LANE
12’
CURB

SHOULDER
5’

SHOULDER
5’
Figure 7. LA RIVIERA ACCESS ROAD TO POWER INN LIGHT RAIL STATION CROSS SECTION Howe Avenue includes the US 50 interchange
and the American River crossing, which is
one of a limited number of crossings for the
American River and US 50 in the area.

These crossings make Howe Avenue a critical
connector for communities traveling to other
neighborhoods, parks and trails, and regional
destinations like Sacramento State.
6 CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE SAFETY AND MOBILITY PLAN • Howe Avenue Today 7 4 AMERICAN RIVER PARKW AY

SHARED USE PATH
University
Park
Sacramento
State
University
A
R
M
IV
E
E

RICAN R DR
A
R
M
IV
E
E

RICAN R DR

COLLEGE TOWN DR

COMMONS DR

UNIVERSITY AVE

UNIVERSITY AVE

UNIVERSITY AVE
Howe Avenue

FAIR OAKS BOULEVARD

FOLSOM BLVD
50 SWARTHMORE DRSWARTHMORE DR

UNIVERSITY AVE

COMMONS DR

COLLEGE TOWN DR

LA RIVIERA DR

LA RIVIERA DR

SHARED USE PATH

AME RICAN RIVER PARKWAY
1 2
N

NOT TO SCALE
Plan Corridor
City Limits
Light Rail Station
Fatal Injury
Severe Injury
Minor Injury
Possible Injury
3 4
5 6
7 8
Figure 8. COLLISION CAUSES AND COLLISION TYPES Figure 9. INTERSECTION CONTROLS

COLLISION TRENDS
Between 2018 and 2023, a total of 18 fatal or serious injury collisions occurred, reemphasizing the safety need identified in the City’s 2018 Vision Zero Action Plan. The top three primary collision factors on Howe Avenue were:

Fatal and serious injury collisions along Howe Avenue were most common at or near major intersections. Rear end collisions, often associated with unsafe speeds and stop-and-go conditions, were the most frequent collision type overall, followed by broadside collisions, which often happen where vehicles failed to yield while turning.

Although unsafe speed was the most frequent primary collision factor, these collisions occurred throughout the corridor rather than being concentrated at specific intersections or segments. The intersection of Howe Avenue and American River Drive had the highest number of collisions (37) between 2018 to 2023 with broadside collisions identified as the most frequent type. Disobeying traffic signals or signs was identified as the primary collision factor. The next most frequent locations associated with collisions were at the intersections of Howe Avenue with College Town Drive, Folsom Boulevard and Swarthmore Drive.

Figure 10. HOWE AVENUE’S TOP COLLISION CAUSES AND COLLISION TYPES CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE SAFETY AND MOBILITY PLAN • Community Engagement 8 5 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

ENGAGEMENT GUIDING PRINCIPLES
• Community engagement is based on the belief that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process. • Community engagement promotes sustainable decisions by recognizing and communicating the needs and interests of all participants, including decision-makers. • Community engagement seeks out and facilitates the involvement of those potentially affected by or interested in a decision.
• Community engagement provides participants with the information they need to participate in a meaningful way.
• Community engagement communicates to participants how their input affected the decision.

ENGAGEMENT METHODS
Community Engagement took place in three phases for this project, discussed in more detail on the following pages:
• PHASE 1: LISTEN AND LEARN
• PHASE 2: SHARE AND REFINE
• PHASE 3: REPORT BACK

COMMUNITY IDENTIFIED PRIORITIES
• Make streets safer, particularly by slowing car speeds and increasing driver awareness. • Remove barriers for people walking, rolling, and biking to key destinations. • Create low-stress facilities that improve safety for people biking. • Plant trees to calm traffic, provide shade for people walking and bicycling, and to create a sense of inviting space.
• Build calm, comfortable routes that help people walk, bike, or roll to get to the bus safely.

PHASE 1: LISTEN AND LEARN
The first engagement phase introduced the
planning process and invited community
members to share their needs and ideas
through the following elements:
• City webpage
• Web-based engagement tools
» Community Needs and
Priorities Surveys
» Online mapping/comment
capture tool
» City Newsletter/Blog posts
• Multilingual engagement materials
and tools
• Community Advisory Committee
• Pop-ins at local events
» Folsom Blvd Coalition meeting
» Sacramento State Student
Planning Session
• Virtual and in-person workshops
Through the community needs and priority
surveys, it was determined that
approximately 61% of survey respondents
travel on Howe Avenue daily; about 95% of
respondents typically drive in their personal vehicle but approximately 18% also walk/roll and about 8% take public transit on Howe Avenue. Survey respondents were mostly interested in improving driving safety followed closely by improving crossing opportunities for those walking and bicycling on Howe Avenue.

Based on responses from the online interactive map and in-person events, the majority of the comments were focused north of the American River, with Swarthmore Drive and American River Drive generating the most comments. Safety, missing sidewalk connections and problem intersections and areas were the most prominent concerns for respondents.

Figure 11. WEB-BASED ENGAGEMENT TOOLS
CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE SAFETY AND MOBILITY PLAN • Community Engagement 9 5 Figure 12. ENGAGEMENT BY LOCATION Figure 13. ENGAGEMENT BY CATEGORY By the Numbers:
• 70+ Workshop attendees during
Phase 1
• 100+ Survey Responses
• 70+ Online Map comments

AMERICAN RIVER PARKW AY

SHARED USE PATH
University
Park
A
R
M
IV
E
E

RICAN R DR
A
R
M
IV
E
E

RICAN R DR

COLLEGE TOWN DR

COMMONS DR

UNIVERSITY AVE

UNIVERSITY AVE

UNIVERSITY AVE
Howe Avenue

FAIR OAKS BOULEV AKS BOULEVARD

FOLSOM BLVD
50 SWARTHMORE DRSWARTHMORE DR

UNIVERSITY AVE

COMMONS DR

COLLEGE TOWN DR

LA RIVIERA DR

LA RIVIERA DR

SHARED USE PATH

AME RICAN RIVER PARKWAY
N

NOT TO SCALE
Plan Corridor
City Limits
Light Rail Station
Fair Oaks Blvd
University Ave
American River Dr
American River /
Overpass
La Riviera /
Access Rd
College Town Dr / US 50 Off Ramp
US 50
Folsom Blvd
Power Inn /
LRT Station

COMMENT CATEGORY
Walking
Bicycling
Transit
Driving
General Safety
Other
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

ONLINE MAP COMMENTS BY INTERSECTION
Swarthmore Dr /
University Park Dr
Sacramento
State
University
Online Comments by Type:

Walking Bicycling Transit
Driving General Safety Other
27%
7%
31%
16%
2%
17%
CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE SAFETY AND MOBILITY PLAN • Community Engagement 10 5 KEY ELEMENTS TO ADDRESS

WALKING AND ROLLING NEEDS
• Wider and connected sidewalks that are low stress
and comfortable to walk and roll along.
• Accessible crossings for all users at key areas
of demand.
• Access to American River Parkway shared use path.

COMMUNITY FEEDBACK:
• “Community and residents would be better served if
they could safely and easily walk or ride a bike to the UV shopping area and the newer one across the
street. Slow the car traffic, reduce the number of car
lanes, and encourage foot and bike traffic.”
• “Reduce speed limit on Howe Avenue and enforce it!”

KEY ELEMENTS TO ADDRESS

BICYCLING NEEDS
• Bikeways separated from the street for a more
comfortable and low stress environment.
• Intersection treatments to reduce conflicts and
provide bicycle detection at traffic signals.
• Access to American River Parkway shared use path.

COMMUNITY FEEDBACK:
• “Could be a real opportunity for a separated trail of some kind.”
• “Howe Avenue has essentially become a freeway…
fix the speeding.”

KEY ELEMENTS TO ADDRESS

TRANSIT NEEDS
• Access to bus stops and to Power Inn light rail
station for all users.
• Improved stop amenities, with shade, seating,
lighting and maintenance consistent with demand
and service.
• Intersection and stop treatments to improve
on-time performance.

COMMUNITY FEEDBACK:
• “Howe Avenue…SHOULD have sidewalks, bus stops,
and separated bike lanes from end to end…should
feel safe for everyone to ride. It would be nice if all utilities were buried the entire length.”

KEY ELEMENTS TO ADDRESS

DRIVING NEEDS
• Access to homes, businesses and schools with a
consistent design.
• Enhance safety by minimizing conflicts between
drivers and other road users.
• Improved visibility at intersections and along the
corridor at night.

COMMUNITY FEEDBACK:
• “Traffic lights aren’t triggered by car presence…Some lights feel ridiculously long.”
• “Solve the overpass/free ramps first”
• “People don’t always make the stop light curve at
American River Dr… They just don’t pay attention…in
the lanes traveling south. They don’t anticipate that
curve properly and are going too fast.

CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE SAFETY AND MOBILITY PLAN • Community Engagement 11 5 CREATING A CONCEPT DESIGN
Based on community priorities and the current
conditions of Howe Avenue, the project team
identified a set of design elements that could help
achieve the project’s goals. Each element was
reviewed individually and in combination to form
different corridor alternatives. These alternatives
offered a range of approaches for improving mobility
and safety while reflecting community needs.

OVERCOMING CHALLENGES

AND CONSTRAINTS
Community members shared feedback on how to
improve mobility and safety while meeting the
project’s goals. While many ideas were suggested,
Howe Avenue does not have space for every feature.

The bridge over the American River and the U.S. 50
interchange are constraints that limit design flexibility.

Where there are three lanes in each direction, a lane
reduction is not viable everywhere due to traffic
volumes and operational needs. The project team
balanced community input, safety, mobility for all
users, effectiveness, and feasibility to identify options that best fit community priorities within the existing
street space.

ACHIEVING PROJECT GOALS
Each alternative was evaluated, both by the project
team and the community, on how well it met the
project’s goals and priorities:

1. Safety

2. Mobility

3. Community

HOWE AVENUE ALTERNATIVES
102' ROW
SIDEWALK TRAVEL LANE Median TRAVEL LANE
8' 2' 11'

TRAVEL LANE
11'

TRAVEL LANE
11' 16' 11'

TRAVEL LANE
11'

TRAVEL LANE
11'

SIDEWALK
8'
6" CURB
w/ 1.5' GUTTER
6" CURB
w/ 1.5' GUTTER
2'
Figure 14. ALTERNATIVE 1 – TYPICAL CROSS SECTION*
114' ROW
6" CURB
w/ 1.5' GUTTER
2'

SHARED USE PATH
12'

PLANTING STRIP
8'
SIDEWALK TRAVEL LANE Median TRAVEL LANE
8' 2' 11'

TRAVEL LANE
11'

TRAVEL LANE
11' 16' 11'

TRAVEL LANE
11'

TRAVEL LANE
11'
6" CURB
w/ 1.5' GUTTER
Figure 15. ALTERNATIVE 2 – TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
94' ROW
6" CURB
w/ 1.5' GUTTER
6" CURB
w/ 1.5' GUTTER

SHARED USE PATH

BARRIER
11' 11' 26' 11' 11' 12'
SIDEWALK TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE Gap TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE 5' 2' 2' 2'

BARRIER
1'

BARRIER
1'

BARRIER
1'

BARRIER
1'
Figure 16. ALTERNATIVE 2 – OVERPASS/BRIDGE/INTERCHANGE STRUCTURE Safety Priorities
• Slowing car speeds and increasing
driver awareness.
• Improving intersection safety
• Providing infrastructure and signal
operations that provide separation
from vehicles
Mobility Priorities
• Overcoming major barriers, including
US 50 and the river
• Creating low stress, accessible travel
paths to transit for people walking,
rolling, and bicycling
* No change to the overpass/bridge/interchange structure CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE SAFETY AND MOBILITY PLAN • Community Engagement 12 5 PHASE 2: SHARE AND REFINE
The second engagement phase focused on sharing
potential improvements based on community input and
refining them through continued feedback, with clear
documentation of how ideas shaped the final plan.
• City Website
• Web-based Engagement Tools
» Alternative and Proposed Element Surveys
» City Newsletter/Blog Posts
• Multilingual Engagement Materials and Tools
• Community Advisory Committee
• Pop-ins at Local Events and Locations
» Power Inn Light Rail Station Pop-In
» Sierra Oaks Neighborhood Association Pop-in
• Virtual and In-Person Workshops

FEEDBACK ON PROJECT ELEMENTS
• Commenters felt that more protected and
visible crosswalks were crucial, particularly to
serve pedestrians accessing transit stops or
nearby destinations.
• A cantilevered shared use path concept over the
American River was received positively. Some
commenters suggested converting bridge lanes to
make space for the shared use path and ensuring a
high level of separation between motorists and
users of the path.
• Signal coordination, operations, and visibility were
noted as critical issues, with many respondents
calling for shorter pedestrian wait times at
intersections. Many felt that improved signal timing
would support overall traffic flow and safety, though
some commenters emphasized that pedestrian
improvements should remain a priority. Some
commenters felt that intersections are currently
confusing and difficult to navigate for all users,
which are critical challenges that could be
addressed through signal improvements.
• The connection to University Avenue was positively
received for improved mobility and bike access.
• Commenters liked the idea of adding lighting near
sidewalks to improve safety and increase visibility
while traveling at night.
• The addition of landscaping, bushes, and shade trees
was noted as a key component to mitigate air
pollutants and improving air quality and increase
comfort and aesthetics of the corridor, especially
when implemented as a buffer from the road.

Comments showed support for more green space that
contributes to cooling, noise mitigation, and making
Howe Avenue a more welcoming environment.

Feedback Opportunities
• Community Pop-ins and Presentations
• In-person workshops
• Online Survey and Virtual
corridor map
0 1
2 3
4 5
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Improve corridor safety,
particularly by slowing car
speeds and increasing
driver awareness
Remove barriers for
people walking, rolling, and
biking to key destinations
Create low-stress facilities
that improve safety for
people biking
Create low-stress
accessible travel paths for
people walking, rolling, and
bicycling to each transit
How Well Does Each Alternative Meet Community Priorities? Alternative 1
5%
95%
Alternative 2
What Is Your Preferred Alternative?
Community Comments from Workshop Event
Figure 17. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES BY COMMUNITY PREFERENCE CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE SAFETY AND MOBILITY PLAN • Community Engagement 13 5 PHASE 3: PUBLIC REVIEW

OF DRAFT PLAN
The third engagement phase focused on presenting
the draft plan for public review and incorporating
community feedback into the final plan.
• City webpage
• Web-based Engagement Tools
» Online feedback page for draft plan as shown
in FIGURE 18.
» City Newsletter/ Blog posts
• Multilingual Engagement Materials and Tools
• Pop-ins at Local Events
» Power Inn Light Rail Station Pop-in
» Sacramento State Network Café Pop-in
» Trunk or Treat with Neighbors of College Glen
» Presentation at Sacramento State
• Virtual and In-Person Workshops
Feedback Opportunities
• Four Community Pop-ins and
Presentations
• One In-Person and One Virtual
Workshop
• Online Engagement Form for
Reviewing the Draft Plan

FEEDBACK ON PROJECT ELEMENTS
Strong support for improving safety and comfort for people walking, biking, and rolling, and a broad desire for traffic-calming strategies. This includes support for physical separation of the shared use path from vehicles, enhanced landscaping, lane reductions, and design changes to slow drivers.

Shade trees on both sides of the roadway were encouraged to slow traffic and provide shading during hot weather.

Many commenters expressed the need for continuous, intuitive walking and biking connections, especially across the river and freeway, and to the American River Parkway, Sacramento State, and nearby neighborhoods.

Direct access to and from the shared-use path was requested and to address current gaps or barriers that force people biking to cross traffic multiple times or travel against vehicle flow.

There was interest in improved transit access and comfort, particularly better-located shelters and safer separation between bus stops and moving traffic.

Strong desire for a consistent, multimodal design approach that fits within existing right-of-way constraints and clearly organizes space for different modes of travel.

FEEDBACK SPECIFIC TO CORRIDOR SECTIONS

1. North Segment (Fair Oaks Boulevard to Swarthmore Drive/University Park Drive) a. Some suggestions for narrowing the roadway to calm traffic and improve safety. b. Respondents liked the addition of a shared use path with some preferring walking and biking facilities on both sides of the road for easier access.

2. Middle Segment (Swarthmore Drive/University Park Drive to La Riviera Access Road) a. Strong support was shown for the cantilevered structure, adding physical separation from vehicles, and traffic calming on the bridge and approaching intersections. b. Comments highlighted the need for continuous access and safe, comfortable crossings for those walking and biking at University Avenue.

3. South Segment (La Riviera Access Road to Power Inn Light Rail Station) a. Comments requested clear biking connections, including at College Town Drive. b. Improved safety and visibility at freeway on-ramps is necessary, as commenters noted that drivers often fail to yield to those crossing.

Community members review the draft plan at the workshop Figure 18. PHASE 3 ONLINE FEEDBACK PAGE

FOR DRAFT PLAN
More details about phase 3 engagement can be
found in Appendix C – Engagement Summaries.

CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE SAFETY AND MOBILITY PLAN • The Vision 14 6 THE VISION
Based on an evaluation of the two alternatives
(described in more detail in APPENDIX B), feedback
from communities and to address the safety needs on
Howe Avenue, the following describes the key
elements that were selected to advance into further
design refinement. APPENDIX D includes a more
detailed conceptual design drawing that provides more
detail for the entire study area.

RECOMMENDED

CROSS SECTION
The recommended cross section for the northernmost
portion, where Howe Avenue is the least constrained,
is illustrated in FIGURE 20 and FIGURE 21. Multiple cross sections are recommended and shown over the next
few pages for the remaining segments along Howe
Avenue where additional constraints exist and speed
reduction is a priority.
• Adding a shared-use path on the east side of
Howe Avenue.
• Adding a landscaping buffer with shade trees and
lighting on the east side of Howe Avenue.
• Filling sidewalk gaps.
• Lowering the posted speed limits.
• Removing a travel lane in each direction between
American River Drive and American River Bridge.
• Adding a shared use path through University Park and
an enhanced crossing on University Avenue.
• Adding signalized crosswalks at US 50 ramp crossings
on both sides of Howe Avenue.
• Adding a cantilever bridge on the east side of the
American River Bridge and the US 50 overpass to
provide connections for people walking and
biking across the overpass.
• Adding speed diverters on each side of the
University Avenue overpass in both directions.
• Optical speed bars will be placed where
determined appropriate along the corridor in
future design stage.

EXISTING CROSS SECTION:
102' ROW
SIDEWALK BIKE Median
LANE
5' 5' 16'

BIKE SIDEWALK
LANE
5' 5'

TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE
11'

TRAVEL LANE
11'

TRAVEL LANE
11' 11'

TRAVEL LANE
11'

TRAVEL LANE
11'

RECOMMENDED CROSS SECTION (NORTH OF AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE):
114' ROW
6" CURB
w/ 1.5' GUTTER
2'

SHARED USE PATH
12'

PLANTING STRIP
8'
SIDEWALK TRAVEL LANE Median TRAVEL LANE
8' 2' 11'

TRAVEL LANE
11'

TRAVEL LANE
11' 16' 11'

TRAVEL LANE
11'

TRAVEL LANE
11'
6" CURB
w/ 1.5' GUTTER
Figure 19. RECOMMENDED CROSS SECTION

AMERICAN RIVER PARKW AY

SHARED USE PATH
University
Park
A
R
M
IV
E
E

RICAN R DR
A
R
M
IV
E
E

RICAN R DR

COLLEGE TOWN DR

COMMONS DR

UNIVERSITY AVEUNIVERSITY AVE
Howe Avenue

FAIR OAKS BOULEVARD

FOLSOM BLVD
50 SWARTHMORE DRSWARTHMORE DR

UNIVERSITY AVE

UNIVERSITY AVE

COMMONS DR

COLLEGE TOWN DR

SHARED USE PATH

AME RICAN RIVER PARKWAY

LA RIVIERA DR

LA RIVIERA DR

NO SCALE
N
Plan Corridor
City Limits
Pedestrian Signal
Shared Use Path
Add Sidewalk
Remove Vehicle
Travel Lane
Proposed
Light Rail Station
Widened Sidewalk
Shared Use Path
Connection to
Nearby Streets
Speed Diverters
Tra
c Signal
Existing
Cantilevered
Shared Use Path
Landscaped Buer
Note: The placement of existing and proposed
elements on the corridor are illustrative and not
to scale. See cross sections for exact changes in
street width.

Figure 20. ELEMENTS OF THE CONCEPT DESIGN
CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE SAFETY AND MOBILITY PLAN • The Vision 15 6 NORTH SEGMENT: FAIR OAKS BOULEVARD TO SWARTHMORE DRIVE/UNIVERSITY PARK DRIVE HOWE AVE

AMERICAN

RIVER DR

SHADE TREES, WIDENED SIDEWALK, SHARED USE PATH, & LIGHTING • Separation for people walking and biking from people driving • Shade provides relief from high temperatures and sun exposure • Acquire ROW for 12' wide shared use path east of Howe Avenue • Remove existing unprotected bikeway

REMOVE A TRAVEL LANE FROM

AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE TO

THE AMERICAN RIVER BRIDGE
• Reduces speeds while providing acceptable
flow of traffic
• Reallocates space for shade trees and
protected space for people walking and biking
• Final turn pocket lengths for all intersections to be determined during future design stages

REDUCED SPEED LIMITS

MODIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNALS

AND ADD NEW WARNING SIGNS TO

ENHANCE SAFETY
• Pending approval by City
Council on AB43 Project
recommendations
Figure 21. CONCEPT FIGURE – HOWE AVENUE NEAR AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE SAFETY AND MOBILITY PLAN • The Vision 16 MIDDLE SEGMENT: SWARTHMORE DRIVE/UNIVERSITY PARK DRIVE TO LA RIVIERA ACCESS ROAD 6 UNIVERSITY AVE

HOWE AVE

HOWE AVE

UNIVERSITY AVE

CANTILEVER BIKEWAY ON EAST SIDE OF BRIDGE
• Separation for people walking and biking from people driving • Cantilever structure will allow necessary width without a new structure • Allow people walking and biking to cross the river

ADD SHARED USE PATH AND

NEW CROSSWALK
• Provides an alternative path that maintains an
acceptable grade, passes through public land and
connects to the existing shared use path and the
American River Parkway

REDUCED SPEED LIMITS
• Pending approval by City
Council on AB43 Project
recommendations

ADD SPEED DIVERTERS AND OPTICAL SPEED BARS

TO CALM TRAFFIC
• Speed diverters will provide needed traffic calming in the middle of an long uncontrolled segment between US 50 offramps and signalized intersections north of the American River • Optical speed bars will provide additional visual warning of the need to reduce speed Figure 22. CONCEPT FIGURE – HOWE AVENUE NEAR UNIVERSITY AVENUE CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE SAFETY AND MOBILITY PLAN • The Vision 17 SOUTH SEGMENT: LA RIVIERA ACCESS ROAD TO POWER INN LIGHT RAIL STATION 6 HOWE AVE

LA RIVIERA DR

MODIFY EXISTING TRAFFIC

SIGNALS AND ADD NEW

WARNING SIGNS TO

ENHANCE SAFETY

HOWE AVE

EXTENDS BEYOND AERIAL IMAGE

COLLEGE

TOWN DR

LA RIVIERA DR

SHADE TREES, WIDENED SIDEWALK, SHARED USE PATH, & LIGHTING • Separation for people walking and biking from people driving • Shade provides relief from high temperatures and sun exposure • Acquire ROW for 10' wide shared use path east of Howe Avenue • Remove existing unprotected bikeway

STUDY LANE REDUCTIONS AND INTERSECTIONS AT LA RIVIERA DRIVE AND

COLLEGE TOWN DRIVE
• Conduct further analysis to evaluate potential lane reductions and intersection tightening at College Town Drive and US 50 off-ramp
• Additional study to be completed at College Town Drive and La Riviera Drive intersections

SHARED USE PATH CONNECTION

TO LA RIVIERA DRIVE
• Improved access to and from
La Riviera Drive for people walking
and biking

REDUCED SPEED LIMITS
• Pending approval by City
Council on AB43 Project
recommendations

HOWE AVE

ON-RAMP

COLLEGE TOWN DR
50 PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS AT US 50 RAMP CROSSINGS
• Existing ramp crossings are mostly unstriped and uncomfortable for people walking or biking to cross against traffic accelerating towards the freeway or coming from the freeway
• Any signal control will have to be coordinated with Caltrans Figure 23. CONCEPT FIGURE – HOWE AVENUE NEAR COLLEGE TOWN DRIVE CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE SAFETY AND MOBILITY PLAN • How Do We Get There? 18 7 HOW DO WE GET THERE?
The Connecting Howe Avenue Safety and Mobility
Plan presents a vision for a future Howe Avenue that
will improve safety and mobility.

The following highlights the key next steps for the City to help realize this vision on Howe Avenue:

PLAN ADOPTION
This plan is expected to be adopted by City Council
in early 2026.

IDENTIFY AND SECURE FUNDING
With plan adoption, the City can move forward
towards securing funding (e.g., federal or state grants with local matches) for the next phase, Preliminary
Engineering and Environmental Clearance.

The preferred concept is expected to cost
approximately $32 million. This cost estimate is
discussed further in APPENDIX E – PLANNING LEVEL
COST ESTIMATES.

The cost estimates are based on this preliminary
concept and recent similar design and construction in
the City of Sacramento.

Actual costs will be determined by surveyed base
mapping, geotechnical reports, concept refinement,
environmental reviews, right-of-way availability, project phasing, and bid conditions at time of construction.

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND

ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
The next phase after this plan is Preliminary
Engineering and Environmental Clearance where
additional refinement of design will occur. A few key
elements that will need to be refined and coordinated
in the future include:
• Any change to lane capacity or control on
Caltrans freeway ramps will need to be
coordinated with Caltrans.
• Evaluation of speed diverters north of the American
River overpass in both directions to determine
appropriate locations. Similarly, locations for optical speed bars should be evaluated.
• Additional analysis is likely needed to confirm
reduction of a travel lane on Howe Avenue south of
American River Drive to the bridge.
• The proposed cross section may require obtaining
additional right-of-way along the east side of Howe
Avenue between Fair Oaks Boulevard and Folsom
Boulevard. Additional design will be needed to
determine a more refined understanding of potential
right-of-way impacts.
• South of the bridge, further analysis is needed to
determine if lane reallocation and reducing the size
of the College Town Drive/La Riviera Drive/US 50
off-ramp is feasible.
• A structural analysis will be needed to confirm that a cantilever structure over US 50 is feasible.

Alternatively, a separate structure could be
considered over US 50 with safer and more
comfortable crossings to connect the new structure
back to Howe Avenue.

FINAL DESIGN DOCUMENTATION
• Advances the engineering and design of the project
to a 60%, 90% and 100% level of design.
• Public and stakeholder engagement continues
during the final design phase, to inform the
community of the proposed project and what to
anticipate during construction.
• Obtains necessary rights of way and permissions
and permits to construct the project.

CONSTRUCTION, INSPECTION AND

CERTIFICATION
• Includes hiring contractors and building the work to
city standards.
• Includes opportunities for local contractors and
businesses to work on the proposed project and
what to anticipate during construction.

Bicyclist riding along Howe Avenue

APPENDIX A

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS REPORT
APRIL 2025

Connect ing Howe Avenue Safety & Mob i l ity P lan
Exi s ting Condition s Analysi s Repor t
A P R I L 2 0 2 5
PREPARED FOR:

HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
i i

PREPARED FOR CITY OF SACRAMENTO
Charisse Padilla, Project Manager
Jennifer Donlon Wyant, Mobility and Sustainability Division Manager Ryan Dodge, Associate Planner

PREPARED BY DKS ASSOCIATES
Josh Pilachowski, Project Manager
Jim Damkowitch
Alexandra Haag
Sylinda Villado
HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
i i i
Tab le o f Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................ 1 P r o j e c t Ba ckg round . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Poli cy F ram ew o rk and Se t ting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Literature Rev iew ..................................................................................... 4 Sa c ram en t o C oun ty Fai r Oak s B oul eva rd C ompl e t e S t re e t s Ma s t e r Plan (2017 ) . 4 Vi si on Z e ro A c tion Plan (2018 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Tran spo r ta tion P ri o ri tie s Pl an (2022 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Clima t e A c ti on & Ad ap ta tion Plan (2024 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2040 G ene ral Pl an – Envi ronmen tal Ju s ti c e Elem en t (2024 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 S tr ee t s f o r Pe opl e: Sa c ram en t o’ s A c tiv e T ran sp o r ta ti on Pl an (D ra f t 2024 t o 2025) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Descript ion of Howe Avenue ...................................................................... 6 So cio e con omi c Cha ra c t eri s ti c s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Phy si cal Cha ra c t eri s ti c s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Ex isting Conditions Mult imodal Analys is ....................................................21 Tra f fi c Volume s a t S tudy In t e r s e c ti on s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Tran si t Da ta Summ a ry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Le v el o f T ra f fi c S t re s s/All Ag e s and Abili tie s Walking and Bi king Anal y si s . . . . . . 24 C ra sh An aly si s Summa ry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Tra f fi c Op e ra ti on s Analy si s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Tra v el Tim e R eli abili ty and C ong e s ti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Public Engagement Summary ....................................................................54 Publi c Engag em en t Ev en t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Publi c Engag em en t Re sul t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Ex isting Transportation Challenges and Constraints ...................................64 In f ra s t ru c tu re for W alking/R olling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 In f ra s t ru c tu re for Biking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Tran si t In f ra s t ru c tu re . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Sa f e ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Righ t o f Wa y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
iv
APPENDIX ...............................................................................................70 L ist O f F igures
Fi g u r e 1 : Bi k e F a cili ti e s A n d Di sm ou n t Si g n ag e A t H ow e A v en u e B ri d g e . . . . . . . . 10 Fi g u r e 2 : I n f o rm al Pa t hw a y B e tw e en S i d ew al k Ga p On E a s t S i d e O f H ow e A v en u e A t H ow e A v en u e B ri d g e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Fi g u r e 3 : S t ri p e d C r o s sw al k A c r o s s W e s t b ou n d U s 5 0 On -R am p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Fi g u r e 4 : H ow e A v en u e Bu s S t op s , F o rm O f T r a f fi c C on t r ol A n d C r o s sw al k s . . . 13 Fi g u r e 5 . H ow e Av en u e R o ad w a y S e gm en t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Fi g u r e 6 . H ow e Av en u e N o r th S e gm en t L o c a ti on M a p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Fi g u r e 7 . Si t e P h o t o O f N o r th S e gm e n t R o a d w a y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Fi g u r e 8 . N o r th S e gm en t : H ow e A v en u e ( F ai r Oa k s B ou l ev a rd T o S w a r thm o r e D ri v e /U ni v e r si t y P a r k D ri v e ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Fi g u r e 9 . H ow e Av en u e Mi d dl e S e gm en t L o c a ti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Fi g u r e 1 0 . Si t e P h o t o O f Mi d dl e S egm en t Op e r a ti on s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Fi g u r e 1 1 . Mid dl e S egm en t : H ow e A v en u e (Sw a r thm o r e D ri v e T o L a Ri vi e ra A c c e s s R o a d ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Fi g u r e 1 2 . H ow e A v en u e S ou th S e gm en t L o c a ti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Fi g u r e 1 3 . Si t e P h o t o O f S ou th S e gm en t Op e r a ti on s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Fi g u r e 1 4 . S ou th S egm en t : H ow e A v en u e - L a Ri vi e ra A c c e s s R o ad T o P ow e r In n S t a ti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Fi g u r e 1 5 : E xi s tin g P e a k H o u r T r a f fi c Volum e s A n d F o rm O f T r a f fi c C on t r ol . . . 22 Fi g u r e 1 6 . A v e r a g e D ail y T ran si t Ri d e r shi p F o r All S t op s On H ow e A v e n u e B y M on th ( S ou r c e : Sa c r t S t op Ri d e r ship D a t a ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Fi g u r e 1 7 . A v e r a g e W e ek d a y Ri d e r shi p B y S t o p O n H ow e A v en u e (S ou r c e : S a c r t S t op Ri d e r shi p D a t a ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Fi g u r e 1 8 . Bi k e L e v el O f T r a f fi c S t r e s s S c o r e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Fi g u r e 1 9 . Bi c y c l e S e gm en t L t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Fi g u r e 2 0 . W a l kin g L e v el O f T r a f fi c S t r e s s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
v
Fi g u r e 2 1 . W a l kin g S e gm en t L t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Fi g u r e 2 2 : H ow e A v en u e C ra sh Ma p (All C r a sh e s ) S ou r c e : T ra n s p o r t a ti on I n j u r y M ap pin g S y s t em ( Tim s ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Fi g u r e 2 3 : H ow e A v en u e C ra sh Ma p (K si C r a sh e s ) S ou r c e : T r an sp o r t a ti on In j u r y M ap pin g S y s t em ( Tim s ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Fi g u r e 2 4 : H ow e A v en u e C ra sh e s B y Ty p e (S ou r c e : T r an sp o r t a ti on In ju r y M ap pin g S y s t em ( Tim s ) ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Fi g u r e 2 5 : H ow e A v en u e C ra sh e s B y P rima r y C r a sh F a c t o r H ow e A v en u e C r a s h e s B y T y p e (S ou r c e : T ra n s p o r t a ti on I n ju r y M a p p in g S y s t em ( Tim s ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Fi g u r e 2 6 : C r a sh T r en d s B y L o c a ti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Fi g u r e 2 7 . R ela ti on shi p B e tw e en A v e ra g e T ra v el Tim e A n d 9 5t h P e r c en til e T ra v el Tim e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Fi g u r e 2 8 . A u t o s A .M . P ea k H ou r T r a v el Tim e A n d C on g e s ti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Fi g u r e 2 9 . A u t o s P .M . P ea k H ou r R elia bili t y A n d C on g e s ti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Fi g u r e 3 0 . T ru c k s A .M . P ea k H ou r R eli a bili t y A n d C on g e s ti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Fi g u r e 3 1 . T ru c k s P .M . P e a k H ou r R eli a bili t y A n d C on g e s ti on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Fi g u r e 3 2 . A u t o s A n d T ru c k s A .M . P e a k H ou r R eli a bili t y A n d C on g e s t i on . . . . . . . . 52 Fi g u r e 3 3 . A u t o s A n d T ru c k s P .M . P e a k H o u r R eli abili t y A n d C on g e s ti on . . . . . . . . 53 Fi g u r e 3 4 . C on n e c ti n g H ow e A v en u e S a f e t y & M obili t y P la n P r o j e c t W e b Pa g e 56 Fi g u r e 3 5 . In t e r a c ti v e C omm en t M a p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Fi g u r e 3 6 . C omm u n i t y S u rv e y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Fi g u r e 3 7 . C omm en t Ty p e B y In t e r s e c ti on (S o cia l Pi n p oin t A n d Su r v ey ) . . . . . . . . 60 Fi g u r e 3 8 . S o ci al Pi n p oin t C omm e n t B y T y p e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Fi g u r e 3 9 . C omm u n i t y S u rv e y - Qu e s ti on 2 : H ow O f t en D o Y o u T ypi c all y T ra v el On H ow e A v en u e ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 Fi g u r e 4 0 . C omm u n i t y S u rv e y - Qu e s ti on 3 : H ow D o Y ou T y pi c a ll y T r a v el On H ow e A v en u e ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Fi g u r e 4 1 . C omm u n i t y S u rv e y - I n t e r e s t In Im p r o v e d W al kin g C on d i ti on s . . . . . . 63 Fi g u r e 4 2 . C omm u n i t y S u rv e y - I n t e r e s t In W al kin g A n d Bi c y clin g C r o s sin g s . . 63 HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
v i
Fi g u r e 4 3 . C omm u n i t y S u rv e y - I n t e r e s t In Im p r o vin g D ri v e r S a f e t y . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Fi g u r e 4 4 . In f r a s t ru c tu r e G a p s A n d C on s t r ain t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 L ist of Tab les
T a bl e 1 . S umm a r y o f E x i s tin g Ch a r a c t e ri s ti c s o f H ow e A v en u e S egm en t s . . . . . . 15 T a bl e 2 . Bi c y cl e L e v el o f T ra f fi c S t r e s s C ri t e ri a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 T a bl e 3 . W al kin g L e v el o f T ra f fi c S t r e s s C ri t e ri a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 T a bl e 4 : C r a sh e s b y S e v e ri t y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 T a bl e 5 : C r a sh e s b y S egm en t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 T a bl e 6 : L e v el o f S e r vi c e C ri t e ri a D e fi ni ti on s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 T a bl e 7 : E xi s t in g C on d i ti on s Op e r a ti o n al An al y s i s R e s ul t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 T a bl e 8 : 9 5T H P e r c en til e Qu eui n g R e sul t s a t S tu d y I n t e r s e c ti on s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 T a bl e 9 . C on g e s ti on an d R eli ab ili t y P e r f o rm a n c e M e a s u r e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
1 Introduction
Project Background
Howe Avenue is a multimodal corridor in Sacramento, California, serving as a major connection across the American River and classified as an arterial in the city's transportation network. Howe Avenue is identified as a part of the High Injury Network in the City of Sacramento’s Vison Zero Action Plan1 (2018), which means that the corridor experiences a high volume of fatal and serious injury crashes for persons walking, biking, rolling and driving on Howe Avenue.

The Connecting Howe Avenue Safety & Mobility Plan (Plan), funded through a Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, supports Sacramento’s commitment to equitable engagement by involving local communities in identifying their transportation needs. The plan aims to improve safety and mobility for all road users by evaluating current conditions and proposing improvements to eliminate barriers, improve access, and address community priorities. The project limits are along Howe Avenue from Fair Oaks Boulevard to the Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT) Power Inn Light Rail Station just south of Folsom Boulevard.

Policy Framework and Setting
In 2019, the City of Sacramento adopted a Complete Streets Policy2 which confirms the City’s commitment to Complete Streets to ensure that future transportation projects support a safer, accessible, and connected multi-modal transportation network.

On February 27, 2024, the City adopted the Sacramento 2040 General Plan and Climate Action & Adaptation Plan. The General Plan lists several goals, policies, and implementation measures for the City. The Mobility element of the 2040 General Plan outlines several policies that are related to the Howe Avenue Safety & Mobility Plan.

The following policies relate to Howe Avenue:
 M-1.1. The City shall maintain a street classification system that considers the role of streets as corridors for movement but prioritizes a context-sensitive Complete 1 City of Sacramento. (2018). Vision Zero action plan.
https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/content/dam/portal/pw/Transportation/VisionZero/Vision-Zero-Action-Plan-AdoptedAugust-2018.pdf 2 City of Sacramento, Department of Transportation. (2019). Approving environmental review of and adopting a complete streets policy (Report No. R2019-0460). City of Sacramento. https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/content/dam/portal/pw/Transportation/Transportation-Planning/R2019-0460- Approving-Environmental-Review-of-and-Adopting-a-Complete-Streets-Policy.pdf HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
2 Streets concept that enables connected, comfortable, and convenient travel for those walking, rolling, and taking transit.
 M-1.2. The City shall prioritize mobility, comfort, health, safety, and convenience for those walking, followed by those bicycling and riding transit, ahead of design and operations for those driving.
 M-1.4. In planning, designing, and managing the transportation system, the City shall prioritize person throughput to shift trips to more efficient travel modes and upgrade the performance of limited street space.
 M-1.5. The City shall maintain street design and operations standards that prioritize comfort and travel time for walking, bicycling, and transit, while managing vehicle speeds and traffic volumes, updating them as best practices evolve.  M-1.6. Wherever feasible, the City shall design buildings, the public realm, streets, and pedestrian access to integrate transit into existing neighborhoods and proposed developments and destinations such as schools, employment centers, commercial centers, major attractions, and public walking spaces to improve access for users by transit.
 M-1.8. When designing projects, the City shall prioritize designs that strengthen the protection of people bicycling such as improvements that increase visibility of bicyclists, increase bikeway widths, raise bikeways, design safer intersection crossings and turns, and separate bikeways from driving traffic wherever feasible.  M-1.9. The City shall ensure that the transportation system is planned and implemented with an equitable process to achieve equitable outcomes and investments so that all neighborhoods one day will have similar levels of transportation infrastructure such as sidewalks, marked low stress crossings, and bikeways.
 M.1.11. The City shall strive to increase bicycling and walking citywide so that it can meet its equity, reduced vehicle miles traveled, and sustainability goals.  M-1.12. Through the development approval process and public and private investments, the City shall foster additional walking and bicycling connections to light rail stations and strengthen existing connections to enhance first/last mile connectivity and make it easier to travel between the station and surrounding neighborhoods and destinations. As feasible, connections should include pedestrianlevel streetlighting and tree-shading.  M-1.13. The City shall design streets to prioritize walking by including design elements such as the following:
o Grid networks that provide high levels of connectivity; o Closely spaced intersections;
o Frequent and low-stress crossings;
o Wide, unobstructed walkable sidewalks;
o Separation from vehicle traffic;
HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
3 o Street trees that provide shading; and
o Minimal curb cuts.
 M-1.14. The City shall work to complete the network of tree-shaded sidewalks throughout the city, to the greatest extent feasible by building new sidewalks and crossings, especially within the high-injury network, in disadvantaged communities, near high-ridership transit stops, and near important destinations, such as schools, parks, and commercial areas. Walking facilities should incorporate shade trees.  M-1.15. The City shall require new subdivisions, new multi-unit dwelling developments, and new developments along commercial corridors to include welllit, tree-shaded walkways where feasible, that provide direct links to the public realm or adjacent public destinations such as transit stops and stations, schools, parks and shopping centers.
 M-1.16. The City shall remove barriers to walking, where feasible, and work with utility companies to remove barriers to allow people of all abilities to move with comfort and convenience throughout the city, including through the following:
o Provisions of curb ramps, crosswalks, and overpasses; o Relocation of infrastructure of street furniture that impedes travel pathways; o Reducing or consolidating driveways and curb cuts;
o Providing long and short-term bicycle and scooter parking to minimize sidewalk obstructions; and
o Creation of additional walking entrances to important destinations like schools, parks, and commercial areas.
 M-1.17. The City shall plan and seek funding for a continuous, low-stress bikeway network consisting of bicycling-friendly facilities that connect neighborhoods with destinations and activity centers throughout the city.
 M-1.18. When designing projects, the City shall prioritize designs that strengthen the protection of people bicycling such as improvements that increase visibility of bicyclists, increase bikeway widths, raise bikeways, design safer intersection crossings and turns, and separate bikeways from driving traffic wherever feasible.  M-1.19. When designing projects, the City shall prioritize designs that encourage walking and improve walking safety best practice designs and considerations for efficiencies in walking.
 M-1.20. The City shall collaborate with the Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT) to facilitate the implementation of high-frequency transit service on a network of interconnected corridors with characteristics that best support highfrequency transit service and those characteristics that meet City goals, managing corridor operations to provide for adequate transit vehicle speed and reliability.  M-1.25. The City shall support “first-mile, last-mile solutions” such as e-bikes/escooters as well as multimodal transportation services, public realm improvements (e.g., bicycle parking infrastructure), and other innovations in the areas around HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
4 transit stations and major bus stops (transit stops) to maximize multimodal connectivity and access for transit riders.
 M-1.26. The City shall encourage the Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT) to implement bus shelter design that encourages transit use, informed by ADAcompliance, bus stop placement, and passenger safety best practices. Where feasible, the City should collaborate with SacRT on bus stop designs for major corridor improvement projects.

Within the 2040 General Plan is the Arden Arcade Community Plan, which identifies policies specific to the Arden Arcade neighborhood, including Howe Avenue. There are no policies provided in the Arden Arcade Community Plan section that are specific to Howe Avenue or the Howe Avenue Safety & Mobility Plan that supplement the citywide General Plan policies.

Literature Review
The City has developed several planning studies that overlap or are relevant to planning efforts on the Howe Avenue study corridor. This section provides a brief literature review of several key plans and policies by the City of Sacramento, focusing on their relevance to Howe Avenue.

Sacramento County Fair Oaks Boulevard Complete Streets Master Plan (2017)
The Fair Oaks Boulevard Complete Streets Master Plan was developed by the Sacramento County Department of Transportation (SacDOT) to envision a complete streets corridor on Fair Oaks Boulevard from Howe Avenue to Munroe Street. The Plan notes that there are no bicycle facilities on Fair Oaks Boulevard from Howe Avenue to Munroe Street. The Plan also describes the Fair Oaks Boulevard and Howe Avenue intersections as a conflict point for people walking and biking and that the intersection is uncomfortable to cross.

Vision Zero Action Plan (2018)
In January 2017, the City adopted a goal to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries3. Howe Avenue is identified in the City of Sacramento Vision Zero Action Plan as a 3 City of Sacramento. (2017). Adopted Resolution No. 2017-0032: Vision Zero. Retrieved from https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/content/dam/portal/pw/Transportation/VisionZero/Adopted-Reso-2017-0032-VisionZero.pdf.

HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
5 High Injury Corridor. The Sacramento Vision Zero Action Plan aims to support the City’s General Plan in maintaining safety and health of its residents and visitors.

The Vision Zero Action Plan analyzes crash trends and patterns across the city, providing both short- and long-term strategies to improve transportation safety. By implementing these measures, the plan aims to eliminate fatal and severe injury crashes. In the Vision Zero Plan, Howe Avenue was associated with the following crash profiles: Unsafe speed on non-local streets, alcohol involved, 35+ mph streets, 30+ mph - bicycle involved, and driver making left or right turn - bicycle involved.

Regular updates incorporate new traffic data and measure progress toward achieving this critical safety goal.

Transportation Priorities Plan (2022)
In November 2022, the City adopted the Transportation Priorities Plan (TPP), a comprehensive framework for identifying and funding critical transportation projects. The TPP outlines priority areas, funding sources, and the city's most pressing transportation needs, providing a clear roadmap for future improvements.

Among its identified projects, the TPP designates several initiatives on Howe Avenue as medium priority, including bridge replacement, streetscape enhancements, and improved bike lane connectivity to adjacent corridors.

Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (2024)
On February 27, 2024, the City adopted the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP), which details strategies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030. Building on the framework established by the City’s 2012 Climate Action Plan, the CAAP underscores active transportation—such as walking, cycling, and other sustainable travel modes—as a cornerstone of its efforts to achieve these ambitious goals. By prioritizing investments in active transportation and enhancing connectivity to public transit hubs like the Power Inn Light Rail Transit (LRT) Station, the plan aims to decrease reliance on single-occupancy vehicles, thereby reducing GHG emissions and improving residents’ quality of life. 2040 General Plan – Environmental Justice Element (2024) The Sacramento 2040 General Plan includes an Environmental Justice Element, which identifies disadvantaged communities (DACs) and outlines specific actions the City will take to improve residents' quality of life. The Environmental Justice Element establishes six key goals: ensuring clean air and water, increasing food access, providing safe housing, fostering civic engagement, addressing inequities by empowering disadvantaged communities, and building neighborhood resilience.

HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
6 DAC designation is based on various factors, including pollution levels, income, and access to food resources. Areas near Howe Avenue, west of College Town Road, and south of Folsom Boulevard are identified as disadvantaged communities under this framework.

Streets for People: Sacramento’s Active Transportation Plan (Draft 2024 to 2025)
Streets for People: Sacramento’s Active Transportation Plan (S4P), currently in draft form, seeks to transform how residents navigate the city by enhancing infrastructure for walking, biking, and other active modes of travel. Serving as a comprehensive guide for city staff, local agencies, public officials, residents, and developers, the S4P plan aims to create a balanced and interconnected transportation system that supports diverse travel modes while fostering active lifestyles. A central focus of the plan is to prioritize infrastructure improvements in historically underserved communities, ensuring equitable access to safe and sustainable transportation options.

The Draft S4P focuses on improving walking and bicycling infrastructure through two primary networks: a citywide active transportation network and the Neighborhood Connections network. While portions of Howe Avenue are identified for improvements in the Draft Streets for People Plan, it is not identified on the Neighborhood Connections network. However, several adjacent corridors to Howe Avenue are identified on the Neighborhood Connections network including University Avenue, Swarthmore Drive/University Park Drive, and Scripps Drive which include potential traffic calming and other improvement projects.

Description of Howe Avenue
This section provides a physical description of Howe Avenue and the surrounding community’s socio-economic characteristics.

Socioeconomic Characteristics
The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) defines Environmental Justice (EJ) areas at the census block group level, focusing on concentrations of low-income residents, high minority populations, persons with disabilities, low educational attainment, housing cost burdened households, or areas highlighted by CalEnviroScreen 3.0.

HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
7 Based on SACOG's definition, areas adjacent to the study corridor are classified as EJ communities4. Notably, neighborhoods near the U.S. Route 50 overpass and Sacramento State University fall within these designations. These areas are also recognized as Senate Bill (SB) 535 Disadvantaged Communities in the City of Sacramento’s 2040 General Plan.

Howe Avenue, in particular, experiences high pollution burden scores, especially near U.S.

Route 50 and Folsom Boulevard. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST) identifies sections of Howe Avenue between U.S. Route 50 and Folsom Boulevard as exceeding thresholds for poverty and low high school educational attainment56.

The socioeconomic characteristics of the Howe Avenue corridor reflect a diverse community. According to the American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, approximately 15,000 residents live in the four census tracts surrounding the project area7. The average median household income across these tracts is $85,195, exceeding the citywide median of $78,954. However, there is significant variation:
 Three tracts reported median incomes ranging from $86,012 to $122,871.  One tract, encompassing communities near Sacramento State and the American River, reported a much lower median household income of $35,3338.  Poverty rates in these tracts vary widely, ranging from 3.9% to 42.7%, compared to the citywide average of 14.8%9.

While the median household income in the area exceeds the citywide median, there is notable variation. One census tract near Sacramento State reports a much lower median income ($35,333), likely due to the high student population. Environmental justice communities and lower-income residents often depend on public transit and nonmotorized travel. The corridor serves older adults, persons with disabilities, linguistically isolated households, and single-parent families, all of whom rely on a mix of transportation modes, including walking, biking, and transit. 4 SACOG. (n.d.). Environmental justice areas. SACOG Open Data Portal. Retrieved January 9, 2025, from https://www.sacog.org/data/environmental-justice-areas
5 City of Sacramento. (2024). 2040 General Plan: Map EJ-3: Census tracts with highest pollution burden score. Retrieved from https://www.cityofsacramento.org/community-development/planning/long-range/general-plan/2040-general-plan 6 Council on Environmental Quality. (2024). Climate & Economic Justice Screening Tool (Version 2.0). GeoPlatform.

Retrieved January 9, 2025, from https://screeningtool.geoplatform.gov/en/#3/33.47/-97.5 7 U.S. Census Bureau. (2024). American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables (Table S0101). Retrieved from https://data.census.gov/table?tid=ACSST5Y2023.S0101
8 U.S. Census Bureau. (2024). American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables (Table S0901). Retrieved from https://data.census.gov/table?tid=ACSST5Y2023.S0901
9 U.S. Census Bureau. (2024). American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables (Table S1701). Retrieved from https://data.census.gov/table?tid=ACSST5Y2023.S1701 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Table S1701 HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
8 Physical Characteristics
Howe Avenue is a north-south arterial corridor connecting the Arden-Arcade community and California State University Sacramento to the regional transportation network. It links major roadways, including Interstate 80 (I-80), U.S. Route 50, and California State Route

16. South of I-80 and Folsom Boulevard, Howe Avenue is a designated Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) truck route. The corridor consists of four to six travel lanes and features a raised, landscaped center median for most of its length, except at the Howe Avenue Bridge, which is made up of separated roadway structures for each direction of travel.

The study corridor includes seven major signalized intersections at:
 Fair Oaks Boulevard
 University Avenue
 American River Drive
 Swarthmore Drive/University Park Drive
 College Town Drive/U.S. 50 westbound off-ramp
 The U.S. 50 eastbound off-ramp
 Folsom Boulevard
The right-of-way (ROW) varies from 90 to 115 feet, narrowing to approximately 30 to 35 feet on the Howe Avenue Bridge. Lane widths are approximately 11 feet through the length of the study corridor; and narrow to approximately 10 to 10.5 feet at the Howe Avenue Bridge. Per the City’s standards, the minimum lane width for travel lanes is 11 feet unless the City Traffic Engineer deems appropriate otherwise10.

Traffic Speeds and Lane Configurations:

Traffic speeds and lane configurations vary along the corridor:
 From Fair Oaks Boulevard to American River Drive and College Town Drive to Folsom Boulevard, the speed limit is 40 mph, with three lanes in each direction.  Between American River Drive and College Town Drive, the speed limit increases to 50 mph, maintaining three lanes per direction except on the Howe Avenue Bridge, which narrows to two lanes per direction.
 All signalized intersections and approaches have dedicated left turn pockets where there is a valid left turn, except for northbound Howe Avenue at College Town Drive.  No on-street parking is allowed along Howe Avenue.
10 City of Sacramento, Section 15 - Street Design Standards HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
9 According to a speed survey provided by the City of Sacramento, 85th percentile speeds on Howe Avenue are as follows:
 43.6 mph between Cadillac Drive and American River Drive (posted 40 mph speed limit).
 52.4 mph from American River Drive to U.S. 50 (posted 40-50 mph speed limit).  41.5 mph from U.S. 50 to Folsom Boulevard (posted 40 mph speed limit).

Bicycle Infrastructure:

Howe Avenue has bike lanes south of University Avenue, each approximately five feet wide. These lanes connect to the broader bicycle network via the American River Parkway shared-use path and painted bike lanes on American River Drive, University Avenue, and La Riviera Drive.

While Howe Avenue is shown with Class II bicycle facilities (bike lanes) on the City of Sacramento Bike Map, field observations indicate that the approximately five-foot wide shoulder lacks the standard painted markings and signage that would distinguish it as a dedicated bicycle lane. There is a southbound facing sign on the northbound side of the road instructing people biking to dismount and walk their bicycle on the northern approach to the Howe Avenue Bridge (Figure 1).

Based on the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Bikeway Selection Guide, the existing bike lanes do not provide adequate protection for cyclists on this corridor. The guide recommends greater separation between vehicles and cyclists when roadways have speeds of 35 mph or higher and traffic volumes exceeding 6,000 vehicles per day. Given that Howe Avenue has a posted speed limit of 50 mph and carries up to 30,000 vehicles per day, the current bikeway does not align with FHWA's guidance for recommended bicycle infrastructure.

The City of Sacramento's bicycle facility selection guidance similarly recommends a separated bikeway for roadways with posted speeds exceeding 45 mph and average daily traffic over 20,000 vehicles per day. With Howe Avenue's posted speeds and observed traffic volumes ranging from 46,000 to 59,000, the existing bike lanes do not provide the level of separation from vehicle traffic recommended by either FHWA or City design standards.

HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
10 Figure 1: B ike Fac ilities and D ismount Signage at Howe Avenue Bridge HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
11 Sidewalks:

Most of the study corridor has sidewalks, but gaps exist in the network. On the west side of Howe Avenue, missing sidewalk segments and their approximate lengths are:
 American River Drive to the Swarthmore Drive: 1,400 feet;  Swarthmore Drive to the University Avenue overcrossing: 940 feet;  University Avenue overcrossing to the Howe Avenue Bridge: 240 feet.

On the east side of Howe Avenue, a sidewalk gap extends from the La Riviera overcrossing to Folsom Boulevard, a distance of approximately 2,640 feet. No signage alerts people walking southbound on the east side of Howe Avenue that they must walk on the shoulder after crossing the bridge.

Where sidewalks are present, they are approximately five to six feet in width but narrow to approximately 4.5 feet near the University Avenue overcrossing and the Howe Avenue Bridge. In some locations, informal asphalt paths connect sidewalk gaps (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Informal Pathway between Sidewalk Gap on East Side of Howe Avenue at Howe Avenue Bridge
HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
12 Marked Crosswalks:

All study intersections are equipped with pedestrian signals, push buttons, and marked crosswalks. Curb ramps are present at all crossing locations; however, detectable warning surfaces and landing areas are missing at the following intersections:
 American River Drive
 Swarthmore Drive
 College Town Drive
 Folsom Boulevard
Crossings are not provided on the south legs at the American River Drive and Swarthmore Drive/University Park Drive intersections due to a lack of sidewalks on the west side of Howe Avenue.

At the College Town Drive/WB US 50 Off-ramp and EB US 50 Off-ramp intersections, crosswalks are only available on the west legs due to the lack of sidewalks on the east side of Howe Avenue.

At the US 50 interchange, the westbound US 50 on-ramp (Figure 3) includes painted crosswalks and curb ramps with detectable warning surfaces. However, no pedestrian signals or traffic control devices are in place to stop vehicles for those wishing to cross. As a result, those walking must rely on drivers yielding to them. Additionally, no warning signs or other measures alert drivers to potential people crossing. Any modifications to crosswalks at the US 50 on- or off-ramps would require coordination with Caltrans.

Figure 3: Striped Crosswalk Across Westbound US 50 On-Ramp HOWE AVENUE SAFETY & MOBILITY PLAN • EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT • APRIL 2025
13 Transit Access:

The SacRT Power Inn Light Rail Station, connecting to the Gold Line, is located south of the study corridor on the east side of the street, just south of Folsom Boulevard, where Howe Avenue transitions to Power Inn Road (Figure 5). The Gold Line runs primarily east-west, connecting downtown Sacramento to the city of Folsom. Its route passes through multiple neighborhoods in Sacramento (downtown Sacramento, Richmond Grove, Newton Booth, Midtown, Alhambra Triangle, East Sacramento, Elmhurst, Tahoe Park, Tahoe Park East, Ramona Village, College Town, and College Glen), portions of unincorporated Sacramento County, Rancho Cordova, and Gold River.

Within the study area, SacRT Bus Route 26 operates along Howe Avenue with bus stops at Swarthmore Drive and American River Drive (see Figure 4). It connects Watt Avenue & Elverta Road in the north to the University/65th Street Light Rail Station in the south.

Service Schedule for Route 26:
 Weekdays: Service runs from approximately 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.  Saturdays: Service runs from approximately 8:00 a.m. to 10:45 p.m.  Sundays: Service runs from approximately 8:00 a.m. to 9:15 p.m.

The frequency of service varies throughout the day, with buses typically running every 30 minutes during peak hours and every 60 minutes after 7:00 p.m.

Figure 4: Howe Avenue Bus Stops, Form of Traffic Control and Crosswalks Corridor Summary and Study Area Segments
Table 1 summarizes the existing conditions and key characteristics of each road segment within the corridor. For this study, the corridor is divided into northern, middle, and southern segments based on similar physical and operational characteristics, as shown in Figure 5.

HOWE AVENUE SA FETY & MOB ILITY P LA N • EX IST I NG COND ITIONS REPORT • MARCH 2025 14 Figure 5. Howe Avenue Roadway Segments
HOWE AVENUE SA FETY & MOB ILITY P LA N • EX IST I NG COND ITIONS REPORT • APRI L 2025
15 Table 1. Summary of Ex isting Characteristics of Howe Avenue Segments Characteristic
North Segment
(Figure 3)
Middle Segment
(Figure 4)
South Segment
(Figure 5)
Boundaries Fair Oaks Boulevard to Swarthmore
Drive/University Park Drive
From Swarthmore Drive/University
Park Drive to La Riviera Access
Road
La Riviera Access Road to Power
Inn Light Rail Station
Length (Approx) 4,200 ft 3,175 ft 3,175 ft
Number of Lanes
(Per Direction) Three Two to Three Three
Lane Width 11 ft 10-12 ft 12 ft
AADT11 46,000 (At Fair Oaks Ave) no data 59,000 (At WB US 50 ramps) Posted Speed
Limit
40 MPH - Fair Oaks to American
River Drive
50 MPH – American River Dr to
Swarthmore Drive/University Park
Drive
50 MPH 40 MPH
Observed
Speed12

43.6 – Cadillac Drive to American
River Drive

52.4 – American River Drive to US
50 52.4 – American River Drive to US
50 41.5 – US 50 to Folsom Boulevard
Lighting Street Lighting Street and Pedestrian-Scale
Lighting
Street and Pedestrian-Scale
Lighting
11 2017 traffic counts provided for North Segment and South Segment, https://data.cityofsacramento.org/datasets/SacCity::traffic-counts/about 12 Based on recent speed survey’s conducted by the City of Sacramento.

HOWE AVENUE SA FETY & MOB ILITY P LA N • EX IST I NG COND ITIONS REPORT • APRI L 2025
16 Characteristic
North Segment
(Figure 3)
Middle Segment
(Figure 4)
South Segment
(Figure 5)
Adjacent Land
Uses
Standard Single-Family, SingleFamily Alternative, General Commercial, Limited Commercial,
Office Building, and Multi-Family
Single-Family Alternative, Standard
Single Family, Multi-Family, and
Office Building
Multi-Family, General Commercial,
and Heavy Industrial
Notable
Locations
AIMS Urgent Care, Safeway,
Starbucks, University Park,
American River Commons, Rio Del
Oro Sports Club
Rivercrest Apartments, College
Garden Apartments, University
River Village, Food Mart, Laguna
Creek Sports Club
Comfort Inn & Suites Sacramento,
Sacramento County Small Claims,
Carol Miller Justice Center,
Chevron
Major CrossStreets Within
Road Segment
Fair Oaks Boulevard, University
Avenue, American River Drive,
Swarthmore Drive/University Park
Drive
None College Town Drive, Folsom
Boulevard
Median Types Raised median Raised median Raised median
Existing Bicycle
Facilities
Bike lane at the northbound (NB)
approaches of Howe Avenue/
American River Drive intersection
and Howe Avenue/Swarthmore
Drive/University Park Drive
intersection
Bike lanes on northbound (NB) and
southbound (SB) lanes along Howe
Avenue Bridge from University
Avenue to American River
Bike lanes northbound (NB) and
southbound (SB) lanes from U.S.

Route 50 overpass to U.S. Route
50 on-ramp
Sidewalks Sidewalks present
No sidewalk along SB lane from
American River Drive to Howe
Avenue bridge/University Avenue
overpass
No sidewalk for NB and SB
segments adjacent to University
Park Dog Park
Existing sidewalks lack buffers from
travel lanes
No sidewalk along NB segment
from U.S. Route 50 overpass to
Folsom Boulevard
Existing sidewalks adjacent to SB
lanes lack buffers from travel lanes
HOWE AVENUE SA FETY & MOB ILITY P LA N • EX IST I NG COND ITIONS REPORT • APRI L 2025
17 Characteristic
North Segment
(Figure 3)
Middle Segment
(Figure 4)
South Segment
(Figure 5)
Bus Service
Routes and
Shelter Locations
No bus route serves the North
Segment. No bus shelters are
present.

The Middle Segment is served by
Route 26. Bus shelters exist at the
following locations:
 Howe Avenue &
Swarthmore Drive (NB)
 Howe Avenue &
Swarthmore Drive (SB)
No bus route serves the South
Segment. No bus shelters are
present.

HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • A PRI L 2025 18 Figure 6. Howe Avenue North Segment Locat ion Map
Figure 7. Site Photo of North Segment Roadway
Figure 8. North Segment: Howe Avenue (Fair Oaks Bou levard to Swarthmore Drive/Un ivers ity Park Drive)
HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
19 Figure 9. Howe Avenue M iddle Segment Locat ion
Figure 10. S ite Photo of M idd le Segment Operations
Figure 11. Midd le Segment: Howe Avenue (Swarthmore Drive to La Riviera Access Road)
HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
20 Figure 12. Howe Avenue South Segment Location
Figure 13. S ite Photo of South Segment Operations
Figure 14. South Segment: Howe Avenue - La R iviera Access Road to Power Inn Station
HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
21 Existing Conditions Multimodal Analysis
This section provides an analysis of existing conditions along Howe Avenue, focusing on multimodal transportation, traffic operations, safety, and congestion metrics. It presents data on traffic volumes, crash factors, level of traffic stress, transit ridership, and travel time reliability for the study corridor.

Traffic Volumes at Study Intersections
As part of the traffic operations analysis, three out of seven intersections on the corridor were evaluated based on where the City has data collection hardware installed:
 Howe Avenue at Fair Oaks Boulevard
 Howe Avenue at University Avenue
 Howe Avenue at Folsom Boulevard
Volumes were collected during weekday morning (7:00 to 9:00 a.m.) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 p.m.) peak hours from October 14 to October 18, 2024. Peak hours were observed at 7:45 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. for the Fair Oaks Boulevard intersection, and at 8:00 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. for the University Avenue and Folsom Boulevard intersections.

Existing peak hour traffic volumes and form of traffic control are illustrated in Figure 15.

Traffic volumes are in Appendix A.

HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
22 Figure 15: Ex isting Peak Hour Traffic Vo lumes and Form of Traff ic Control Transit Data Summary
Weekday passenger boarding data were provided by SacRT for the four bus stops along or near Howe Avenue and at the Power Inn LRT Station. The data covers the period from January to August 2024. SacRT Bus Route 26 operates along Howe Avenue with 30- minute headways, shifting to 60-minute headways after 7 p.m.

Overall Ridership Trends
Figure 16 shows the average daily transit ridership trends across all stops by month from January through August. Ridership declined from 438 in January to 251 in February, then HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
23 stabilized between March and June, fluctuating between 275 and 291 riders. In the later months, ridership increased, reaching 312 in July and 340 in August.

Ridership by Stop
Figure 17 shows average weekday ridership by individual stops along Howe Avenue:
 Power Inn Station (WB): 160 passengers (highest ridership).  Power Inn Station (EB): 119 passengers.
 College Towne Dr & La Riviera: 20 passengers.
 American River Dr & La Riviera: 6 passengers.
 Howe Ave & Swarthmore Dr/Northrop Dr: 2 passengers.
 Howe Ave & Swarthmore Dr: 1 passenger.

The data indicates that ridership is heavily concentrated at the Power Inn Station stops, a key transfer point in the transit network, which together account for the majority of weekday passenger activity. Transit data are provided in Appendix B.

Figure 16. Average Daily Transit R idership for All Stops on Howe Avenue By Month (Source: SacRT Stop R idersh ip Data)
HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
24 Figure 17. Average Weekday R idership by Stop on Howe Avenue (Source:

SacRT Stop Ridership Data)
Level of Traffic Stress/All Ages and Abilities Walking and Biking Analysis
The following sections describe the methodology used to evaluate conditions along the corridor for non-motorized road users and the results of this analysis.

Bicycle LTS
Bicycle LTS analysis was calculated using the methodologies described in the Mineta Transportation Institutes Report 11-19 Low Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity (2012). Bicycle LTS scores measure the stress level of a roadway segment based on criteria such as:
 Street width (number of lanes);
 Speed limit or prevailing speed;
 The presence and width of bike lanes;
 Signals; and
 The presence and width of parking lanes (if applicable).

HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
25 Bicycle LTS scores range from one to four, with one representing the most comfortable conditions for riders and four representing the least comfortable. An LTS score of one indicates that the roadway stress level is tolerable for most riders, including children and less experienced people bicycling. Conversely, an LTS score of four signifies conditions better suited to highly skilled people bicycling, as shown in Figure 18. The criteria used to determine the Bicycle LTS along the corridor are summarized in Table 2.

Applying this methodology, Howe Avenue receives an LTS score of four throughout the study limits, primarily due to street width and the existing speed limits (Figure 19). This assessment is consistent with the existing roadway configuration, which provides a Class II bike facility rather than protected bicycle facilities.

Existing conditions on the corridor, including posted speed limits up to 50 mph and traffic volumes up to 59,000 vehicles per day, create a high-stress environment for people biking on Howe Avenue. The lack of dedicated, protected infrastructure is consistent with the high LTS score.

Figure 18. B ike Level of Traffic Stress Scores
HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
26 Table 2. Bicycle Leve l of Traffic Stress Criteria

SEGMENT
POSTED
(OBSERVED)
SPEED
(MPH)
BIKE
LANE

PARKING
LANE
# OF
TRAVEL
LANES
LTS
SCORE

NORTH SEGMENT

FAIR OAKS

BOULEVARD TO

SWARTHMORE

DRIVE/UNIVERSITY

PARK DRIVE
40 (43.6): Fair
Oaks Blvd to
American
River Dr
50 (52.4):

American
River Dr to
Swarthmore
Dr/University
Park Dr
Yes:

University
Ave to
American
River Dr
(NB)
No:

American
River Dr to
Swarthmore
Dr
No 3 4

MIDDLE SEGMENT

SWARTHMORE

DRIVE/UNIVERSITY

PARK DRIVE TO LA

RIVIERA ACCESS
ROAD
50 (52.4) No No 3 4

SOUTH SEGMENT

LA RIVIERA ACCESS

ROAD TO POWER

INN STATION
40 (41.5) No No 3 4
HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
27 Figure 19. B icycle Segment LTS
HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
28 Walking LTS
The walking level of traffic stress (LTS) analysis was conducted using the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Level of Traffic Stress Analysis Procedures (2020).

Similar to the bicycle LTS methodology, walking LTS also uses several criteria to develop a LTS score of one to four based on factors such as the presence of sidewalks, crosswalks, median refuges, traffic volume, and posted speed limits as shown in Figure 20.

Similar to bicycling LTS results, Howe Avenue receives an LTS score of 4 for all segments. uncomfortable and stressful for most people walking or rolling as illustrated in Figure 21.

Figure 20. Walking Level of Traff ic Stress
HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
29 Table 3. Walk ing Level of Traff ic Stress Criteria

SEGMENT
STREE
T
WIDTH
13 BUFFE
R
TYPE

SIDEWALK
WIDTH

SIDEWAL
K

CONDITI
ON
SPEED
LIMIT
14 LTS
SCOR
E
NORTH
SEGMENT:

FAIR OAKS

BOULEVARD TO

SWARTHMORE

DRIVE/UNIVERS

ITY PARK DRIVE
3 None
5 feet
No sidewalk
is present
along
southbound
travel lanes
from
American
River Drive to
Swarthmore
Drive/Univers
ity Park
Drive.

Good, no
obvious
cracks in
concrete or
uneven
pavement.
40 mph 4
MIDDLE
SEGMENT:

SWARTHMORE

DRIVE/UNIVERS

ITY PARK DRIVE

TO LA RIVIERA
DRIVE

OVERPASS
2 None
5 feet
No sidewalks
exist along
the
southbound
travel lanes
from
Swarthmore
Drive to
University
Avenue
overpass,
University
overpass to
Fair 50
mph 4
13 Lanes per direction
14 Posted speed limit or prevailing speed
HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
30 SEGMENT
STREE
T
WIDTH
13 BUFFE
R
TYPE

SIDEWALK
WIDTH

SIDEWAL
K

CONDITI
ON
SPEED
LIMIT
14 LTS
SCOR
E
Howe Avenue
bridge.

No sidewalks
exist along
the
northbound
travel lanes
from Howe
Avenue
bridge to La
Riviera Drive
overpass.

SOUTH
SEGMENT: LA

RIVIERA DRIVE

OVERPASS TO

POWER INN LRT

STATION
3 None 5 feet
Good, no
obvious
cracks in
concrete or
uneven
pavement.
40 mph 4
HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
31 Figure 21. Walking Segment LTS
HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • A PRI L 2025 32 Crash Analysis Summary
DKS collected injury crash data obtained from Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) and Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) within a six-year period (2018 to 2023) to conduct a safety analysis within the corridor. The data consisted of injury crashes on Howe Avenue from Fair Oaks Boulevard to Folsom Boulevard. Table 4 presents the annual crash counts and severity levels. Figure 22 provides a visual representation of all crashes within the corridor, while Figure 23 focuses specifically on crashes where a person is killed or severely injured (KSI).

During this period, the corridor experienced 201 crashes, with 18 crashes resulting in fatalities or serious injuries. The primary contributing factors identified were unsafe speed, issues related to traffic signals, and improper turning maneuvers.

HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
33 Table 5 summarizes crash data by segment, revealing that the North Segment experienced the highest number of total crashes (77, 38%) and KSI crashes (nine, 50%).

The South Segment followed with 70 crashes (35%) and six KSI crashes (33%). The Middle Segment had the fewest crashes, with 54 crashes (27%) and three KSI crashes (17%). Notably, no crashes involving people walking or biking occurred in the Middle Segment.

Across all segments, bicycle-involved crashes totaled two, with one crash each in the North and South Segments. There were three crashes involving people walking, including two in the North Segment and one in the South Segment. The two crashes involving someone biking and one crash involving someone walking occurred at major intersections - American River Drive, Folsom Boulevard, and College Town Drive. Two of the crashes were a result of failure to yield right-of-way and one by an unsafe turn. One bicycle crash resulted in serious injuries, while the remaining collisions involving someone walking or biking resulted in minor injuries. One of the crashes involving someone walking involved a hit-and-run driver who struck two people. All crashes happened during busier evening hours between 6:30 to 9:00 p.m.

HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
34 Table 4: Crashes by Severity
SEVERITY 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 TOTAL
FATAL INJURY 1 1 0 0 0 0 2
SEVERE INJURY 3 2 3 4 2 2 16
MINOR INJURY 9 1 6 14 6 16 52
POSSIBLE INJURY 20 22 14 25 23 27 131
TOTAL 33 26 23 43 31 45 201
Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), Safe Transportation Research and Education Center, University of California, Berkeley.

HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
35 Table 5: Crashes by Segment
CRASH

SEGMENT CRASHES
KSI

CRASHES

CRASHES

INVOLVING
PEOPLE
BIKING

CRASHES

INVOLVING
PEOPLE

WALKING
NORTH

SEGMENT
77 9 1 2
MIDDLE

SEGMENT
54 3 0 0
SOUTH

SEGMENT
70 6 1 1
TOTAL 201 18 2 3
Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), Safe Transportation Research and Education Center, University of California, Berkeley.

Figure 22: Howe Avenue Crash Map (ALL CRASHES) Source: Transportat ion Injury Mapp ing System (TIMS)
HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
36 Figure 23: Howe Avenue Crash Map (KSI Crashes) Source: Transportation Injury Mapp ing System (TIMS)
Crash Type Summary
Figure 24 illustrates the distribution of crashes by type15 during the analysis period.

Among the 201 total crashes, rear-end collisions were the most common, accounting for 101 crashes (50%). Broadside crashes followed as the second most frequent type, with 46 crashes (22%). Both crash types are prevalent at intersections, where 151 crashes (75% of the total) occurred.

Rear-end crashes were particularly concentrated near the intersection of Howe Avenue and American River Drive. Additionally, several "hit object" crashes that resulted in fatalities or serious injuries (KSI crashes) occurred in the same area.

Of the 101 rear-end crashes, 51% involved vehicles traveling northbound on Howe Avenue, approaching major intersections16. The remaining rear-end crashes were divided between southbound vehicles and those entering from side streets. 15 Note: One of the crashes identified as the type “Vehicle/Pedestrian” was not marked as involving a pedestrian, resulting in the disagreement between Table 4 and Figure 17. Lacking a way to determine which is correct, the data is presented as provided.
16 Analysis of 89 rear-end crashes along Howe Avenue shows that 45 (51%) occurred in the northbound direction, 35 (39%) in the southbound direction, and 9 (10%) were eastbound on intersecting streets.

HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
37 Figure 24: Howe Avenue Crashes by Type (Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS))
Primary Crash Factor Summary
Figure 25 categorizes crashes by primary crash factor (PCF) based on reporting officer assessments. Among the 201 crashes analyzed, 104 (52%) were attributed to unsafe speeds17, making it the leading cause of crashes on the corridor. Violations related to traffic signals and signs18 were the next most frequent PCF, contributing to 29 crashes (14%), followed by improper turning, which accounted for 28 crashes (14%).

Of the 18 KSI crashes, seven (39%) involved unsafe speeds, while four (22%) were related to driving under the influence. None of the DUI-related crashes involved people walking or biking but one crash resulted in a non-KSI crash involving a person on a motorcycle.
17 In California Highway Patrol (CHP) crash reports, "unsafe speed" typically means driving at a speed that was dangerous for the prevailing conditions, even if it was at or below the posted speed limit. 18 In CHP crash reports, "traffic signals and signs" as a crash cause typically indicates that a violation or disregard of traffic control devices contributed to the collision.

HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
38 Figure 25: Howe Avenue Crashes by Primary Crash Factor Howe Avenue Crashes by Type (Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Crash Trends by Location
The most frequently occurring primary collision factors and crash types reported for crashes along the study corridor, along with the associated locations, are provided in Figure 26.

Rear-end collisions were the most common crash type during the study period, accounting for over 50% of all reported incidents along the Howe Avenue corridor. Broadside collisions ranked second in frequency. Signal and sign violations were among the most frequently cited contributing factors, particularly at intersections such as Howe Avenue at University Avenue, American River Drive, and Folsom Boulevard. The locations with the highest collision frequencies and their crash characteristics are summarized below:
 Howe Avenue & American River Drive: This intersection experienced the highest number of crashes from 2018 to 2023 with 37 crashes. Broadside collisions were the most frequent, with traffic signal and sign violations identified as the leading primary collision factor.

HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
39  Howe Avenue & College Town Drive: This location recorded the second-highest number of crashes (29), primarily broadside and rear-end collisions associated with unsafe speed.
 Howe Avenue & Folsom Boulevard: A total of 22 crashes were reported, primarily rear-end and broadside collisions related to unsafe speed and improper turning, respectively.
 Howe Avenue and Swarthmore Drive: 17 crashes reported at this intersection, also primarily rear-end collisions related to unsafe speed.

Although unsafe speed was the most frequently identified primary collision factor, these crashes occurred throughout the corridor rather than being concentrated on specific segments. Crash data from 2018 to 2023 indicates that collisions of various types and contributing factors were generally dispersed along the corridor19.

HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
40 Figure 26: Crash Trends by Location
HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
41 Traffic Operations Analysis
The following sections describe the methodology used to analyze and evaluate the traffic conditions at the study intersections and the results of this analysis.

Analysis Methodology
The study intersections were analyzed using Synchro 12, a traffic analysis software. A model of existing conditions was developed using the existing roadway geometry, traffic signal timing plans, and intersection turn movement volumes for the weekday morning and evening peak periods. In accordance with city guidelines, the peak hour factor (PHF) was set to 1.0.

Intersection geometry was determined through aerial imagery and field assessments. The most recent signal timing information was provided by the City of Sacramento. Signal Timing Worksheets are provided in Appendix C.

Key performance metrics for this analysis include average vehicle delay, intersection Level of Service (LOS)20, and 95th percentile queue.

The delay and LOS analysis follows the methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology published by the Transportation Research Board (TRB). This methodology assigns LOS grades (A to F) based on average vehicle control delay, where LOS A represents free-flow conditions and LOS F indicates severe congestion. Table 6 documents the LOS criteria for signalized intersections.

The 95th percentile queueing reported by Synchro refers to the queue length (in vehicles) that has only a 5% chance of being exceeded during the analysis period. Most drivers will typically experience shorter queues than these estimates.

Queue lengths are analyzed to assess potential safety impacts, including blocked side street or driveway access (a moderate concern) and queue spill-back into upstream intersections (a significant concern). Queue overflows are calculated as the number of vehicles exceeding available storage, assuming 25 feet per vehicle and rounding up. 20 A Level of Service (LOS) analysis refers to the quantifiable assessment of traffic under various scenarios.

HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
42 Table 6: Level of Service Criteria Def initions
Level of
Service Description
signalized
Intersection
(Delay in
Seconds)
A
Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle lengths. ≤10.0
B
Operations with very low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. >10.0 to 20.0
C
Operations with very average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear.
>20.0 to 35.0
D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
>35.0 to 55.0
E
Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.
>55.0 to 80.0
F
Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over-saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. >80.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition
Analysis Results
Existing Vehicular Level of Service
The three study intersections—Fair Oaks Boulevard, University Avenue, and Folsom Boulevard—were analyzed for average control delay and Level of Service (LOS) during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours based on available traffic volume data. The observed delays ranged from 29 to 45 seconds per vehicle, with all intersections operating at LOS D or better. LOS D represents the lowest level of service observed, while the others performed at LOS C or higher.

Table 7 summarizes the existing peak-hour intersection performance, including control delay and LOS. Supporting Synchro reports—covering lane configurations, traffic volumes, signal timings, queue lengths, and delay/LOS analyses—are provided in Appendix D.

HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
43 Table 7: Existing Conditions Operational Analys is Resu lts

INTERSECTION
A.M. PEAK HOUR P.M. PEAK HOUR
DELAY
(SECONDS) LOS DELAY (SECONDS) LOS

1. HOWE AVENUE / FAIR OAKS
BOULEVARD*

36.2 D 44.4 D

2. HOWE AVENUE / UNIVERSITY
AVENUE

36.2 D 35.6 D

3. HOWE AVENUE / FOLSOM

BOULEVARD

29.6 C 36.7 D
*Delay and LOS calculated using HCM 2000 methodology for this intersection, because of complex signal phasing not included in the HCM 7th Edition methodology.

Source: DKS Associates, December 2024.
95th Percentile Queueing
Table 8 provides an overview of the 95th percentile queueing results at all study intersections compared to available storage lengths. Deficiencies are summarized as follows:
 Howe Avenue and Fair Oaks Boulevard: The southbound right-turn queue exceeds available storage length (270 ft) during both periods.
 Howe Avenue and University Avenue: Queues for several movements exceed available storage lengths during both peak hours:
o A.M. Peak: The northbound left turn queue exceeds the available storage (230 ft) o P.M. Peak: The southbound left turn queue does not exceed available storage length, however, analysis indicates that southbound demand is constrained by the upstream signal (at Fair Oaks Boulevard). If future changes to signal timing allowed more traffic through Fair Oaks, queues at University Avenue would be longer.

Eastbound and westbound left-turn movements exceed available storage lengths in the p.m. peak, with the eastbound queue at 175 feet (exceeding 90 ft available storage) and the westbound queue at 190 feet (exceeding the 140 ft available storage).
 Howe Avenue/Power Inn Road and Folsom Boulevard: The northbound left queue in the a.m. peak exceeds available storage length (155 ft).

HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
44 Table 8: 95TH Percentile Queuing Results at Study Intersections

INTERSECTION

TURNING

MOVEMENT

STORAGE
(FT)
95TH PCTLE QUEUE
(FT)
A.M. PEAK
HOUR
P.M. PEAK
HOUR

1. HOWE AVENUE / FAIR

OAKS BOULEVARD
NBL 260 150 155
SBL 205 125 160
EBL 530 165 325
WBL 300 70 110
SBR 270 525 280

2. HOWE AVENUE /

UNIVERSITY AVENUE
NBL 230 280(#) 75
SBL 100 45(m) 65(m)
EBL 90 45 175
WBL 140 135 190

3. HOWE AVENUE /

FOLSOM BOULEVARD
NBL 155 165 135
SBL 720 215 300
EBL 230 80 75
WBL 225 135 200
aBOLD represents 95th percentile queueing above the available storage length. (#) 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. (m) Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Values rounded up to the nearest multiple of five.

Source: DKS Associates, December 2024.

HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
45 Travel Time Reliability and Congestion
Traffic operations along a corridor are typically evaluated using two key metrics:
congestion and travel time reliability
Congestion refers to significantly slower travel times during peak periods compared to free-flow or ideal travel conditions. Travel time reliability measures the consistency of travel times, reflecting how predictable a trip's duration is when taken at the same time each day.

Common factors that contribute to unreliable travel times include:
 Normal fluctuations in travel demand
 Physical bottlenecks
 Special events
 Traffic crashes
 Inclement weather
 Traffic control devices
 Work or construction activities
Measuring Congestion and Travel Time Reliability
Congestion is measured using the Travel Time Index (TTI), which is calculated as the ratio of a corridor's travel time at a specific time of day to its free-flow travel time.

Travel time reliability is quantified using the Buffer Time Index (BTI), which represents the additional time a traveler must budget to ensure on-time arrival. It is determined by the difference between the average travel time and the 95th percentile travel time, normalized to free-flow conditions.

The relationship between the Travel Time Index (TTI), the 95th Percentile Travel Time Index, and the Buffer Time Index (BTI) is illustrated in Figure 27.

HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
46 Figure 27. Re lationsh ip between Average Trave l T ime and 95t h Percent ile Travel T ime21
City of Sacramento’s Policies on Congestion
According to the City of Sacramento General Plan, some levels of corridor congestion are considered acceptable. Instead of prioritizing congestion reduction, transportation improvements aim to enhance mobility for all users and ensure a reliable travel experience.

This means that while peak-hour travel delays may persist, travelers can plan their trips with greater confidence in arrival times.

Data Collection and Analysis
To evaluate travel time reliability and congestion along Howe Avenue, average speed data were obtained from the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS). In this data set, congestion is defined as peak-hour speeds that are 60% or less of free-flow speeds.

For consistency, data was filtered to reflect annual average weekday conditions, focusing on typical a.m. and p.m. peak periods (Tuesday through Thursday). Analyses were conducted separately for passenger vehicles and heavy-duty trucks, as well as for both combined.

The most congested continuous 60-minute intervals were identified as the peak periods for each vehicle type. Free-flow speed (FFS) was determined by analyzing the highest recorded vehicle speeds during off-peak hours (12:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m.). Congestion 21 Source: Traffic Congestion and Reliability: Linking Solutions to Problems, FHWA, 2004 HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
47 and reliability thresholds, as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition, are summarized in Table 9.

Travel time reliability and congestion metrics were analyzed for passenger vehicles, trucks, and combined traffic during the a.m. peak hour (8:00 to 9:00 a.m.) and p.m. peak hour (4:00 to 5:00 p.m.). Figure 28 through Figure 33 illustrate that, despite persistent congestion, the corridor demonstrates minimal variability in travel times. This suggests that while congestion levels are consistently high, travel time reliability remains stable across all vehicle types and peak periods.

Table 9. Congestion and Re liability Performance Measures

RELIABLE

MODERATELY

RELIABLE UNRELIABLE

BUFFER TIME
INDEX BTI < 1.25 BTI 1.25-< 1.5 BTI >= 1.5

UNCONGESTED
>= 60% OF FREE

FLOW SPEED
Predictable and efficient Not always predictable,
usually efficient
Unpredictable, not often
congested

CONGESTED
<60% OF FREE

FLOW SPEED
Predictable and
inefficient
Not always predictable,
usually inefficient
Unpredictable, not often
congestion
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition.

HOWE AVENUE SA FETY & MOB ILITY P LA N • EX IST I NG COND ITIONS REPORT • A PRI L 2025 48 Figure 28. Autos A.M. Peak Hour Travel T ime and Congestion HOWE AVENUE SA FETY & MOB ILITY P LA N • EX IST I NG COND ITIONS REPORT • APRI L 2025
49 Figure 29. Autos P.M. Peak Hour Reliability and Congestion HOWE AVENUE SA FETY & MOB ILITY P LA N • EX IST I NG COND ITIONS REPORT • APRI L 2025
50 Figure 30. Trucks A.M. Peak Hour Rel iability and Congestion HOWE AVENUE SA FETY & MOB ILITY P LA N • EX IST I NG COND ITIONS REPORT • APRI L 2025
51 Figure 31. Trucks P.M. Peak Hour Re liability and Congestion HOWE AVENUE SA FETY & MOB ILITY P LA N • EX IST I NG COND ITIONS REPORT • APRI L 2025
52 Figure 32. Autos and Trucks A.M. Peak Hour Reliability and Congestion HOWE AVENUE SA FETY & MOB ILITY P LA N • EX IST I NG COND ITIONS REPORT • APRI L 2025
53 Figure 33. Autos and Trucks P.M. Peak Hour Reliability and Congestion HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • A PRI L 2025 54 Public Engagement Summary
This section outlines public engagement events, engagement media methods, and public feedback results for the Connecting Howe Avenue Safety & Mobility Plan, including an overview of in-person and virtual meetings, methods for collecting community input, and a summary of feedback through surveys and interactive maps.

Public Engagement Events
In Person Event
On Wednesday, November 20, 2024,
the project team hosted an in-person
engagement event to engage
community members on the
Connecting Howe Avenue Safety &
Mobility Plan. The event was held
from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m. at the
Scottish Rite Masonic Center (6151 H
St, Sacramento, CA 95819).

To promote awareness of the public
workshop and virtual meeting, a flyer
was circulated on the City of Sacramento website, pop-up events, and social media outlets to promote the upcoming events. The event flyer consisted of meeting information, project background, links, and a QR code to route views to the project website, survey, and comment map.

The workshop began with a presentation outlining the project’s purpose, goals, and need.

Following the presentation, attendees were encouraged to participate by completing a community survey or contributing feedback via an interactive map on Social Pinpoint. The project team set up four comment boards dedicated to different transportation modes— walking, biking, driving, and transit- to solicit feedback.

Approximately eight to ten attendees participated in the event, engaging with the project team. Attendees shared feedback about concerns along Howe Avenue and suggested potential improvements. Materials from events are provided in Appendix E.

Virtual Meeting
On Monday, December 2, 2024, the project team held a virtual community meeting to engage community members and gather public input. This event, conducted via Zoom HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
55 from 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., served as an alternative option for those who may not be able to attend in-person events.

The workshop began with a brief presentation outlining the project’s purpose, need, and goals. Participants were encouraged to share their comments, questions, and concerns with project staff during the session. Additionally, attendees received information about the project website, where they could complete a survey and/or explore the interactive map at their convenience.

Approximately 10 community members attended the meeting and provided input and feedback on existing conditions on Howe Avenue.

On Wednesday, December 11, 2024, City staff presented at a standing Folsom Boulevard Coalition meeting, similar to the workshop mentioned above.

Project Website
The Connecting Howe Avenue Safety & Mobility Plan has a dedicated page22 on the City of Sacramento’s website. As shown in Figure 34, the project webpage provides details including the project background, corridor extents, schedule, and methods for public input. The webpage offers two primary ways for community engagement: a survey and an interactive Social Pinpoint map for public comments (Figure 35).

The community survey was available both online and at the in-person workshop, where it was offered in English and Spanish (Figure 36).
22 City of Sacramento. (n.d.). Connecting Howe Avenue. Public Works Department. Retrieved January 9, 2025, from https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/public-works/transportation/current_transportation_efforts/connecting-howe-avenue HOWE AVENUE SA FETY & MOB ILITY P LA N • EX IST I NG COND ITIONS REPORT • A PRI L 2025 56 Figure 34. Connecting Howe Avenue Safety & Mobility P lan Project Web Page HOWE AVENUE SA FETY & MOB ILITY P LA N • EX IST I NG COND ITIONS REPORT • APRI L 2025
57 Figure 35. Interactive Comment Map
HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • A PRI L 2025 58 Figure 36. Commun ity Survey
HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
59 Public Engagement Results
Since the launch of the project webpage in September, 2024, through December 2024, the Connecting Howe Avenue Safety & Mobility Plan Social Pinpoint Platform has received 179 views, over 70 interactive map comments, and more than 100 community survey responses. The following sections summarize public feedback collected through the Social Pinpoint interactive map and project survey.

Social Pinpoint Results
The interactive map allowed visitors to provide feedback across six categories: walking, bicycling, driving, transit, general safety, and other concerns. Due to the volume of responses, the results have been organized by primary intersections.

Figure 37 presents a cartogram illustrating public comments by transportation mode across intersections on Howe Avenue. The vertical axis shows the number of comments, while the horizontal axis highlights specific intersections and locations along the corridor.

The area near University Park Drive received the most feedback, with 14 to 16 comments focusing on various issues. Walking and bicycling concerns were consistent throughout the corridor, while transit-related comments were concentrated near Swarthmore Drive.

Overall, the primary concerns identified were related to driving, bicycling, safety, and walking and rolling (see Figure 38). Key themes from the social pinpoint comments and public survey are summarized as follows:

Major Safety Priorities
 Excessive vehicle speeds
 High-risk crosswalks at major intersections
 Unsafe merging areas and unclear lane markings
 Poor visibility at intersections and crosswalks
Missing Connections
 Incomplete sidewalk network
 Gaps in bike lanes and trails
 Poor access to transit stations
 Disconnected multi-use paths near La Riviera and Folsom Blvd Problem Intersections & Areas
 Fair Oaks/Howe: Difficult turns, safety risks for people walking, and challenges with business access.
 Howe/American River: Crash-prone area with frequent red light running.  Swarthmore Drive: Dangerous merging and speeding concerns.

HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
60  Power Inn LRT Station: An isolated feel and poor connectivity.

Community Impact
 People driving short distances instead of walking/biking due to safety concerns  Difficulty accessing local businesses and amenities
 Navigation challenges during peak hours
 Concerns about neighborhood quality of life (noise, traffic) The overarching message from this community feedback is that current road conditions prioritize vehicle throughput at the expense of safety and accessibility for other modes of travel, particularly affecting local community access to nearby destinations. A full summary of comments is provided in Appendix F.

Figure 37. Comment Type by Intersection (Social P inpoint and Survey) HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
61 Figure 38. Social P inpoint Comment by Type
Project Survey Results
The project webpage featured an interactive comment map, and a community survey designed to understand user interactions with the corridor and identify desired improvements. As illustrated in Figure 39 and Figure 40, over 80% of respondents reported using Howe Avenue daily or occasionally, with the majority traveling by car.

The survey presented potential corridor enhancements, asking participants to rank their interest in each option on a scale from least to most interested. Results, highlighted in Figure 41 to Figure 43, indicate strong community interest in improving biking, walking, and driving conditions along Howe Avenue.

HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
62 Figure 39. Commun ity Survey - Question 2: How Often do you Typically Travel on Howe Avenue?
Figure 40. Commun ity Survey - Question 3: HOW DO YOU TYPICALLY TRAVEL ON HOWE AVENUE?
HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
63 Figure 41. Commun ity Survey - Interest in Improved Walking Cond itions Figure 42. Commun ity Survey - Interest in Walk ing and Bicycling Cross ings 14%
6%
7%
16%
54%
RESPONSE TO: INTEREST IN IMPROVED WALKING CONDITIONS
SUCH AS WIDER SIDEWALKS AND STREET TREES.

Least Interested Slightly Interested Moderately Interested Very Interested Most Interested
12%
2%
12%
61% 11%
RESPONSE TO: INTEREST IN IMPROVED WALKING AND

BICYCLING CROSSING OF HOWE AVENUE
Least Interested Slightly Interested Moderately Interested Very Interested Most Interested
HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
64 Figure 43. Commun ity Survey - Interest in Improving Driver Safety Existing Transportation Challenges and Constraints
This section outlines key issues with multimodal infrastructure along Howe Avenue identified as part of the existing conditions analysis and community engagement efforts.

Figure 44 illustrates the existing infrastructure along Howe Avenue and identifies bike lanes and sidewalk gaps.
0% 3%
9%
11%
77%
RESPONSE TO: INTEREST IN IMPROVED DRIVING SAFETY
Least Interested Slightly Interested Moderately Interested Very Interested Most Interested
HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
65 Figure 44. Infrastructure Gaps and Constraints
HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
66 Infrastructure for Walking/Rolling
Existing sidewalks are generally five to six feet wide, but segments narrow to less than five feet near the Howe Avenue Bridge.

Gaps in the sidewalk network are present on both sides of Howe Avenue:
 West side of Howe Avenue:
o From American River Drive to Swarthmore Drive.
o From Swarthmore Drive to the University Avenue overcrossing. o From the University Avenue overcrossing to the Howe Avenue Bridge.  East side of Howe Avenue:
o From the La Riviera overcrossing to Folsom Boulevard.

All study intersections are equipped with pedestrian signals, push buttons, and marked crossings. Curb ramps are installed at all crossing locations; however, some intersections lack detectable warning surfaces and landing areas. These include:
 American River Drive
 Swarthmore Drive
 College Town Drive
 Folsom Boulevard
Crossings are not provided for the southern approach for intersections at the cross-streets of American River Drive and Swarthmore Drive/University Park Drive due to a lack of sidewalks on the west side of Howe Avenue.

The walking Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) score is four, reflecting uncomfortable and stressful conditions for most people walking or rolling, including those using mobility aids.

Community engagement efforts identified the following walking infrastructure concerns and priorities on Howe Avenue:
 Traffic safety concerns at major intersections, particularly poor visibility at crosswalks and intersections such as Fair Oaks/Howe, which pose significant dangers to people walking or rolling.
 Incomplete sidewalk networks and disconnected walking paths, notably near La Riviera and Folsom Boulevard.
 Safety concerns discourage walking and biking, contributing to increased short-distance car trips.

Infrastructure for Biking
Bike lanes are present along Howe Avenue and are approximately five feet in width. These bike lanes connect to the broader bicycle network via the American River Parkway shared- HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
67 use path, as well as painted bike lanes on American River Drive, University Avenue, and La Riviera Drive.

Given Howe Avenue's posted speeds of 40 to 50 mph and traffic volumes of up to 59,000 vehicles per day, the current Class II bicycle lanes do not align with FHWA or City of Sacramento guidance for recommended bicycle infrastructure on roadways with these characteristics.

The bicycle LTS score is four, reflecting high stress conditions for people biking on Howe Avenue.

Community engagement efforts identified several concerns related to bicycling from participants:
 Missing connections in the bicycle network, including connections to the American River Trail
 Confusion on merging zones and lane markings for people bicycling  Hesitancy and concern over biking on Howe Avenue due to high vehicle travel speeds.  Strong interest in improving biking conditions on Howe Avenue.

Transit Infrastructure
There are only two bus stops directly on the corridor, and both are equipped with shelters at Howe Avenue and Swarthmore Drive. SacRT Bus Route 26 operates along Howe Avenue with approximately 30-minute headways slowing to 60-minute headways after 7 p.m. Additionally at the south end point of the study corridor, south of Folsom Boulevard, is the SacRT Power Inn Light Rail Station which connects to the SacRT Gold Line.

There are several SacRT routes such as routes 82, 87, 210, 211, and 255 that operate adjacent to Howe Avenue. While these routes do not operate on Howe Avenue, people using these bus routes may travel on Howe Avenue to reach these stops. These adjacent routes operate with 15–60-minute headways on weekdays and 45–60 minute headways on weekends. Lines 210, 211, and 255 have limited schedules, serving schools on weekdays only. SacRT lines 82, 87, 210, 211, and 255 are poorly connected due to missing sidewalks near Fair Oaks Boulevard.

Weekday ridership data collected from January to August 2024 shows an average of 310 riders across all stops. Route 26 bus stops averaged three riders per stop per weekday, while the eastbound and westbound Power Inn LRT averaged 140 riders per weekday.

Community engagement efforts noted poor access to transit stations as a key challenge. Transit-related comments were concentrated near Swarthmore Drive. The community survey indicated interest in improving the walking and biking infrastructure along Howe Avenue and improving access to transit.

HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
68 In 2023, SacRT developed the Design Guidelines for Bus and Light Rail Facilities, which outlines design and amenity considerations to improve accessibility and safety at transit stops. The design guidelines state that transit infrastructure is expected to provide access for people with disabilities, and include lighting, shelter, seating, and trash bins.

Safety
A total of 201 crashes occurred on Howe Avenue between 2018 and 2023. 18 crashes resulted in persons being killed or suffering severe injuries (KSI).. The North Segment of Howe Avenue experienced the highest number of total crashes (77) and KSI crashes (9).

The South Segment had 70 total crashes and 6 KSI crashes, while the Middle Segment had 54 total crashes and 3 KSI crashes. 151 crashes (75% of the total) occurred at intersections.

There were two bicycle-involved crashes, one each in the North and South Segments.

There were three crashes involving people walking, two in the North Segment and one in the South Segment. All three crashes involved improper turning or failure to yield at intersections as the primary crash factor.

Rear-end collisions were the most frequent crash type, accounting for 101 (50%) of crashes, with a concentration at the intersection of American River Drive. Broadside crashes were the second most common, totaling 46 (23%).

Unsafe speed was the primary factor in 104 crashes (52%). Improper turning was a factor in 28 crashes (14%). Of the 18 KSI crashes, 7 (39%) involved unsafe speeds and 4 (22%) were related to driving under the influence (DUI).

The intersection of Howe Avenue and American River Drive is a location with a high rate of rear-end collisions and also where several "hit object" crashes resulting in KSI crashes occurred.

Community engagement revealed concerns about excessive vehicle speeds. Community members reported that they drive short distances instead of walking/biking due to safety concerns. The community survey indicated a strong interest in improving driving safety, and crossings for people walking or biking.

Right of Way
The ROW width along Howe Avenue varies across its three segments. From curb to curb, the ROW ranges from 90 to 115 feet involving the following components:
 The ROW narrows to 30 to 35 feet on the Howe Avenue Bridge.  Lane widths are approximately 11-12 feet through the length of the study corridor but narrow to approximately 10 to 10.5 feet on portions of the Howe Avenue Bridge.

HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • EX ISTI NG CO ND ITIONS REPORT • APR I L 2025
69  Sidewalks along the study corridor are 5 feet but are the responsibility of the fronting property owner23.

Additional consideration for ROW will need to be given to the Howe Avenue bridge due to reduced roadway width and the structure providing a constrained roadway width. Where the corridor is two lanes per direction, design alternatives can use existing roadway space to improve infrastructure for people walking or biking such as widening sidewalks or implementing Class I or Class IV facilities.
23 Sacramento City Code, Section 12.32.020

APPENDIX
HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • DRAFT EX IST I NG CO ND IT IO NS RE PORT • JA NUARY 2025

CONTENTS
APPENDIX A : TRAFFIC VOLUMES
APPENDIX B : TRANSIT DATA
APPENDIX C: SIGNAL TIMING WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX D: SYNCHRO REPORTS
APPENDIX E : PUBLIC WORKSHOP MATERIALS
HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • DRAFT EX IST I NG CO ND IT IO NS RE PORT • JA NUARY 2025
APPENDIX A: TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Summary
Bin Size 15 minutes
Aggregation Method Median
Time Zone America/Los_Angeles
Start Time 10/14/2024 0:00
End Time 10/18/2024 23:59
Location Howe Ave & Fair Oaks Blvd
Latitude and Longitude 38.57413508,-121.41541391
Lights
Entry North East South West
Direction Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left U-Turn Peds CW Peds CCW Right Thru Left U-Turn Peds CW Peds CCW Right Thru Left U-Turn Peds CW Peds CCW Right Thru Left U-Turn Peds CW Peds CCW 0:00:00 7 28 4 0 0 0 1 7 1 0 0 0 0 32 3 0 0 0 0 11 13 0 0 0 0:15:00 9 19 2 1 0 0 3 7 2 0 0 0 2 25 3 0 0 0 0 10 11 0 0 0 0:30:00 10 25 4 0 0 0 2 5 1 0 0 0 1 23 3 0 0 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 0:45:00 7 14 2 0 0 0 2 6 1 0 0 0 1 19 2 0 0 0 0 4 8 0 0 0 1:00:00 7 16 3 0 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 1 15 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 1:15:00 3 11 2 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 16 3 0 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 1:30:00 3 18 2 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 14 1 0 0 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 1:45:00 3 14 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 12 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 2:00:00 2 10 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2:15:00 2 9 1 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 10 1 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 2:30:00 5 12 3 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 12 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 2:45:00 2 13 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 8 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3:00:00 2 10 1 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 8 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 3:15:00 2 11 2 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3:30:00 4 15 3 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 15 1 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 3:45:00 5 22 1 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 4:00:00 4 17 1 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 4:15:00 5 33 4 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 17 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 4:30:00 5 59 1 0 0 0 2 7 1 0 0 0 0 17 1 0 0 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 4:45:00 7 53 4 0 0 0 4 16 3 0 0 0 2 26 3 0 0 0 0 11 5 0 0 0 5:00:00 8 34 4 1 0 0 2 17 2 0 0 0 0 29 5 0 0 0 0 10 7 1 0 0 5:15:00 11 42 3 0 0 0 3 10 0 0 0 0 1 28 5 0 0 0 0 10 4 0 0 0 5:30:00 16 106 6 1 0 0 4 25 2 0 0 0 2 43 5 0 0 0 0 10 9 1 0 0 5:45:00 24 108 10 0 0 0 5 47 2 0 0 0 5 52 10 0 0 0 1 14 12 0 0 0 6:00:00 32 95 10 1 0 0 5 43 3 0 0 0 5 62 8 0 0 0 0 20 11 4 0 0 6:15:00 30 113 15 1 0 0 5 63 4 0 0 0 2 72 18 0 0 0 1 20 12 2 0 0 6:30:00 44 155 17 0 0 0 7 77 4 0 0 0 2 94 15 0 0 0 1 27 19 1 0 0 6:45:00 72 159 19 1 0 0 12 110 6 0 0 0 4 135 24 0 0 0 4 42 29 2 0 0 7:00:00 108 150 21 1 0 0 18 147 6 0 0 0 3 146 28 0 0 0 6 60 27 2 0 0 7:15:00 132 149 30 2 0 0 24 187 9 0 0 0 3 158 39 0 0 0 7 82 45 5 0 0 7:30:00 165 211 39 3 0 0 35 222 7 0 0 0 4 197 67 0 0 0 12 117 67 6 0 0 7:45:00 144 248 52 2 0 0 50 260 6 1 0 0 4 206 76 0 0 0 12 140 69 7 0 0 8:00:00 147 258 56 7 0 0 41 207 12 0 0 0 6 207 55 0 0 0 15 153 67 7 0 0 8:15:00 147 192 50 7 0 0 39 235 10 0 0 0 6 199 56 0 0 0 14 129 68 6 0 0 8:30:00 185 235 44 5 0 0 44 216 14 0 0 0 8 205 61 0 0 0 12 107 69 5 0 0 8:45:00 151 176 50 5 0 0 41 189 10 0 0 0 11 205 53 0 0 0 17 135 89 3 0 0 9:00:00 89 163 45 9 0 0 38 162 12 2 0 0 11 188 65 0 0 0 14 134 85 5 0 0 9:15:00 87 142 37 3 0 0 33 158 18 2 0 0 10 187 45 0 0 0 10 118 74 4 0 0 9:30:00 85 154 49 5 0 0 32 146 15 2 0 0 16 180 45 0 0 0 14 116 69 5 0 0 9:45:00 121 162 49 3 0 0 31 149 18 2 0 0 15 197 38 0 0 0 21 119 92 7 0 0 10:00:00 102 156 54 7 0 0 36 131 16 0 0 0 15 172 47 0 0 0 16 124 94 5 0 0 10:15:00 102 150 43 4 0 0 41 153 20 1 0 0 13 180 48 0 0 0 23 120 92 5 0 0 10:30:00 90 162 55 3 0 0 40 125 18 0 0 0 10 169 46 0 0 0 18 130 88 9 0 0 10:45:00 101 163 48 5 0 0 42 126 19 2 0 0 13 181 39 0 0 0 14 130 87 10 0 0 11:00:00 90 165 66 4 0 0 44 130 21 0 0 0 12 193 45 0 0 0 19 129 106 7 0 0 11:15:00 118 171 56 3 0 0 48 145 21 0 0 0 13 181 45 0 0 0 17 151 92 9 0 0 11:30:00 104 162 56 3 0 0 41 148 22 1 0 0 12 176 56 0 0 0 21 158 90 9 0 0 11:45:00 120 187 66 8 0 0 46 152 20 1 0 0 14 237 51 0 0 0 20 147 118 11 0 0 12:00:00 98 186 66 6 0 0 60 140 25 0 0 0 15 218 57 0 0 0 28 187 148 9 0 0 12:15:00 102 192 69 5 0 0 57 161 31 3 0 0 16 206 56 0 0 0 24 168 110 7 0 0 12:30:00 124 192 70 7 0 0 57 154 28 0 0 0 14 198 53 0 0 0 26 160 113 10 0 0 12:45:00 116 183 71 7 0 0 57 170 25 2 0 0 14 206 53 1 0 0 21 145 105 5 0 0 13:00:00 135 217 66 6 0 0 61 151 21 2 0 0 16 215 52 0 0 0 19 158 122 10 0 0 13:15:00 121 196 66 7 0 0 55 141 25 0 0 0 15 203 53 0 0 0 26 175 136 7 0 0 13:30:00 108 212 65 4 0 0 59 140 25 1 0 0 22 214 43 0 0 0 24 183 148 6 0 0 13:45:00 111 223 69 8 0 0 63 135 25 1 0 0 18 258 47 0 0 0 20 144 113 8 0 0 14:00:00 104 219 60 5 0 0 54 145 33 2 0 0 13 233 49 0 0 0 15 168 114 3 0 0 14:15:00 115 208 62 6 0 0 48 152 26 0 0 0 14 220 55 0 0 0 22 171 108 4 0 0 14:30:00 115 209 62 5 0 0 60 169 30 1 0 0 13 210 49 0 0 0 23 179 113 6 0 0 14:45:00 89 220 59 4 0 0 61 175 26 1 0 0 10 282 46 0 0 0 23 200 148 5 0 0 15:00:00 70 230 65 6 0 0 54 154 25 0 0 0 13 288 49 0 0 0 26 218 175 4 0 0 15:15:00 100 257 59 5 0 0 51 180 23 1 0 0 14 291 57 0 0 0 25 242 150 3 0 0 15:30:00 119 249 65 5 0 0 50 189 25 1 0 0 11 305 55 0 0 0 17 189 121 5 0 0 15:45:00 144 253 61 3 0 0 45 184 18 2 0 0 11 300 63 0 0 0 23 201 133 6 0 0 16:00:00 137 248 61 5 0 0 42 191 23 2 0 0 15 301 64 0 0 0 22 204 151 5 0 0 16:15:00 128 273 58 3 0 0 31 184 17 1 0 0 14 312 55 0 0 0 24 244 175 5 0 0 16:30:00 136 260 57 8 0 0 29 180 18 0 0 0 12 307 55 0 0 0 29 285 176 6 0 0 16:45:00 149 272 63 4 0 0 18 192 17 1 0 0 20 313 56 0 0 0 32 231 131 9 0 0 17:00:00 138 260 58 7 0 0 33 192 21 0 0 0 16 326 63 1 0 0 28 254 148 8 0 0 17:15:00 138 293 68 7 0 0 55 189 17 0 0 0 13 329 67 0 0 0 21 229 160 9 0 0 17:30:00 148 280 54 4 0 0 42 188 12 0 0 0 12 314 53 0 0 0 15 208 143 10 0 0 17:45:00 115 213 53 2 0 0 46 183 18 1 0 0 12 302 50 0 0 0 17 211 145 6 0 0 18:00:00 104 216 45 5 0 0 46 164 16 0 0 0 11 232 51 0 0 0 17 193 139 11 0 0 18:15:00 114 204 49 2 0 0 41 135 14 0 0 0 10 205 58 0 0 0 15 151 115 6 0 0 18:30:00 82 205 48 3 0 0 46 134 17 1 0 0 11 200 48 0 0 0 13 129 86 7 0 0 18:45:00 82 198 49 3 0 0 32 112 20 1 0 0 11 150 42 0 0 0 9 120 94 5 0 0 19:00:00 64 157 47 1 0 0 19 87 15 0 0 0 12 158 34 1 0 0 11 123 91 4 0 0 19:15:00 63 167 42 4 0 0 17 80 24 0 0 0 7 147 29 0 0 0 7 104 81 3 0 0 19:30:00 59 149 36 3 0 0 15 86 19 1 0 0 8 108 31 0 0 0 4 98 69 2 0 0 19:45:00 56 138 35 2 0 0 14 67 11 0 0 0 8 112 24 0 0 0 5 92 63 3 0 0 20:00:00 48 126 28 2 0 0 17 64 16 0 0 0 7 100 23 0 0 0 5 89 62 0 0 0 20:15:00 52 137 32 6 0 0 15 66 8 0 0 0 6 116 23 0 0 0 4 72 55 2 0 0 20:30:00 44 134 27 3 0 0 18 58 18 0 0 0 8 101 20 0 0 0 3 65 68 2 0 0 20:45:00 44 108 27 5 0 0 8 51 9 1 0 0 5 107 25 0 0 0 3 79 63 2 0 0 21:00:00 38 108 24 3 0 0 10 56 9 0 0 0 8 98 23 0 0 0 4 60 50 2 0 0 21:15:00 42 84 21 2 0 0 12 54 11 1 0 0 6 87 21 0 0 0 1 45 45 2 0 0 21:30:00 43 94 22 5 0 0 11 48 8 0 0 0 5 90 14 0 0 0 3 43 47 2 0 0 21:45:00 38 86 20 3 0 0 9 48 7 0 0 0 3 78 16 0 0 0 2 36 31 1 0 0 22:00:00 36 87 20 2 0 0 12 34 8 0 0 0 3 79 16 0 0 0 1 34 33 1 0 0 22:15:00 26 75 17 2 0 0 10 33 5 0 0 0 4 55 10 0 0 0 0 31 25 1 0 0 22:30:00 24 50 10 3 0 0 5 25 6 0 0 0 3 48 8 0 0 0 1 17 27 0 0 0 22:45:00 22 52 9 1 0 0 5 19 3 0 0 0 2 56 6 0 0 0 1 17 19 0 0 0 23:00:00 18 54 7 2 0 0 4 14 3 0 0 0 2 46 7 0 0 0 0 17 22 1 0 0 23:15:00 18 38 5 2 0 0 3 11 3 0 0 0 1 41 7 0 0 0 1 20 15 1 0 0 23:30:00 13 35 4 0 0 0 3 10 2 0 0 0 2 40 6 0 0 0 0 13 13 0 0 0 23:45:00 14 30 4 1 0 0 3 13 2 0 0 0 3 40 5 0 0 0 0 15 13 0 0 0 Location:

Comm Manager I.P.

Bin Interval:

Start Date:

Completed:

Last Imported:
id 421800935
model Comm Manager
name PowerInn & Folsom-Howe
firmwareVersion 3.0.0.279
serialNumber D53426
id 471365346 id 471343709 id 471365148 id 471353458
model Vision model Vision model Vision model Vision
name Power Inn & Folsom-Howe - SB phases 8 & 3 name Power Inn & Folsom-Howe - EB phases 6 & 1 name Power Inn & Folsom-Howe - NB phases 4 & 7 name Power Inn & Folsom-Howe - WB phases 2 & 5 firmwareVersion 3.0.0.279 firmwareVersion 3.0.0.279 firmwareVersion 3.0.0.279 firmwareVersion 3.0.0.279 serialNumber 066755 serialNumber 066747 serialNumber 066753 serialNumber 066758 Cam1 Cam2 Cam3 Cam4 Total
700 315 59 364 250 988 4505 4846 0.94
715 366 100 438 339 1242 4657
730 394 113 435 192 1134 4702
745 442 119 388 193 1142 4780
800 420 119 355 247 1140 4846
815 433 141 352 361 1286
830 368 120 323 401 1212
845 388 135 305 381 1208
400 464 164 398 364 1390 5640 5712 0.98
415 476 189 384 337 1385 5712
430 495 207 376 359 1436 5698
445 529 198 373 328 1428 5598
500 509 182 395 376 1462 5474
515 482 199 363 329 1372
530 505 187 341 303 1336
545 470 224 321 289 1303
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBR WBL WBT WBR
AM 257 1074 4 373 1234 0 108 141 203 764 422
PM 191 1331 6 495 1513 1 92 232 300 592 507

SBL SBR SBT EBL EBR EBT NBR NBL WBR WBT WBL
373 0 1234 108 141 267 4 257 422 764 203
495 1 1513 92 232 452 6 191 507 592 300
Comm Manager:

Camera 1 Camera 2 Camera 3 Camera 4
10/14/2024
10/26/24 1:36 PM
Vision Data Automator
User Input:

Demo
172.31.56.92
15 Summary
Bin Size 15 minutes
Aggregation Method Median
Time Zone America/Los_Angeles
Start Time ########
End Time ########
Location Howe Ave & University Ave
Latitude and Longitude 38.57209163,-121.41325959
Lights
Entry North East South West
Direction Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left U-Turn Peds CW Peds CCW Right Thru Left U-Turn Peds CW Peds CCW Right Thru Left U-Turn Peds CW Peds CCW Right Thru Left U-Turn Peds CW Peds CCW 0:00:00 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 32 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0:15:00 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 26 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0:30:00 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0:45:00 0 19 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 19 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1:00:00 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 15 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1:15:00 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1:30:00 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1:45:00 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2:00:00 0 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:15:00 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:30:00 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:45:00 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3:00:00 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3:15:00 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:30:00 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45:00 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00:00 0 15 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 11 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4:15:00 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 16 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4:30:00 0 62 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 14 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4:45:00 0 54 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 28 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5:00:00 0 37 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 34 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5:15:00 0 44 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 3 27 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5:30:00 0 101 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 49 3 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 5:45:00 0 105 0 0 0 0 1 3 8 0 0 0 7 67 7 0 0 0 5 2 1 0 0 0 6:00:00 0 95 1 0 0 0 1 2 7 0 0 0 8 76 4 0 0 0 5 2 1 0 0 0 6:15:00 0 113 1 1 0 0 3 4 8 0 0 0 12 83 6 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 6:30:00 0 156 2 1 0 0 1 7 17 0 0 0 17 116 14 0 0 0 7 1 2 0 0 0 6:45:00 0 136 3 0 0 0 3 7 20 0 0 0 21 159 21 0 0 0 9 3 3 0 0 0 7:00:00 0 139 2 0 0 0 3 14 18 0 0 0 29 172 19 0 0 0 14 4 2 0 0 0 7:15:00 0 137 3 1 0 0 7 23 32 0 0 0 29 188 24 0 0 0 13 5 6 0 0 0 7:30:00 0 215 4 1 0 0 7 18 27 0 0 0 20 225 27 0 0 0 22 6 6 0 0 0 7:45:00 0 228 3 0 0 0 7 34 40 0 0 0 29 207 38 0 0 0 24 10 8 0 0 0 8:00:00 0 207 8 1 0 0 8 27 38 0 0 0 54 244 48 0 0 0 34 8 4 0 0 0 8:15:00 0 183 6 1 0 0 9 46 35 0 0 0 60 259 49 0 0 0 20 10 5 0 0 0 8:30:00 0 195 7 1 0 0 15 35 38 0 0 0 54 264 51 0 0 0 29 8 8 0 0 0 8:45:00 0 158 6 1 0 0 10 42 34 0 0 0 56 258 43 0 0 0 23 11 12 0 0 0 9:00:00 0 149 6 3 0 0 11 34 30 0 0 0 66 247 39 0 0 0 20 11 8 0 0 0 9:15:00 0 136 4 2 0 0 9 30 36 0 0 0 52 217 31 0 0 0 23 14 13 0 0 0 9:30:00 0 144 6 2 0 0 11 24 37 0 0 0 45 210 29 0 0 0 23 13 13 0 0 0 9:45:00 0 155 9 1 0 0 13 31 38 0 0 0 65 222 27 0 0 0 28 20 12 0 0 0 10:00:00 0 159 8 2 0 0 16 18 46 0 0 0 63 194 32 0 0 0 27 19 21 0 0 0 10:15:00 0 151 8 3 0 0 18 16 43 0 0 0 46 218 27 0 0 0 28 16 17 0 0 0 10:30:00 0 144 8 2 0 0 19 19 52 0 0 0 54 207 25 0 0 0 33 15 18 0 0 0 10:45:00 0 173 7 3 0 0 16 23 51 0 0 0 67 230 29 0 0 0 33 17 15 0 0 0 11:00:00 0 171 9 4 0 0 16 17 48 0 0 0 58 206 21 0 0 0 32 21 16 0 0 0 11:15:00 0 178 10 2 0 0 19 20 48 0 0 0 64 218 24 0 0 0 35 24 22 0 0 0 11:30:00 0 172 8 3 0 0 18 24 55 0 0 0 66 221 27 0 0 0 41 24 21 0 0 0 11:45:00 0 183 8 4 0 0 21 26 62 0 0 0 74 249 28 0 0 0 36 30 21 0 0 0 12:00:00 0 190 12 4 0 0 24 24 60 0 0 0 55 228 20 0 0 0 46 40 37 0 0 0 12:15:00 0 192 11 6 0 0 20 36 67 0 0 0 65 229 22 0 0 0 30 29 27 0 0 0 12:30:00 0 204 9 3 0 0 21 28 63 0 0 0 61 232 22 0 0 0 31 29 20 0 0 0 12:45:00 0 199 11 2 0 0 17 35 62 0 0 0 71 230 29 0 0 0 31 27 16 0 0 0 13:00:00 0 216 10 3 0 0 21 35 72 0 0 0 55 234 25 0 0 0 36 30 14 0 0 0 13:15:00 0 220 8 3 0 0 18 31 55 0 0 0 58 247 21 0 0 0 38 23 18 0 0 0 13:30:00 0 217 8 4 0 0 20 20 49 0 0 0 53 261 20 0 0 0 39 25 10 0 0 0 13:45:00 0 212 13 2 0 0 16 26 70 0 0 0 64 286 26 0 0 0 35 21 14 0 0 0 14:00:00 0 221 6 3 0 0 24 25 71 0 0 0 57 259 21 0 0 0 42 17 16 0 0 0 14:15:00 0 230 8 2 0 0 19 19 61 0 0 0 53 265 14 0 0 0 35 21 11 0 0 0 14:30:00 0 236 9 1 0 0 19 18 72 0 0 0 60 260 12 0 0 0 45 22 20 0 0 0 14:45:00 0 256 8 4 0 0 21 23 58 0 0 0 53 311 15 0 0 0 39 22 14 0 0 0 15:00:00 0 250 13 2 0 0 20 20 60 0 0 0 59 307 13 0 0 0 57 23 19 0 0 0 15:15:00 0 277 8 1 0 0 17 15 55 0 0 0 56 319 9 0 0 0 47 16 17 0 0 0 15:30:00 0 265 9 2 0 0 21 19 60 0 0 0 54 325 13 0 0 0 48 21 20 0 0 0 15:45:00 1 263 8 2 0 0 25 23 52 0 0 0 58 351 11 0 0 0 43 24 20 0 0 0 16:00:00 1 259 9 3 0 0 22 19 66 0 0 0 51 321 11 0 0 0 63 30 29 0 0 0 16:15:00 1 287 9 5 0 0 23 16 61 0 0 0 55 310 10 0 0 0 60 25 24 0 0 0 16:30:00 0 276 7 2 0 0 24 9 69 0 0 0 65 314 10 0 0 0 67 31 40 0 0 0 16:45:00 0 270 8 2 0 0 20 11 72 0 0 0 74 326 12 0 0 0 56 34 27 0 0 0 17:00:00 0 278 10 3 0 0 37 13 76 0 0 0 60 289 11 0 0 0 88 47 57 0 0 0 17:15:00 0 290 7 3 0 0 19 12 49 0 0 0 62 331 7 0 0 0 51 24 29 0 0 0 17:30:00 0 282 7 3 0 0 19 13 55 0 0 0 62 323 10 0 0 0 49 27 19 0 0 0 17:45:00 0 247 8 2 0 0 13 11 52 0 0 0 57 322 8 0 0 0 35 23 13 0 0 0 18:00:00 0 241 7 2 0 0 18 8 57 0 0 0 41 243 7 0 0 0 36 19 9 0 0 0 18:15:00 0 230 6 4 0 0 9 9 54 0 0 0 41 256 5 0 0 0 25 14 8 0 0 0 18:30:00 0 220 5 4 0 0 12 10 45 0 0 0 37 211 8 0 0 0 28 10 6 0 0 0 18:45:00 0 215 6 3 0 0 10 10 45 0 0 0 33 191 5 0 0 0 20 8 5 0 0 0 19:00:00 0 180 7 5 0 0 9 9 51 0 0 0 35 176 4 0 0 0 17 7 4 0 0 0 19:15:00 0 171 7 3 0 0 9 9 49 0 0 0 25 156 4 0 0 0 17 9 4 0 0 0 19:30:00 0 170 3 3 0 0 8 9 39 0 0 0 19 114 7 0 0 0 13 5 4 0 0 0 19:45:00 0 157 4 1 0 0 9 5 35 0 0 0 18 123 6 0 0 0 10 4 4 0 0 0 20:00:00 0 147 6 2 0 0 5 5 38 0 0 0 15 110 3 0 0 0 10 2 4 0 0 0 20:15:00 0 148 4 2 0 0 2 5 32 0 0 0 21 123 3 0 0 0 9 4 3 0 0 0 20:30:00 0 141 2 1 0 0 5 5 32 0 0 0 18 107 3 0 0 0 9 4 3 0 0 0 20:45:00 0 122 4 3 0 0 6 5 27 0 0 0 19 115 4 0 0 0 7 3 2 0 0 0 21:00:00 0 105 4 1 0 0 5 5 26 0 0 0 12 112 3 0 0 0 8 3 1 0 0 0 21:15:00 0 98 3 1 0 0 3 4 24 0 0 0 14 102 3 0 0 0 6 2 1 0 0 0 21:30:00 0 94 2 0 0 0 2 3 16 0 0 0 11 95 5 0 0 0 6 3 1 0 0 0 21:45:00 0 91 2 0 0 0 3 2 11 0 0 0 9 84 1 0 0 0 7 1 1 0 0 0 22:00:00 0 89 2 0 0 0 3 3 13 0 0 0 12 79 3 0 0 0 7 1 2 0 0 0 22:15:00 0 87 1 0 0 0 2 3 10 0 0 0 7 60 3 0 0 0 6 2 1 0 0 0 22:30:00 0 51 0 1 0 0 1 4 12 0 0 0 4 56 4 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 22:45:00 0 51 3 0 0 0 2 2 8 0 0 0 7 54 4 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 23:00:00 0 51 2 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 3 51 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 23:15:00 0 41 1 1 0 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 7 42 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 23:30:00 0 36 1 1 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 4 42 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 23:45:00 0 39 1 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 2 42 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • DRAFT EX IST I NG CO ND IT IO NS RE PORT • JA NUARY 2025
APPENDIX B: TRANSIT DATA
SacRT Boardings and Alightings
Route 26
2024
DAY_OF_WEEK UNIQUE_STOP_NUMBER STOP_NAME ROUTE ON OFF TOTAL LAT LONG MONTH WEEKDAY 01541 COLLEGE TOWNE DR & LA RIVIER 26 11 7 18 38.555114 -121.411040 JAN WEEKDAY 01542 HOWE AVE & SWARTHMORE DR 26 2 1 3 38.565075 -121.409228 JAN WEEKDAY 01545 HOWE AVE & SWARTHMORE DR 26 1 1 2 38.565797 -121.408840 JAN WEEKDAY 01546 AMERICAN RIVER DR & HOWE AVE 26 4 5 9 38.569573 -121.408263 JAN WEEKDAY 09915 POWER INN LRT & POWER IN 26 0 0 0 38.546280 -121.407750 JAN WEEKDAY 09915 POWER INN LRT & POWER INN RD 26 154 162 316 38.547001 -121.407632 JAN WEEKDAY 01541 COLLEGE TOWNE DR & LA RIVIER 26 11 9 20 38.555114 -121.411039 FEB WEEKDAY 01542 HOWE AVE & SWARTHMORE DR 26 2 1 2 38.565073 -121.409228 FEB WEEKDAY 01545 HOWE AVE & SWARTHMORE DR 26 1 0 1 38.566632 -121.408715 FEB WEEKDAY 01546 AMERICAN RIVER DR & HOWE AVE 26 0 2 2 38.569481 -121.407216 FEB WEEKDAY 01541 COLLEGE TOWNE DR & LA RIVIER 26 13 11 24 38.554896 -121.411148 MAR WEEKDAY 01542 HOWE AVE & SWARTHMORE DR 26 1 0 2 38.564642 -121.409199 MAR WEEKDAY 01545 HOWE AVE & SWARTHMORE DR 26 0 4 4 38.566230 -121.408882 MAR WEEKDAY 01546 AMERICAN RIVER DR & HOWE AVE 26 4 4 8 38.569651 -121.407565 MAR WEEKDAY 09915 POWER INN LRT & POWER IN 26 0 0 0 38.547310 -121.408500 MAR WEEKDAY 09915 POWER INN LRT & POWER INN RD 26 47 51 98 38.547042 -121.407618 MAR WEEKDAY 01541 COLLEGE TOWNE DR & LA RIVIER 26 13 8 21 38.554888 -121.411179 APR WEEKDAY 01542 HOWE AVE & SWARTHMORE DR 26 2 1 3 38.564605 -121.409205 APR WEEKDAY 01545 HOWE AVE & SWARTHMORE DR 26 0 2 2 38.566198 -121.408889 APR WEEKDAY 01546 AMERICAN RIVER DR & HOWE AVE 26 3 5 8 38.569688 -121.407904 APR WEEKDAY 01541 COLLEGE TOWNE DR & LA RIVIER 26 17 11 28 38.554879 -121.411182 MAY WEEKDAY 01542 HOWE AVE & SWARTHMORE DR 26 2 2 4 38.564616 -121.409204 MAY WEEKDAY 01545 HOWE AVE & SWARTHMORE DR 26 1 2 4 38.566180 -121.408892 MAY WEEKDAY 01546 AMERICAN RIVER DR & HOWE AVE 26 3 6 9 38.569678 -121.407904 MAY WEEKDAY 01541 COLLEGE TOWNE DR & LA RIVIER 26 18 11 29 38.554886 -121.411186 JUN WEEKDAY 01542 HOWE AVE & SWARTHMORE DR 26 2 2 4 38.564630 -121.409201 JUN WEEKDAY 01545 HOWE AVE & SWARTHMORE DR 26 2 3 4 38.566127 -121.408889 JUN WEEKDAY 01546 AMERICAN RIVER DR & HOWE AVE 26 4 7 10 38.569682 -121.407965 JUN WEEKDAY 01541 COLLEGE TOWNE DR & LA RIVIER 26 27 16 42 38.554881 -121.411199 AUG WEEKDAY 01542 HOWE AVE & SWARTHMORE DR 26 2 1 3 38.564589 -121.409202 AUG WEEKDAY 01545 HOWE AVE & SWARTHMORE DR 26 1 2 3 38.566196 -121.408893 AUG WEEKDAY 01546 AMERICAN RIVER DR & HOWE AVE 26 3 5 7 38.569684 -121.407890 AUG WEEKDAY 01541 COLLEGE TOWNE DR & LA RIVIER 26 27 15 42 38.554914 -121.411156 AUG WEEKDAY 01542 HOWE AVE & SWARTHMORE DR 26 4 2 5 38.564552 -121.409209 AUG WEEKDAY 01545 HOWE AVE & SWARTHMORE DR 26 2 2 3 38.566201 -121.408891 AUG WEEKDAY 01546 AMERICAN RIVER DR & HOWE AVE 26 3 8 11 38.569686 -121.407850 AUG WEEKDAY 01541 COLLEGE TOWNE DR & LA RIVIER 26 27 16 42 38.554881 -121.411199 JUL WEEKDAY 01542 HOWE AVE & SWARTHMORE DR 26 2 1 3 38.564589 -121.409202 JUL WEEKDAY 01545 HOWE AVE & SWARTHMORE DR 26 1 2 3 38.566196 -121.408893 JUL WEEKDAY 01546 AMERICAN RIVER DR & HOWE AVE 26 3 5 7 38.569684 -121.407890 JUL

HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • DRAFT EX IST I NG CO ND IT IO NS RE PORT • JA NUARY 2025
APPENDIX C: SIGNAL TIMING WORKSHEETS

INTERSECTION #: System: IP Address:

Prepared by: Approved by: Draft Date Implemented:

Ø3
Ø2
Ø1 Ø5
Notes: Ø4
Ø1 Ø2 Ø4 Ø3
Ø5 Ø6 Ø7 Ø8
Ø8
Ø7
Ø6
324
smb 10/21/2020
McCain D-4
TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROLLER  PROGRAM CHART
N/S Howe/Power Inn Rd E/W Folsom Blvd
OVLP A = Ø3
Power Inn Rd
Howe Ave
Folsom Blvd
Ø8 PED
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Phase Timing 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Phase 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Min Green 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Veh Ext 1.5 2.5 1.5 3.2 1.5 3.2 1.5 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Max Green 1 35 40 60 50 35 40 35 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Max Green 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Max Green 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Max Ext 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Yellow 3.5 4.7 3.5 4.3 3.5 4.7 3.5 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Red Clr 0.8 0.9 1.6 0.6 0.5 1.0 1.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Adv Flash 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bike MG 11 11 13 10 11 11 13 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Walk 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped Clr 0 30 0 29 0 27 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Walk2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sol DW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Early Wlk 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Wlk 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Added 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Max Initial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Min Gap 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Reduce After 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TTReduce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CS Min Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CS Max Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Red Revert 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Neg Ped 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 AP Disc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pmt Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pmt Walk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pmt Ped Clr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Return Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Phase Options 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Phases 1-8 9-16
Min Recalls
Max Recalls
Ped Recalls
Soft Recall 4 8
Dual Entry
Red Rest
Walk Rest
Walk Expand
Ped Recycle
Sim Ped Term
PC Thru Clr
Guar Passage
No Simult Gap 2 4 6 8
Yel Lock
Red Lock
PhaseNext Lock
No Term Call
Cond Serv 1 3 5 7
CS Enable
Cond Reserve
Reserve
Veh Omit
Ped Omit
Perm Phase
Protect Calls
Protect Calls 2
Flash Entry
Flash Exit
Flash Exit Yel
Flash Exit Red
Ped Scramble
No Min Yel
No Min Red Rev
Max Scramble Walk
Flash Yellow
Flash FYA
CNA 1
CNA 2
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Phase Startup Options 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Startup Flash 0 Mode Red->Yel
Startup All Red 6 Yellow 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Startup Phases 4 8
Startup Yellow 4 8
Startup Red
Startup No Walk 2 4 6 8
Startup Next
Startup Yel Fls
Startup FYA
No Veh Call
No Ped Call 2 4 6 8
Phase Startup Timing
Phase 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Start Walk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Start Min Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Start Max Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unit
Red Revert 2.0 Ped Protect No AdvFls in Flash No
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Ring Sequence / Conflicting Phases 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM Ringgroup 1
Ring 1 1 2 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ring 2 5 6 7 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ringgroup 2
Custom Sequences
Seq 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Seq 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Seq 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Seq 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Seq 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Seq 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Seq 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Seq 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Conflicting Phases 1-8 9-16
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
Phase 6
Phase 7
Phase 8
Phase 9
Phase 10
Phase 11
Phase 12
Phase 13
Phase 14
Phase 15
Phase 16
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
MCE Options 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Phases 1-8 9-16
MCE Ped Protect
MCE Veh Call
MCE Ped Call
MCE Veh Omit
MCE Ped Omit
MCE Veh Sync
MCE Ped Sync
MCE Halt Don't Walk
LRV Phases 1-8
MCE LRV Term Early
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
FYA/FRA 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
FYA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Prot Phs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Opp Thru 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Start Phs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Opp Ped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Min FYA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Skip Prot Red Disabled Disabled Disabled Disabled Disabled Disabled Disabled Disabled Head Mode FYA 1 FYA 1 FYA 1 FYA 1 FYA 1 FYA 1 FYA 1 FYA 1 Ped Hawk 1
Veh Phase 0
Ped Phase 0
Flash Yel 0.0 Dark Signal Yes
Flash Delay 0.0 Flash Carryover 0.0
Green Mode Normal
Ped Hawk 2
Veh Phase 0
Ped Phase 0
Flash Yel 0.0 Dark Signal Yes
Flash Delay 0.0 Flash Carryover 0.0
Green Mode Normal
Ped Hawk 3
Veh Phase 0
Ped Phase 0
Flash Yel 0.0 Dark Signal Yes
Flash Delay 0.0 Flash Carryover 0.0
Green Mode Normal
Ped Hawk 4
Veh Phase 0
Ped Phase 0
Flash Yel 0.0 Dark Signal Yes
Flash Delay 0.0 Flash Carryover 0.0
Green Mode Normal
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Overlap Startup Options 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Overlaps 1-8 9-16
Startup Overlap Green
Startup Overlap Yellow
Overlap Startup Timing
Overlap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Start Walk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Start Min Green 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Overlap Unit Options
Overlaps 1-8 9-16
Overlap Ped Recalls
MCE Olap Ped Protect
MCE Olap Ped Calls
MCE Olap Ped Expand
No Min Yellow
No Min Red Rev
Flash Yellow
No Conflict
Pre Signal
Perm Red
Perm FYA
Perm FRA
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Coordination Options 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Sync Time 00:00 RTC Set Time 00:00
Transition Mode Best 2 Ped Adjust None
Trans Short % 25 Trans Long % 35
Offset Reference Crd Grp End Short Cycles 0
Dual Entry Strict Overlap F/O Disabled
Master Sync Mode RTC Master Sync Length 0
Adapt Thresh 3 Adapt Step 2
External Plan Max 0
Hardwire No Match Sched Hardwire Sync Fail 0
Override Omit/Recall No
Phases 1-8 9-16
No Trans Recall
Trans Ped Recall
Trans Phases
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Hardwire Plans 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Hardwire Plan Select Pattern Offset Mode
Plan 1 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 2 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 3 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 4 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 5 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 6 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 7 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 8 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 9 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 10 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 11 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 12 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 13 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 14 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 15 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 16 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 17 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 18 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 19 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 20 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 21 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 22 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 23 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 24 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 25 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 26 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 27 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 28 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 29 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 30 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 31 0 0 Hardwire
Plan 32 0 0 Hardwire
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Soft Interconnect 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Mode Slave Remote Int Number 0
Yield Delay 0
Yield Duration 0
Permissive 0
Local Hold Limit 0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Local Control Phases
Local Hold Phases
Local Perm Phases
Local Call Phases
Remote Perm Phases
Remote Hold Phases
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Preempt Inputs 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Preempt Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Delay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Checkout Limit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Locked No No No No No No No No No No
Interlock DisabledDisabledDisabledDisabledDisabledDisabledDisabledDisabledDisabledDisabled Input Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0 0 0
Input Priority All All All All All All All All All All
Delay Mode Inp Inp Inp Inp Inp Inp Inp Inp Inp Inp
Preempt Priority
Preempt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Priority 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Remote Preemption
Remote Preempt RM 1 RM 2 RM 3 RM 4 RM 5 RM 6 RM 7 RM 8
Int Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PE Number 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mode Dis Dis Dis Dis Dis Dis Dis Dis
Slack 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Travel Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alt TT 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alt TT 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alt TT 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alt TT 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alt TT 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alt TT 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alt TT 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Preempt 2 (Configuration) 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Enabled Yes Dwell Mode Normal Output Mode All
Output2 Mode All Fail Action Preempt Off Exit Mode Normal Override Flash Yes Change Phasenext Yes
1-8 9-16
Enable Phases 1 6
Preempt Inputs 2
LRV Disable
1-8
Max 0
LRV Dwell Flash
LRV Omit Delay 0
LRV No Yel
Preempt 2 (Timing/Phases/Overlaps)
Phases/Overlaps 1-8 9-16
Omit Olap Grn Clr
Phs EWlk to Grn
TClr 1 Veh Phases
TClr 1 Ped Phases
TClr 1 Olap
TClr 1 Olap Ped
TClr 2 Veh Phases
TClr 2 Ped Phases
TClr 2 Olap
TClr 2 Olap Ped
Init Dwell Phases
Dwell Veh Phases
Dwell Ped Phases
Dwell Olap
Dwell Olap Ped
Exit Veh Phases
Exit Ped Phases
Exit Olap
Exit Olap Ped
Zero Phase Walk 2 4 6 8
Zero Phase Ped Clr
Zero Phase Green
Zero Olap Walk
Zero Olap Ped Clr
Zero Olap Green
Dwell-Phase Red
Dwell-Phase Red Flash
Dwell-Phase Yel Flash
Dwell-Olap Red Flash
Dwell-Olap Yel Flash
Dwell-Ped Dark
Dwell-Olap Ped Dark
Start Green 0 Start Walk 0
Start Ped Clr 0
Track Clear 1 0 Track Clear 2 0
TC1 Extend 0 TC1 Max 0
Exit Ped Clr 0 Exit Yellow 0.0
Exit Red 0.0
Min Dwell 5 Min Duration 0
Dwell Extend 3
Max Dwell 55 Max Call 0
Reserve Inh Same 0
Reserve Inh All 0
Delay 0
Phases/Overlaps 1-8 9-16
TClr 1 FR Olap
TClr 2 FR Olap
Dwell FR Olap
TClr 1 FYA
TClr 2 FYA
Dwell FYA
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Preempt 3 (Configuration) 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Enabled Yes Dwell Mode Normal Output Mode All
Output2 Mode All Fail Action Preempt Off Exit Mode Normal Override Flash No Change Phasenext Yes
1-8 9-16
Enable Phases 2 5
Preempt Inputs 3
LRV Disable
1-8
Max 0
LRV Dwell Flash
LRV Omit Delay 0
LRV No Yel
Preempt 3 (Timing/Phases/Overlaps)
Phases/Overlaps 1-8 9-16
Omit Olap Grn Clr
Phs EWlk to Grn
TClr 1 Veh Phases
TClr 1 Ped Phases
TClr 1 Olap
TClr 1 Olap Ped
TClr 2 Veh Phases
TClr 2 Ped Phases
TClr 2 Olap
TClr 2 Olap Ped
Init Dwell Phases
Dwell Veh Phases 1 6
Dwell Ped Phases
Dwell Olap
Dwell Olap Ped
Exit Veh Phases 1 6
Exit Ped Phases
Exit Olap
Exit Olap Ped
Zero Phase Walk 2 4 6 8
Zero Phase Ped Clr
Zero Phase Green
Zero Olap Walk
Zero Olap Ped Clr
Zero Olap Green
Dwell-Phase Red
Dwell-Phase Red Flash
Dwell-Phase Yel Flash
Dwell-Olap Red Flash
Dwell-Olap Yel Flash
Dwell-Ped Dark
Dwell-Olap Ped Dark
Start Green 0 Start Walk 0
Start Ped Clr 0
Track Clear 1 0 Track Clear 2 0
TC1 Extend 0 TC1 Max 0
Exit Ped Clr 0 Exit Yellow 0.0
Exit Red 0.0
Min Dwell 5 Min Duration 0
Dwell Extend 3
Max Dwell 55 Max Call 0
Reserve Inh Same 0
Reserve Inh All 0
Delay 0
Phases/Overlaps 1-8 9-16
TClr 1 FR Olap
TClr 2 FR Olap
Dwell FR Olap
TClr 1 FYA
TClr 2 FYA
Dwell FYA
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Preempt 4 (Configuration) 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Enabled Yes Dwell Mode Normal Output Mode All
Output2 Mode All Fail Action Preempt Off Exit Mode Normal Override Flash No Change Phasenext Yes
1-8 9-16
Enable Phases 3 8
Preempt Inputs 4
LRV Disable
1-8
Max 0
LRV Dwell Flash
LRV Omit Delay 0
LRV No Yel
Preempt 4 (Timing/Phases/Overlaps)
Phases/Overlaps 1-8 9-16
Omit Olap Grn Clr
Phs EWlk to Grn
TClr 1 Veh Phases
TClr 1 Ped Phases
TClr 1 Olap
TClr 1 Olap Ped
TClr 2 Veh Phases
TClr 2 Ped Phases
TClr 2 Olap
TClr 2 Olap Ped
Init Dwell Phases
Dwell Veh Phases 3 8
Dwell Ped Phases
Dwell Olap
Dwell Olap Ped
Exit Veh Phases 3 8
Exit Ped Phases
Exit Olap
Exit Olap Ped
Zero Phase Walk 2 4 6 8
Zero Phase Ped Clr
Zero Phase Green
Zero Olap Walk
Zero Olap Ped Clr
Zero Olap Green
Dwell-Phase Red
Dwell-Phase Red Flash
Dwell-Phase Yel Flash
Dwell-Olap Red Flash
Dwell-Olap Yel Flash
Dwell-Ped Dark
Dwell-Olap Ped Dark
Start Green 0 Start Walk 0
Start Ped Clr 0
Track Clear 1 0 Track Clear 2 0
TC1 Extend 0 TC1 Max 0
Exit Ped Clr 0 Exit Yellow 0.0
Exit Red 0.0
Min Dwell 5 Min Duration 0
Dwell Extend 3
Max Dwell 55 Max Call 0
Reserve Inh Same 0
Reserve Inh All 0
Delay 0
Phases/Overlaps 1-8 9-16
TClr 1 FR Olap
TClr 2 FR Olap
Dwell FR Olap
TClr 1 FYA
TClr 2 FYA
Dwell FYA
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Preempt 5 (Configuration) 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Enabled Yes Dwell Mode Normal Output Mode All
Output2 Mode All Fail Action Preempt Off Exit Mode Normal Override Flash No Change Phasenext Yes
1-8 9-16
Enable Phases 4 7
Preempt Inputs 5
LRV Disable
1-8
Max 0
LRV Dwell Flash
LRV Omit Delay 0
LRV No Yel
Preempt 5 (Timing/Phases/Overlaps)
Phases/Overlaps 1-8 9-16
Omit Olap Grn Clr
Phs EWlk to Grn
TClr 1 Veh Phases
TClr 1 Ped Phases
TClr 1 Olap
TClr 1 Olap Ped
TClr 2 Veh Phases
TClr 2 Ped Phases
TClr 2 Olap
TClr 2 Olap Ped
Init Dwell Phases
Dwell Veh Phases 4 7
Dwell Ped Phases
Dwell Olap
Dwell Olap Ped
Exit Veh Phases 4 7
Exit Ped Phases
Exit Olap
Exit Olap Ped
Zero Phase Walk 2 4 6 8
Zero Phase Ped Clr
Zero Phase Green
Zero Olap Walk
Zero Olap Ped Clr
Zero Olap Green
Dwell-Phase Red
Dwell-Phase Red Flash
Dwell-Phase Yel Flash
Dwell-Olap Red Flash
Dwell-Olap Yel Flash
Dwell-Ped Dark
Dwell-Olap Ped Dark
Start Green 0 Start Walk 0
Start Ped Clr 0
Track Clear 1 0 Track Clear 2 0
TC1 Extend 0 TC1 Max 0
Exit Ped Clr 0 Exit Yellow 0.0
Exit Red 0.0
Min Dwell 5 Min Duration 0
Dwell Extend 3
Max Dwell 55 Max Call 0
Reserve Inh Same 0
Reserve Inh All 0
Delay 0
Phases/Overlaps 1-8 9-16
TClr 1 FR Olap
TClr 2 FR Olap
Dwell FR Olap
TClr 1 FYA
TClr 2 FYA
Dwell FYA
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Soft Preempt 1 - Misc 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Dwell Step 0 Override SPE Flash No
Override Steps
Phases/Overlaps 1-8 9-16
Dwl Phase Red
Dwl Phase Red Flash
Dwl Phase Yel Flash
Dwl Olap Red Flash
Dwl Ped Dark
Dwl Olap Ped Dark
Dwl Zero Phase Ped Clr
Dwl Zero Phase Green
Dwl Zero Olap Ped Clr
Dwl Zero Olap Green
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Soft Preempt 2 - Misc 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Dwell Step 0 Override SPE Flash No
Override Steps
Phases/Overlaps 1-8 9-16
Dwl Phase Red
Dwl Phase Red Flash
Dwl Phase Yel Flash
Dwl Olap Red Flash
Dwl Ped Dark
Dwl Olap Ped Dark
Dwl Zero Phase Ped Clr
Dwl Zero Phase Green
Dwl Zero Olap Ped Clr
Dwl Zero Olap Green
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Soft Preempt 3 - Misc 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Dwell Step 0 Override SPE Flash No
Override Steps
Phases/Overlaps 1-8 9-16
Dwl Phase Red
Dwl Phase Red Flash
Dwl Phase Yel Flash
Dwl Olap Red Flash
Dwl Ped Dark
Dwl Olap Ped Dark
Dwl Zero Phase Ped Clr
Dwl Zero Phase Green
Dwl Zero Olap Ped Clr
Dwl Zero Olap Green
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Soft Preempt 4 - Misc 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Dwell Step 0 Override SPE Flash No
Override Steps
Phases/Overlaps 1-8 9-16
Dwl Phase Red
Dwl Phase Red Flash
Dwl Phase Yel Flash
Dwl Olap Red Flash
Dwl Ped Dark
Dwl Olap Ped Dark
Dwl Zero Phase Ped Clr
Dwl Zero Phase Green
Dwl Zero Olap Ped Clr
Dwl Zero Olap Green
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
TOD Pattern Events 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Time DOW Holidays Mode Pattern Offset
Event 1 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 2 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 3 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 4 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 5 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 6 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 7 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 8 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 9 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 10 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 11 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 12 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 13 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 14 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 15 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 16 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 17 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 18 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 19 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 20 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 21 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 22 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 23 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 24 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 25 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 26 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 27 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 28 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 29 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 30 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 31 00:00 Sched 0 0
Event 32 00:00 Sched 0 0
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Holidays 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Active Holidays Month Day DOW WOM
Date 1 0 0 0
Date 2 0 0 0
Date 3 0 0 0
Date 4 0 0 0
Date 5 0 0 0
Date 6 0 0 0
Date 7 0 0 0
Date 8 0 0 0
Date 9 0 0 0
Date 10 0 0 0
Date 11 0 0 0
Date 12 0 0 0
Date 13 0 0 0
Date 14 0 0 0
Date 15 0 0 0
Date 16 0 0 0
Date 17 0 0 0
Date 18 0 0 0
Date 19 0 0 0
Date 20 0 0 0
Date 21 0 0 0
Date 22 0 0 0
Date 23 0 0 0
Date 24 0 0 0
Date 25 0 0 0
Date 26 0 0 0
Date 27 0 0 0
Date 28 0 0 0
Date 29 0 0 0
Date 30 0 0 0
Date 31 0 0 0
Date 32 0 0 0
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Load Switch Outputs (BIU 1) 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
LS 1 LS 2 LS 3 LS 4 LS 5 LS 6 LS 7 LS 8
Red Function VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed Red Index 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Yellow Function VehYel VehYel VehYel VehYel VehYel VehYel VehYel VehYel Yellow Index 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Green Function VehGrn VehGrn VehGrn VehGrn VehGrn VehGrn VehGrn VehGrn Green Index 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Load Switch Outputs (BIU 2)
LS 9 LS 10 LS 11 LS 12 LS 13 LS 14 LS 15 LS 16
Red Function VehRed DntWlk DntWlk DntWlk VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed Red Index 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Yellow Function VehRed PedClr PedClr PedClr VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed Yellow Index 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Green Function VehRed Walk Walk Walk VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed Green Index 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
T/F Outputs (BIU 1) 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
I/O 10 I/O 11 I/O 12 I/O 13
Output VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed
Index 0 0 0 0
T/F Outputs (BIU 2)
I/O 10 I/O 11 I/O 12 I/O 13 I/O 14 I/O 15
Output VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed
Index 0 0 0 0 0 0
T/F Outputs (BIU 3)
OUT 1 OUT 2 OUT 3 OUT 4 OUT 5 OUT 6 OUT 7 OUT 8
Output VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed Index 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OUT 9 OUT 10 OUT 11 OUT 12 OUT 13 OUT 14 OUT 15 I/O 1
Output VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed Index 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I/O 2 I/O 3 I/O 4 I/O 5 I/O 6
Output VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed
Index 0 0 0 0 0
T/F Outputs (BIU 4)
OUT 1 OUT 2 OUT 3 OUT 4 OUT 5 OUT 6 OUT 7 OUT 8
Output VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed Index 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OUT 9 OUT 10 OUT 11 OUT 12 OUT 13 OUT 14 OUT 15 I/O 1
Output VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed Index 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I/O 2 I/O 3 I/O 4 I/O 5 I/O 6 I/O 7 I/O 8 I/O 9
Output VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed VehRed Index 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Detector Inputs (BIU 9) 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Det 1 Det 2 Det 3 Det 4 Det 5 Det 6 Det 7 Det 8
Function None None None None None None None None
Index 1 2 3 4 0 0 0 0
Det 9 Det 10 Det 11 Det 12 Det 13 Det 14 Det 15 Det 16
Function None None None None None None None None
Index 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector Inputs (BIU 10)
Det 17 Det 18 Det 19 Det 20 Det 21 Det 22 Det 23 Det 24 Function None None None None None None None None
Index 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Det 25 Det 26 Det 27 Det 28 Det 29 Det 30 Det 31 Det 32 Function None None None None None None None None
Index 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Detector Inputs (BIU 11) 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Det 33 Det 34 Det 35 Det 36 Det 37 Det 38 Det 39 Det 40 Function VehDet VehDet VehDet None VehDet None VehDet VehDet Index 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Det 41 Det 42 Det 43 Det 44 Det 45 Det 46 Det 47 Det 48 Function VehDet VehDet VehDet VehDet VehDet None VehDet VehDet Index 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
Detector Inputs (BIU 12)
Det 49 Det 50 Det 51 Det 52 Det 53 Det 54 Det 55 Det 56 Function VehDet VehDet VehDet VehDet None None VehDet VehDet Index 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
Det 57 Det 58 Det 59 Det 60 Det 61 Det 62 Det 63 Det 64 Function VehDet VehDet VehDet VehDet None None VehDet VehDet Index 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
T/F Inputs (BIU 1) 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
I/O 14 I/O 15 I/O 16 I/O 17 I/O 18 I/O 19 I/O 20 I/O 21 Input None None None None None None None None
Index 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I/O 22 I/O 23 I/O 24 IN 1 IN 2 IN 3 IN 4 IN 5
Input None None None None StopTm None None None
Index 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IN 6 IN 7 IN 8 OPTO 1 OPTO 2 OPTO 3 OPTO 4
Input None None None None PedDet PedDet PedDet
Index 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T/F Inputs (BIU 2)
I/O 16 I/O 17 I/O 18 I/O 19 I/O 20 I/O 21 I/O 22 I/O 23 Input None None None None None None None None
Index 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I/O 24 IN 1 IN 2 IN 3 IN 4 IN 5 IN 6 IN 7
Input None None None None None None None None
Index 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IN 8 OPTO 1 OPTO 2 OPTO 3 OPTO 4
Input None None PedDet PedDet PedDet
Index 0 0 0 0 0
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
T/F Inputs (BIU 3) 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
I/O 7 I/O 8 I/O 9 I/O 10 I/O 11 I/O 12 I/O 13 I/O 14
Input None None None None None None None None
Index 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I/O 15 I/O 16 I/O 17 I/O 18 I/O 19 I/O 20 I/O 21 I/O 22 Input None None None None None None None None
Index 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I/O 23 I/O 24 IN 1 IN 2 IN 3 IN 4 IN 5 IN 6
Input None None None None None None None None
Index 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IN 7 IN 8 OPTO 1 OPTO 2 OPTO 3 OPTO 4
Input None None None None None None
Index 0 0 0 0 0 0
T/F Inputs (BIU 4)
I/O 10 I/O 11 I/O 12 I/O 13 I/O 14 I/O 15 I/O 16 I/O 17 Input None None None None None None None None
Index 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I/O 18 I/O 19 I/O 20 I/O 21 I/O 22 I/O 23 I/O 24 IN 1
Input None None None None None None None None
Index 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IN 2 IN 3 IN 4 IN 5 IN 6 IN 7 IN 8 OPTO 1
Input None None None None None None None None
Index 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OPTO 2 OPTO 3 OPTO 4
Input None None None
Index 0 0 0
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Cabinet / MMU Configuration 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Cabinet Type TS2-Type2 MMU Channel Ignore
1-8 9-16
MMU Disable Yes Det BIU 1-No Fail Call
Det BIU 2-No Fail Call
Alt LS Flash
Alt Phase Flash
Alt Overlap Flash
Alt LRV Flash
CMU Channel Ignore
1-8 9-16
17-24 25-32
Det IASM1-Det Diag
1-8 9-16
17-24
Det IASM2-Det Diag
1-8 9-16
17-24
Phase / Overlap Outputs
Phase Overlap
1 Normal Normal
2 Normal Normal
3 Normal Normal
4 Normal Normal
5 Normal Normal
6 Normal Normal
7 Normal Normal
8 Normal Normal
9 Normal Normal
10 Normal Normal
11 Normal Normal
12 Normal Normal
13 Normal Normal
14 Normal Normal
15 Normal Normal
16 Normal Normal
LRV Outputs
LRV
1 2 Head
2 2 Head
3 2 Head
4 2 Head
5 2 Head
6 2 Head
7 2 Head
8 2 Head
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Vehicle Detector 1 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 1
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 1
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
Vehicle Detector 2
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 2
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 2
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Vehicle Detector 3 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 3
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 3
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
Vehicle Detector 4
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 4
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 4
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Vehicle Detector 5 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 5
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 5
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
Vehicle Detector 6
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 6
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 6
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Vehicle Detector 7 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 7
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 7
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
Vehicle Detector 8
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 8
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 8
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Vehicle Detector 9 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 1
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 1
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
Vehicle Detector 10
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 2
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 2
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Vehicle Detector 11 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 3
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 3
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
Vehicle Detector 12
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 4
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 4
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Vehicle Detector 13 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 5
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 5
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
Vehicle Detector 14
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 6
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 6
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Vehicle Detector 15 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 7
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 7
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
Vehicle Detector 16
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 8
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 8
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Vehicle Detector 17 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 6
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 6
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
Vehicle Detector 18
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 6
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 6
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Vehicle Detector 19 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 6
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 6
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
Vehicle Detector 20
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 7
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 7
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Vehicle Detector 21 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 7
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 7
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
Vehicle Detector 22
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 7
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 7
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Vehicle Detector 31 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 5
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 5
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
Vehicle Detector 32
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 5
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 5
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Vehicle Detector 33 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 1
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 1
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
Vehicle Detector 34
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 1
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases 1
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Vehicle Detector 35 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode Disconnect Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 6
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 6
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
Vehicle Detector 39
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 6
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases 6
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Vehicle Detector 40 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Delay 10.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode Disconnect Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 6
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 6
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
Vehicle Detector 41
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 5
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 5
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Vehicle Detector 42 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 5
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases 5
Vehicle Detector 43
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode Disconnect Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 2
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 2
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Vehicle Detector 44 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 2
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 2
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
Vehicle Detector 45
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 2
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 2
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Vehicle Detector 47 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 2
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases 2
Vehicle Detector 48
Delay 8.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode Disconnect Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 2
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 2
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Vehicle Detector 49 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 3
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 3
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
Vehicle Detector 50
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 3
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases 3
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Vehicle Detector 51 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode Disconnect Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 8
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 8
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
Vehicle Detector 55
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 8
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases 8
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Vehicle Detector 56 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Delay 10.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode Disconnect Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 8
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 8
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
Vehicle Detector 57
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 7
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 7
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Vehicle Detector 58 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 7
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases 7
Vehicle Detector 59
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode Disconnect Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 4
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 4
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Vehicle Detector 60 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 4
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 4
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
Vehicle Detector 63
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 4
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases 4
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Vehicle Detector 64 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Delay 0.0 Extend 0.0 Carryover 0.0 Queue Limit 0
Mode No Disc Added Disabled System Disabled
Fail Mode None Max Pres 0 No Act 0 Erratic 0 Fail Time 0 Delay 2 0.0
Phases 1-8 9-16
Call Phases 4
Yellow Lock Phases
Red Lock Phases
Extend Phases 4
XSwitch Phases
Bike Call Phases
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Pedestrian Detector 2 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
No Act 0 Max Pres 0 Erratic 0 Fail Mode None
Phases/Overlaps 1-8 9-16
Call Ped Phases 2
Call Ped Olaps
Call Phases
Locked Call Phases
Ped Entry Phases
Olap Ped Entry Phases
Ped Cascade Phases
Call Walk2
Pedestrian Detector 4
No Act 0 Max Pres 0 Erratic 0 Fail Mode None
Phases/Overlaps 1-8 9-16
Call Ped Phases 4
Call Ped Olaps
Call Phases
Locked Call Phases
Ped Entry Phases
Olap Ped Entry Phases
Ped Cascade Phases
Call Walk2
Pedestrian Detector 6
No Act 0 Max Pres 0 Erratic 0 Fail Mode None
Phases/Overlaps 1-8 9-16
Call Ped Phases 6
Call Ped Olaps
Call Phases
Locked Call Phases
Ped Entry Phases
Olap Ped Entry Phases
Ped Cascade Phases
Call Walk2
Pedestrian Detector 8
No Act 0 Max Pres 0 Erratic 0 Fail Mode None
Phases/Overlaps 1-8 9-16
Call Ped Phases 8
Call Ped Olaps
Call Phases
Locked Call Phases
Ped Entry Phases
Olap Ped Entry Phases
Ped Cascade Phases
Call Walk2
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Adaptive Priority - General/Local Detectors 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM Local Detector Slack 0
Remote Detector Slack 0
Local Adjust Threshold 0
Remote Adjust Threshold 0
Detector 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Step (Base) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Max (Base) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Step (Alt 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Max (Alt 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Step (Alt 2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Max (Alt 2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Step (Alt 3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Max (Alt 3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Estimated Delay 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Transit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Disable No No No No No No No No
Rem Phs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Loc Int 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Loc TT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RM1 Int 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Transit/LRV Startup/Options 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
No Startup Call
LRV 1-8
Warn Flash Rate 1 Hz Rsrv Inh Mode Seconds
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Control / Config 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
Pattern Mode Central
Manual Pattern 0 Manual Offset 0
Stop Time Input Enabled
Aux Switch StopTm 5
DLS Mode D4 Time Zone Pac (UTC-8) GPS Thresh 0
Password Timeout 5
Maint Phs Recalls
1-8 9-16
Maint Ped Recalls
Serial 1 Port Configuration
Broadcast Plan/Sync Disabled Broadcast Time 00:00
Serial Rebroadcast Disabled Response None
Serial 2 Port Configuration
Broadcast Plan/Sync Disabled Broadcast Time 00:00
Ethernet Port Configuration
Broadcast Plan/Sync Disabled Broadcast Time 00:00
Serial Rebroadcast Disabled
Peer Configuration
Peer 1 0
Peer 2 0
Peer 3 0
Peer 4 0
Peer 5 0
Peer 6 0
Peer 7 0
Peer 8 0
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Logging 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
VO Log Period 15
Power On Enabled
Ext Start Enabled
Man Control Enabled
Cabinet Door Enabled
MMU Faults Enabled
BIU Faults Enabled
Det Faults Enabled
Coordination Enabled
Preempt Enabled
Soft Preempt Disabled
Zone Disabled
Speed Traps Disabled
1 of 2 Hits (Det BIU 1)
1 of 2 Hits (Det BIU 2)
1 of 2 Hits (Det BIU 3)
1 of 2 Hits (Det BIU 4)
SPmt 1 Req Switch
SPmt 2 Req Switch
SPmt 3 Req Switch
SPmt 4 Req Switch
Zone 1 Req Switch
Zone 2 Req Switch
Zone 3 Req Switch
Zone 4 Req Switch
Zone 5 Req Switch
Zone 6 Req Switch
Zone 7 Req Switch
Zone 8 Req Switch
Trap Grp 1 Req Switch
Trap Grp 2 Req Switch
Trap Grp 3 Req Switch
Trap Grp 4 Req Switch
324 - Folsom & Power Inn
Restricted Data 10/21/2020 1:50:10 PM
(Serial Ports)
Serial Port 1 4
Baud Rate 9600 8N1 RTS On 0 RTS Off 0
Serial Port 2 0
Baud Rate 9600 8N1 RTS On 0 RTS Off 0
(Ethernet)
IP Address 172. 31. 54. 80
Netmask 255. 255. 254. 0
Broadcast Address 0. 0. 0. 0
Gateway 172. 31. 54. 254
Gateway 2 0. 0. 0. 0
Gateway 3 0. 0. 0. 0
Gateway 4 0. 0. 0. 0
Admin IP 0. 0. 0. 0 Leases 0
Admin Netmask 0. 0. 0. 0
Port 161 Reply Mode Host
Broadcast Port 0 Response Time/Plan
Time Port 0
(General)
Controller Address 1 Timeout 0
Peer Address 0 Timeout 0
Remote Calls Disabled
Remote Preempt Disabled
Remote Soft Preempt Disabled
Remote Priority Disabled
Remote MCE Disabled MCE Max 0
Create and share your screen captures with Screenpresso (free) Create and share your screen captures with Screenpresso (free) Create and share your screen captures with Screenpresso (free)

HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • DRAFT EX IST I NG CO ND IT IO NS RE PORT • JA NUARY 2025
APPENDIX D: SYNCHRO REPORTS
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Howe Avenue & University Avenue 01/02/2025
Existing AM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero 1:52 pm 08/21/2024 Existing AM Synchro 12 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 29 37 106 146 150 43 191 1043 226 31 762 110 Future Volume (veh/h) 29 37 106 146 150 43 191 1043 226 31 762 110 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 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 29 37 106 113 196 43 191 1043 226 31 762 110 Peak Hour 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 163 171 143 165 276 59 200 2489 539 115 2467 353 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.55 0.55 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1562 1781 2985 640 1781 4201 909 1781 4512 646 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 29 37 106 113 121 118 191 845 424 31 573 299 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1562 1781 1870 1755 1781 1702 1707 1781 1702 1754 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 2.2 7.9 7.4 7.5 7.8 12.8 26.1 26.1 2.0 11.0 11.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 2.2 7.9 7.4 7.5 7.8 12.8 26.1 26.1 2.0 11.0 11.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.37
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 163 171 143 165 173 162 200 2017 1011 115 1862 959 V/C Ratio(X) 0.18 0.22 0.74 0.69 0.70 0.73 0.95 0.42 0.42 0.27 0.31 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 441 463 387 441 463 434 200 2017 1011 181 1862 959 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 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 0.84 0.84 0.84 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.4 50.5 53.1 52.8 52.8 53.0 57.5 30.2 30.2 53.4 14.8 14.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.5 5.6 3.7 3.8 4.5 49.7 0.6 1.3 0.4 0.4 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 1.1 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.7 8.9 12.0 12.3 0.9 4.1 4.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 50.7 51.0 58.7 56.5 56.6 57.5 107.2 30.8 31.5 53.8 15.2 15.6 LnGrp LOS D D E E E E F C C D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 172 352 1460 903
Approach Delay, s/veh 55.7 56.9 41.0 16.6
Approach LOS E E D B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.3 12.5 76.8 15.4 18.0 71.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.3 4.8 5.7 4.3 4.5 5.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.7 12.2 29.3 29.7 13.5 28.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.9 4.0 28.1 9.8 14.8 13.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 0.0 0.7 1.3 0.0 3.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 36.2
HCM 7th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Power Inn Road/Howe Avenue & Folsom Boulevard 01/02/2025 Existing AM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero 1:52 pm 08/21/2024 Existing AM Synchro 12 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 108 267 140 203 764 422 257 1074 255 373 1234 204 Future Volume (veh/h) 108 267 140 203 764 422 257 1074 255 373 1234 204 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 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 108 267 140 203 764 422 257 1074 0 373 1234 204 Peak Hour 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 208 576 293 278 960 1201 334 1513 554 1828 567 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.27 0.27 0.10 0.30 0.00 0.16 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 2279 1160 3456 3554 2790 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 108 206 201 203 764 422 257 1074 0 373 1234 204 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1662 1728 1777 1395 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.8 9.2 9.6 5.4 18.8 1.8 6.8 17.6 0.0 9.5 19.2 8.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.8 9.2 9.6 5.4 18.8 1.8 6.8 17.6 0.0 9.5 19.2 8.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 208 449 420 278 960 1201 334 1513 554 1828 567 V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.46 0.48 0.73 0.80 0.35 0.77 0.71 0.67 0.68 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1130 649 607 1141 1303 1470 1101 2454 2022 3003 932 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.8 29.6 29.8 42.1 31.9 7.3 41.4 29.4 0.0 37.1 25.5 22.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.4 2.2 0.1 1.4 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.5 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 1.2 3.8 3.7 2.2 7.8 1.4 2.8 6.8 0.0 3.9 7.3 3.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 43.5 30.4 30.7 43.5 34.0 7.5 42.8 30.1 0.0 37.6 26.0 22.6 LnGrp LOS D C C D C A D C D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 515 1389 1331 1811
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.3 27.4 32.6 28.0
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.9 31.0 20.2 32.7 11.6 29.4 14.2 38.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.3 * 5.7 5.1 4.9 4.0 5.7 5.1 * 5.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.7 * 34 54.9 45.1 31.0 34.3 29.9 * 55 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.8 20.8 11.5 19.6 7.4 11.6 8.8 21.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.6 0.4 8.2 0.2 2.3 0.3 12.4 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 29.6
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Power Inn Road/Howe Avenue & Folsom Boulevard 01/02/2025 Existing AM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero 1:52 pm 08/21/2024 Existing AM Synchro 12 Report

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Howe Avenue & Fair Oaks Boulevard 01/02/2025
Existing AM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero 1:52 pm 08/21/2024 Existing AM Synchro 12 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 305 534 53 43 920 175 250 839 24 226 946 629 Future Volume (vph) 305 534 53 43 920 175 250 839 24 226 946 629 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 5064 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 5064 3433 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 305 534 53 43 920 175 250 839 24 226 946 629 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 36 0 0 119 0 2 0000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 305 534 17 43 920 56 250 861 0 226 946 629 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA custom Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3! 8 7 4 14!
Permitted Phases 6 2 1
Actuated Green, G (s) 14.2 39.1 39.1 9.6 35.0 35.0 13.2 39.5 12.8 39.1 67.0 Effective Green, g (s) 14.2 39.1 39.1 9.6 35.0 35.0 13.2 39.5 12.8 39.1 67.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.33 0.33 0.08 0.29 0.29 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 406 1656 515 141 1032 461 377 1666 366 1656 943 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.11 0.02 c0.26 c0.07 0.17 0.07 0.19 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.04 0.10
v/c Ratio 0.75 0.32 0.03 0.30 0.89 0.12 0.66 0.52 0.62 0.57 0.67 Uniform Delay, d1 51.2 30.5 27.6 52.1 40.7 31.2 51.3 32.5 51.3 33.5 18.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 9.6 0.0 3.1 1.0 2.2 1.4 1.4 Delay (s) 58.0 30.5 27.6 52.5 50.3 31.3 56.2 20.6 53.4 34.9 20.0 Level of Service E C C D D C E C D C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 39.7 47.4 28.6 32.1
Approach LOS D D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 36.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
! Phase conflict between lane groups.
c Critical Lane Group
Queues
1: Howe Avenue & Fair Oaks Boulevard 12/31/2024
Existing AM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero 1:52 pm 08/21/2024 Existing AM Synchro 12 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 305 534 53 43 920 175 250 863 226 946 629 v/c Ratio 0.75 0.32 0.09 0.24 0.92 0.31 0.66 0.51 0.62 0.56 0.65 Control Delay (s/veh) 63.2 31.5 0.3 53.7 55.8 6.9 60.9 20.6 58.8 35.2 19.9 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) 63.2 31.5 0.3 53.7 55.8 6.9 60.9 20.6 58.8 35.2 19.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 118 115 0 31 355 4 61 203 88 225 285 Queue Length 95th (ft) 167 148 0 69 #473 57 151 68 126 282 526 Internal Link Dist (ft) 794 572 911 448
Turn Bay Length (ft) 530 100 300 260 205 270
Base Capacity (vph) 443 1657 593 228 1037 582 457 1708 457 1692 975 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.69 0.32 0.09 0.19 0.89 0.30 0.55 0.51 0.49 0.56 0.65 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
2: Howe Avenue & University Avenue 12/31/2024
Existing AM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero 1:52 pm 08/21/2024 Existing AM Synchro 12 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 26 146 112 227 191 1269 31 872
v/c Ratio 0.13 0.32 0.53 0.50 0.73 0.47 0.18 0.40
Control Delay (s/veh) 45.4 16.3 55.8 46.4 65.4 21.1 50.9 37.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 45.4 16.3 55.8 46.4 65.4 21.1 50.9 37.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 20 15 92 84 140 206 25 160
Queue Length 95th (ft) 43 41 136 109 #281 #453 m47 242
Internal Link Dist (ft) 594 409 1494 911
Turn Bay Length (ft) 90 140 230 100
Base Capacity (vph) 398 819 398 825 263 2700 179 2206
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.18 0.28 0.28 0.73 0.47 0.17 0.40 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Queues
3: Power Inn Road/Howe Avenue & Folsom Boulevard 12/31/2024 Existing AM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero 1:52 pm 08/21/2024 Existing AM Synchro 12 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 108 407 203 764 422 257 1074 255 373 1234 204 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.43 0.60 0.72 0.28 0.65 0.72 0.16 0.64 0.70 0.32 Control Delay (s/veh) 62.5 35.4 61.3 43.7 2.6 60.4 41.3 0.2 52.3 35.8 11.8 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 35.4 61.3 43.7 2.6 60.4 41.3 0.2 52.3 35.8 11.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 41 119 76 273 9 96 264 0 136 290 36 Queue Length 95th (ft) 82 208 137 430 34 165 372 0 216 391 103 Internal Link Dist (ft) 499 869 545 781
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 225 320 155 130 720 210
Base Capacity (vph) 900 1015 909 1061 1873 877 1960 1583 1611 3051 1003 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.40 0.22 0.72 0.23 0.29 0.55 0.16 0.23 0.40 0.20 Intersection Summary
Queues
5: Howe Avenue & Swarthmore Drive/University Park Drive 12/31/2024 Existing AM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero 1:52 pm 08/21/2024 Existing AM Synchro 12 Report

Lane Group
Lane Group Flow (vph)
v/c Ratio
Control Delay (s/veh)
Queue Delay
Total Delay (s/veh)
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
Queues
8: Howe Avenue & American River Drive 12/31/2024
Existing AM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero 1:52 pm 08/21/2024 Existing AM Synchro 12 Report

Lane Group
Lane Group Flow (vph)
v/c Ratio
Control Delay (s/veh)
Queue Delay
Total Delay (s/veh)
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
Queues
11: Howe Avenue & Howe Avenue/U.S. Route 50 Ramp 12/31/2024 Existing AM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero 1:52 pm 08/21/2024 Existing AM Synchro 12 Report

Lane Group
Lane Group Flow (vph)
v/c Ratio
Control Delay (s/veh)
Queue Delay
Total Delay (s/veh)
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
Queues
14: Howe Avenue & College Town Drive/Howe Avenue/College Town Drive/U.S. Route 50 Ramp 12/31/2024 Existing AM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero 1:52 pm 08/21/2024 Existing AM Synchro 12 Report

Lane Group
Lane Group Flow (vph)
v/c Ratio
Control Delay (s/veh)
Queue Delay
Total Delay (s/veh)
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Howe Avenue & University Avenue 01/02/2025
Existing PM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero 2:56 pm 11/07/2024 Existing PM Synchro 12 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 148 137 273 278 49 104 43 1245 254 46 1126 39 Future Volume (veh/h) 148 137 273 278 49 104 43 1245 254 46 1126 39 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 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 148 137 273 278 49 104 43 1245 254 46 1126 39 Peak Hour 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 348 365 309 412 62 131 130 1982 404 133 2391 83 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.47 0.47 0.07 0.47 0.47 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 3563 534 1133 1781 4240 865 1781 5067 175 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 148 137 273 278 0 153 43 999 500 46 756 409 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1666 1781 1702 1701 1781 1702 1839 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 8.3 21.8 9.7 0.0 11.6 3.0 28.8 28.8 3.2 19.6 19.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.5 8.3 21.8 9.7 0.0 11.6 3.0 28.8 28.8 3.2 19.6 19.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.68 1.00 0.51 1.00 0.10
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 348 365 309 412 0 193 130 1591 795 133 1606 867 V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.38 0.88 0.67 0.00 0.79 0.33 0.63 0.63 0.35 0.47 0.47 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 434 456 387 869 0 406 185 1591 795 167 1606 867 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.76 0.76 0.76 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.9 45.4 50.9 55.1 0.0 56.0 57.3 26.1 26.1 57.1 23.3 23.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.5 16.8 1.4 0.0 5.5 0.6 1.9 3.7 0.4 0.8 1.4 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 4.3 3.9 10.1 4.5 0.0 5.2 1.3 11.7 12.1 1.4 7.8 8.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 46.5 45.9 67.7 56.6 0.0 61.4 57.8 28.0 29.8 57.6 24.1 24.7 LnGrp LOS D D E E E E C C E C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 558 431 1542 1211
Approach Delay, s/veh 56.7 58.3 29.4 25.6
Approach LOS E E C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.7 14.5 66.5 19.3 14.0 67.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.3 4.8 5.7 4.3 4.5 5.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.7 12.2 35.3 31.7 13.5 28.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 23.8 5.2 30.8 13.6 5.0 21.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.6 0.0 2.7 1.4 0.0 2.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 35.6
HCM 7th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Power Inn Road/Howe Avenue & Folsom Boulevard 01/02/2025 Existing PM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero 2:56 pm 11/07/2024 Existing PM Synchro 12 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 92 452 232 300 591 507 191 1331 239 495 1513 139 Future Volume (veh/h) 92 452 232 300 591 507 191 1331 239 495 1513 139 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 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 92 452 232 300 591 507 191 1331 0 495 1513 139 Peak Hour 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 170 535 273 363 1024 1257 253 1667 561 2114 656 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.23 0.23 0.11 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.33 0.00 0.16 0.41 0.41 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 2278 1160 3456 3554 2790 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 92 352 332 300 591 507 191 1331 0 495 1513 139 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1662 1728 1777 1395 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.0 21.8 22.0 9.8 16.4 2.2 6.2 27.4 0.0 16.1 28.4 6.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.0 21.8 22.0 9.8 16.4 2.2 6.2 27.4 0.0 16.1 28.4 6.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 170 417 390 363 1024 1257 253 1667 561 2114 656 V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.84 0.85 0.83 0.58 0.40 0.76 0.80 0.88 0.72 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 921 529 495 930 1061 1286 897 1999 1647 2446 759 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.5 42.0 42.1 50.5 35.0 10.1 52.4 35.3 0.0 47.2 28.1 21.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 9.9 11.2 1.8 0.6 0.2 1.7 2.0 0.0 1.9 0.9 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 10.3 9.9 4.2 6.9 2.7 2.7 11.1 0.0 6.9 11.2 2.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 54.5 51.9 53.4 52.3 35.6 10.3 54.1 37.4 0.0 49.0 29.0 21.9 LnGrp LOS D D D D D B D D D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 776 1398 1522 2147
Approach Delay, s/veh 52.8 30.0 39.5 33.1
Approach LOS D C D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 38.9 23.8 42.5 16.1 32.8 13.5 52.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.3 * 5.7 5.1 4.9 4.0 5.7 5.1 * 5.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.7 * 34 54.9 45.1 31.0 34.3 29.9 * 55 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.0 18.4 18.1 29.4 11.8 24.0 8.2 30.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.3 0.6 8.3 0.3 3.0 0.2 13.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 36.7
HCM 7th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Power Inn Road/Howe Avenue & Folsom Boulevard 01/02/2025 Existing PM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero 2:56 pm 11/07/2024 Existing PM Synchro 12 Report

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Howe Avenue & Fair Oaks Boulevard 01/02/2025
Existing PM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero 2:56 pm 11/07/2024 Existing PM Synchro 12 Report

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 651 999 110 74 754 136 242 1279 61 272 1097 565 Future Volume (vph) 651 999 110 74 754 136 242 1279 61 272 1097 565 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 5051 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 5051 3433 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 651 999 110 74 754 136 242 1279 61 272 1097 565 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 68 0 0 107 0 4 0000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 651 999 42 74 754 29 242 1336 0 272 1097 565 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA custom Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3! 8 7 4 14!
Permitted Phases 6 2 1
Actuated Green, G (s) 29.0 46.4 46.4 10.0 27.9 27.9 13.5 40.5 14.1 41.1 84.1 Effective Green, g (s) 29.0 46.4 46.4 10.0 27.9 27.9 13.5 40.5 14.1 41.1 84.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.36 0.36 0.08 0.21 0.21 0.10 0.31 0.11 0.32 0.65 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 765 1814 565 136 759 339 356 1573 372 1607 1078 v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.20 0.04 c0.21 0.07 c0.26 c0.08 0.22 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.02 0.13
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.55 0.08 0.54 0.99 0.09 0.68 0.85 0.73 0.68 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 48.4 33.5 27.6 57.8 51.0 40.8 56.2 41.9 56.1 38.8 12.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.13 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.7 0.2 0.0 2.4 30.8 0.0 3.5 5.2 6.3 2.4 0.2 Delay (s) 57.1 33.7 27.6 60.2 81.8 40.9 67.1 34.5 62.4 41.1 12.5 Level of Service E C C E F D E C E D B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 42.0 74.3 39.4 35.7
Approach LOS D E D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 44.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
! Phase conflict between lane groups.
c Critical Lane Group
Queues
1: Howe Avenue & Fair Oaks Boulevard 12/31/2024
Existing PM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero 2:56 pm 11/07/2024 Existing PM Synchro 12 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 651 999 110 74 754 136 242 1340 272 1097 565 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.55 0.17 0.44 1.03 0.31 0.68 0.83 0.73 0.67 0.51 Control Delay (s/veh) 59.4 36.6 7.6 64.0 90.4 9.0 72.2 33.1 68.0 40.1 10.7 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) 59.4 36.6 7.6 64.0 90.4 9.0 72.2 33.1 68.0 40.1 10.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 273 259 3 60 ~376 0 82 392 115 286 176 Queue Length 95th (ft) 323 323 48 110 #605 54 156 196 162 340 282 Internal Link Dist (ft) 794 572 911 448
Turn Bay Length (ft) 530 100 300 260 205 270
Base Capacity (vph) 937 1814 632 211 734 441 422 1674 422 1692 1109 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.69 0.55 0.17 0.35 1.03 0.31 0.57 0.80 0.64 0.65 0.51 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

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

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
2: Howe Avenue & University Avenue 12/31/2024
Existing PM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero 2:56 pm 11/07/2024 Existing PM Synchro 12 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 133 425 147 284 43 1499 46 1165
v/c Ratio 0.61 0.65 0.66 0.57 0.26 0.59 0.28 0.45
Control Delay (s/veh) 63.3 22.9 66.0 42.1 59.4 26.2 53.2 44.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 63.3 22.9 66.0 42.1 59.4 26.2 53.2 44.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 118 66 132 92 34 311 41 270
Queue Length 95th (ft) 174 112 191 128 74 #545 m66 363
Internal Link Dist (ft) 594 409 1494 911
Turn Bay Length (ft) 90 140 230 100
Base Capacity (vph) 392 950 392 818 183 2546 166 2599
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.34 0.45 0.38 0.35 0.23 0.59 0.28 0.45 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Queues
3: Power Inn Road/Howe Avenue & Folsom Boulevard 12/31/2024 Existing PM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero 2:56 pm 11/07/2024 Existing PM Synchro 12 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 92 684 300 591 507 191 1331 239 495 1513 139 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.80 0.76 0.55 0.33 0.66 0.81 0.15 0.83 0.72 0.20 Control Delay (s/veh) 73.7 55.1 73.1 43.7 3.2 74.1 49.0 0.2 68.8 37.3 14.0 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) 73.7 55.1 73.1 43.7 3.2 74.1 49.0 0.2 68.8 37.3 14.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 42 291 138 236 19 88 406 0 226 415 36 Queue Length 95th (ft) 77 #426 198 326 43 137 528 0 302 527 90 Internal Link Dist (ft) 499 869 545 781
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 225 320 155 130 720 210
Base Capacity (vph) 755 858 762 1074 1847 735 1643 1583 1351 2559 833 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.80 0.39 0.55 0.27 0.26 0.81 0.15 0.37 0.59 0.17 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
5: Howe Avenue & Swarthmore Drive/University Park Drive 12/31/2024 Existing PM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero 2:56 pm 11/07/2024 Existing PM Synchro 12 Report

Lane Group
Lane Group Flow (vph)
v/c Ratio
Control Delay (s/veh)
Queue Delay
Total Delay (s/veh)
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
Queues
8: Howe Avenue & American River Drive 12/31/2024
Existing PM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero 2:56 pm 11/07/2024 Existing PM Synchro 12 Report

Lane Group
Lane Group Flow (vph)
v/c Ratio
Control Delay (s/veh)
Queue Delay
Total Delay (s/veh)
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
Queues
11: Howe Avenue & Howe Avenue/U.S. Route 50 Ramp 12/31/2024 Existing PM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero 2:56 pm 11/07/2024 Existing PM Synchro 12 Report

Lane Group
Lane Group Flow (vph)
v/c Ratio
Control Delay (s/veh)
Queue Delay
Total Delay (s/veh)
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
Queues
14: Howe Avenue & College Town Drive/Howe Avenue/College Town Drive/U.S. Route 50 Ramp 12/31/2024 Existing PM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero 2:56 pm 11/07/2024 Existing PM Synchro 12 Report

Lane Group
Lane Group Flow (vph)
v/c Ratio
Control Delay (s/veh)
Queue Delay
Total Delay (s/veh)
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Turn Bay Length (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Starvation Cap Reductn
Spillback Cap Reductn
Storage Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio
Intersection Summary
HOWE AVE NUE SA FE TY & MOB I LITY P LA N • DRAFT EX IST I NG CO ND IT IO NS RE PORT • JA NUARY 2025
APPENDIX E: PUBLIC WORKSHOP MATERIALS
Please take the following brief survey. Your input is extremely valuable, and it will help the project team select the preferred future options and potential physical changes to Howe Avenue.

1. What is your zip code?:

2. How often do you typically travel on Howe Avenue?
 Daily  Some Days (e.g., work commute, shopping, and errands)  Weekly

3. How do you typically travel on Howe Avenue? Select all that apply.  Driving in a Personal Vehicle  Riding in a Personal Vehicle (being driven by someone)  Public Transit  Paratransit For the following questions, please rate your interest in each potential change to Howe Avenue on a scale from 1 (least interested) to 5 (most interested).

4. Improved public transit stop conditions and access
1 = least interested, 5 = most interested
 1  2  3  4  5

5. Improved walking conditions such as wider sidewalks and street trees 1 = least interested, 5 = most interested
 1  2  3  4  5

6. Improved walking and bicycling crossing of Howe Avenue 1 = least interested, 5 = most interested
 1  2  3  4  5
 Walking/Rolling  Bicycling (including using e-bikes)  Scooting  Ride-Sharing (Uber, Lyft), Taxi  Other (please specify):

10. Improved driving safety
1 = least interested, 5 = most interested
 1  2  3  4  5

11. Other transportation safety-related improvements
(please specify):
1 = least interested, 5 = most interested
 1  2  3  4  5
 Every Couple of Weeks  Monthly  Rarely
The following optional three demographic questions help us determine if we are getting a broad and representative range of community perspectives. Please still submit this survey even if you decide to not answer these three optional questions.

12. What best describes your race or ethnicity? Select all that apply. (optional)  Asian
 Black or African American
 Hispanic or Latino/a/x
 Middle Eastern or North African
 Native American or Alaska Native

13. What is your age? (optional)
 Under 18  18 to 24 years  25 to 34 years  35 to 44 years  45 to 64 years  65 to 84 years  85 to 99 years  100 years and older

14. Do you identify as someone with a mobility or related disability that impacts how you travel? (optional)  Yes  No  Prefer not to say

15. Do you have any other comments related to mobility and transportation safety on Howe Avenue?

16. Please provide email address if you want to be added to our Howe email noticing list:

Thank you!

7. Improved parking
1 = least interested, 5 = most interested
 1  2  3  4  5
 Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
 White
 Prefer not to say
 Other (please specify):

8. Improved bikeways on Howe Avenue (buffer bike lanes or separated bikeways with a post or curb)
1 = least interested, 5 = most interested
 1  2  3  4  5

9. Reduced driver speed
1 = least interested, 5 = most interested
 1  2  3  4  5
Por favor responda a la siguiente breve encuesta. Su opinión es extremadamente valiosa y ayudará al equipo del proyecto a tomar decisiones sobre las opciones y mejoras preferidas a futuro y los posibles cambios en Howe Avenue.

1. ¿Cuál es su código postal?:

2. ¿Viaja usted a menudo por Howe Avenue?
 Diariamente  Aveces (por ejemplo, viajes diarios al trabajo, compras y recados)  Semanalmente

3. Cómo viaja por Howe Avenue? Selecionne todo lo que aplica.  Conduzco en mi auto  Pasajero en auto  Transporte público  Paratransito Para las siguientes preguntas, califique su interés en cada posible cambio en Howe Avenue en una escala del 1 (menos interesado) al 5 (más interesado).

4. Mejores condiciones y acceso a las paradas de transporte público 1 = menos interesado, 5 = más interesado
 1  2  3  4  5

5. Mejores condiciones para caminar, como aceras más anchas y árboles en las calles
1 = menos interesado, 5 = más interesado
 1  2  3  4  5

6. Mejorar los cruces de peatones y bicicletas en Howe Ave 1 = menos interesado, 5 = más interesado
 1  2  3  4  5
 Caminando/Rodando  En bicicleta (incluyendo bicicletas eléctricas)  Patinando  Viaje compartido (Uber, Lyft), Taxi  Otro (especifique):

10. Mejores condiciones de conducción
1 = menos interesado, 5 = más interesado
 1  2  3  4  5

11. Otras mejoras relacionadas con la seguridad del transporte (por favor especifique):
1 = menos interesado, 5 = más interesado
 1  2  3  4  5
 Cada par de semanas  Mensualmente  Raramente
Las siguientes tres preguntas demográficas son opcionales y nos ayudan a saber si estamos obteniendo una gama amplia y representativa de perspectivas comunitarias. Entregue esta encuesta incluso si decide no responder estas tres preguntas.

12. ¿Cuál de estas opciones mejor describe su raza u origen étnico? Seleccione todo lo que aplica. (opcional)  Asiático
 Negro o afroamericano
 Hispano o Latino/a/e
 Del Medio Oriente o Norte de África
 Nativo americano o nativo de Alaska

13. ¿Cuál es su edad? (opcional)
 Menor de 18 años  18 a 24 años  25 a 34 años  35 a 44 años  45 a 64 años  65 a 84 años  85 a 99 años  Mayor de 100 años

14. ¿Se identifica como alguien con una discapacidad de movilidad o discapacidad relacionada que afecta su forma de viajar? (opcional)  Sí  No  Prefiero no decir

15. ¿Tiene algún otro comentario relacionado con la accesibilidad y la seguridad en Howe Ave?

16. Por favor proporcione su correo electrónico si desea que lo agreguemos a nuestra lista de avisos sobre Howe:
¡Gracias!

7. Mejorar el estacionamiento
1 = menos interesado, 5 = más interesado
 1  2  3  4  5
 Nativo de Hawái u otra isla del Pacífico
 Blanco
 Prefiero no decir
 Otro (especifique):

8. Mejores carriles para bicicletas en Howe Ave (carriles para bicicletas protegidos o carriles para bicicletas separados con un poste o bordillo) 1 = menos interesado, 5 = más interesado
 1  2  3  4  5

9. Reducciones de velocidad
1 = menos interesado, 5 = más interesado
 1  2  3  4  5
Workshop #1
Project Background and
Existing Conditions
Project Team
City of Sacramento
Jennifer Donlon Wyant, Transportation Planning Manager
Ryan Dodge, Associate Planner
DKS Associates
Josh Pilachowski
Liz Aguilar
Sylinda Villado
Agenda
• Why Howe Avenue?
• Planning Area and Existing Conditions
• Community Needs
• YOUR Needs
• Next Steps
Why Howe Avenue?
Why?
Critical corridor serving:
• Sacramento State
• Students
• Businesses
• Residents and communities
TOP 10 CORRIDOR WITH

THE HIGHEST NUMBER

OF FATAL AND SEVERE
INJURY CRASHES.

Why? Planning Goals
The goal of the plan is to identify a data-driven,
community-supported plan for a future Howe
Avenue that will improve safety and mobility.

This Workshop will:
• Raise community awareness of the project
• Learn about *your* experiences and
needs for the corridor
• Help us identify locations of need that
don’t appear in our data collection
Schedule
Engagement
Community
Advisory
Community
Open House
Community
Workshop
Plan
Townhall Pop-In
Events
Planning Area and
Existing Conditions
Planning Area

HOWE AVENUE
• Fair Oaks Boulevard to
Power Inn Light Rail Station
• Two miles
Existing Conditions:

Project Team Site Walk
The team walked and drove the entire
corridor, focusing on multimodal
conditions and behavior along key
segments and intersections.

Existing Conditions:

Land Use • Commercial and office • Residential • Regional parks and trails RD01
Slide 10
RD0 Maybe move this to just after the agenda slide? If I knew nothing about the project then my first question would be about Howe from where to where.

Ryan Dodge, 2024-10-28T16:58:05.251
RD1 Please change Folsom Boulevard to Power Inn Light Rail Station (south of Folsom Boulevard).

Ryan Dodge, 2024-10-28T17:01:43.473
Existing Conditions: Street
North Segment: Fair Oaks Boulevard to Swarthmore Drive
The northern segment of the study corridor
stretches from Fair Oaks Boulevard to
Swarthmore/University Park Drive. The segment is
adjacent but not directly accessible from residential
to the west, and large parking lots associated with
commercial and office uses to the east. • Number of Lanes: Six (three in either direction) with a median
• Sidewalks: Consistent on the northbound (east)
side and only present between Fair Oaks and
American River Drive on the southbound (west)
side
• Bikeways: Inconsistently unstriped and
unsigned bicycle lane/shoulder on both sides,
south of University Drive
• Transit: Yes (Line 26)
Middle Segment: Swarthmore to La Riviera
The middle segment begins at Swarthmore
Drive and ends at the access road to La
Riviera Drive to the northbound side of Howe
Avenue, crossing the American River in
between. Adjacent land uses include a
business park at the segment’s northern end,
parks, the river, and some commercial uses. • Number of Lanes: Four (two in either direction) with a divided roadway
• Sidewalks: Both sides, with gaps
separating • Bikeways: Unstriped and unsigned
shoulder on both sides
• Transit: Yes (Line 26)
South Segment: La Riviera to Folsom
The south segment starts at the access
road to La Riviera Drive and ends at Folsom
Boulevard, including the freeway overpass.

Adjacent uses aside from the freeway
include mainly retail with some residential
and commercial with parking fronting the
road. • Number of Lanes: Six (three in either
direction) with a median
• Sidewalks: Southbound (west) side only
• Bikeways: unstriped and unsigned
shoulder on both sides
• Transit: No
Existing Conditions

DATA COLLECTION
• Vehicular traffic and
congestion
• Vehicle speeds
• Sidewalks and
Crosswalks
• Bikeways
• Transit
• Safety
Community Needs
Walking/Rolling Needs

SIDEWALKS
• Consistent and sufficient width
• Low stress and comfortable
• Access to homes, businesses, and education

INTERSECTIONS AND CROSSING OPPORTUNITIES
• Frequency of crossings
• Visibility and line of sight

SHARED USE PATH ACCESS
• Access to Jedediah Smith Memorial Trail
Bicycling Needs

BIKEWAYS
• Bidirectional facilities without gaps
• Access to homes, businesses, and education
• Low stress and comfortable for all ages

INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
• Minimal zones of conflict
• Frequency of crossings
• Visibility and line of sight

SHARED USE PATH ACCESS
• Access to Jedediah Smith Memorial Trail
RD0
Slide 18
RD0 Please change Bicyclist to Bicycling Needs.

Ryan Dodge, 2024-10-28T17:11:15.667
Transit User Needs

TRANSIT STOP ACCESS
• Bidirectional access to bus stops for all users
• Access to Power Inn Light Rail Station
• Access to homes, businesses, and education

STOP AMENITIES
• Shade, seating, lighting, and maintenance

OPERATIONAL SUPPORT
• Considerations for transit operations for improved
on-time performance
Driving Needs
ACCESS
• Access to homes, businesses, and education
• Consistent design

OPERATIONS
• Minimal conflict
• Frequency of crossings
• Visibility and line of sight
RD0
JD1
Slide 20
RD0 Please change Auto/Truck to Driving/Riding Needs or something similar, to match the survey.

Ryan Dodge, 2024-10-28T17:15:52.315
JD1 This slide is inconsistent with the other modes. It talks about crashes and discusses needs in a different manner.

See my edits.

Jennifer Donlon Wyant, 2024-11-05T00:10:29.848
YOUR Needs
What are your needs for
transportation changes
on the corridor?
Let us know tonight!
• Take the survey
• Mark up a map
• Tell your friends, neighbors, businesses
about the online survey and map
• Public comment is open until December 31
Next Steps
December 2: Virtual community meeting 
Late Winter-Spring 2025: Community input
on Alternatives Analysis
Summer 2025: Draft Plan
Winter 2025: Final Plan for Council approval
JD0
JD1
Slide 22
JD0 Please make this slide look better
Jennifer Donlon Wyant, 2024-11-05T00:37:44.455
JD1 Please provide the detailed information and QR code for folks to register for the meeting Jennifer Donlon Wyant, 2024-11-05T00:38:12.741
Thank you!
PROJECT CONTACT:

Jennifer Donlon Wyant
[email protected]
RD0
Slide 23
RD0 Are we going to list contact person at bottom, or webpage? Ryan Dodge, 2024-10-28T17:16:39.917
American River Bike Trail
Walking & Rolling
please leave your comments about
walking & rolling along howe avenue.

American River Bike Trail
Biking
please leave your comments about biking
along howe avenue.

American River Bike Trail
Taking Transit
please leave your comments about
taking transit along howe avenue.

American River Bike Trail
Driving
please leave your comments about
driving along howe avenue.

APPENDIX B

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT REPORT
JUNE 2025

Connect ing Howe Avenue – A lternat ives
Deve lopment Report
J u n e 2 0 2 5
PREPARED FOR:

Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 i i Prepared for the City of Sacramento
Charisse Padilla, Project Manager
Jennifer Donlon Wyant, Mobility and Sustainability Division Manager Prepared By DKS Associates
Josh Pilachowski, Project Manager
Jim Damkowitch
Alexandra Haag
Joel Rabinovitz
David Tokarski
Sylinda Villado
Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 i i i Tab le O f Conten ts
Glossary of Terms ............................................................................ 1 Introduction .................................................................................... 4 Feas ibility Analysis Methodology ....................................................... 5 Right-o f-Way Asse ssment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Level o f Tra f fic S tre ss Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Sa fety Asse ssment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Transit Asse ssment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Community Priority Alignment........................................................... 9 Alternatives Evaluation .................................................................. 10 Common Recommenda tions for All Alternative s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Alterna tive 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Feasibili ty Analysi s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Bicycle In f ras truc ture Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Alterna tive 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Comparison of Alternative Analysis Results ...................................... 37 Corridor Concept Screening ............................................................. 39 Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 iv L ist O f F igures
Figu re 1 . Bi c ycle Level o f T r a f fi c S t re s s S co re s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figu re 2 . W al king Le vel o f T ra f fi c S tre s s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figu re 3 : Al te rna tive 1 Ove rview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figu re 4 : Exi s ting C ro s s Se c tion (T op) and P ropo se d Al te rna tive 1 C ro s sSe c tion (Bo t tom ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figu re 5 : Pe de s t rian Le vel o f T ra f fi c S t re s s – Al te rn a tive 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figu re 6 : Bi c y cle Level o f T r a f fi c S t re s s – Al te rna tive 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figu re 7 : Al te rna tive 2 Ove rview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figu re 8 : Exi s ting C ro s s Se c tion (T op) and P ropo se d Al te rna tive 2 C ro s s Se c tion (Bo t tom ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figu re 9 : Pe de s t rian Le vel o f T ra f fi c S t re s s – Al te rn a tive 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figu re 10 : Bi c y cle Le vel o f T ra f fi c S tre s s – Al te rna tiv e 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 L ist of Tab les
Table 1 : Pede s trian Level o f T ra f fi c S t re s s – Al te rna tive 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table 2 . Bi c y cle Level o f T ra f fi c S tre s s – Al te rna tive 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Table 3 : Pede s trian Level o f T ra f fi c S t re s s – Al te rna tive 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Table 4 . Bi c y cle Level o f T ra f fi c S tre s s – Al te rna tive 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Table 5 : Compa ri son o f Al te rna ti ve s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Connecting Howe
Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • April 2025
1 Glossary of Terms
95th percentile queue: A queue refers to a line of vehicles waiting at a location such as a traffic signal, that occurs when demand exceeds capacity. The 95th percentile queue is the length of vehicles waiting exceeded in only five percent of the analysis period, and is used to determine turn lane storage needs, such as the length of turn pockets. It is not representative of average daily conditions for most drivers.

AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) The average number of vehicles that travel on a street per day over the course of a year.

Alternative (Project Alternative): A design option being considered for modifying the street layout. Each alternative proposes different changes to the street design, including bike lanes, sidewalks, or signals.

APS (Accessible Pedestrian Signal): A device that uses audible tones or vibrations to help people with vision or hearing impairments safely cross the street at signalized crossings.

Bicycle Detection: A passive traffic signal system that detects the presence of a person bicycling to trigger a green light without requiring the without requiring manual activation.

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS): A numeric suitability rating (1 = meets comfort standards, 4 = does not meet comfort standards) that assesses how comfortable and protected a bike route feels to a person bicycling, accounting for factors like lane separation, width, and traffic speed.

Bike Lane and Buffered Bike Lane (Class II): A bike lane at roadway level separated by a painted line (Bike Lane) or a painted or physical buffer space between it and adjacent vehicle lanes (Buffered Bike Lane), increasing cyclist comfort and safety.

Buffer Zone (Landscape Buffer): A planted or paved space between the sidewalk or bike lane and the street, designed to increase comfort and reduce exposure to moving vehicles.

Cantilevered Bike Lane: A bike lane built onto the side of a bridge, extending out from the structure to create more space for people biking without removing vehicle lanes.

Channelized Right Turn: A dedicated turning lane at intersections that separates rightturning traffic from through lanes and allows turning traffic to either bypass or experience different traffic control than the adjacent through traffic. Channelized turn lanes often pose challenges for people walking or rolling due to higher vehicle speeds.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act): A state law that requires agencies to evaluate and disclose the environmental impacts of proposed projects.

Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 2 Controlled Pedestrian Crossings: A designated area for people walking to cross a street where traffic is controlled (traffic signal, flashing beacons, or crossing signs) providing a predictable crossing opportunity.

Dilemma Zone Detection: A type of traffic signal technology that helps reduce crashes by better timing yellow lights so drivers don’t have to choose between stopping suddenly or running the light.

High Injury Network: Streets or intersections where a high number of severe or fatal crashes have occurred, as identified by the city.

Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI): A traffic signal timing strategy that gives people walking or biking a head start to cross the street before motor vehicle traffic receives a green light.

Level of Service (LOS): An intersection performance measure that assigns a letter grade (A through F) based on average motor vehicle delay, used to evaluate intersection operations.

Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress (PLTS): A numeric suitability rating (1 = meets comfort standards, 4 = does not meet comfort standards) indicating the comfort of walking conditions based on sidewalk width, speed limits, and buffer presence.

Queue: A line of vehicles waiting to be served, such as at a traffic signal.

Right-of-Way (ROW): Space designated for use by the public for travel. This typically includes the street, landscaping, and sidewalks. The right-of-way includes land which may be owned by the City, other public agencies, utility companies, or private citizens and includes land which has an easement for use by the public for the purposes of travel infrastructure.

Roundabout: A circular intersection, used as an alternative to stop-sign or signal controlled intersections, designed to improve traffic flow and reduce crash severity by slowing vehicles and eliminating left-turn conflicts.

Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT): The regional public transit agency, responsible for operating transit services and collaborating on stop upgrades and access for people walking or rolling.

SacSim-19 Model: A travel demand forecasting tool developed by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) to simulate and forecast future traffic volumes and vehicle miles traveled under different growth scenarios.

Safety Corridor: A street designation under California Vehicle Code Section 22358.7 which allows local authorities to designate a reduced speed limit from the one that would typically be applied based on an engineering and traffic survey. Safety corridors are Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 3 designated based on a history of serious injuries and fatalities on a given street. No more than one-fifth of streets may be designated as safety corridors Shared Use Path (Class I): A fully separated bike path shared by people walking and biking. A shared use path is defined separately from a separated bikeway by its width and the requirement that it have wide horizontal separation from vehicle traffic.

Sidewalk Scale Lighting: Low-level lighting installed along sidewalks to enhance nighttime visibility and comfort for people walking and biking.

Signal Modifications: Updates to traffic signal equipment to meet current standards, including pedestrian countdown timers, transit signal priority, and improved visibility.

Signal Timing: How long a traffic signal stays green, yellow, or red for each direction of travel.

Wayfinding: Signage and visual cues placed along transportation routes to guide people to key destinations, like parks, community centers, or transit stops.

Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 4 Introduction
Howe Avenue is a multimodal street in Sacramento, California, functioning as a major connection across the American River and is classified as an arterial street in the city's transportation network. Howe Avenue is identified as a part of the High Injury Network in the City of Sacramento’s Vision Zero Action Plan1 (2018), indicating that it experiences a high number of fatal and serious injury crashes involving people walking, biking, rolling, and driving on Howe Avenue.

The Connecting Howe Avenue Safety & Mobility Plan (the Plan), funded through a Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, supports Sacramento’s commitment to equitable engagement by involving local communities in identifying their transportation needs. The plan aims to improve safety and mobility for all users by evaluating current conditions and proposing specific actions to eliminate barriers, increase ADA accessibility and general access, and respond to community priorities. The project limits are along Howe Avenue from Fair Oaks Boulevard to the Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT) Power Inn Light Rail Station just south of Folsom Boulevard.

The purpose of this report is to summarize the proposed design alternatives for the Connecting Howe Avenue Project.

Key Issues Identified in the Existing Conditions Analysis The following conditions were determined from the existing conditions analysis that the project alternatives are to address:
 Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) 4 for people walking and biking: Both walking and biking along the corridor are rated at LTS 4, the highest stress level defined by the LTS framework, indicating that current conditions are not suitable for most people walking, rolling, or biking.
 Lack of space allocated for people walking on the west side of Howe Avenue.  Lack of direct connection to the American River Parkway shared use path (Class I)  Existing bicycle lanes do not meet Caltrans-recommended design standards: Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) Chapter 1000 and Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 89 recommend a buffered bike lane or separated bikeway (Class IV) on high-speed (≥ 40 mph), high-volume arterials. Howe Avenue’s 5-foot striped bike lanes do not provide the width or physical separation required by these guidelines, discouraging bicycling and limiting safe access to the American River Parkway and other nearby routes. 1 City of Sacramento. (2018). Vision Zero action plan.
https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/content/dam/portal/pw/Transportation/VisionZero/Vision-Zero-Action-Plan-AdoptedAugust-2018.pdf Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 5  Observed motor vehicle speeds exceed posted limits, increasing crash severity:

Excessive speeding is a major issue along Howe Avenue, with observed 85th percentile speeds reaching 43.6 miles per hour in 40 miles per hour zones and 52.4 miles per hour in 50 miles per hour zones. Speeding that exceeds posted limits was the primary contributing factor in 104 crashes (representing 52% of all reported crashes) between 2018 and 2023. Many of these crashes were rear-end collisions, which are commonly associated with excessive speeds and abrupt braking in high-volume arterial street environments.
 Limited transit access due to sparse stop locations and insufficient walking and biking connections: Sparse bus stop coverage and inadequate walking and biking connections to transit create barriers to use. The SacRT Gold Line’s Power Inn Station is a critical asset but remains difficult to access on foot or by bike via Howe Avenue and the bridge over the American River.
 Over 200 reported crashes between 2018 and 2023, with speeding and improper turning as leading factors.
 Constrained right-of-way on the Howe Avenue Bridge limits design flexibility and requires additional consideration.
 Community feedback identified barriers to walking, biking, and rolling: Common concerns include limited visibility at crossings, high motor vehicle speeds, lack of walking and biking infrastructure, and insufficient wayfinding signage. Public engagement indicated a desire to address these concerns through specific changes that support access across all modes.

Project Alternatives
The remainder of this report outlines several design alternatives considered for the project. First, shared elements across all alternatives are described, followed by the differentiating components. The feasibility and impacts of each alternative are then analyzed.

All alternatives presented are preliminary concepts and may evolve based on community and partner input.

Feasibility Analysis Methodology
To determine the feasibility of each proposed alternative, several forms of analysis were conducted. This analysis includes:
 Right-of-way assessment
 Level of Traffic Stress Analysis
 Safety Benefit Assessment
 Transit Assessment
Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 6 The analysis methodology for each of these topics is described in further detail in the following sections.

Right-of-Way Assessment
The existing right-of-way along Howe Avenue was assessed using publicly available aerial imagery and right-of-way maps to document typical conditions across different segments of the corridor. The typical roadway and sidewalk configurations are summarized below:
 Fair Oaks Boulevard to American River Bridge: Six travel lanes (three in each direction) with sidewalks on both sides (generally, 102 feet of Right of Way).  American River Bridge to Swarthmore Drive: Six travel lanes (three in each direction) with sidewalk only on the east side. (generally, 97 feet of Right of Way).  Swarthmore Drive to La Riviera Drive connection: Four travel lanes (two in each direction), with limited sidewalk access. (generally, 92 feet of Right of Way with a median gap between the two bridge structures).
 La Riviera Drive to SacRT Power Inn Light Rail Station: Six travel lanes (three in each direction) with sidewalk only on the west side (generally, 110 feet of Right of Way).

Level of Traffic Stress Analysis
Bicycling LTS
The bicycling LTS analysis was calculated using the methodologies described in the Mineta Transportation Institute Report 11-19 Low Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity (2012). Bicycling LTS scores measure the comfort level of a street segment through a variety of criteria such as street width (number of lanes), speed limit and/or prevailing speed, presence and width of bike lanes, signals, and presence and width of parking lanes. Each street segment is assigned an LTS score from 1 to 4, where 1 indicates the lowest stress level and 4 indicates the highest stress level for people bicycling. Typically, a LTS score of 1 indicates that the street segment is comfortable for people bicycling regardless of experience level, while an LTS of 4 indicates that the segment is suitable primarily for more confident or experienced bicyclists, as shown in Figure 1.

Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 7 Figure 1. Bicyc le Level of Traff ic Stress Scores
Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 8 Walking LTS
The walking level of traffic stress (LTS) analysis was conducted using the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Level of Traffic Stress Analysis Procedures (2020).

Similar to the bicycling LTS methodology, the walking LTS method also uses several criteria to develop a LTS score of 1 through 4 including the presence of sidewalks, marked crosswalks, median refuges, motor vehicle traffic volume, and posted speed limits as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Walk ing Leve l of Traffic Stress
Safety Assessment
Each alternative was qualitatively reviewed for specific actions that directly address collision patterns which were identified in the Existing Conditions Report. This includes elements which lower motor vehicle speeds, reduce potential conflicts between vehicles or between vehicles and people walking, biking, or rolling, and improve user awareness of these potential conflicts. As this project is still in the planning phase, there is not sufficient design data at this time quantifying potential collision reductions associated with the proposed actions.

Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 9 Transit Assessment
Each alternative was qualitatively reviewed for its compatibility with future transit enhancements (e.g., stop upgrades). SacRT owns, operates, and maintains transit facilities and services along Howe Avenue, however Howe Avenue was not included as a priority corridor in their 2023 Bus Stop Improvement Plan, and so they have not identified any planned and desired modifications to bus stops within the study area. The transit assessment of each alternative would identify if the project option is consistent with planned projects from SacRT for other corridors.

Community Priority Alignment
Based on community feedback from the Community Advisory Committee, during the inperson and virtual community workshops, and from the project website, the following community priorities for the project were identified:
 Community-Focused Connectivity: Address community-identified barriers to walking and biking, create connections to key destinations like the American River Parkway, and create a more balanced street that serves both local and regional needs.  Connections for People Walking and Biking: Create an alternative with protected bike lanes that meet design standards are proposed and provide wider sidewalks with buffer zones where possible.
 Speed Management and Safety Countermeasures: Implement traffic calming strategies to reduce motor vehicle speeds and propose alternatives that consider both street design modifications and signal timing adjustments to reduce conflicts between motorists and people walking and biking.
 Transit Connectivity: Improve first- and last-mile connections to transit stops, improve bus stop amenities, and create direct connections for people walking or biking to transit.
 Bridge Crossing Solutions: Develop creative solutions for the constrained Howe Avenue Bridge, such as cantilevered paths or other modifications to accommodate people walking and biking.
 Freeway Interchange Safety: Coordinate with Caltrans to improve conditions for people walking and biking at US 50 ramp crossings through advanced warning systems, lighting upgrades, and potential signalization at ramp crosswalks.

Each alternative will be qualitatively evaluated for alignment with these priorities.

Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 10 Alternatives Evaluation
Common Recommendations for All Alternatives
This section includes actions which are recommended across all alternatives. These are specific changes which directly address current collision trends or ADA accessibility gaps along the street.

Modify Signal Operations
For all alternatives, it is recommended that traffic signals be upgraded to meet current City standards. At a minimum, these modifications should include:
 Installation of retro-reflective backplates on signal heads  Addition of advanced dilemma zone detection
 Upgrades to accessible pedestrian signal (APS)
 Implementation of leading pedestrian interval (LPI) signal timing per City policies and guidelines
 Replacement of curb ramps to meet current ADA accessibility standards  Restriping of high-visibility crosswalks
LPIs are a signal timing strategy that gives people walking a 3- to 7-second head start before parallel motor vehicle traffic receives a green light. Recognized by the Federal Highway Administration as a proven safety countermeasure, LPIs have been shown to reduce collisions involving people walking and biking at intersections by up to 60% in some studies.

Install a shared use path through University Park to University Avenue There is currently no connection between Howe Avenue and the American River Parkway shared use path that meets City guidelines and All-Ages-and-Ability guidance. This shared use path would be located at a connection point that maintains an acceptable grade, passes through public land, and connects to an existing shared use path and the American River Parkway.

Install a crosswalk and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) across University Avenue
A new marked crosswalk with a RRFB is recommended across University Avenue to connect the shared use path (Class I) with University Park and the broader active transportation network. This location currently lacks a designated crossing for people walking or rolling, creating a barrier for people traveling between the American River Parkway, University Park, and nearby residential neighborhoods.

Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 11 The RRFB would reinforce crossing priority for people walking or rolling and improve overall awareness at this uncontrolled location. To further increase driver compliance, the installation should include high-visibility crosswalk striping, advance yield markings, and appropriate signage.

Signalize Crossings at US 50 Ramps
Interchanges often present challenges for people walking or biking due to complex vehicle movements and limited infrastructure for these modes. Installing pedestrian-activated signals at the crossings on the west side of Howe Avenue, where it intersects with the US 50 on- and off-ramps, would improve ADA accessibility and reduce conflicts for those traveling north-south by biking, walking, or rolling.

Pedestrian-activated signals would increase visibility and reduce conflicts at these currently uncontrolled, marked crosswalks, locations where driver yield rates are low as vehicles merge between Howe Avenue and US 50. A signalized crossing would clearly establish right-of-way, reducing uncertainty and potential conflicts between people walking and drivers.

To further increase visibility and driver awareness, additional actions such as advance warning signs, flashing beacons, and high-visibility signal heads could be incorporated.

Implementing these signalized crossings would require coordination and formal agreements between the City and Caltrans, given the shared jurisdiction over these state highway ramps.

US 50 Ramp Signalization Feasibility Discussion
For both US 50 ramps, based on observed volumes and signal timing, it is estimated that there is sufficient vehicle storage to prevent queues from extending back to upstream intersections, even under multiple, closely spaced people walking or rolling or bicycling activations.

At the US 50 westbound (WB) off-ramp:
 Two lanes exit from Howe Avenue onto the ramp. From the crosswalk across the ramp, there is approximately 250 feet of vehicle storage before queues would extend back to the US 50 WB off-ramp at College Town Drive intersection.  The AM peak volume for this ramp is 494 vehicles per hour (approximately one vehicle every 7 seconds). Assuming an average vehicle length of 25 feet, it would take approximately 140 seconds for queues to reach the intersection2. 2 2 lanes × 250 feet ÷ 25 feet per vehicle × 7 seconds = 140 seconds.

Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 12  The estimated red signal duration for people walking or rolling or bicycle crossing is approximately 24 seconds3. During the AM peak, the highest observed volume of people walking or rolling or bicycling across the ramp is 6 per hour, with a maximum of 2 in any 15-minute period.
 Given the available storage and typical crossing intervals, the likelihood of queues extending back to the intersection is low4.

At Howe Avenue at US 50 eastbound (EB) on-ramp:
 One lane exits Howe Avenue. There is approximately 750 feet of vehicle storage between the crosswalk and the point where queues would extend back to the US 50 WB on-ramp.
 The PM peak volume for this ramp is 800 vehicles per hour (about one vehicle every

4.5 seconds). At that rate, the queue would take approximately 135 seconds to reach the upstream ramp5.
 The estimated red signal duration for a people walking or rolling or bicycling call at this location is about 20 seconds6. The PM peak volume of people walking or rolling or bicycling is 10 per hour, with a maximum of 3 in any 15-minute window.  Even with three consecutive activations (totaling approximately 60 seconds of red time), queues would be expected to remain within available storage, reaching only about 335 feet.

Install Signal Ahead Warning Signs
Signal Ahead7 warning signs would help reduce rear-end crashes by alerting drivers in advance to upcoming traffic signals, particularly in areas with limited visibility or where signals may be unexpected. By warning drivers to prepare to slow down or stop, these signs help mitigate sudden braking due to unanticipated signals.

Placement distances for “Signal Ahead” signs depend on factors such as motor vehicle travel speed and visibility. They are positioned to provide adequate PerceptionIdentification-Emotion-Volition (PIEV) time for drivers to react appropriately. On streets like Howe Avenue, these signs are recommended at the first signalized intersection after a 3 Including a 7-second walk interval, an 11-second flashing don't walk (FDW) interval based on a 36-foot crossing at 3.5 feet per second, a 4.4-second yellow clearance for a 40 mph street, and a 1-second all-red interval (7 + 11 + 4.4 + 1 =

23.4 seconds).
4 Two consecutive activations would result in 48 seconds of red time, well below the 140-second threshold, and generate a queue approximately 175 feet long.
5 1 lane × 750 feet ÷ 25 feet per vehicle × 4.5 seconds = 135 seconds. 6 Including a 7-second walk interval, a 7-second FDW (for a 23-foot crossing), a 4.4-second yellow clearance, and a 1- second all-red (7 + 7 + 4.4 + 1 = 19.4 seconds).
7 These signs are categorized under "Advance Traffic Control" warning signs and are identified with the MUTCD code W3-3.

Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 13 stretch of high-speed travel, such as Swarthmore Drive, to indicate to drivers they are transitioning into a more controlled traffic environment as part of a gateway treatment strategy.

Reduce Posted Speed Limits
Unsafe speeds8 are a contributing factor in 40% of all crashes on Howe Avenue.

Additionally, 49% of these crashes are rear-end crashes. Recent amendments to the California Vehicle Code through Assembly Bills 43 and 1938 authorize local jurisdictions to reduce posted speed limits by five miles per hour under specific conditions. These conditions include streets designated as Safety Corridors or those adjacent to land uses that attract high volumes of people walking and biking. However, only one five-mile-perhour reduction may be applied per street segment. 8 The California Vehicle Code defines "unsafe speed" in Section 22350, known as the Basic Speed Law. The statute states:
"No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property”
Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 14 Alternative 1
Description
Alternative 1 addresses the primary challenges of accommodating people biking on Howe Avenue while maintaining the corridor’s existing motor vehicle capacity. With observed travel speeds exceeding 50 mph and daily volumes nearing 59,000 vehicles9, the current bike lanes create conditions that do not meet recommended design standards for arterial streets. Current city standards recommend a separated bike lane (Class IV) for these types of streets, which must be at least 12 feet wide and would require an additional 7 feet of width. Rather than retrofitting a separated bike lane (Class IV) into a constrained street, this alternative proposes removing the existing bike lanes on Howe Avenue and encouraging people biking to use the existing striped bike lanes (Class II) on University Avenue; a nearby parallel route with posted speeds of 25 mph and substantially lower vehicular volumes. The change in routes for this section of Howe Avenue could add up to one half mile to bike trips.

Removing the bike lanes on Howe Avenue would allow the available space to be converted into a buffer zone, improving comfort and meeting city design standards for people biking.

The composition of the sidewalk and buffer zone, a total width of 10 feet, would be subject to city design standards to provide accessible walking space while limiting city maintenance requirements. Considerations would include maximizing the walkable area and utilizing hardscape or landscape treatments adjacent to the new curb. While this change would increase biking distances for some users, it would provide a more comfortable experience for people biking to the American River Parkway.

Most elements in Alternative 1 are consistent across all alternatives and were described in the previous section. Elements specific to this alternative include:
 Remove the existing 5-foot bike lane (Class II) on Howe Avenue and encourage the use of University Avenue as an alternative connection.
 Re-allocate space from the existing bike lane (Class II), which does not meet city design standards, to install a buffer next to the sidewalk.  Add a crosswalk and pedestrian signal across Howe Avenue at the north side of University Park
 Close the sidewalk gap on the west side of Howe Avenue between the new pedestrian signal and the University Avenue Overpass, and between the University Avenue Overpass and the American River Bridge
 Restrict east side University Avenue Overpass and Bridge Access and install directional wayfinding signage for people walking and biking, and 9 https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/community-development/planning/long-range/general-plan/2040-general-plan Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 15  Install directional signage and markers at the north and south end of American River Bridge.

These elements are further described below.

Remove Existing Bikeways on Howe Avenue and Encourage Use of University as an Alternative Route
Current city standards on a 50 MPH arterial street require a separated bike lane. However, the lack of available right of way on Howe Avenue (See the Corridor Concept Screening section for further information on screened elements) makes this infeasible. As an alternative, people biking would be encouraged through signage to use University Avenue to access the Guy West Bridge and the American River Parkway shared use path, and the City’s bicycle map updated to remove Howe Avenue as having a bikeway. University Avenue is a low-speed, low volume street with striped bikeways and is included on the City’s bicycle network map.

Widen Sidewalks and add a Buffer Zone with Vertical Delineators Howe Avenue is not wide enough to include standard bikeways without reducing the number of vehicle travel lanes. City Ordinance 10.76.01010 allows people to bicycle on sidewalk under certain requirements. In lieu of providing on-street bicycle infrastructure, this alternative widens existing sidewalks to 6 feet to allow people bicycling, walking, and rolling to navigate potential conflicts between users. Vertical Delineators can help to visually reinforce the edge of a vehicle travel lane, discourage encroachment, and signal a more constrained cross-section. Note that the 10-foot width available for the sidewalk and buffer zone is not sufficient for a two-way shared use path (Class I) per AASHTO Guidance (2012).

Add a Crosswalk and Pedestrian Signal across Howe Avenue at University Park and close west side sidewalk gaps
Due to the lack of sidewalk on the West Side of Howe Avenue between American River Drive and the bridge, there is no direct connection between the sidewalks on the north side of the American River (east side only) and the sidewalks on the south side of the American River (west side only). A crosswalk with a pedestrian signal before the University Avenue overpass would provide a protected crossing opportunity for people walking. Installing sidewalks in the gaps on the west side of Howe Avenue between the crosswalk and the bridge would then provide a direct connection across the river while minimizing necessary tree removals.
10 City of Sacramento Ordinance 10.76.010
Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 16 Figure 3: Alternat ive 1 Overv iew
Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 17 Restrict East Side Bridge Access
In Alternative 1, the existing bridge configuration presents a connectivity gap due to the east-side sidewalk terminating without a connection to the existing sidewalk at the south end of the bridge. To address this gap without structural modifications, access for people walking on the east sidewalk would be restricted through signage and a possible physical barrier.

Add Wayfinding for People Walking and Biking
Installing directional signage at key locations along the street such as bus stops and highactivity areas would direct people to destinations such as the American River Parkway shared use path (Class I). Alternative 1 would add additional wayfinding components at the connections to the American River Bridge and direct people walking to the functional west-side pathway while preventing access to the disconnected east sidewalk.

Based on site observations and community feedback, areas identified for enhanced wayfinding were primarily at the north and south sides of the American River Bridge and American River shared use path access points. This solution focuses on installing additional directional and informational signage to address connectivity challenges, particularly the east-side bridge sidewalk, which terminates without a connection to La Riviera Drive.

At the northern side of the University Avenue overpass, signage would restrict access to the sidewalk on the east side of the University Avenue overpass and bridge. Directional signage would also guide people walking along the east side to cross to the west side for bridge access or to use the shared use path for access to the American River Parkway shared use path
On the southern end, wayfinding elements would guide people walking from the west sidewalk to La Riviera Drive via existing connection points. Signage would clearly mark these transitions, which are currently not easily visible.

Community outreach efforts also identified navigation challenges for people walking on the west side of Howe Avenue trying to cross to access Power Inn Light Rail Station on the east side south of Folsom Boulevard. New directional signage would be installed at key decision points to direct people to the existing pedestrian overcrossing, increasing awareness of this designated crossing location.

Figure 4 shows the general cross section proposed for this alternative.

Connecting Howe
Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • April 2025
18 Figure 4: Existing Cross Section (Top) and Proposed Alternative 1 Cross-Section (Bottom) Connecting Howe
Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • April 2025
19 Feasibility Analysis
Pedestrian Infrastructure Analysis
Alternative 1 reduces the level of traffic stress for people walking by adding a buffer between sidewalks and motor vehicle travel. By converting the existing bike lanes into buffered areas, the design provides a physical separation between people walking or rolling and adjacent high-speed traffic. This change, combined with signal upgrades such as Leading Pedestrian Intervals, high-visibility crosswalks, signalized crossings at the US 50 ramps, and the installation of wayfinding signage, addresses factors that contribute to stress for people walking or rolling along Howe Avenue.

Table 1 summarizes the PLTS scores for Alternative 1. The pedestrian level of traffic stress is illustrated in Figure 5. The PLTS scores are preliminary and represented by segments for the purposes of this analysis and do not reflect bi-directional conditions.

Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 20 Table 1: Pedestrian Leve l of Traff ic Stress – Alternat ive 1 Source: DKS Associates, 2025. ODOT Level of Traffic Stress Analysis Procedures.

A. Alternative 1 recommends speed limit reductions throughout the corridor. This analysis was conducted under the assumption that existing speed limits have been reduced by 5 mph.

B. Existing PLTS has variability in score for each segment as the analysis was done bi-directional. The Existing PLTS Score included in Table 4 is the highest existing score per segment for the purpose of this analysis.

Fair Oaks
Boulevard to
Swarthmore
Drive
Swarthmore
Drive to
University
Avenue
Overcrossing
University
Avenue
Overcrossing to
La Riviera Drive
La Riviera
Drive to
Power Inn
LRT
Station
Street
Width
(Through
Lanes per
Direction)
3 3 2 3
Buffer Type Vertical
Delineation
Vertical
Delineation None None
Total Buffer
Width (ft) 5 5 0 0
Sidewalk
Width (ft) 5 5 5 5
Speed Limit
or
Prevailing
Speed A
(MPH)
35 45 45 35
Existing
PLTS Score B 4 4 4 4
Alternative
1 PLTS
Score
2 2 4 3
Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 21 Figure 5: Pedestrian Leve l of Traffic Stress – Alternat ive 1 Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 22 Bicycle Infrastructure Analysis
Alternative 1 redirects bicycle traffic from Howe Avenue to University Avenue, a parallel street with posted speed limits of 25 mph and lower motor vehicle volumes. This approach removes the existing bike lanes (Class II) on Howe Avenue and establishes an alternate route that meets all-ages-and-abilities design criteria. The alternative includes the installation of wayfinding signage to guide people biking to University Avenue and assist with navigation at key decision points, including near the American River Bridge and connections to the American River shared use path (Class I). Signal modifications throughout the corridor, including ADA-accessible signal upgrades and enhanced crossings at the US 50 ramps, would support people biking who need to cross Howe Avenue.

Although this option results in a longer travel distance for people biking, it reduces exposure to higher-speed traffic by shifting bicycle traffic to a street with lower speeds and volumes.

Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 23 Table 2. Bicycle Leve l of Traffic Stress – Alternative 1 Source: DKS Associates, 2025. Mineta Transportation Institute, Low Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity.

A. Alternative 1 recommends speed limit reductions throughout the corridor. This analysis was conducted under the assumption that existing speed limits have been reduced by 5 mph.

B. Existing BLTS has variability in score for Segment 3 and Segment 4 as the analysis was done bidirectional. The Existing BLTS Score included in Table 7 is the highest existing score per segment for the purpose of this analysis.

Fair Oaks
Boulevard to
University
Avenue Overpass
(University
Avenue Alternate
Route)
University
Avenue Overpass
to La Riviera
Drive
La Riviera Drive
to Power Inn LRT
Station
Street Width
(Through
Lanes per
Direction)
1 2 3
Bike Lane
Width (Inc.

Bike Lane,
Buffer Width,
Gutter) (ft)
13 0 5
Speed Limit or
Prevailing
Speed A (MPH)
30 45 35
Physically
Separated Bike
Lane?
No No No
Existing BLTS
Score B 4 4 4
Alternative 1
PLTS Score 3 4 3
Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 24 Figure 6: B icyc le Level of Traff ic Stress – Alternat ive 1 Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 25 Safety Benefit Assessment
Alternative 1 focuses on reducing conflicts between people walking or rolling and motor vehicles while maintaining current motor vehicle lane capacity on Howe Avenue. This alternative creates a buffer between sidewalks and high-speed traffic by repurposing the existing bike lane space, providing physical separation from vehicles traveling at 40–50 mph. Lowered speed limits, adjusted signal timing, and the addition of warning signs and visibility modifications on signal heads would partially address community comments and crash trends associated with rear-end and broadside crashes at intersections.

Signal modifications, including LPIs and high-visibility markings, increase visibility and provide dedicated crossing time at intersections. The proposed signalization of US 50 ramp crossings establishes clear right-of-way for people walking or rolling. Proposed installation of wayfinding signage guides users to routes with lower traffic volumes and fewer uncontrolled crossings, particularly at bridge approaches where direct access is currently limited.

For people biking, this alternative eliminates on-street bikeways and redirects cyclists to University Avenue, a parallel route with lower speeds (25 mph) and traffic volumes. While this rerouting reduces exposure to high-speed traffic, it requires longer trips with potential detours and additional crossings to access destinations on Howe Avenue.

Transit Assessment
Alternative 1 does not provide any change to existing transit facilities or connectivity.

Community Priority Alignment
In addition to the safety benefits described above, Alternative 1 includes direct connections to the American River Parkway shared use path with a pedestrian signal and sidewalk gap closer on the west side of Howe Avenue north of the University Avenue overpass and a shared use path connecting sidewalks on the east side of Howe Avenue through University Park to University Avenue. Alternative 1 provides a lower stress environment for people walking and accessing transit north of the American River Bridge by separating travel modes with a physical buffers.

The speed limit is reduced along the corridor, but more effective traffic calming measures are not implemented due to corridor constraints and forecasted traffic volumes.

Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 26 Alternative 2
Description
Alternative 2 proposes Howe Avenue as a lower-stress street by adding wider landscape buffers and a continuous shared use path (Class I) along the east side. Compared to Alternative 1, it requires right-of-way acquisition but offers greater network connectivity and separation for people walking or rolling and biking.

A 10-foot-wide, ADA-accessible shared use path (Class I) would be constructed on the east side of Howe Avenue, buffered by a 8-foot planting strip with shade trees to separate users from motor vehicle traffic (40–50 mph). To support this, the design removes the existing 5-foot bike lanes and moves the curb closer to the travel lanes. This requires about 10 feet of right-of-way expansion between Fair Oaks Boulevard and Folsom Boulevard.

On the American River Bridge, a cantilevered structure would carry the shared use path, keeping it separate from vehicles. South of the bridge, an informal dirt path would be replaced with a paved path to La Riviera Drive. North of the bridge, access to the American River Parkway would be widened and upgraded.

New signalized crossings with pedestrian-activated or separate bike/walk phases would be added at US-50 on-ramps on both sides of Howe Avenue. Protected intersections and bicycle signal lead times would reduce turning conflicts.

Throughout the corridor, sidewalk-scale lighting and wayfinding signage would be installed, with signs placed at bridges, bus stops, and park connections to support visibility and navigation.

Figure 8 shows the general cross section proposed for Alternative 2. These proposed modifications are further described below.

Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 27 Figure 7: Alternat ive 2 Overv iew
Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 28 Eastside Shared Use Path
The corridor right-of-way along the east side of Howe Avenue between Fair Oaks Avenue and the Power Inn Light Rail Station would be expanded by 10 feet to provide a new shared use path. This new facility would replace the existing bike lanes that are currently on Howe Avenue, which would be removed as part of this alternative. The shared use path would be at sidewalk level and be separated from vehicle traffic by a planted buffer along the full length of the street, including a new cantilever section of the American River Bridge.

Provide American River Bridge Connections
This alternative would modify connections for people walking or rolling and biking between Howe Avenue and the multimodal facilities at both ends of the American River Bridge, addressing existing infrastructure gaps. It would also expand ADA accessibility and general access between the American River Parkway shared use path (Class I) and University Park through a new facility constructed on the east side of Howe Avenue.

At the southern end of the bridge, the current informal dirt path connecting to La Riviera Drive would be replaced with a paved shared use path (Class I) that meets ADA slope and surface standards. This connection would include defined entry and exit points and consistent path surfacing for people walking, biking, or using mobility devices.

On the northern side, the project would establish more direct links between Howe Avenue and the American River Parkway. This alternative includes widened shared use paths (Class I), graded surface transitions, and removal of existing physical barriers. Wayfinding signage, including directional markers and trail maps, would support navigation between the street and shared use path system.

Connecting Howe
Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • April 2025
29 Figure 8: Existing Cross Section (Top) and Proposed Alternative 2 Cross Section (Bottom) Conne c tin g Howe A venue • Al te rna tive s De velopmen t Re por t • Ap ril 2025 30 Feasibility Analysis
While Alternative 2 addresses many of the project goals, it does include several engineering challenges that must be addressed during later design stages and would include higher implementation costs. They include:
 Acquisition of right-of-way along the east side of Howe Avenue, which would include the removal of existing parking for adjacent commercial/office land uses and the removal of a tennis court for a residential community.
 Identifying an alignment along the east side of Howe Avenue that minimizes tree impacts and avoids the large electrical towers.
 Crossing double right-turn lanes at the WB US 50 off-ramp without causing queuing and safety concerns on the freeway.

Pedestrian Infrastructure Analysis
Alternative 2 is designed to provide a consistently low-stress (defined here as separated from traffic and suitable for users of all ages and abilities) walking environment along the entire Howe Avenue corridor by:
 Converting the former bike lane area into a landscaped buffer adjacent to the existing sidewalk (north of La Riviera Dr);
 Constructing a new 10-foot-wide, ADA-accessible shared use path (Class I) on the east side of the street from Fair Oaks Blvd. to the Power Inn light-rail station, separated from traffic by a 5-foot landscaped buffer (including a cantilevered section over the American River Bridge); and
 Enhancing bridge approaches and freeway-ramp crossings with high-visibility crosswalks, signals or beacons for people walking or rolling, leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs), and other treatments that reduce conflict points and improve visibility.

These changes reduce the exposure of people walking or rolling to motor vehicle traffic traveling at 40–50 mph, shorten perceived crossing distances, and create continuous, ADA-accessible connections to the American River Parkway, Power Inn station, and nearby neighborhoods.

Table 3 presents the preliminary PLTS scores for Alternative 2, segmented for analysis purposes. These scores, illustrated in Figure XX, represent unidirectional conditions.

Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 31 Table 3: Pedestrian Leve l of Traff ic Stress – Alternat ive 2 Source: ODOT Level of Traffic Stress Analysis Procedures.

A. Alternative 2 recommends speed limit reductions throughout the corridor. This analysis was conducted under the assumption that existing speed limits have been reduced by 5 mph.

B. Existing PLTS has variability in score for each segment as the analysis was done bi-directional. The Existing PLTS Score included in Table 4 is the highest existing score per segment for the purpose of this analysis.

Fair Oaks
Boulevard to
Swarthmore
Drive
Swarthmore
Drive to
University
Avenue
Overcrossing
University
Avenue
Overcrossing to
La Riviera Drive
La Riviera
Drive to
Power Inn
LRT
Station
Street
Width
(Through
Lanes per
Direction)
3 3 2 3
Buffer Type Landscaped Landscaped Vertical
Delineators
Vertical
Delineators
Total Buffer
Width (ft) 8 8 2 2
Sidewalk
Width (ft)
6 (sidewalk) / 10
(shared-use path)
10 (shared-use
path)
10 (shared-use
path)
10 (shareduse path)
Speed Limit
or
Prevailing
Speed A
(MPH)
35 45 45 35
Existing
PLTS Score B 4 4 4 4
Alternative
2 PLTS
Score
1 1 1 1-3
Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 32 Figure 9: Pedestrian Leve l of Traffic Stress – Alternat ive 2 Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 33 Bicycle Infrastructure Analysis
Alternative 2 replaces the on-street bike lanes with a continuous, two-way shared use path (Class I) on the east side of Howe Avenue. The path is raised to sidewalk level and buffered from traffic by an 8-foot landscaped buffer. It then cantilevers over the American River Bridge, maintaining physical separation across the river. Intersections incorporate protected intersection geometry or bike-specific signal phases to minimize conflicts and maintain separation through crossings.

The design features full physical separation through an 8-foot buffer zone, curb, and elevation difference, exceeding CHDM guidance for Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS) 1 facilities on arterial streets. A 10-foot-wide cantilevered segment removes a pinch point on the bridge and includes a concrete barrier to reduce stress levels even under high traffic volumes. At intersections, elements such as refuge islands, forward stop bars, and dedicated bicycle signal phases reduce right-turn conflicts and support BLTS 1 to 2 conditions.

Two-way operation is supported by centerline striping and advance signage, which help manage bidirectional flow and reduce passing-related stress under moderate people walking or rolling and micromobility volumes. The facility connects directly to the American River Parkway and terminates at Folsom Boulevard allowing most corridor trips to be completed entirely on infrastructure that meets low-stress design criteria.

Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 34 Table 4. Bicycle Leve l of Traffic Stress – Alternative 2 Source: DKS Associates, 2025. Mineta Transportation Institute, Low Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity.

A. Alternative 2 recommends speed limit reductions throughout the corridor. This analysis was conducted under the assumption that existing speed limits have been reduced by 5 mph.

B. Existing BLTS has variability in score for Segment 3 and Segment 4 as the analysis was done bidirectional. The Existing BLTS Score included in Table 7 is the highest existing score per segment for the purpose of this analysis.

Fair Oaks
Boulevard to
University
Avenue Overpass
(University
Avenue Alternate
Route)
University
Avenue Overpass
to La Riviera
Drive
La Riviera Drive
to Power Inn LRT
Station
Street Width
(Through
Lanes per
Direction)
3 3 3
Bike Lane
Width (Inc.

Bike Lane,
Buffer Width,
Gutter) (ft)
13 0 5
Speed Limit or
Prevailing
Speed A (MPH)
30 45 35
Physically
Separated Bike
Lane?
Yes Yes Yes
Existing BLTS
Score B 4 4 4
Alternative 1
PLTS Score 1 1 1-3
Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 35

Figure 10: Bicyc le Level of Traffic Stress – Alternative 2 Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 36 Safety Benefit Assessment
Alternative 2 provides safety benefits through separation of travel modes, increased intersection visibility and a reduced speed limit on Howe Avenue. Signal modifications, including LPIs and high-visibility markings, increase visibility and provide dedicated crossing time at intersections. The proposed signalization of US 50 ramp crossings establishes clear right-of-way for people walking or rolling.

Lowered speed limits, adjusted signal timing, and the addition of warning signs and visibility modifications to signal heads would partially address community comments and crash trends associated with rear-end and broadside crashes at intersections.

The addition of a shared use path and a wide landscaping buffer would separate people walking and biking from vehicle traffic, improving the perception of the corridor as a safer route to walk and bike along.

Transit Assessment
Alternative 2 provides space for people riding bikes at the sidewalk level so conflicts between transit vehicles and people riding bikes is not a concern with this alternative. The wide landscaping strip would allow for stops to be designed where those boarding transit are not in conflict with people riding bikes. Shade trees would allow for improved protection from sun.

Community Priority Alignment
In addition to the safety benefits described above, Alternative 2 includes direct connections to the American River Parkway shared use path and to the Power Inn Light Rail Station, including the addition of signalized crosswalks at freeway ramps. Alternative 2 also provides a low stress environment for people walking, biking, and accessing transit along the entire corridor by reducing traffic speeds and separating travel modes with physical buffers and sidewalk-scale lighting, including a separated structure across the river and the freeway interchange.

The speed limit is reduced along the corridor, but more effective traffic calming measures are not implemented due to corridor constraints and forecasted traffic volumes.

Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 37 Comparison of Alternative Analysis Results
Table 5 on the next page summarizes the findings of this report in regards to how the proposed alternatives perform on key metrics in comparison with each other. Each alternative is compared based on how it addresses mobility and safety along the corridor.

Discussion with the community is still underway to better understand which alternative best aligns with local community values so no one alternative is recommended over another at this time.

Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 38 Table 5: Comparison of Alternat ives
Metric No Build Alt. 1 Alt. 2
Defining
Characteristics No Change
 Additional Crossing
Opportunities
 Widen existing
sidewalk and add a
physical buffer
 Shared use path
 Landscaped buffers
with shade trees
 Cantilever path on
the east side of the
river bridge and
interchange
Average Level
of Traffic Stress
Walking 4 3 1
Biking 4 3 1
Safety
Modifications
Added
Crossing
Opportunities
N/A 1 0
Traffic
Calming
Elements
N/A  Speed Limit
Reduction
 Speed Limit
Reduction
Other Safety
Enhancements N/A
 Crossing
Enhancements at
US 50 Interchange
 Vertical Buffer
 Crossing
Enhancements at
US 50 Interchange
 Shared Use Path
 Landscaped Buffers
 Sidewalk Scale
Lighting
Transit
Enhancements N/A
 Wider Sidewalks
Increase Waiting
Area
 Wider Sidewalks
Increase Waiting
Area
Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 39 Corridor Concept Screening
Roundabout At Swarthmore Drive
A roundabout at the intersection of Howe Avenue and Swarthmore Dive was considered to serve as a gateway treatment between the US 50 interchange and the signal at American River Drive due to the observed high speeds and public feedback. The curved alignment requires drivers to slow down, making roundabouts an intuitive speed management tool.

Additionally, they provide a visual transition between different street environments, influencing driver expectations and behavior.

NCHRP Report 67211 provides guidance for the amount of daily traffic that a roundabout is designed to handle. The Sacramento 2040 General Plan12 provides a forecast of over 50,000 AADT for the study corridor, which would require a roundabout with three lanes to handle. Based on the required footprint for such a roundabout not being available at Swarthmore without impacting existing structures, and lack of other similar roundabouts in the region, this was screened out as a potential modification to the corridor.

Reallocation of Right of Way between American River Bridge and Fair Oaks Boulevard
Reallocation of the existing right of way between the American River Bridge and Fair Oaks Boulevard to reduce the number of vehicle travel lanes to two lanes in each direction, consistent with existing bridge configuration was considered to provide additional space to allocate to wider sidewalks, bikeways, and landscaping buffers. It would also provide additional traffic calming and lower vehicle speeds due to reduced vehicle travel lanes.

The Sacramento 2040 General Plan provides a forecast of over 50,000 AADT for the study corridor, which would result in traffic volumes of 30% to 50% over the available capacity of the reduced travel lanes. As a result, this was screened out as a potential modification to the corridor.
11 NCHRP Report 672 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide Second Edition, https://accessmanagement.info/document/nchrp-report-672-roundabouts-informational-guide-second-edition/ 12 https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/community-development/planning/long-range/general-plan/2040-general-plan Connecting Howe Avenue • Alternatives Development Report • June 2025 40 Separated Bikeway (Class IV) between American River Bridge and Fair Oaks Boulevard
The addition of a separated bikeway on Howe Avenue would provide a low-stress space for people biking. Without reallocating space from existing vehicle travel lanes for a bikeway, the roadway would need to be widened to provide sufficient right of way to add a separated bikeway. Widening the roadway on either side would require the removal of a large number of trees, a large amount of earthwork to flatten the existing berm on either side of Howe Avenue and impact the large electric towers on the east side of Howe Avenue. As a result, this was screened out as a potential modification to the corridor.

Sidewalk Gap Closures on the west side of Howe Avenue
Currently, there are no sidewalks on the west side of Howe Avenue between American River Drive and the American River Bridge. Adding sidewalks along this segment would improve connectivity and provide more direct access along Howe Avenue from existing bus stops, the American River Parkway shared use path, University Park and other destinations on the corridor.

Without reallocating space from existing vehicle travel lanes for a sidewalk, additional right of way would need to be acquired to add a sidewalk. This would require the removal of a large number of trees and a large amount of earthwork to flatten the existing berm on the west side of Howe Avenue. As a result, this was screened out as a potential modification to the corridor.

Append ix
Norwood Avenue Mobility Pro ject • Alternative s Development Report • July 2025 Section 1. Synchro Intersection Analysis Results
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Howe Avenue & University Avenue Future No Build AM
Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero Howe Avenue Synchro v2b.syn DKS Associates (04/09/2025) Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 25 30 90 110 90 35 170 1230 230 30 735 85 Future Volume (veh/h) 25 30 90 110 90 35 170 1230 230 30 735 85 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 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 25 30 90 78 134 35 170 1230 230 30 735 0 Peak Hour 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 162 170 142 163 264 67 198 2571 481 113 2806 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.55 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1562 1781 2881 729 1781 4321 808 1781 5274 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 25 30 90 78 85 84 170 969 491 30 735 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1562 1781 1870 1739 1781 1702 1725 1781 1702 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.6 1.8 6.7 5.0 5.2 5.5 11.4 30.3 30.3 1.9 9.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.6 1.8 6.7 5.0 5.2 5.5 11.4 30.3 30.3 1.9 9.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.47 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 162 170 142 163 171 159 198 2026 1026 113 2806 V/C Ratio(X) 0.15 0.18 0.63 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.86 0.48 0.48 0.27 0.26 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 441 463 387 441 463 430 200 2026 1026 181 2806 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 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 0.87 0.87 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.3 50.4 52.6 51.8 51.9 52.0 56.9 31.7 31.7 53.6 14.2 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.4 3.4 1.6 1.7 2.0 27.6 0.8 1.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.9 2.8 2.3 2.5 2.5 6.9 14.0 14.4 0.9 3.4 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 50.6 50.8 56.1 53.4 53.5 54.0 84.5 32.5 33.3 54.0 14.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D E D D D F C C D B
Approach Vol, veh/h 145 247 1630 765
Approach Delay, s/veh 54.0 53.6 38.2 16.0
Approach LOS D D D B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.2 12.4 77.1 15.3 17.8 71.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.3 4.8 5.7 4.3 4.5 5.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.7 12.2 29.3 29.7 13.5 28.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.7 3.9 32.3 7.5 13.4 11.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 3.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 34.3
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Power Inn Road/Howe Avenue & Folsom Boulevard Future No Build AM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero Howe Avenue Synchro v2b.syn DKS Associates (04/09/2025) Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 110 265 145 210 725 430 225 1020 230 395 1355 210 Future Volume (veh/h) 110 265 145 210 725 430 225 1020 230 395 1355 210 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 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 110 265 145 210 725 430 225 1020 0 395 1355 0 Peak Hour 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 205 545 289 284 934 1248 300 1454 638 1943
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.24 0.24 0.08 0.26 0.26 0.09 0.28 0.00 0.18 0.38 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 2243 1190 3456 3554 2790 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 110 208 202 210 725 430 225 1020 0 395 1355 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1656 1728 1777 1395 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.0 9.6 10.1 5.7 18.1 1.8 6.1 17.1 0.0 10.1 21.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.0 9.6 10.1 5.7 18.1 1.8 6.1 17.1 0.0 10.1 21.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 205 432 402 284 934 1248 300 1454 638 1943 V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.48 0.50 0.74 0.78 0.34 0.75 0.70 0.62 0.70 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1262 741 691 1273 1487 1682 1262 2663 2163 3196 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.8 31.1 31.3 43.0 32.7 7.0 42.8 30.6 0.0 36.0 25.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.1 0.1 1.4 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 4.0 3.9 2.4 7.4 1.4 2.6 6.7 0.0 4.1 8.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh 38.00 28.50
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 44.6 32.0 32.3 44.4 33.8 7.1 44.2 31.3 38.0 36.3 25.5 28.5 LnGrp LOS D C C D C A D C D D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 520 1365 1360 1855
Approach Delay, s/veh 34.8 27.0 34.0 28.0
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 30.9 22.8 32.2 11.9 29.0 13.4 41.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.3 * 5.7 5.1 4.9 4.0 5.7 5.1 * 5.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 * 40 60.0 50.0 35.3 40.0 35.0 * 60 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.0 20.1 12.1 19.1 7.7 12.1 8.1 23.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 5.1 0.5 8.2 0.2 2.5 0.2 13.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 30.0
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Howe Avenue & Fair Oaks Boulevard Future No Build AM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero Howe Avenue Synchro v2b.syn DKS Associates (04/09/2025) Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 275 600 45 45 890 180 265 955 35 270 880 565 Future Volume (vph) 275 600 45 45 890 180 265 955 35 270 880 565 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 3.7 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 5058 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 5058 3433 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 275 600 45 45 890 180 265 955 35 270 880 565 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 31 0 0 127 0 3 0000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 275 600 14 45 890 53 265 987 0 270 880 565 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA custom Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3! 8 7 4 14!
Permitted Phases 6 2 1
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.9 38.5 38.5 9.6 34.7 34.7 13.6 39.2 13.7 39.3 66.7 Effective Green, g (s) 13.9 38.5 38.5 9.6 34.7 34.7 13.6 39.2 13.7 39.3 66.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.32 0.32 0.08 0.29 0.29 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.56 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 397 1631 507 141 1023 457 389 1652 391 1665 928 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.12 0.03 c0.25 0.08 0.20 c0.08 0.17 c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.03 0.09
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.37 0.03 0.32 0.87 0.12 0.68 0.60 0.69 0.53 0.61 Uniform Delay, d1 51.0 31.4 27.9 52.1 40.5 31.4 51.1 33.8 51.1 32.8 17.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.40 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 7.8 0.0 3.4 1.4 4.2 1.2 0.8 Delay (s) 55.2 31.4 27.9 52.6 48.3 31.4 74.9 30.0 55.3 34.0 18.7 Level of Service E C C D D C E C E C B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 38.4 45.7 39.5 32.3
Approach LOS D D D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 38.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
! Phase conflict between lane groups.
c Critical Lane Group
Queues
1: Howe Avenue & Fair Oaks Boulevard Future No Build AM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero Howe Avenue Synchro v2b.syn DKS Associates (04/09/2025) Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 275 600 45 45 890 180 265 990 270 880 565 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.37 0.08 0.25 0.89 0.31 0.68 0.58 0.69 0.52 0.57 Control Delay (s/veh) 60.6 32.4 0.2 54.0 53.2 6.2 79.6 30.1 60.7 34.4 17.3 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) 60.6 32.4 0.2 54.0 53.2 6.2 79.6 30.1 60.7 34.4 17.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 107 132 0 33 338 1 109 186 105 206 237 Queue Length 95th (ft) 151 167 0 71 #433 54 158 230 147 260 435 Internal Link Dist (ft) 794 572 911 448
Turn Bay Length (ft) 530 100 300 260 205 270
Base Capacity (vph) 444 1643 599 228 1044 593 457 1697 457 1705 989 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.62 0.37 0.08 0.20 0.85 0.30 0.58 0.58 0.59 0.52 0.57 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
2: Howe Avenue & University Avenue Future No Build AM
Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero Howe Avenue Synchro v2b.syn DKS Associates (04/09/2025) Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 123 78 157 170 1460 30 820
v/c Ratio 0.11 0.28 0.39 0.37 0.74 0.53 0.17 0.35
Control Delay (s/veh) 44.9 16.2 52.2 40.7 69.3 21.6 66.6 8.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 44.9 16.2 52.2 40.7 69.3 21.6 66.6 8.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 17 13 64 53 126 242 25 33
Queue Length 95th (ft) 39 37 101 75 #239 #571 m49 68
Internal Link Dist (ft) 594 409 1494 911
Turn Bay Length (ft) 90 140 230 100
Base Capacity (vph) 398 806 398 823 235 2747 179 2344
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.15 0.20 0.19 0.72 0.53 0.17 0.35 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Queues
3: Power Inn Road/Howe Avenue & Folsom Boulevard Future No Build AM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero Howe Avenue Synchro v2b.syn DKS Associates (04/09/2025) Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 110 410 210 725 430 225 1020 230 395 1355 210 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.42 0.64 0.66 0.27 0.65 0.71 0.45 0.61 0.72 0.32 Control Delay (s/veh) 68.9 37.5 67.5 44.3 2.5 67.2 45.3 26.3 53.7 37.7 14.9 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) 68.9 37.5 67.5 44.3 2.5 67.2 45.3 26.3 53.7 37.7 14.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 46 132 89 280 9 95 285 96 157 355 56 Queue Length 95th (ft) 87 217 144 417 36 153 360 185 236 441 124 Internal Link Dist (ft) 499 869 545 781
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 225 320 155 130 720 210
Base Capacity (vph) 931 1070 939 1099 1918 931 1970 667 1596 2959 967 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.38 0.22 0.66 0.22 0.24 0.52 0.34 0.25 0.46 0.22 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Howe Avenue & University Avenue Future No Build PM
Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero Howe Avenue Synchro v2b.syn DKS Associates (04/09/2025) Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 125 75 250 305 45 105 40 1275 180 35 1300 40 Future Volume (veh/h) 125 75 250 305 45 105 40 1275 180 35 1300 40 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 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 125 75 250 305 45 105 40 1275 180 35 1300 0 Peak Hour 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 320 336 285 408 57 133 126 2222 314 118 2504 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.49 0.49 0.07 0.49 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 3563 498 1163 1781 4513 637 1781 5274 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 125 75 250 305 0 150 40 962 493 35 1300 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1661 1781 1702 1746 1781 1702 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.0 4.5 20.0 10.8 0.0 11.4 2.8 26.0 26.0 2.4 22.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.0 4.5 20.0 10.8 0.0 11.4 2.8 26.0 26.0 2.4 22.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 320 336 285 408 0 190 126 1676 860 118 2504 V/C Ratio(X) 0.39 0.22 0.88 0.75 0.00 0.79 0.32 0.57 0.57 0.30 0.52 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 434 456 387 869 0 405 171 1676 860 167 2504 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 0.69 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.0 45.6 51.9 55.7 0.0 56.0 57.4 23.3 23.3 57.8 22.6 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.2 14.5 2.0 0.0 5.3 0.5 1.4 2.8 0.4 0.5 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 3.6 2.1 9.1 5.0 0.0 5.1 1.3 10.4 11.0 1.1 8.9 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 47.6 45.8 66.4 57.8 0.0 61.3 58.0 24.8 26.1 58.2 23.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D E E E E C C E C
Approach Vol, veh/h 450 455 1495 1335
Approach Delay, s/veh 57.8 58.9 26.1 24.1
Approach LOS E E C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.7 13.4 69.7 19.2 13.7 69.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.3 4.8 5.7 4.3 4.5 5.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.7 12.2 35.3 31.7 12.5 35.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.0 4.4 28.0 13.4 4.8 24.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.4 0.0 3.8 1.5 0.0 4.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 33.2
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Power Inn Road/Howe Avenue & Folsom Boulevard Future No Build PM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero Howe Avenue Synchro v2b.syn DKS Associates (04/09/2025) Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 100 450 250 290 720 485 255 1410 235 480 1570 180 Future Volume (veh/h) 100 450 250 290 720 485 255 1410 235 480 1570 180 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 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 100 450 250 290 720 485 255 1410 0 480 1570 0 Peak Hour 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 162 534 294 349 1042 1255 314 1743 542 2072
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.09 0.34 0.00 0.16 0.41 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 2210 1218 3456 3554 2790 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 100 361 339 290 720 485 255 1410 0 480 1570 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1651 1728 1777 1395 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.5 23.9 24.2 10.2 22.2 2.1 9.0 31.1 0.0 16.8 32.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 23.9 24.2 10.2 22.2 2.1 9.0 31.1 0.0 16.8 32.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.74 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 162 429 399 349 1042 1255 314 1743 542 2072 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.84 0.85 0.83 0.69 0.39 0.81 0.81 0.89 0.76 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 978 575 534 986 1152 1342 978 2064 1676 2477 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.8 44.7 44.8 54.6 38.7 11.4 55.2 37.1 0.0 51.1 31.5 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 8.6 9.8 2.0 1.4 0.1 1.9 2.2 0.0 2.0 1.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 11.2 10.7 4.4 9.6 2.9 3.9 12.7 0.0 7.3 13.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh 39.50 30.50
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 59.3 53.2 54.5 56.5 40.2 11.5 57.1 39.3 39.5 53.1 32.7 30.5 LnGrp LOS E D D E D B E D D D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 800 1495 1780 2140
Approach Delay, s/veh 54.5 34.0 41.8 37.2
Approach LOS D C D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.1 42.0 24.5 47.1 16.5 35.6 16.3 55.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.3 * 5.7 5.1 4.9 4.0 5.7 5.1 * 5.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 * 40 60.0 50.0 35.3 40.0 35.0 * 60 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.5 24.2 18.8 33.1 12.2 26.2 11.0 34.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.9 0.6 9.1 0.3 3.7 0.3 13.4 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 40.0
HCM 7th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Howe Avenue & Fair Oaks Boulevard Future No Build PM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero Howe Avenue Synchro v2b.syn DKS Associates (04/09/2025) Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 580 1050 115 105 900 160 240 1250 70 295 1185 520 Future Volume (vph) 580 1050 115 105 900 160 240 1250 70 295 1185 520 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 3.7 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 5045 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 5045 3433 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 580 1050 115 105 900 160 240 1250 70 295 1185 520 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 77 0 0 122 0 5 0000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 580 1050 38 105 900 38 240 1315 0 295 1185 520 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA custom Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3! 8 7 4 14!
Permitted Phases 6 2 1
Actuated Green, G (s) 26.4 42.7 42.7 13.1 29.9 29.9 13.4 40.7 14.5 41.8 81.5 Effective Green, g (s) 26.4 42.7 42.7 13.1 29.9 29.9 13.4 40.7 14.5 41.8 81.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.33 0.33 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.10 0.31 0.11 0.32 0.63 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 697 1670 519 178 813 364 353 1579 382 1635 1037 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 0.21 0.06 c0.25 0.07 c0.26 c0.09 0.23 c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.02 0.12
v/c Ratio 0.83 0.63 0.07 0.59 1.11 0.11 0.68 0.83 0.77 0.72 0.50 Uniform Delay, d1 49.7 36.9 30.0 55.9 50.1 39.5 56.2 41.5 56.1 39.0 13.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.11 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.0 0.5 0.0 3.2 65.1 0.0 3.6 4.7 8.6 2.8 0.1 Delay (s) 57.7 37.5 30.1 59.1 115.1 39.5 66.2 36.0 64.7 41.8 13.3 Level of Service E D C E F D E D E D B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 43.7 99.7 40.6 37.8
Approach LOS D F D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 51.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
! Phase conflict between lane groups.
c Critical Lane Group
Queues
1: Howe Avenue & Fair Oaks Boulevard Future No Build PM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero Howe Avenue Synchro v2b.syn DKS Associates (04/09/2025) Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 580 1050 115 105 900 160 240 1320 295 1185 520 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.63 0.19 0.59 1.11 0.33 0.68 0.83 0.77 0.73 0.48 Control Delay (s/veh) 60.3 39.9 6.3 69.5 111.0 9.4 71.3 35.8 70.3 41.9 11.0 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) 60.3 39.9 6.3 69.5 111.0 9.4 71.3 35.8 70.3 41.9 11.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 243 273 0 87 ~467 1 79 397 125 319 170 Queue Length 95th (ft) 293 349 43 146 #710 64 156 260 175 372 263 Internal Link Dist (ft) 794 572 911 448
Turn Bay Length (ft) 530 100 300 260 205 270
Base Capacity (vph) 937 1669 600 211 813 485 422 1673 422 1689 1084 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.62 0.63 0.19 0.50 1.11 0.33 0.57 0.79 0.70 0.70 0.48 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

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

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
2: Howe Avenue & University Avenue Future No Build PM
Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero Howe Avenue Synchro v2b.syn DKS Associates (04/09/2025) Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 112 338 156 299 40 1455 35 1340
v/c Ratio 0.55 0.56 0.68 0.59 0.25 0.54 0.21 0.51
Control Delay (s/veh) 61.8 17.3 66.2 44.3 59.0 24.0 47.5 51.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 61.8 17.3 66.2 44.3 59.0 24.0 47.5 51.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 101 37 140 103 32 291 29 359
Queue Length 95th (ft) 150 77 202 139 70 #520 m48 454
Internal Link Dist (ft) 594 409 1494 911
Turn Bay Length (ft) 90 140 230 100
Base Capacity (vph) 392 922 392 813 170 2705 166 2622
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.29 0.37 0.40 0.37 0.24 0.54 0.21 0.51 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Queues
3: Power Inn Road/Howe Avenue & Folsom Boulevard Future No Build PM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero Howe Avenue Synchro v2b.syn DKS Associates (04/09/2025) Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 100 700 290 720 485 255 1410 235 480 1570 180 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.77 0.76 0.64 0.31 0.73 0.84 0.42 0.84 0.78 0.27 Control Delay (s/veh) 81.1 55.6 79.7 48.5 3.2 80.2 53.8 31.9 75.3 44.3 18.4 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) 81.1 55.6 79.7 48.5 3.2 80.2 53.8 31.9 75.3 44.3 18.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 50 318 146 323 19 128 476 129 240 496 62 Queue Length 95th (ft) 88 439 208 432 43 187 606 235 317 619 134 Internal Link Dist (ft) 499 869 545 781
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 225 320 155 130 720 210
Base Capacity (vph) 790 914 797 1121 1843 790 1672 565 1355 2512 823 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.77 0.36 0.64 0.26 0.32 0.84 0.42 0.35 0.63 0.22 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Howe Avenue & University Avenue Future Road Diet AM
Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero Howe Avenue Synchro v2b.syn DKS Associates (04/09/2025) Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 25 35 85 75 80 25 175 1040 220 30 645 95 Future Volume (veh/h) 25 35 85 75 80 25 175 1040 220 30 645 95 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 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 25 35 85 60 101 25 175 1040 220 30 645 0 Peak Hour 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 162 170 142 163 267 64 200 1738 367 113 1949 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.55 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1562 1781 2917 698 1781 2920 616 1781 3647 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 25 35 85 60 64 62 175 631 629 30 645 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1562 1781 1870 1745 1781 1777 1760 1781 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.6 2.1 6.3 3.8 3.8 4.0 11.7 38.8 39.1 1.9 12.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.6 2.1 6.3 3.8 3.8 4.0 11.7 38.8 39.1 1.9 12.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.35 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 162 170 142 163 171 160 200 1058 1047 113 1949 V/C Ratio(X) 0.15 0.21 0.60 0.37 0.37 0.39 0.87 0.60 0.60 0.27 0.33 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 441 463 387 441 463 432 200 1058 1047 181 1949 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 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 0.74 0.74 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.3 50.5 52.4 51.3 51.3 51.4 56.9 35.1 35.2 53.6 14.9 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.4 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 30.8 2.5 2.5 0.3 0.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 1.0 2.6 1.7 1.8 1.8 7.3 19.1 19.0 0.9 4.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 50.6 51.0 55.4 52.3 52.3 52.5 87.7 37.6 37.8 53.9 15.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D E D D D F D D D B
Approach Vol, veh/h 145 186 1435 675
Approach Delay, s/veh 53.5 52.4 43.8 17.0
Approach LOS D D D B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.2 12.4 77.1 15.3 18.0 71.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.3 4.8 5.7 4.3 4.5 5.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.7 12.2 29.3 29.7 13.5 28.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.3 3.9 41.1 6.0 13.7 14.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 2.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 37.6
HCM 7th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Power Inn Road/Howe Avenue & Folsom Boulevard Future Road Diet AM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero Howe Avenue Synchro v2b.syn DKS Associates (04/09/2025) Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 110 260 145 205 730 420 230 1005 230 395 1345 210 Future Volume (veh/h) 110 260 145 205 730 420 230 1005 230 395 1345 210 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 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 110 260 145 205 730 420 230 1005 0 395 1345 0 Peak Hour 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 205 547 295 279 938 1259 305 1434 647 1929
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.26 0.26 0.09 0.28 0.00 0.19 0.38 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 2227 1203 3456 3554 2790 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 110 206 199 205 730 420 230 1005 0 395 1345 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1654 1728 1777 1395 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.0 9.5 9.9 5.6 18.2 1.8 6.2 16.9 0.0 10.1 21.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.0 9.5 9.9 5.6 18.2 1.8 6.2 16.9 0.0 10.1 21.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 205 436 406 279 938 1259 305 1434 647 1929 V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.47 0.49 0.73 0.78 0.33 0.75 0.70 0.61 0.70 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1262 741 690 1272 1486 1689 1262 2663 2163 3196 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.8 30.9 31.0 43.1 32.7 6.8 42.7 30.9 0.0 35.8 25.2 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.4 1.1 0.1 1.4 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 4.0 3.9 2.3 7.5 1.4 2.6 6.6 0.0 4.1 8.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh 38.70 28.60
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 44.6 31.7 32.0 44.5 33.8 6.9 44.1 31.5 38.7 36.1 25.7 28.6 LnGrp LOS D C C D C A D C D D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 515 1355 1350 1845
Approach Delay, s/veh 34.6 27.1 34.3 28.1
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 31.0 23.1 31.8 11.7 29.2 13.6 41.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.3 * 5.7 5.1 4.9 4.0 5.7 5.1 * 5.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 * 40 60.0 50.0 35.3 40.0 35.0 * 60 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.0 20.2 12.1 18.9 7.6 11.9 8.2 23.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 5.1 0.5 8.0 0.2 2.5 0.2 12.9 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 30.1
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Howe Avenue & Fair Oaks Boulevard Future Road Diet AM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero Howe Avenue Synchro v2b.syn DKS Associates (04/09/2025) Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 305 600 50 40 885 170 240 815 25 240 810 595 Future Volume (vph) 305 600 50 40 885 170 240 815 25 240 810 595 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 3.7 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3523 3433 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3523 3433 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 305 600 50 40 885 170 240 815 25 240 810 595 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 33 0 0 120 0 2 0000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 305 600 17 40 885 50 240 838 0 240 810 595 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA custom Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3! 8 7 4 14!
Permitted Phases 6 2 1
Actuated Green, G (s) 14.2 41.9 41.9 7.2 35.4 35.4 13.0 38.9 13.0 38.9 66.0 Effective Green, g (s) 14.2 41.9 41.9 7.2 35.4 35.4 13.0 38.9 13.0 38.9 66.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.35 0.35 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.11 0.32 0.11 0.32 0.55 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 406 1775 552 106 1044 466 371 1142 371 1147 919 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.12 0.02 c0.25 c0.07 c0.24 0.07 0.23 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.03 0.10
v/c Ratio 0.75 0.34 0.03 0.38 0.85 0.11 0.65 0.73 0.65 0.71 0.65 Uniform Delay, d1 51.2 28.8 25.7 54.2 39.8 30.8 51.3 36.0 51.3 35.5 18.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.38 0.84 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 6.3 0.0 2.3 3.3 2.9 3.7 1.2 Delay (s) 58.0 28.9 25.7 55.1 46.0 30.8 73.1 33.5 54.2 39.2 20.1 Level of Service E C C E D C E C D D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 38.0 44.0 42.3 34.5
Approach LOS D D D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 39.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
! Phase conflict between lane groups.
c Critical Lane Group
Queues
1: Howe Avenue & Fair Oaks Boulevard Future Road Diet AM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero Howe Avenue Synchro v2b.syn DKS Associates (04/09/2025) Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 305 600 50 40 885 170 240 840 240 810 595 v/c Ratio 0.75 0.34 0.08 0.23 0.89 0.30 0.64 0.70 0.64 0.68 0.60 Control Delay (s/veh) 63.2 30.2 0.2 53.3 53.8 6.2 77.0 32.8 59.4 38.5 17.9 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) 63.2 30.2 0.2 53.3 53.8 6.2 77.0 32.8 59.4 38.5 17.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 118 131 0 29 336 0 98 225 93 292 256 Queue Length 95th (ft) 167 167 0 65 #427 51 146 292 133 380 473 Internal Link Dist (ft) 794 572 911 448
Turn Bay Length (ft) 530 100 300 260 205 270
Base Capacity (vph) 443 1775 637 228 1037 584 457 1196 457 1199 993 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.69 0.34 0.08 0.18 0.85 0.29 0.53 0.70 0.53 0.68 0.60 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
2: Howe Avenue & University Avenue Future Road Diet AM
Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero Howe Avenue Synchro v2b.syn DKS Associates (04/09/2025) Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 123 60 120 175 1260 30 740
v/c Ratio 0.11 0.28 0.31 0.29 0.74 0.66 0.17 0.46
Control Delay (s/veh) 44.9 17.7 50.1 38.3 69.0 24.2 62.1 16.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 44.9 17.7 50.1 38.3 69.0 24.2 62.1 16.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 17 15 49 39 130 336 25 46
Queue Length 95th (ft) 39 39 81 59 #250 #824 m39 #368
Internal Link Dist (ft) 594 409 1494 911
Turn Bay Length (ft) 90 140 230 100
Base Capacity (vph) 398 808 398 826 240 1916 179 1626
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.06 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.73 0.66 0.17 0.46 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Queues
3: Power Inn Road/Howe Avenue & Folsom Boulevard Future Road Diet AM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero Howe Avenue Synchro v2b.syn DKS Associates (04/09/2025) Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 110 405 205 730 420 230 1005 230 395 1345 210 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.41 0.63 0.66 0.26 0.66 0.72 0.46 0.59 0.72 0.32 Control Delay (s/veh) 68.9 36.9 67.5 44.4 2.3 67.1 46.2 26.8 52.3 37.7 14.8 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) 68.9 36.9 67.5 44.4 2.3 67.1 46.2 26.8 52.3 37.7 14.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 46 129 87 283 7 97 284 97 155 353 56 Queue Length 95th (ft) 87 213 142 422 32 157 360 187 232 438 123 Internal Link Dist (ft) 499 869 545 781
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 225 320 155 130 720 210
Base Capacity (vph) 931 1070 939 1099 1935 931 1970 668 1596 2959 967 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.38 0.22 0.66 0.22 0.25 0.51 0.34 0.25 0.45 0.22 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Howe Avenue & University Avenue Future Road Diet PM
Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero Howe Avenue Synchro v2b.syn DKS Associates (04/10/2025) Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 135 65 250 260 45 100 35 1115 120 25 1105 35 Future Volume (veh/h) 135 65 250 260 45 100 35 1115 120 25 1105 35 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 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 135 65 250 260 45 100 35 1115 120 25 1105 0 Peak Hour 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 320 336 285 394 57 127 118 1642 176 98 1773
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.51 0.51 0.05 0.50 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 3563 516 1147 1781 3232 347 1781 3647 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 135 65 250 260 0 145 35 612 623 25 1105 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1664 1781 1777 1802 1781 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.7 3.8 20.0 9.1 0.0 11.0 2.4 33.6 33.8 1.7 29.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.7 3.8 20.0 9.1 0.0 11.0 2.4 33.6 33.8 1.7 29.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 320 336 285 394 0 184 118 903 916 98 1773 V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.19 0.88 0.66 0.00 0.79 0.30 0.68 0.68 0.26 0.62 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 434 456 387 869 0 406 171 903 916 167 1773 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.56 0.56 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.3 45.3 51.9 55.5 0.0 56.3 57.8 24.0 24.0 58.9 23.7 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.2 14.6 1.4 0.0 5.5 0.5 4.1 4.1 0.3 0.9 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 4.0 1.8 9.1 4.2 0.0 4.9 1.1 14.5 14.8 0.8 12.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 48.0 45.5 66.5 56.9 0.0 61.9 58.3 28.1 28.1 59.2 24.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D E E E E C C E C
Approach Vol, veh/h 450 405 1270 1130
Approach Delay, s/veh 57.9 58.7 28.9 25.4
Approach LOS E E C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.7 11.9 71.7 18.7 13.1 70.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.3 4.8 5.7 4.3 4.5 5.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.7 12.2 35.3 31.7 12.5 35.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.0 3.7 35.8 13.0 4.4 31.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 35.4
HCM 7th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Power Inn Road/Howe Avenue & Folsom Boulevard Future Road Diet PM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero Howe Avenue Synchro v2b.syn DKS Associates (04/10/2025) Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 90 425 230 285 705 490 250 1405 240 490 1565 180 Future Volume (veh/h) 90 425 230 285 705 490 250 1405 240 490 1565 180 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 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 90 425 230 285 705 490 250 1405 0 490 1565 0 Peak Hour 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 164 514 276 346 996 1229 311 1762 554 2112
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.23 0.23 0.10 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.34 0.00 0.16 0.41 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 2234 1197 3456 3554 2790 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 90 337 318 285 705 490 250 1405 0 490 1565 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1655 1728 1777 1395 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.0 21.6 21.9 9.7 21.3 2.1 8.5 29.8 0.0 16.6 31.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.0 21.6 21.9 9.7 21.3 2.1 8.5 29.8 0.0 16.6 31.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 164 409 381 346 996 1229 311 1762 554 2112 V/C Ratio(X) 0.55 0.82 0.83 0.82 0.71 0.40 0.80 0.80 0.88 0.74 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1010 594 553 1019 1190 1381 1010 2132 1732 2558 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.8 43.8 43.9 52.8 38.7 11.3 53.5 35.4 0.0 49.2 29.7 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 6.5 7.6 1.9 1.4 0.2 1.9 1.9 0.0 1.9 1.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 9.9 9.5 4.2 9.1 2.8 3.7 12.1 0.0 7.2 12.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh 37.80 27.60
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 56.8 50.3 51.5 54.7 40.1 11.5 55.3 37.3 37.8 51.1 30.7 27.6 LnGrp LOS E D D D D B E D D D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 745 1480 1775 2145
Approach Delay, s/veh 51.6 33.4 39.9 35.2
Approach LOS D C D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 39.2 24.3 46.2 16.0 33.3 15.9 54.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.3 * 5.7 5.1 4.9 4.0 5.7 5.1 * 5.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 * 40 60.0 50.0 35.3 40.0 35.0 * 60 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.0 23.3 18.6 31.8 11.7 23.9 10.5 33.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.9 0.6 9.5 0.3 3.6 0.3 13.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 38.1
HCM 7th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Howe Avenue & Fair Oaks Boulevard Future Road Diet PM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero Howe Avenue Synchro v2b.syn DKS Associates (04/09/2025) Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 610 1055 105 80 880 150 235 1135 60 285 1050 570 Future Volume (vph) 610 1055 105 80 880 150 235 1135 60 285 1050 570 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 3.7 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3513 3433 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3513 3433 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj. Flow (vph) 610 1055 105 80 880 150 235 1135 60 285 1050 570 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 70 0 0 120 0 3 0000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 610 1055 35 80 880 30 235 1192 0 285 1050 570 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA custom Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3! 8 7 4 14!
Permitted Phases 6 2 1
Actuated Green, G (s) 27.5 42.8 42.8 10.1 25.9 25.9 13.3 43.8 14.3 44.8 85.5 Effective Green, g (s) 27.5 42.8 42.8 10.1 25.9 25.9 13.3 43.8 14.3 44.8 85.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.33 0.33 0.08 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.34 0.11 0.34 0.66 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 726 1674 521 137 705 315 351 1183 377 1219 1086 v/s Ratio Prot c0.18 0.21 0.05 c0.25 0.07 c0.34 c0.08 0.30 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.02 0.13
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.63 0.07 0.58 1.25 0.09 0.67 1.01 0.76 0.86 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 49.1 36.9 29.9 57.9 52.1 42.5 56.2 43.1 56.2 39.7 11.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.16 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.3 0.6 0.0 4.0 123.3 0.0 3.1 25.9 7.5 8.1 0.2 Delay (s) 57.5 37.5 29.9 62.0 175.4 42.5 68.3 61.9 63.6 47.8 11.8 Level of Service E D C E F D E E E D B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 43.9 149.3 62.9 39.4
Approach LOS D F E D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 65.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
! Phase conflict between lane groups.
c Critical Lane Group
Queues
1: Howe Avenue & Fair Oaks Boulevard Future Road Diet PM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero Howe Avenue Synchro v2b.syn DKS Associates (04/10/2025) Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 610 1055 105 80 880 150 235 1195 285 1050 570 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.63 0.17 0.47 1.30 0.35 0.67 0.99 0.76 0.85 0.50 Control Delay (s/veh) 59.9 40.0 4.9 65.0 185.7 8.8 73.1 57.0 69.3 46.7 9.7 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) 59.9 40.0 4.9 65.0 185.7 8.8 73.1 57.0 69.3 46.7 9.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 256 284 0 65 ~498 0 85 ~566 121 426 171 Queue Length 95th (ft) 306 346 34 116 #705 55 153 #722 169 #564 292 Internal Link Dist (ft) 794 572 911 448
Turn Bay Length (ft) 530 100 300 260 205 270
Base Capacity (vph) 937 1673 601 211 679 431 422 1210 422 1242 1143 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.65 0.63 0.17 0.38 1.30 0.35 0.56 0.99 0.68 0.85 0.50 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

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

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
2: Howe Avenue & University Avenue Future Road Diet PM
Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero Howe Avenue Synchro v2b.syn DKS Associates (04/10/2025) Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 121 329 138 267 35 1235 25 1140
v/c Ratio 0.58 0.54 0.63 0.54 0.21 0.65 0.15 0.59
Control Delay (s/veh) 62.6 16.0 65.0 39.9 58.3 26.6 44.0 49.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 62.6 16.0 65.0 39.9 58.3 26.6 44.0 49.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 108 34 124 82 28 387 21 457
Queue Length 95th (ft) 160 72 181 116 63 #770 m30 #656
Internal Link Dist (ft) 594 409 1494 911
Turn Bay Length (ft) 90 140 230 100
Base Capacity (vph) 392 920 392 822 170 1906 166 1930
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.31 0.36 0.35 0.32 0.21 0.65 0.15 0.59 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Queues
3: Power Inn Road/Howe Avenue & Folsom Boulevard Future Road Diet PM Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero Howe Avenue Synchro v2b.syn DKS Associates (04/10/2025) Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 90 655 285 705 490 250 1405 240 490 1565 180 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.77 0.74 0.66 0.32 0.72 0.82 0.42 0.82 0.75 0.26 Control Delay (s/veh) 79.4 56.4 77.4 49.5 2.6 78.0 51.1 31.3 72.2 41.3 17.7 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) 79.4 56.4 77.4 49.5 2.6 78.0 51.1 31.3 72.2 41.3 17.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 44 294 140 314 13 123 460 129 240 474 60 Queue Length 95th (ft) 81 407 206 421 37 184 606 241 323 614 133 Internal Link Dist (ft) 499 869 545 781
Turn Bay Length (ft) 230 225 320 155 130 720 210
Base Capacity (vph) 811 937 818 1076 1831 811 1716 578 1390 2578 843 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.11 0.70 0.35 0.66 0.27 0.31 0.82 0.42 0.35 0.61 0.21 Intersection Summary
Norwood Avenue Mobility Pro ject • Alternative s Development Report • July 2025 Section 2. Sidra Intersection Analysis Results

MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 1 [Howe/Swarthmore - AM (Site Folder: Road Diet Option)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.6.228 Howe Ave & Swarthmore Dr
Site Category: Future Conditions 1
Roundabout
Vehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
Turn Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Eff.

Stop
Rate
Aver.

No. of
Cycles
Aver.

Speed
[ Total HV ] [ Total HV ] [ Veh. Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph
South: Howe Ave
3 L2 All MCs 60 2.0 60 2.0 0.597 9.4 LOS A 4.9 125.0 0.42 0.18 0.42 27.3 8 T1 All MCs 1435 2.0 1435 2.0 0.597 9.4 LOS A 4.9 125.0 0.42 0.18 0.42 35.8 18 R2 All MCs 25 2.0 25 2.0 0.597 9.4 LOS A 4.9 125.0 0.42 0.18 0.42 24.4 Approach 1520 2.0 1520 2.0 0.597 9.4 LOS A 4.9 125.0 0.42 0.18 0.42 35.1 East: University Park Dr
1 L2 All MCs 25 2.0 25 2.0 0.163 13.5 LOS B 0.5 12.2 0.77 0.77 0.77 22.8 6 T1 All MCs 5 2.0 5 2.0 0.163 13.5 LOS B 0.5 12.2 0.77 0.77 0.77 19.3 16 R2 All MCs 25 2.0 25 2.0 0.163 13.5 LOS B 0.5 12.2 0.77 0.77 0.77 22.9 Approach 55 2.0 55 2.0 0.163 13.5 LOS B 0.5 12.2 0.77 0.77 0.77 22.5 North: Howe Ave
7 L2 All MCs 25 2.0 25 2.0 0.350 5.9 LOS A 1.9 48.7 0.28 0.12 0.28 25.2 4 T1 All MCs 805 2.0 805 2.0 0.350 5.9 LOS A 1.9 48.7 0.28 0.12 0.28 37.8 14 R2 All MCs 60 2.0 60 2.0 0.350 5.9 LOS A 1.9 48.7 0.28 0.12 0.28 28.7 Approach 890 2.0 890 2.0 0.350 5.9 LOS A 1.9 48.7 0.28 0.12 0.28 36.5 West: Swarthmore Dr
5 L2 All MCs 60 2.0 60 2.0 0.179 7.7 LOS A 0.6 15.7 0.60 0.57 0.60 27.0 2 T1 All MCs 5 2.0 5 2.0 0.179 7.7 LOS A 0.6 15.7 0.60 0.57 0.60 20.2 12 R2 All MCs 50 2.0 50 2.0 0.179 7.7 LOS A 0.6 15.7 0.60 0.57 0.60 27.3 Approach 115 2.0 115 2.0 0.179 7.7 LOS A 0.6 15.7 0.60 0.57 0.60 26.7 All Vehicles 2580 2.0 2580 2.0 0.597 8.2 LOS A 4.9 125.0 0.39 0.19 0.39 34.6 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections.

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

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

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

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

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

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2024 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: DKS ASSOCIATES | Licence: NETWORK / FLOATING | Processed: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 2:22:45 PM Project: L:\All-DKS\SAC\P\24000\600s\24692-000 Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero\06 Analysis\Sidra\Future Conditions - Howe & Swarthmore.sip9

MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 1 [Howe/Swarthmore - PM (Site Folder: Road Diet Option)] Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.6.228 Howe Ave & Swarthmore Dr
Site Category: Future Conditions 1
Roundabout
Vehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
Turn Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Eff.

Stop
Rate
Aver.

No. of
Cycles
Aver.

Speed
[ Total HV ] [ Total HV ] [ Veh. Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph
South: Howe Ave
3 L2 All MCs 60 2.0 60 2.0 0.532 8.3 LOS A 3.9 98.4 0.37 0.16 0.37 27.6 8 T1 All MCs 1270 2.0 1270 2.0 0.532 8.3 LOS A 3.9 98.4 0.37 0.16 0.37 36.4 18 R2 All MCs 25 2.0 25 2.0 0.532 8.3 LOS A 3.9 98.4 0.37 0.16 0.37 24.7 Approach 1355 2.0 1355 2.0 0.532 8.3 LOS A 3.9 98.4 0.37 0.16 0.37 35.6 East: University Park Dr
1 L2 All MCs 25 2.0 25 2.0 0.140 11.3 LOS B 0.4 10.7 0.73 0.73 0.73 23.3 6 T1 All MCs 5 2.0 5 2.0 0.140 11.3 LOS B 0.4 10.7 0.73 0.73 0.73 19.7 16 R2 All MCs 25 2.0 25 2.0 0.140 11.3 LOS B 0.4 10.7 0.73 0.73 0.73 23.4 Approach 55 2.0 55 2.0 0.140 11.3 LOS B 0.4 10.7 0.73 0.73 0.73 23.0 North: Howe Ave
7 L2 All MCs 25 2.0 25 2.0 0.662 10.8 LOS B 6.3 159.9 0.48 0.20 0.48 24.0 4 T1 All MCs 1600 2.0 1600 2.0 0.662 10.8 LOS B 6.3 159.9 0.48 0.20 0.48 35.1 14 R2 All MCs 60 2.0 60 2.0 0.662 10.8 LOS B 6.3 159.9 0.48 0.20 0.48 27.1 Approach 1685 2.0 1685 2.0 0.662 10.8 LOS B 6.3 159.9 0.48 0.20 0.48 34.5 West: Swarthmore Dr
5 L2 All MCs 60 2.0 60 2.0 0.374 20.2 LOS C 1.2 31.5 0.84 0.92 1.07 23.5 2 T1 All MCs 5 2.0 5 2.0 0.374 20.2 LOS C 1.2 31.5 0.84 0.92 1.07 18.2 12 R2 All MCs 50 2.0 50 2.0 0.374 20.2 LOS C 1.2 31.5 0.84 0.92 1.07 23.8 Approach 115 2.0 115 2.0 0.374 20.2 LOS C 1.2 31.5 0.84 0.92 1.07 23.3 All Vehicles 3210 2.0 3210 2.0 0.662 10.1 LOS B 6.3 159.9 0.45 0.22 0.46 34.0 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections.

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

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

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

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

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

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Constraint effects.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000-2024 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: DKS ASSOCIATES | Licence: NETWORK / FLOATING | Processed: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 2:22:46 PM Project: L:\All-DKS\SAC\P\24000\600s\24692-000 Howe Avenue Transportation & Vision Zero\06 Analysis\Sidra\Future Conditions - Howe & Swarthmore.sip9

APPENDIX C

ENGAGEMENT SUMMARIES

HOWE AVENUE SAFETY & MOBILITY PLAN • Phase 1 Public Engagement Summary • NOVEMBER 2025 54 Phase 1 Public Engagement Summary
This section outlines public engagement events, engagement media methods, and public feedback results for the Connecting Howe Avenue Safety & Mobility Plan, including an overview of in-person and virtual meetings, methods for collecting community input, and a summary of feedback through surveys and interactive maps.

Public Engagement Events
In Person Event
On Wednesday, November 20, 2024,
the project team hosted an in-person
engagement event to engage
community members on the
Connecting Howe Avenue Safety &
Mobility Plan. The event was held
from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m. at the
Scottish Rite Masonic Center (6151 H
St, Sacramento, CA 95819).

To promote awareness of the public
workshop and virtual meeting, a flyer
was circulated on the City of Sacramento website, pop-up events, and social media outlets to promote the upcoming events. The event flyer consisted of meeting information, project background, links, and a QR code to route views to the project website, survey, and comment map.

The workshop began with a presentation outlining the project’s purpose, goals, and need.

Following the presentation, attendees were encouraged to participate by completing a community survey or contributing feedback via an interactive map on Social Pinpoint. The project team set up four comment boards dedicated to different transportation modes— walking, biking, driving, and transit- to solicit feedback.

Approximately eight to ten attendees participated in the event, engaging with the project team. Attendees shared feedback about concerns along Howe Avenue and suggested potential improvements. Materials from events are provided in Appendix E.

Virtual Meeting
On Monday, December 2, 2024, the project team held a virtual community meeting to engage community members and gather public input. This event, conducted via Zoom HOWE AVENUE SAFETY & MOBILITY PLAN • Phase 1 Public Engagement Summary • NOVEMBER 2025
55 from 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., served as an alternative option for those who may not be able to attend in-person events.

The workshop began with a brief presentation outlining the project’s purpose, need, and goals. Participants were encouraged to share their comments, questions, and concerns with project staff during the session. Additionally, attendees received information about the project website, where they could complete a survey and/or explore the interactive map at their convenience.

Approximately 10 community members attended the meeting and provided input and feedback on existing conditions on Howe Avenue.

On Wednesday, December 11, 2024, City staff presented at a standing Folsom Boulevard Coalition meeting, similar to the workshop mentioned above.

Project Website
The Connecting Howe Avenue Safety & Mobility Plan has a dedicated page22 on the City of Sacramento’s website. As shown in Figure 34, the project webpage provides details including the project background, corridor extents, schedule, and methods for public input. The webpage offers two primary ways for community engagement: a survey and an interactive Social Pinpoint map for public comments (Figure 35).

The community survey was available both online and at the in-person workshop, where it was offered in English and Spanish (Figure 36).
22 City of Sacramento. (n.d.). Connecting Howe Avenue. Public Works Department. Retrieved January 9, 2025, from https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/public-works/transportation/current_transportation_efforts/connecting-howe-avenue HOWE AVENUE SAFETY & MOBILITY PLAN • Phase 1 Public Engagement Summary • NOVEMBER 2025 56 Figure 34. Connecting Howe Avenue Safety & Mobility P lan Project Web Page HOWE AVENUE SAFETY & MOBILITY PLAN • Phase 1 Public Engagement Summary • NOVEMBER 2025
57 Figure 35. Interactive Comment Map
HOWE AVENUE SAFETY & MOBILITY PLAN • Phase 1 Public Engagement Summary • NOVEMBER 2025 58 Figure 36. Commun ity Survey
HOWE AVENUE SAFETY & MOBILITY PLAN • Phase 1 Public Engagement Summary • NOVEMBER 2025
59 Public Engagement Results
Since the launch of the project webpage in September, 2024, through December 2024, the Connecting Howe Avenue Safety & Mobility Plan Social Pinpoint Platform has received 179 views, over 70 interactive map comments, and more than 100 community survey responses. The following sections summarize public feedback collected through the Social Pinpoint interactive map and project survey.

Social Pinpoint Results
The interactive map allowed visitors to provide feedback across six categories: walking, bicycling, driving, transit, general safety, and other concerns. Due to the volume of responses, the results have been organized by primary intersections.

Figure 37 presents a cartogram illustrating public comments by transportation mode across intersections on Howe Avenue. The vertical axis shows the number of comments, while the horizontal axis highlights specific intersections and locations along the corridor.

The area near University Park Drive received the most feedback, with 14 to 16 comments focusing on various issues. Walking and bicycling concerns were consistent throughout the corridor, while transit-related comments were concentrated near Swarthmore Drive.

Overall, the primary concerns identified were related to driving, bicycling, safety, and walking and rolling (see Figure 38). Key themes from the social pinpoint comments and public survey are summarized as follows:

Major Safety Priorities
 Excessive vehicle speeds
 High-risk crosswalks at major intersections
 Unsafe merging areas and unclear lane markings
 Poor visibility at intersections and crosswalks
Missing Connections
 Incomplete sidewalk network
 Gaps in bike lanes and trails
 Poor access to transit stations
 Disconnected multi-use paths near La Riviera and Folsom Blvd Problem Intersections & Areas
 Fair Oaks/Howe: Difficult turns, safety risks for people walking, and challenges with business access.
 Howe/American River: Crash-prone area with frequent red light running.  Swarthmore Drive: Dangerous merging and speeding concerns.

HOWE AVENUE SAFETY & MOBILITY PLAN • Phase 1 Public Engagement Summary • NOVEMBER 2025
60  Power Inn LRT Station: An isolated feel and poor connectivity.

Community Impact
 People driving short distances instead of walking/biking due to safety concerns  Difficulty accessing local businesses and amenities
 Navigation challenges during peak hours
 Concerns about neighborhood quality of life (noise, traffic) The overarching message from this community feedback is that current road conditions prioritize vehicle throughput at the expense of safety and accessibility for other modes of travel, particularly affecting local community access to nearby destinations. A full summary of comments is provided in Appendix F.

Figure 37. Comment Type by Intersection (Social P inpoint and Survey) HOWE AVENUE SAFETY & MOBILITY PLAN • Phase 1 Public Engagement Summary • NOVEMBER 2025
61 Figure 38. Social P inpoint Comment by Type
Project Survey Results
The project webpage featured an interactive comment map, and a community survey designed to understand user interactions with the corridor and identify desired improvements. As illustrated in Figure 39 and Figure 40, over 80% of respondents reported using Howe Avenue daily or occasionally, with the majority traveling by car.

The survey presented potential corridor enhancements, asking participants to rank their interest in each option on a scale from least to most interested. Results, highlighted in Figure 41 to Figure 43, indicate strong community interest in improving biking, walking, and driving conditions along Howe Avenue.

HOWE AVENUE SAFETY & MOBILITY PLAN • Phase 1 Public Engagement Summary • NOVEMBER 2025
62 Figure 39. Commun ity Survey - Question 2: How Often do you Typically Travel on Howe Avenue?
Figure 40. Commun ity Survey - Question 3: HOW DO YOU TYPICALLY TRAVEL ON HOWE AVENUE?
HOWE AVENUE SAFETY & MOBILITY PLAN • Phase 1 Public Engagement Summary • NOVEMBER 2025
63 Figure 41. Commun ity Survey - Interest in Improved Walking Cond itions Figure 42. Commun ity Survey - Interest in Walk ing and Bicycling Cross ings 14%
6%
7%
16%
54%
RESPONSE TO: INTEREST IN IMPROVED WALKING CONDITIONS
SUCH AS WIDER SIDEWALKS AND STREET TREES.

Least Interested Slightly Interested Moderately Interested Very Interested Most Interested
12%
2%
12%
61% 11%
RESPONSE TO: INTEREST IN IMPROVED WALKING AND

BICYCLING CROSSING OF HOWE AVENUE
Least Interested Slightly Interested Moderately Interested Very Interested Most Interested
HOWE AVENUE SAFETY & MOBILITY PLAN • Phase 1 Public Engagement Summary • NOVEMBER 2025
64 Figure 43. Commun ity Survey - Interest in Improving Driver Safety Existing Transportation Challenges and Constraints
This section outlines key issues with multimodal infrastructure along Howe Avenue identified as part of the existing conditions analysis and community engagement efforts.

Figure 44 illustrates the existing infrastructure along Howe Avenue and identifies bike lanes and sidewalk gaps.
0% 3%
9%
11%
77%
RESPONSE TO: INTEREST IN IMPROVED DRIVING SAFETY
Least Interested Slightly Interested Moderately Interested Very Interested Most Interested
HOWE AVENUE SAFETY & MOBILITY PLAN • Phase 1 Public Engagement Summary • NOVEMBER 2025
65 Figure 44. Infrastructure Gaps and Constraints
HOWE AVENUE SAFETY & MOBILITY PLAN • Phase 1 Public Engagement Summary • NOVEMBER 2025
66 Infrastructure for Walking/Rolling
Existing sidewalks are generally five to six feet wide, but segments narrow to less than five feet near the Howe Avenue Bridge.

Gaps in the sidewalk network are present on both sides of Howe Avenue:
 West side of Howe Avenue:
o From American River Drive to Swarthmore Drive.
o From Swarthmore Drive to the University Avenue overcrossing. o From the University Avenue overcrossing to the Howe Avenue Bridge.  East side of Howe Avenue:
o From the La Riviera overcrossing to Folsom Boulevard.

All study intersections are equipped with pedestrian signals, push buttons, and marked crossings. Curb ramps are installed at all crossing locations; however, some intersections lack detectable warning surfaces and landing areas. These include:
 American River Drive
 Swarthmore Drive
 College Town Drive
 Folsom Boulevard
Crossings are not provided for the southern approach for intersections at the cross-streets of American River Drive and Swarthmore Drive/University Park Drive due to a lack of sidewalks on the west side of Howe Avenue.

The walking Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) score is four, reflecting uncomfortable and stressful conditions for most people walking or rolling, including those using mobility aids.

Community engagement efforts identified the following walking infrastructure concerns and priorities on Howe Avenue:
 Traffic safety concerns at major intersections, particularly poor visibility at crosswalks and intersections such as Fair Oaks/Howe, which pose significant dangers to people walking or rolling.
 Incomplete sidewalk networks and disconnected walking paths, notably near La Riviera and Folsom Boulevard.
 Safety concerns discourage walking and biking, contributing to increased short-distance car trips.

Infrastructure for Biking
Bike lanes are present along Howe Avenue and are approximately five feet in width. These bike lanes connect to the broader bicycle network via the American River Parkway shared- HOWE AVENUE SAFETY & MOBILITY PLAN • Phase 1 Public Engagement Summary • NOVEMBER 2025
67 use path, as well as painted bike lanes on American River Drive, University Avenue, and La Riviera Drive.

Given Howe Avenue's posted speeds of 40 to 50 mph and traffic volumes of up to 59,000 vehicles per day, the current Class II bicycle lanes do not align with FHWA or City of Sacramento guidance for recommended bicycle infrastructure on roadways with these characteristics.

The bicycle LTS score is four, reflecting high stress conditions for people biking on Howe Avenue.

Community engagement efforts identified several concerns related to bicycling from participants:
 Missing connections in the bicycle network, including connections to the American River Trail
 Confusion on merging zones and lane markings for people bicycling  Hesitancy and concern over biking on Howe Avenue due to high vehicle travel speeds.  Strong interest in improving biking conditions on Howe Avenue.

Transit Infrastructure
There are only two bus stops directly on the corridor, and both are equipped with shelters at Howe Avenue and Swarthmore Drive. SacRT Bus Route 26 operates along Howe Avenue with approximately 30-minute headways slowing to 60-minute headways after 7 p.m. Additionally at the south end point of the study corridor, south of Folsom Boulevard, is the SacRT Power Inn Light Rail Station which connects to the SacRT Gold Line.

There are several SacRT routes such as routes 82, 87, 210, 211, and 255 that operate adjacent to Howe Avenue. While these routes do not operate on Howe Avenue, people using these bus routes may travel on Howe Avenue to reach these stops. These adjacent routes operate with 15–60-minute headways on weekdays and 45–60 minute headways on weekends. Lines 210, 211, and 255 have limited schedules, serving schools on weekdays only. SacRT lines 82, 87, 210, 211, and 255 are poorly connected due to missing sidewalks near Fair Oaks Boulevard.

Weekday ridership data collected from January to August 2024 shows an average of 310 riders across all stops. Route 26 bus stops averaged three riders per stop per weekday, while the eastbound and westbound Power Inn LRT averaged 140 riders per weekday.

Community engagement efforts noted poor access to transit stations as a key challenge. Transit-related comments were concentrated near Swarthmore Drive. The community survey indicated interest in improving the walking and biking infrastructure along Howe Avenue and improving access to transit.

HOWE AVENUE SAFETY & MOBILITY PLAN • Phase 1 Public Engagement Summary • NOVEMBER 2025
68 In 2023, SacRT developed the Design Guidelines for Bus and Light Rail Facilities, which outlines design and amenity considerations to improve accessibility and safety at transit stops. The design guidelines state that transit infrastructure is expected to provide access for people with disabilities, and include lighting, shelter, seating, and trash bins.

Safety
A total of 201 crashes occurred on Howe Avenue between 2018 and 2023. 18 crashes resulted in persons being killed or suffering severe injuries (KSI).. The North Segment of Howe Avenue experienced the highest number of total crashes (77) and KSI crashes (9).

The South Segment had 70 total crashes and 6 KSI crashes, while the Middle Segment had 54 total crashes and 3 KSI crashes. 151 crashes (75% of the total) occurred at intersections.

There were two bicycle-involved crashes, one each in the North and South Segments.

There were three crashes involving people walking, two in the North Segment and one in the South Segment. All three crashes involved improper turning or failure to yield at intersections as the primary crash factor.

Rear-end collisions were the most frequent crash type, accounting for 101 (50%) of crashes, with a concentration at the intersection of American River Drive. Broadside crashes were the second most common, totaling 46 (23%).

Unsafe speed was the primary factor in 104 crashes (52%). Improper turning was a factor in 28 crashes (14%). Of the 18 KSI crashes, 7 (39%) involved unsafe speeds and 4 (22%) were related to driving under the influence (DUI).

The intersection of Howe Avenue and American River Drive is a location with a high rate of rear-end collisions and also where several "hit object" crashes resulting in KSI crashes occurred.

Community engagement revealed concerns about excessive vehicle speeds. Community members reported that they drive short distances instead of walking/biking due to safety concerns. The community survey indicated a strong interest in improving driving safety, and crossings for people walking or biking.

Right of Way
The ROW width along Howe Avenue varies across its three segments. From curb to curb, the ROW ranges from 90 to 115 feet involving the following components:
 The ROW narrows to 30 to 35 feet on the Howe Avenue Bridge.  Lane widths are approximately 11-12 feet through the length of the study corridor but narrow to approximately 10 to 10.5 feet on portions of the Howe Avenue Bridge.

HOWE AVENUE SAFETY & MOBILITY PLAN • Phase 1 Public Engagement Summary • NOVEMBER 2025
69  Sidewalks along the study corridor are 5 feet but are the responsibility of the fronting property owner23.

Additional consideration for ROW will need to be given to the Howe Avenue bridge due to reduced roadway width and the structure providing a constrained roadway width. Where the corridor is two lanes per direction, design alternatives can use existing roadway space to improve infrastructure for people walking or biking such as widening sidewalks or implementing Class I or Class IV facilities.
23 Sacramento City Code, Section 12.32.020

You shared ideas for changes to Howe Avenue and
we heard you. We developed concepts based on your
input and we want your feedback.

Ustedes compartieron ideas para cambios en Howe Avenue, y los escuchamos. Desarrollamos conceptos basados en sus aportes, y ahora queremos saber qué opinan.

Share your input on proposed solutions at the next
community workshop!
¡Comparta su opinión sobre las soluciones propuestas en el próximo taller comunitario!
JUNE 26, 2025 | 26 DE JUNIO DE 2025
6:30 PM - 8:00 PM

CAMPUS COMMONS CLUBHOUSE
650 Commons Drive, Sacramento
In-person | En persona
University
Park

COLLEGE TOWN DR

COMMONS DR

UNIVERSITY AVE
R
A
I
M
VE

ERICAN R DR

SWATHMORE DR

UNIVERSITY AVE

UNIVERSITY AVE
Howe Avenue

FAIR OAKS BOULEVARD

FOLSOM BLVD
50 SWATHMORE DR
R
A
I
M
VE

ERICAN R DR

UNIVERSITY AVE

COMMONS DR

COLLEGE TOWN DR

LA RIVIERA DR LA RIVIERA DR

AMERICAN RIVER BIKE TRAILAMERICAN RIVER BIKE TRAIL
N

NO SCALE
JUNE 23, 2025 | 23 DE JUNIO DE 2025
6:30 PM - 7:30 PM
VIA ZOOM MEETING | VÍA REUNIÓN DE ZOOM
Virtual | Evento virtual
Register on the project website | Regístrese en el sitio web del proyecto:
www.ConnectingHoweAve.org
Meeting ID | ID de reunión:
814 7939 3757
Registration is required to attend | Es necesario
registrarse para asistir

SCAN HERE TO REGISTER
ESCANEE EL CÓDIGO

PARA REGISTRARSE

PHASE 2 OUTREACH SUMMARY
DATE: July 25, 2025
TO: Charisse Padilla | City of Sacramento
FROM: Elise Brockett | DKS Associates
Jim Damkowitch | DKS Associates
SUBJECT: Connecting Howe Avenue Project #24692

INTRODUCTION
This memo provides an overview of the feedback received during Phase 2 of public outreach for the Connecting Howe Avenue Project in June/July 2025.

The City of Sacramento and DKS Associates planned and completed the following outreach activities during the engagement period from June 17 – July 27, 2025:
• Power Inn Light Rail Station Pop-In – June 19 from 4 – 6 p.m. • Virtual Workshop – June 23 from 6:30 – 7:30 p.m. via Zoom • In-Person Workshop #1 – June 26 from 5:30 – 7 p.m. at the Campus Commons Clubhouse • Sierra Oaks Neighborhoods Association Pop-in – July 2 from 6 – 7 p.m. via Zoom • In-Person Workshop #2 – July 17 from 3:30 – 5 p.m. at the Campus Commons Clubhouse PDFs of each alternative were also available on the project website where community members could submit their comments and feedback in an online form during the engagement period. Below is the total number of participants that contributed during each outreach activity:

Outreach Activity Number of
Participants/Attendees
Power Inn Light Rail Station Pop-in – June 19 16
Virtual Workshop – June 23 10
In-Person Workshop #1 – June 26 25
In-Person Workshop #2 – July 17 34
Social Pinpoint Comment Form – closed July 21 113
CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE • PHASE 2 OUTREACH SUMMARY • JULY 25, 2025 2

SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK
Overall themes from the feedback received both online and in person are presented first, followed by detailed feedback on each alternative, and then feedback on specific proposed elements from the online form.

OVERALL THEMES
Based on the community feedback received through a
combination of the Social Pinpoint comments, virtual
and in-person workshops, and online comment
submissions, Alternative 2 generally met community
priorities and was selected as the preferred alternative over Alternative 1. Commenters responded positively
to the cantilevered shared use path to connect
bicyclists and pedestrians across the American River
and the addition of the landscaped buffer to provide
shade, improve aesthetics, and create additional
separation from the roadway. It was made clear that
the community’s highest priority was improving
multimodal travel on Howe Avenue, particularly
making it safer, more comfortable, and easily
accessible. Alternative 1 received much less feedback
in both written comments and through discussions at
workshops. Those that mentioned Alternative 1 felt
that it was more of a short-term solution that didn’t
address the major safety concerns that the
community has around bicyclist and pedestrian
safety.

Overall, some commenters felt that neither
alternative did enough to improve conditions on
Howe Avenue and wanted to see more intensive
traffic calming strategies such as implementing a
road diet or roundabouts. While many liked the
proposed reduction in traffic speed limits, many
raised concerns that vehicles often do not follow
posted traffic speeds and enforcement is lacking
along Howe Avenue.

A link to the online response form (hosted on the platform Social Pinpoint) was available on the project website.

Respondents were asked to rate both alternatives for how well it meets the community priorities identified earlier in the project:

1. Improve corridor safety, particularly by slowing car speeds and increasing driver awareness FIGURE 1: COMMUNITY MEMBERS

REVIEW PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES AT

THE FIRST WORKSHOP
FIGURE 2: CHARISSE PADILLA (RIGHT),

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, PRESENTS TO

ATTENDEES
CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE • PHASE 2 OUTREACH SUMMARY • JULY 25, 2025 3

2. Remove barriers for people walking, rolling, and biking to key destinations

3. Create low-stress facilities that improve safety for people biking

4. Create low-stress, accessible travel paths for people walking, rolling, and bicycling to each transit
A score of 5 means the alternative “Meets expectations”, 4 “Somewhat meets expectations”, 3 is “Neutral”, 2 “Somewhat does not meet expectations”, and 1 “Does not meet expectations”. Figure 3 shows an overview of the responses to this question.

FIGURE 3: FEEDBACK ON COMMUNITY PRIORITIES (SOCIAL PINPOINT) CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE • PHASE 2 OUTREACH SUMMARY • JULY 25, 2025 4 FIGURE 4: FEEDBACK ON COMMUNITY PRIORITIES (IN-PERSON WORKSHOP #1) Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Community Priorities
Doesn't
meet
expectations
Meets
expectations
Doesn't meet
expectations
Meets
expectations
Improve corridor safety, particularly by
slowing car speeds and increasing driver
awareness 9 1 0 13
Remove barriers for people walking, rolling,
and biking to key destinations 8 0 0 13
Create low-stress facilities that improve
safety for people biking 9 1 0 14
Create low-stress, accessible travel paths
for people walking, rolling, and bicycling to
each transit 9 1 0 12
Additionally, respondents were asked to select their preferred alternative. Figure 4 includes data from Social Pinpoint, written comments, and feedback collected through the in-person workshops.

The figure shows that 95% preferred Alternative 2 and 5% preferred Alternative 1.

FIGURE 5: PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE • PHASE 2 OUTREACH SUMMARY • JULY 25, 2025 5 The following sections include a more detailed summary and analysis of the feedback on each alternative received in the online written response forms and through in person outreach.

ALTERNATIVE 1
Feedback on Alternative 1 was focused heavily on the removal of the existing bike lane, which drew the strongest and most critical reactions from the respondents. Many commenters expressed concern that eliminating bike lanes would make the corridor more dangerous and less accessible for cyclists and prioritize motorists. The main concern that emerged was that Alternative 1 would not only make the corridor less safe for bicyclists and pedestrians but also lead to higher vehicle speeds on an already unsafe corridor. Overall, the prevailing sentiment was that Alternative 1 does not adequately address safety or connectivity, especially for active transportation users, and would fail to meet the needs of the community.

ALTERNATIVE 2
Alternative 2 overall received more positive and detailed feedback than Alternative 1, with many respondents liking the cantilevered shared use path that will provide a continuous and accessible connection for those walking and biking. Commenters appreciated the design for addressing critical multimodal infrastructure gaps and saw it as better aligned with long-term mobility and sustainability goals. Respondents also liked the additional separation that the landscaped buffer provides from motorists, however many respondents felt that a lane reduction would greatly increase safety and encourage vehicles to drive slower down the corridor. There were also questions about the right-of-way acquisition needed to build the shared use path, and whether the long-term benefits would be enough to make it worth the higher cost.

FEEDBACK ON INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ELEMENTS
Respondents were asked to share their feedback on components of the project included in each alternative: adding new crosswalks, improving signal operations, improving signal visibility, adding connection to University Avenue, adding sidewalk-scale lighting, additional landscaping, adding shade trees, shared use path through University Park, and adding a shared use path on the east side of the Howe overpass.
• Feedback on multimodal infrastructure (including crosswalks and shared use paths) was well received. Commenters felt that safer, more visible crosswalks were crucial, particularly to serve pedestrians accessing transit stops or nearby destinations. Some commenters suggested converting existing bridge lanes to make space for the shared use path and ensuring a high level of separation between motorists and users of the path. • Signal coordination, operations, and visibility were noted as critical issues, with many respondents calling for shorter pedestrian wait times at intersections. Many felt that improved signal timing would support overall traffic flow and safety, though some commenters emphasized that pedestrian improvements should remain a priority. Some commenters felt that intersections are currently confusing and difficult to navigate for all users, which are critical challenges that could be addressed through signal improvements.

CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE • PHASE 2 OUTREACH SUMMARY • JULY 25, 2025 6 • The connection to University Avenue was positively received for improved mobility and bike access.
• Commenters liked the idea of adding lighting near sidewalks to improve safety and increase visibility while traveling at night.
• The addition of landscaping, shrubs, and shade trees was noted as a key component to increase comfort and aesthetics of the corridor, especially when implemented as a buffer from the road. Comments showed support for more green space that contributes to cooling, noise mitigation, absorption/scavenging of vehicular emissions, and making Howe Avenue a more welcoming environment.

PHASE 3 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
DATE: November 26, 2025
TO: Charisse Padilla | City of Sacramento
FROM: Elise Brockett | DKS Associates
Jim Damkowitch | DKS Associates
SUBJECT: Connecting Howe Avenue Safety and Mobility Plan Project #24692-000

INTRODUCTION
This memo provides an overview of the
feedback received during Phase 3 of public
engagement for the Connecting Howe Avenue
Safety and Mobility Plan in October/November
2025.

The City of Sacramento hosted and/or
attended the following activities during the
engagement period from October 21 –
November 10, 2025:
• Pop-in at the Power Inn Light Rail Station –
October 22 from 4:00 – 6:00 p.m.
• Virtual Community Workshop – October 27
from 6:00 – 7:00 p.m. via Zoom
• Sacramento State Network Café – October
30 from 11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.
• Community Workshop at Campus Commons
– October 30 from 6:00 – 7:30 p.m.
• Trunk or Treat with Neighbors of College
Glen – October 31 from 4:30 – 6:30 p.m.
• Presentation at Sacramento State – November 6 from 2:30 – 5:00 p.m.

A PDF of the draft plan was also available on the project website where community members could review and submit their feedback during the engagement period.

FIGURE 1: COMMUNITY MEMBERS REVIEW THE

DRAFT PLAN AT THE WORKSHOP
CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE PROJECT • PHASE 3 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY • NOVEMBER 26, 2025 2

SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK AND OVERALL THEMES
Several themes emerged in public feedback on the draft plan, with many commenters emphasizing transforming Howe Avenue in a way that improves overall safety, connectivity, comfortability for users, and integration with surrounding neighborhoods. Community members shared their feedback on proposed walking and biking improvements, access points, crossing enhancements, and opportunities to extend enhancements beyond the current project limits on Howe Avenue.

SAFETY AND TRAFFIC CALMING
Many respondents emphasized the need for
safer conditions for people walking and biking
on Howe Avenue and showed appreciation for
the addition of the shared use path, optical
speed bars, and cantilever structure over the
bridge to support the shared use path.

Comments also urged the City to consider
adding physical barriers between the shared
use path and vehicles lanes, dense trees and
landscaping on either side, and slight curves to
the roadway to encourage drivers to slow
down. Overall, respondents felt that
comfortability for those walking and rolling
should be prioritized over vehicles.

CONNECTIVITY
Commenters expressed a desire for more continuous and intuitive walking and biking connections, especially where paths currently end or merge into areas with vehicles. Several commenters encouraged the City to ensure the project links smoothly with the American River Parkway trail, Sacramento State, and surrounding neighborhoods. Suggested discussed concepts included:
• Need for a seamless connection to the river and levee-top trails. • Clarity on how cyclists will access the shared-use path from American River Drive and concerns that the proposed design may require cyclists to ride against traffic to reach it. • Requests to add a shared-use path on the west side of Howe (from College Town to Folsom Blvd) to allow cyclists approaching from the north to stay on the correct side of the roadway through the Highway 50 interchange.
• Concerns that the current design drops bicyclists on the wrong side of the road for continuing south toward Granite Regional Park, forcing them to walk their bikes through multiple crosswalks at Howe Avenue and Folsom Boulevard. • Requests to remove an existing barrier that prevents people from rolling onto the bridge from the American River Parkway on the south side, desiring a continuous, direct connection that would allow safe access to Sacramento State, La Riviera, and Folsom Boulevard without having to navigate the high-speed interchange.

FIGURE 2: IMAGES FROM THE WORKSHOP AT

CAMPUS COMMONS
CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE PROJECT • PHASE 3 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY • NOVEMBER 26, 2025 3

TRANSIT
Comments referencing bus shelters and access to transit stops included:
• Considering dedicated spaces (turn outs, bus only lanes) for buses to encourage more users to take transit.
• Including transit shelters in line with the 8-foot planting strip rather than acquiring new property.
• Increasing separation between the roadway and the bus stop on the east side of Swarthmore Drive and Howe Avenue.

COMMENTS BY SEGMENT
Public feedback was organized into comments addressing each of the three roadway segments:
• North Segment: Fair Oaks Boulevard to Swarthmore Drive/University Park Drive • Middle Segment: Swarthmore Drive/University Park Drive to La Riviera Access Road • South Segment: La Riviera Access Road to Power Inn Light Rail Station Below is a summary of comments for each.

NORTH SEGMENT
• A narrower cross-section was noted as beneficial for calming traffic, reducing lane changes, and improving pedestrian safety. One commenter questioned the need for three northbound lanes plus turn lanes north of American River Drive.
• Several comments supported reducing overall roadway width. • Some commenters preferred traditional bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides instead of a two-way shared-use path, citing consistency with citywide bikeway design standards. • Shade trees on both sides were requested for heat mitigation and year-round sidewalk usability.

MIDDLE SEGMENT
• Commenters supported the cantilevered structure and requested a physical barrier on the bridge span to improve pedestrian safety.
• Several noted that posted speed limits alone are insufficient and recommended physical traffic-calming measures such as slight curves, landscaping, or narrower lanes. • Some questioned the need for new right-of-way acquisition and suggested using outside travel lanes for walking, biking, and right-turn movements instead. • The planned sidewalk ending at the University overpass raised concerns, with requests for a stair or ramp to maintain continuity and avoid a dead end. • The proposed crossing at University Avenue was described as long, with suggestions to widen sidewalks to narrow the roadway or consider a raised/continuous crossing to slow vehicles.
• Commenters asked that any pedestrian/bicycle signal at University Avenue include accessible, easy-to-reach, responsive push buttons.

CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE PROJECT • PHASE 3 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY • NOVEMBER 26, 2025 4

SOUTH SEGMENT
• Commenters requested shade trees on both sides, noting that unshaded sidewalks become difficult to use in summer.
• Expanding from two to five southbound lanes was described as increasing crossing difficulty for both pedestrians and drivers.
• Some questioned whether signals and signs alone would improve safety and recommended adding physical measures such as lane reductions, narrower lanes, or refuge islands. • Comments requested clear, safe access for people biking onto the shared-use path at all intersections, including College Town Drive, given the lack of bike lanes on both sides. • Several raised concerns that drivers may ignore crosswalk signals at freeway on-ramps and suggested advance signage and other treatments to reinforce compliance. • At the La Riviera on-ramp, commenters noted visibility and merging concerns for drivers and potential conflicts with cyclists on the shared path. Suggestions included ending the southbound shared path earlier and routing cyclists under Howe Avenue to the west side of the bridge.

OTHER COMMENTS
• Some commenters expressed concern about how the proposed lane reduction could affect traffic congestion.
• Comments suggested prioritizing law enforcement tools, including speed cameras and targeted patrols, to address speeding and unsafe behavior. • Several requested that accessibility for people with disabilities and mobility devices be ensured throughout the corridor.
• Some noted that shared-use paths are appropriate for crossing major barriers like the river and freeway but should transition smoothly into the existing street network. They cautioned against using shared-use paths as the default facility across the corridor, partly to limit new right-of-way needs.
• Tree maintenance needs were identified on the west side north of the bridge, where leaning trees create seasonal hazards.
• Comments encouraged a consistent, multimodal design framework that fits within the existing right-of-way and reflects corridor function. Suggestions included separating through-traffic “road lanes” from local-access “street lanes,” limiting lane changes to controlled intersections, and refining turn movements for clarity and safety. ¡La Versión Preliminar del Plan Público ya está
lista y queremos tu opinión!
Deja tus comentarios en línea del 21 de octubre al 10 de noviembre en www.ConnectingHoweAve.org
OCTOBER 30, 2025 | 30 DE OCTUBRE
DE 2025
6:00 PM - 7:30 PM

CAMPUS COMMONS CLUBHOUSE
650 Commons Drive, Sacramento
Parking available for attendees. Bicyclists
are welcome to bring bikes inside.

Estacionamiento disponible. Se permite
ingresar bicicletas.

In-person | En persona
University
Park

COLLEGE TOWN DR

COMMONS DR

UNIVERSITY AVE
R
A
I
M
VE

ERICAN R DR

SWATHMORE DR

UNIVERSITY AVE

UNIVERSITY AVE
Howe Avenue

FAIR OAKS BOULEVARD

FOLSOM BLVD
50 SWATHMORE DR
R
A
I
M
VE

ERICAN R DR

UNIVERSITY AVE

COMMONS DR

COLLEGE TOWN DR

LA RIVIERA DRLA RIVIERA DR

SHA RED USE PATHSHA RED USE PATH

AMERICAN RIVER PARKWAYAMERICAN RIVER PARKWAY

AMERICAN RIVER PARKWAYAMERICAN RIVER PARKWAY

SHARED USE PATH SHARED USE PATH
N

NO SCALE
OCTOBER 27, 2025 | 27 DE OCTUBRE DE 2025
6:30 PM - 7:30 PM
VIA ZOOM | EN ZOOM
Virtual | Evento virtual
Register at | Regístrese en:
www.ConnectingHoweAve.org
Meeting ID | ID de la reunión:
856 1715 8878
Registration is required to attend.

Es necesario registrarse para asistir.

SCAN HERE TO REGISTER
ESCANEE EL CÓDIGO

PARA REGISTRARSE
The Public Draft Plan is ready for review!
Review and comment online Oct. 21 - Nov 10 at
www.ConnectingHoweAve.org

APPENDIX D

CONCEPT PLAN SET
HOWE Ave
"H" LINE
US-50
LEGEND:

SAFETY AND MOBILITY PLAN

CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE
BARRIER EXIST TRAFFIC SIGNAL MATCH LINE - SEE ABOVE MATCH LINE - SEE BELOW MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 2

LANDSCAPE BUFFER
HOWE Ave
"H" LINE
FOLSOM Blvd COLLEGE TOWN Dr

WB ON-RAMP

WB ON-RAMP WB OFF-RAMP

EB ON-RAMP EB OFF-RAMP

EB ON-RAMP

BUS STOP LOCATION PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL/RRFB

RETAINING WALL

ROADWAY PAVEMENT

CONCRETE SIDEWALK/

SHARED USE PATH
1 CANTILEVERED SHARED USE PATH

CANTILEVERED

SHARED-USE PATH

FURTHER ANALYSIS TO BE DONE

ON LANE REDUCTIONS AND

TIGHTENING OF INTERSECTION

SHARED USE PATH

SHARED USE PATH

LANDSCAPE BUFFER
LA RIVERIA Dr

SAFETY AND MOBILITY PLAN
CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE MATCH LINE - SEE ABOVE MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 1 MATCH LINE - SEE BELOW MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 3 PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CONNECTION
TO LA RIVIERA Dr (SEE SHEET 5)
UNIVERSITY Ave
HOWE Ave
"H" LINE
HOWE Ave
"H" LINE

AMERICAN RIVER

SPEED DIVERTER

SPEED DIVERTER
2 CANTILEVERED

SHARED-USE PATH

CANTILEVERED

SHARED-USE PATH

CANTILEVERED

SHARED-USE PATH CANTILEVERED

SHARED-USE PATH
LEGEND:

BARRIER EXIST TRAFFIC SIGNAL

LANDSCAPE BUFFER BUS STOP LOCATION PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL/RRFB

RETAINING WALL

ROADWAY PAVEMENT

CONCRETE SIDEWALK/

SHARED USE PATH

CANTILEVERED SHARED USE PATH

SHARED USE PATH
PEDESTRIAN +

BIKE CONNECTION

SHARED USE PATH

LANDSCAPE BUFFER

SHARED USE PATH GRADE CONNECTION

TO PEDESTRIAN PATH

SIDEWALK CONNECTION BETWEEN

OVERPASS AND BRIDGE

KEEP KEEP CLEAR CLEAR KEEP CLEAR KEEP CLEAR ONLY BUS
KEEP

KEEP CLEAR
KEEP

KEEP CLEAR

SAFETY AND MOBILITY PLAN
CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE MATCH LINE - SEE ABOVE MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 2 MATCH LINE - SEE BELOW MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 4 SWARTHMORE Dr AMERICAN RIVER Dr
HOWE Ave
"H" LINE
HOWE Ave
"H" LINE
LEGEND: 3

BARRIER EXIST TRAFFIC SIGNAL

LANDSCAPE BUFFER BUS STOP LOCATION PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL/RRFB

RETAINING WALL

ROADWAY PAVEMENT

CONCRETE SIDEWALK/

SHARED USE PATH

CANTILEVERED SHARED USE PATH

REMOVE VEHICLE

TRAVEL LANE

REMOVE VEHICLE

TRAVEL LANE

SHARED USE PATH

LANDSCAPE BUFFER

SHARED USE PATH

LANDSCAPE BUFFER

SHARED USE PATH

LANDSCAPE BUFFER

SHARED USE PATH

LANDSCAPE BUFFER

WIDEN SIDEWALK

SIGNAL AHEADSIGNAL AHEAD KEEP KEEP CLEAR CLEAR KEEP CLEAR KEEP CLEAR

SAFETY AND MOBILITY PLAN
CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE MATCH LINE - SEE ABOVE MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 3 MATCH LINE - SEE BELOW UNIVERSITY Ave
FAIR OAKS Blvd
HOWE Ave
"H" LINE
HOWE Ave
"H" LINE
LEGEND: 4

BARRIER EXIST TRAFFIC SIGNAL

LANDSCAPE BUFFER BUS STOP LOCATION PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL/RRFB

RETAINING WALL

ROADWAY PAVEMENT

CONCRETE SIDEWALK/

SHARED USE PATH

CANTILEVERED SHARED USE PATH

WIDEN SIDEWALK WIDEN

SIDEWALK

WIDEN SIDEWALK

SHARED USE PATH

SAFETY AND MOBILITY PLAN

CONNECTING HOWE AVENUE
5 LA RIVERIA Dr
HOWE Ave
"H" LINE
LEGEND:

BARRIER EXIST TRAFFIC SIGNAL

LANDSCAPE BUFFER BUS STOP LOCATION PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL/RRFB

RETAINING WALL

ROADWAY PAVEMENT

CONCRETE SIDEWALK/

SHARED USE PATH

CANTILEVERED SHARED USE PATH

SHARED USE PATH

LANDSCAPE BUFFER
PEDESTRIAN + BIKE CONNECTION
TO LA RIVIERA Dr

CANTILEVERED

SHARED-USE PATH

APPENDIX E

PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2030)*
$ 42,665,000 34,767,500 $
$ 365,000 300,000 $
$ 35,068,000 $ 43,030,000
$ 4,280,000 3,510,000 $
$ 6,420,000 5,270,000 $
$ 870,000 710,000 $
CM
$ 5,130,000 4,210,000 $
$ 13,700,000 $ 16,700,000
$ 48,800,000 $ 59,800,000

TOTAL DELIVERY COST
Connecting Howe Avenue
Safety & Mobility Plan
(Feasability Opinion of Probable Cost)

SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST

TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST

TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS
PA/ED (10%)
DESIGN
* Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made.

PS&E (15%)
RIGHT OF WAY (2%)
CONSTRUCTION (12%)

TOTAL PROJECT COST
Connecting Howe Ave Summary
1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 38 $ 10,000 $380,000
2 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter LF 15,300 $ 68 $1,040,400 3 Install Concrete - Curb LF 2,650 $ 40 $106,000
4 Install Concrete - Shared Use SF 107,800 $ 25 $2,695,000 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk SF 42,500 $ 15 $637,500
6 Install Concrete - Driveway SF 690 $ 40 $27,600
7 Install Concrete - Texture Pavement SF 1,550 $ 20 $31,000 8 Roadway Excavation CY 16,500 $ 350 $5,775,000
9 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 3,100 $ 250 $775,000
10 Cold Plane SQYD 12,750 $ 4 $45,900
11 Slurry Seal TON 370 $ 280 $103,600
12 Base Repair (HMA) * TON 920 $ 250 $230,000
13 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 8,000 $ 300 $2,400,000
14 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 134,000 $134,000
15 Landscape SF 31,850 $ 30 $955,500
16 Retaining Walls SF 11,400 $ 250 $2,850,000
17 Barrier LF 3,500 $ 150 $525,000
18 Bus Stop Amentities EA 2 $ 30,000 $60,000
19 Bridge Widening LS 1 7,700,000 $ $7,700,000
20 Minor Drainage (1% of Items 1-17) LS 1 $188,000 $188,000 21 Traffic Signal Modification LS 1 $350,000 $350,000
22 Pedestrian Signal EA 7 $500,000 $3,500,000
$22,809,500
23 Minor Items (8% of Items 1-18) ** LS 1 $1,502,000 $1,502,000 $24,311,500
24 Mobilization (10% of Items 1-20) LS 1 $2,432,000 $2,432,000 $26,743,500
$8,024,000
$34,767,500
$34,767,500
$300,000
$35,067,500
*
** Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 30% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. ****

GRAND TOTAL

SUBTOTAL
Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10/SF.

CONTINGENCY (30%) ***

SUBTOTAL

SUBTOTAL

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL

ELECTRICAL
General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for Drainage Inlet relocations are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates.

Connecting Howe Avenue
Safety & Mobility Plan
(Corridor Improvements including: Sidewalk Widening, Shared Use Path, Pedestrian Crossings and Bridge Widening) ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL

ROADWAY
8% of cold plane area is assumed to require Base Repair

DRAINAGE
GRAND TOTAL=
Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement****=
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL=
Connecting Howe Ave Estimate
Attachment 4: Streets for People Plan Amendments
Add following to the Streets for People Plan
• Add Shared Use Path on the east side of Howe Avenue from Fair Oaks Boulevard to Folsom Boulevard
• Add Shared Use Path through University Park
• Add shared use connection at La Riviera
• Add crossing points:
o University Avenue (see pg. 16 of Plan)
o US 50 ramp crossings (see pg. 17 of Plan)
Rescind the following from Streets for People Plan:
• Planned Class 4 Separated Bikeway on Howe Avenue
• Planned shared use path east of University Park Dog Park • Planned new sidewalk (east side) between La Riviera Drive connection and College Town Drive
• Planned new sidewalk on both sides of US 50 overpass
• Planned new sidewalk (east side) south of US 50 on-ramp Connecting Howe Avenue Plan Streets for People Plan (current)