2026-00457 The Norwood Mobility Plan (T15180418) — Sacramento City Council, February 24, 2026 (part 2 of 2)

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 251 0 309 324 812 0 0 547 391 F
uture Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 251 0 309 324 812 0 0 547 391 Initial Q (Qb), veh 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 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach N o No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 0 0 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2 51 0 0 324 812 0 0 547 0
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1
Cap, veh/h 702 0 411 2093 0 0 959
Arrive On Green 0 .20 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3591 0 1598 1795 3676 0 0 3676 1598
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2 51 0 0 324 812 0 0 547 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 0 1598 1795 1791 0 0 1791 1598 Q Serve(g_s), s 2 .4 0.0 0.0 6.8 4.9 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 0.0 0.0 6.8 4.9 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1 .00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 702 0 411 2093 0 0 959
V/C Ratio(X) 0 .36 0.00 0.79 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.57
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3238 0 1192 3158 0 0 3158
HCM Platoon Ratio 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 1 3.9 0.0 0.0 14.5 4.5 0.0 0.0 12.6 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
L
nGrp Delay(d), s/veh 14.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 2 51 1136 547
Approach Delay, s/veh 1 4.0 8.1 13.0
Approach LOS B A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.6 15.5 1 1.8 28.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.8 4 .0 4.8
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.5 35.2 36.0 35.2
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.8 7.3 4 .4 6.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 3.3 0.5 4.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 1 0.3
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

U
nsignalized Delay for [WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
4 : Norwood Avenue & EB 80 Off-Ramp/EB 80 On-Ramp 12/20/2024 Existing PM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 11:38 am 11/05/2024 Existing PM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 19 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 466 12 369 0 0 0 0 670 246 264 534 0 F
uture Volume (vph) 466 12 369 0 0 0 0 670 246 264 534 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1 900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 50 0 0 0 220 180 0
Storage Lanes 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 35
Lane Util. Factor 0 .95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.98 0.97 0.99
Frt 0 .850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.955 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1 665 1674 1568 0 0 0 0 3539 1583 1787 3574 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.955 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1 665 1674 1547 0 0 0 0 3539 1540 1776 3574 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 2 24 246
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 40 30
Link Distance (ft) 7 59 1046 737 526
Travel Time (s) 17.3 23.8 12.6 12.0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 8 6 6 8
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4 1
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1%
Adj. Flow (vph) 4 66 12 369 0 0 0 0 670 246 264 534 0
Shared Lane Traffic (%) 49%
Lane Group Flow (vph) 238 240 369 0 0 0 0 670 246 264 534 0 E
nter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment L eft Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 0 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
C
rosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
H
eadway 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 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 1 2
Detector Template L eft Thru Right Thru Right Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 20 100
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 2 0 6 20 6 20 20 6
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
D
etector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Position(ft) 9 4 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6
Detector 2 Type C l+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
4 : Norwood Avenue & EB 80 Off-Ramp/EB 80 On-Ramp 12/20/2024 Existing PM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 11:38 am 11/05/2024 Existing PM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 20 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Detector 2 Extend (s) 0 .0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Split NA Perm NA custom Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 8 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 8 2
Detector Phase 8 8 8 6 2 5 2
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 9 .0 9.0 9.0 6.0 6.0 8.0 6.0
Minimum Split (s) 29.0 29.0 29.0 17.8 18.8 11.5 18.8
Total Split (s) 4 0.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 30.0 40.0
Total Split (%) 36.4% 36.4% 36.4% 36.4% 36.4% 27.3% 36.4% Maximum Green (s) 36.0 36.0 36.0 3 5.2 35.2 26.5 35.2
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.3 4.3 3.5 4.3
All-Red Time (s) 0 .5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4 .0 4.0 4.0 4.8 4.8 3.5 4.8
Lead/Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Y es Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Recall Mode N one None None Min Min None Min
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 6 .0 7.0 7.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 2 2 2 2 2 2
Act Effct Green (s) 1 6.9 16.9 16.9 19.2 38.6 15.7 38.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.29 0.59 0.24 0.59
v/c Ratio 0 .55 0.55 0.65 0.64 0.24 0.61 0.25
Control Delay (s/veh) 28.3 28.3 15.8 24.7 1.7 31.3 7.0
Queue Delay 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 28.3 28.3 15.8 24.7 1.7 31.3 7.0

LOS C C B C A C A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 22.9 18.5 15.1
Approach LOS C B B
Q
ueue Length 50th (ft) 81 82 44 113 0 89 44
Queue Length 95th (ft) 203 204 166 2 43 28 220 97
Internal Link Dist (ft) 679 966 657 446
Turn Bay Length (ft) 5 0 220 180
Base Capacity (vph) 1001 1007 1020 2082 1425 791 3256
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.36 0.32 0.17 0.33 0.16
Intersection Summary
Area Type: O ther
Cycle Length: 110
A
ctuated Cycle Length: 65.1
Natural Cycle: 65
C
ontrol Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.65
I
ntersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 18.9 Intersection LOS: B Lanes, Volumes, Timings
4 : Norwood Avenue & EB 80 Off-Ramp/EB 80 On-Ramp 12/20/2024 Existing PM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 11:38 am 11/05/2024 Existing PM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 21 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 4: Norwood Avenue & EB 80 Off-Ramp/EB 80 On-Ramp

Queues
4 : Norwood Avenue & EB 80 Off-Ramp/EB 80 On-Ramp 12/20/2024 Existing PM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 11:38 am 11/05/2024 Existing PM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 22 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 238 240 369 670 246 264 534
v/c Ratio 0 .55 0.55 0.65 0.64 0.24 0.61 0.25
Control Delay (s/veh) 28.3 28.3 15.8 24.7 1.7 31.3 7.0
Queue Delay 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 28.3 28.3 15.8 24.7 1.7 31.3 7.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 81 82 44 113 0 89 44
Q
ueue Length 95th (ft) 203 204 166 243 28 220 97
Internal Link Dist (ft) 6 79 657 446
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 220 180
Base Capacity (vph) 1001 1007 1020 2082 1425 791 3256
S
tarvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S
torage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0 .24 0.24 0.36 0.32 0.17 0.33 0.16
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4 : Norwood Avenue & EB 80 Off-Ramp/EB 80 On-Ramp 12/20/2024 Existing PM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 11:38 am 11/05/2024 Existing PM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 23 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 466 12 369 0 0 0 0 670 246 264 534 0 F
uture Volume (veh/h) 466 12 369 0 0 0 0 670 246 264 534 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 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
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 0 1870 1870 1885 1885 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 475 0 0 0 670 0 264 534 0
Peak Hour Factor 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 0 2 2 1 1 0
Cap, veh/h 7 65 0 0 1064 342 2054 0
Arrive On Green 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.19 0.57 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3 534 0 1572 0 3647 1585 1795 3676 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 475 0 0 0 670 0 264 534 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 0 1572 0 1777 1585 1795 1791 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 5.8 3.1 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.1 0.0 0.0 0 .0 6.8 0.0 5.8 3.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 765 0 0 1064 342 2054 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.77 0.26 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3039 0 0 2987 1136 3011 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.7 0.0 16.1 4.5 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.5 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.7 0.0 0.0 0 .0 2.1 0.0 2.3 0.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 15.2 0.0 0.0 0 .0 13.1 0.0 18.9 4.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS B B B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 4 75 670 798
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.2 13.1 9.3
Approach LOS B B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 2 8.8 11.5 17.3 13.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.8 3.5 4.8 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.2 2 6.5 35.2 36.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.1 7.8 8.8 7.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3 .2 0.5 3.7 0.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 1 2.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

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

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
4 : Norwood Avenue & EB 80 Off-Ramp/EB 80 On-Ramp 12/20/2024 Existing PM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 11:38 am 11/05/2024 Existing PM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 24 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 466 12 369 0 0 0 0 670 246 264 534 0 F
uture Volume (veh/h) 466 12 369 0 0 0 0 670 246 264 534 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 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 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 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 Work Zone On Approach N o No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 0 1870 1870 1885 1885 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 475 0 0 0 670 0 264 534 0
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 0 2 2 1 1 0
Cap, veh/h 765 0 0 1064 342 2054 0
Arrive On Green 0 .22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.19 0.57 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3534 0 1572 0 3647 1585 1795 3676 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 475 0 0 0 670 0 264 534 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 0 1572 0 1777 1585 1795 1791 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 5 .1 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 5.8 3.1 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 5.8 3.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1 .00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 765 0 0 1064 342 2054 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0 .62 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.77 0.26 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3039 0 0 2987 1136 3011 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.9 0.0 0.0 0 .0 12.7 0.0 16.1 4.5 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 2.3 0.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
L
nGrp Delay(d), s/veh 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 0.0 18.9 4.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS B B B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 4 75 670 798
Approach Delay, s/veh 1 5.2 13.1 9.3
Approach LOS B B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 2 8.8 11.5 17.3 13.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4 .8 3.5 4.8 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.2 26.5 35.2 36.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.1 7 .8 8.8 7.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.2 0.5 3.7 0.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 1 2.0
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

U
nsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
5 : Norwood Avenue & Harris Avenue 12/20/2024
Existing PM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 11:38 am 11/05/2024 Existing PM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 25 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 230 14 39 17 6 93 17 602 14 56 736 105 F
uture Volume (vph) 230 14 39 17 6 93 17 602 14 56 736 105 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1 900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 140 100 0 85 0 110 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 35 40 30
Lane Util. Factor 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 0.97 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99
Frt 0 .850 0.850 0.997 0.981
Flt Protected 0.955 0.964 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1762 1568 0 1778 1568 1787 3559 0 1752 3415 0 Flt Permitted 0.955 0.964 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1762 1533 0 1769 1546 1768 3559 0 1737 3415 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 3 9 93 1 9
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 40 30
Link Distance (ft) 7 35 595 331 737
Travel Time (s) 16.7 13.5 5.6 16.8
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 9 4 4 9
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2 7 1
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3%
Adj. Flow (vph) 2 30 14 39 17 6 93 17 602 14 56 736 105 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 244 39 0 23 93 17 616 0 56 841 0 E
nter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment L eft Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 0 0 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
C
rosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
H
eadway 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 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2
Detector Template L eft Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 100 20 100 Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 2 0 6 20 20 6 20 20 6 20 6
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
D
etector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 2 Position(ft) 9 4 94 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6
Detector 2 Type C l+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
5 : Norwood Avenue & Harris Avenue 12/20/2024
Existing PM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 11:38 am 11/05/2024 Existing PM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 26 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Detector 2 Extend (s) 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Split NA pm+ov Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 6 6 3 2 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6 2
Detector Phase 6 6 3 2 2 2 3 8 7 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 1 0.0 10.0 10.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 10.0 7.0 9.0 8.0 Minimum Split (s) 28.6 28.6 13.5 14.8 14.8 14.8 13.5 19.6 12.5 25.6 Total Split (s) 4 0.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 Total Split (%) 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% Maximum Green (s) 36.4 36.4 36.5 36.2 36.2 36.2 36.5 35.4 3 6.5 35.4 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.3 3.5 4.3 All-Red Time (s) 0 .1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3 .6 3.5 3.8 3.8 3.5 4.6 3.5 4.6
Lead/Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Y es Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.5 Recall Mode N one None None None None None None None None None Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 18.0 18.0 8 .0 14.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 2 2 2 2
Act Effct Green (s) 1 6.7 27.2 11.5 11.5 10.5 37.5 9.7 37.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.33 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.45 0.12 0.45 v/c Ratio 0 .69 0.07 0.09 0.31 0.07 0.38 0.27 0.55
Control Delay (s/veh) 43.4 6.5 37.7 12.1 38.5 19.4 42.1 21.9 Queue Delay 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 43.4 6.5 37.7 12.1 38.5 19.4 42.1 21.9

LOS D A D B D B D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 38.4 17.2 19.9 23.2
Approach LOS D B B C
Q
ueue Length 50th (ft) 130 0 12 0 9 124 29 188
Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 08 20 37 46 30 204 71 292
Internal Link Dist (ft) 655 515 251 657
Turn Bay Length (ft) 1 40 85 110
Base Capacity (vph) 806 1043 809 754 820 1610 804 1526
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.30 0.04 0.03 0.12 0.02 0.38 0.07 0.55 Intersection Summary
Area Type: O ther
Cycle Length: 160
A
ctuated Cycle Length: 83.1
Natural Cycle: 85
C
ontrol Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.69
I
ntersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 24.0 Intersection LOS: C Lanes, Volumes, Timings
5 : Norwood Avenue & Harris Avenue 12/20/2024
Existing PM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 11:38 am 11/05/2024 Existing PM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 27 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 5: Norwood Avenue & Harris Avenue

Queues
5 : Norwood Avenue & Harris Avenue 12/20/2024
Existing PM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 11:38 am 11/05/2024 Existing PM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 28 ends

Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 244 39 23 93 17 616 56 841
v/c Ratio 0 .69 0.07 0.09 0.31 0.07 0.38 0.27 0.55
Control Delay (s/veh) 43.4 6.5 37.7 12.1 38.5 19.4 42.1 21.9 Queue Delay 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 43.4 6.5 37.7 12.1 38.5 19.4 42.1 21.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 130 0 12 0 9 124 29 188
Q
ueue Length 95th (ft) 208 20 37 46 30 204 71 292
Internal Link Dist (ft) 655 5 15 251 657
Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 85 110
Base Capacity (vph) 806 1043 809 754 820 1610 804 1526
S
tarvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S
torage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0 .30 0.04 0.03 0.12 0.02 0.38 0.07 0.55 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5 : Norwood Avenue & Harris Avenue 12/20/2024
Existing PM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 11:38 am 11/05/2024 Existing PM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 29 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 230 14 39 17 6 93 17 602 14 56 736 105 F
uture Volume (veh/h) 230 14 39 17 6 93 17 602 14 56 736 105 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1885 1885 1885 1856 1856 1856 A
dj Flow Rate, veh/h 230 14 39 17 6 93 17 602 14 56 736 105 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, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 3 19 19 359 216 76 247 74 995 23 165 1017 145 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.04 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 1 670 102 1538 1323 467 1515 1795 3573 83 1767 3081 439 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 244 0 39 23 0 93 17 301 315 56 421 420 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1772 0 1538 1789 0 1515 1795 1791 1866 1767 1763 1758 Q
Serve(g_s), s 7.3 0.0 1.1 0.6 0.0 3.1 0.5 8.2 8.3 1.7 11.9 11.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.3 0.0 1.1 0.6 0.0 3.1 0.5 8.2 8.3 1.7 11.9 11.9 P
rop In Lane 0.94 1.00 0.74 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.25
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 338 0 359 292 0 247 74 499 519 165 582 580 V
/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.00 0.11 0.08 0.00 0.38 0.23 0.60 0.61 0.34 0.72 0.72 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1142 0 1057 1147 0 971 1161 1123 1170 1142 1105 1102 H
CM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1 .00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.4 0.0 17.1 20.0 0.0 21.1 26.2 17.7 17.7 24.0 16.6 16.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.5 1.3 1.3 I
nitial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.9 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.2 3.0 3.1 0.7 4.4 4.4 U
nsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 22.5 0.0 17.1 20.1 0.0 21.4 26.8 18.6 18.5 24.4 17.9 17.9 L
nGrp LOS C B C C C B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 2 83 116 633 897
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.8 21.1 18.8 18.3
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 1 3.0 5.8 23.2 14.4 8.8 20.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.8 3.5 * 4.6 3.6 3.5 * 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.2 36.5 * 35 3 6.4 36.5 * 35 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.1 2.5 13.9 9.3 3.7 10.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0 .2 0.0 4.6 1.0 0.1 2.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 1 9.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
5 : Norwood Avenue & Harris Avenue 12/20/2024
Existing PM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 11:38 am 11/05/2024 Existing PM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 30 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 230 14 39 17 6 93 17 602 14 56 736 105 F
uture Volume (veh/h) 230 14 39 17 6 93 17 602 14 56 736 105 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 .98 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach N o No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1885 1885 1885 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 230 14 39 17 6 93 17 602 14 56 736 105 P
eak 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, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3
C
ap, veh/h 319 19 359 216 76 247 74 995 23 165 1017 145
Arrive On Green 0 .19 0.19 0.19 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.04 0.28 0.28 0.09 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 1670 102 1538 1323 467 1515 1795 3573 83 1767 3081 439 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 244 0 39 23 0 93 17 301 315 56 421 420 G
rp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1772 0 1538 1789 0 1515 1795 1791 1866 1767 1763 1758 Q Serve(g_s), s 7 .3 0.0 1.1 0.6 0.0 3.1 0.5 8.2 8.3 1.7 11.9 11.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.3 0.0 1.1 0.6 0.0 3.1 0.5 8.2 8.3 1.7 11.9 11.9 Prop In Lane 0 .94 1.00 0.74 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.25
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 338 0 359 292 0 247 74 499 519 165 582 580 V/C Ratio(X) 0 .72 0.00 0.11 0.08 0.00 0.38 0.23 0.60 0.61 0.34 0.72 0.72 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1142 0 1057 1147 0 971 1161 1123 1170 1142 1105 1102 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 U
pstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.4 0.0 17.1 20.0 0.0 21.1 26.2 17.7 17.7 24.0 16.6 16.7 I
ncr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.5 1.3 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %
ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.9 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.2 3.0 3.1 0.7 4.4 4.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
L
nGrp Delay(d), s/veh 22.5 0.0 17.1 20.1 0.0 21.4 26.8 18.6 18.5 24.4 17.9 17.9 LnGrp LOS C B C C C B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 2 83 116 633 897
Approach Delay, s/veh 2 1.8 21.1 18.8 18.3
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 1 3.0 5.8 23.2 14.4 8.8 20.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3 .8 3.5 * 4.6 3.6 3.5 * 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.2 36.5 * 35 36.4 36.5 * 35 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.1 2.5 13.9 9 .3 3.7 10.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.0 4.6 1.0 0.1 2.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 1 9.2
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
6 : Norwood Avenue & Silver Eagle Road 12/20/2024
Existing PM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 11:38 am 11/05/2024 Existing PM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 31 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 225 110 113 9 74 36 85 426 16 41 457 187 F
uture Volume (vph) 225 110 113 9 74 36 85 426 16 41 457 187 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1 900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 105 0 0 0 90 0 50 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 35 55
Lane Util. Factor 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.99
Frt 0 .924 0.951 0.995 0.956
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1 787 1726 0 1787 1781 0 1770 3515 0 1787 3388 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1 787 1726 0 1787 1781 0 1768 3515 0 1764 3388 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 3 6 17 3 47
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 40 30
Link Distance (ft) 7 90 308 560 983
Travel Time (s) 18.0 7.0 9.5 22.3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 7 7 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 1 3 5
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 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1%
Adj. Flow (vph) 2 25 110 113 9 74 36 85 426 16 41 457 187 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 225 223 0 9 110 0 85 442 0 41 644 0 E
nter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No Lane Alignment L eft Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
C
rosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane Y es Yes
Headway 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 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Detector Template L eft Thru Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 100
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 2 0 6 20 6 20 6 20 6
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Detector 1 Channel
D
etector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Position(ft) 9 4 94 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6
Detector 2 Type C l+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
6 : Norwood Avenue & Silver Eagle Road 12/20/2024
Existing PM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 11:38 am 11/05/2024 Existing PM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 32 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Detector 2 Extend (s) 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases
Detector Phase 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 1 0.0 9.0 10.0 10.0 9.0 8.0 9.0 8.0 Minimum Split (s) 13.5 27.9 13.5 27.5 12.5 23.6 12.5 27.6 Total Split (s) 3 0.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 40.0 30.0 40.0 Total Split (%) 23.1% 23.1% 23.1% 23.1% 23.1% 30.8% 23.1% 30.8% Maximum Green (s) 26.5 26.1 2 6.5 26.5 26.5 35.4 26.5 35.4 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.9 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.3 3.5 4.3
All-Red Time (s) 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3 .5 3.9 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.6 3.5 4.6
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Y es Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Recall Mode N one None None None None Min None Min
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 1 7.0 17.0 12.0 16.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 2 2 2 2
Act Effct Green (s) 1 6.3 25.9 12.2 14.0 11.7 22.8 11.1 19.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.39 0.18 0.21 0.17 0.34 0.17 0.29 v/c Ratio 0 .52 0.32 0.02 0.28 0.27 0.36 0.13 0.63
Control Delay (s/veh) 32.8 16.3 36.5 28.1 36.0 20.9 36.5 25.4 Queue Delay 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 32.8 16.3 36.5 28.1 36.0 20.9 36.5 25.4

LOS C B D C D C D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 24.6 28.7 23.4 26.1
Approach LOS C C C C
Q
ueue Length 50th (ft) 82 48 3 34 31 76 15 111
Queue Length 95th (ft) 219 159 2 2 104 105 169 63 255
Internal Link Dist (ft) 710 228 480 903
Turn Bay Length (ft) 105 9 0 50
Base Capacity (vph) 857 896 857 863 849 2065 857 2009
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.25 0.01 0.13 0.10 0.21 0.05 0.32 Intersection Summary
Area Type: O ther
Cycle Length: 130
A
ctuated Cycle Length: 67.2
Natural Cycle: 85
C
ontrol Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.64
I
ntersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 25.1 Intersection LOS: C Lanes, Volumes, Timings
6 : Norwood Avenue & Silver Eagle Road 12/20/2024
Existing PM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 11:38 am 11/05/2024 Existing PM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 33 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 6: Norwood Avenue & Silver Eagle Road

Queues
6 : Norwood Avenue & Silver Eagle Road 12/20/2024
Existing PM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 11:38 am 11/05/2024 Existing PM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 34 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 225 223 9 110 85 442 41 644
v/c Ratio 0 .52 0.32 0.02 0.28 0.27 0.36 0.13 0.63
Control Delay (s/veh) 32.8 16.3 36.5 28.1 36.0 20.9 36.5 25.4 Queue Delay 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 32.8 16.3 36.5 28.1 36.0 20.9 36.5 25.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 82 48 3 34 31 76 15 111
Q
ueue Length 95th (ft) 219 159 22 104 105 169 63 255
Internal Link Dist (ft) 7 10 228 480 903
Turn Bay Length (ft) 105 90 50
Base Capacity (vph) 857 896 857 863 849 2065 857 2009
S
tarvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S
torage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0 .26 0.25 0.01 0.13 0.10 0.21 0.05 0.32 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
6 : Norwood Avenue & Silver Eagle Road 12/20/2024
Existing PM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 11:38 am 11/05/2024 Existing PM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 35 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 225 110 113 9 74 36 85 426 16 41 457 187 F
uture Volume (veh/h) 225 110 113 9 74 36 85 426 16 41 457 187 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 Parking Bus, Adj 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1870 1870 1870 1885 1885 1885 A
dj Flow Rate, veh/h 225 110 113 9 74 36 85 426 16 41 457 187 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, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 3 20 256 263 42 177 86 214 1081 40 137 654 265 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.30 0.30 0.02 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.31 0.31 0.08 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1 795 842 865 1795 1188 578 1781 3487 131 1795 2454 994 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 225 0 223 9 0 110 85 217 225 41 332 312 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 0 1706 1795 0 1766 1781 1777 1841 1795 1791 1658 Q
Serve(g_s), s 6.4 0.0 5.7 0.3 0.0 3.1 2.4 5.2 5.2 1.2 9.1 9.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.4 0.0 5.7 0.3 0.0 3.1 2.4 5.2 5.2 1.2 9.1 9.2 P
rop In Lane 1.00 0.51 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.60
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 320 0 519 42 0 264 214 551 571 137 477 442 V
/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.00 0.43 0.21 0.00 0.42 0.40 0.39 0.40 0.30 0.70 0.71 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 878 0 822 878 0 864 871 1161 1203 878 1170 1083 H
CM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1 .00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.9 0.0 15.1 26.0 0.0 20.9 22.0 14.7 14.7 23.6 17.9 18.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.8 I
nitial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.5 0.0 2.0 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.9 1.8 1.8 0.5 3.4 3.2 U
nsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 22.0 0.0 15.3 26.9 0.0 21.3 22.5 14.9 14.9 24.1 18.6 18.7 L
nGrp LOS C B C C C B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 4 48 119 527 685
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.6 21.7 16.1 19.0
Approach LOS B C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.2 12.0 10.0 19.0 4.8 20.4 7.6 21.4 C
hange Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 * 3.9 3.5 * 4.6 3.5 3.9 3.5 * 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.5 * 27 26.5 * 35 26.5 26.1 26.5 * 35 M
ax Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.4 5.1 4.4 11.2 2.3 7.7 3.2 7.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.3 0.1 2.8 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 1 8.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
6 : Norwood Avenue & Silver Eagle Road 12/20/2024
Existing PM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 11:38 am 11/05/2024 Existing PM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 36 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 225 110 113 9 74 36 85 426 16 41 457 187 F
uture Volume (veh/h) 225 110 113 9 74 36 85 426 16 41 457 187 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 .98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach N o No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1870 1870 1870 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 225 110 113 9 74 36 85 426 16 41 457 187 P
eak 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, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1
C
ap, veh/h 320 256 263 42 177 86 214 1081 40 137 654 265 Arrive On Green 0 .18 0.30 0.30 0.02 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.31 0.31 0.08 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 842 865 1795 1188 578 1781 3487 131 1795 2454 994 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 225 0 223 9 0 110 85 217 225 41 332 312 G
rp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 0 1706 1795 0 1766 1781 1777 1841 1795 1791 1658 Q Serve(g_s), s 6 .4 0.0 5.7 0.3 0.0 3.1 2.4 5.2 5.2 1.2 9.1 9.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.4 0.0 5.7 0.3 0.0 3.1 2.4 5.2 5.2 1.2 9.1 9.2 Prop In Lane 1 .00 0.51 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.60
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 320 0 519 42 0 264 214 551 571 137 477 442 V/C Ratio(X) 0 .70 0.00 0.43 0.21 0.00 0.42 0.40 0.39 0.40 0.30 0.70 0.71 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 878 0 822 878 0 864 871 1161 1203 878 1170 1083 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 U
pstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.9 0.0 15.1 26.0 0.0 20.9 22.0 14.7 14.7 23.6 17.9 18.0 I
ncr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %
ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.5 0.0 2.0 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.9 1.8 1.8 0.5 3.4 3.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
L
nGrp Delay(d), s/veh 22.0 0.0 15.3 26.9 0.0 21.3 22.5 14.9 14.9 24.1 18.6 18.7 LnGrp LOS C B C C C B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 4 48 119 527 685
Approach Delay, s/veh 1 8.6 21.7 16.1 19.0
Approach LOS B C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.2 12.0 10.0 19.0 4.8 20.4 7.6 21.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 * 3.9 3.5 * 4.6 3.5 3.9 3.5 * 4.6 M
ax Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.5 * 27 26.5 * 35 26.5 26.1 26.5 * 35 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.4 5.1 4.4 11.2 2.3 7.7 3.2 7.2 G
reen Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.3 0.1 2.8 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 1 8.2
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

NORWOOD MOBILITY PROJECT • EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT • APRIL 2025

Appendix E: Community Su rvey Results & Comments

Entry # Q1. What is your zip code? Q2. Daily Q2. Some Days Q2. Weekly Q2. Every Couple of Weeks Q2. Monthly Q2. Rarely Q3. Driving in a
Personal
Vehicle
Q3. Riding
in a
Personal
Vehicle
Q3. Public
Transit
Q3.

Paratransi
t
Q3.

Walking/R
olling
Q3.

Bicycling
Q3.

Scooting
Q3. Rider-
Sharing Q3. Other
1 95828 YES YES
2 95831 YES CAR
3 95815 YES YES
4 95815 YES YES
5 95825 YES YES
6 95815 YES YES YES
7 95834 YES YES YES YES
8 95838 YES YES YES YES
9 95833 YES YES YES YES
10 95838 YES YES
11 9532 YES YES YES
12 95838 YES YES
13 95815 YES YES
14 95838 YES YES
15 958608 YES YES
16 95838 YES YES
17 95811 YES YES
18 95673 YES YES YES
19 95815 YES YES
20 95838 YES YES
21 95838 YES YES
22 95838 YES YES YES YES
23 958115 YES YES
24 95838 YES YES YES YES
25 95815 YES YES YES
26 95673 YES YES
27 95888 YES YES YES
28 95833 YES
29 95823 YES YES YES
30 95838 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
31 95838 YES YES YES YES
32 95838 YES YES
33 95838 YES YES
34 95815 YES YES
35 95815 YES YES YES
36 95815 YES YES
37 95834 YES YES YES
38 8538 YES YES YES YES YES
39 95838 YES YES
40 95815 YES YES YES
41 95815 YES YES
42 95838 YES YES YES
1 95838 1 1 1
2 95838 1 1
3 95815 1 1 1 1 1
4 95835 1 1
5 1 1 1 1 1
6 95815 1 1
7 95838 1 1 1 1 1 1
Q4. 1 Q4. 2 Q4. 3 Q4. 4 Q4. 5 Q5. 1 Q5. 2 Q5. 3 Q5. 4 Q5. 5 Q6. 1 Q6. 2 Q6. 3 Q6. 4 Q6. 5 Q7. 1 Q7. 2 Q7. 3 Q7. 4 Q7. 5 Q8. 1

YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES

YES YES YES YES
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
Q8. 2 Q8. 3 Q8. 4 Q8. 5 Q9. 1 Q9. 2 Q9. 3 Q9. 4 Q9. 5 Q10. 1 Q10. 2 Q10. 3 Q10. 4 Q10. 5 Q11. Asian Q11. Black Q11.

Hispanic
Q11.

Middle
Eastern
Q11.

Native
Q11.

Pacific
Islander
Q11.

White

YES YES YES

YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES

YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES

YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES

YES YES

YES YES YES

YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES

YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES

YES YES

YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES

YES YES

YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES

YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES

YES YES

YES YES YES YES

YES YES YES
1 1 1 1
1 1 PLEASE LOOK INTO ROBLA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. THE SC 1 1 1 1 Center mediums. Ways to slow down vehiclar t 1 1 1
1 1 Post no parking signs on both sides of the stree 1 1 1
1 1 Keep lanes narrow and only one lane in each direction. This 1 Q11.

Prefer not
to say
Q11.

Other Q12. <18
Q12. 18 to
24 Q12. 25 to
34 Q12.35 to
44 Q12.45 to
64 Q12.65 to
84 Q12. 85 to
99 Q12. 100+ Q13. Yes Q13. No
Q13.

Prefer not
to say

YES YES

YES YES YES

YES YES

YES YES YES

YES YES

YES YES
YES

YES YES

YES YES YES

YES YES

YES YES
1 1
1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1
Comments

CROSSWALKS

NEED MORE PUBLIC HELP AROUND AREA FOR KIDS AND ELDERLY, MAYBE SECURITY

NEED MORE ORDER ON THE ROAD

ROAD REPAIR
RRFB
GOOD

PREGNANCY A LITTLE BIT HARDER TO GET AROUND ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PREGNANT WITH KIDS

CROSSWALK HELP

MORE HELP PLEASE

ANOTHER STOP LIGHT
ADDITIONAL STOP LIGHT, RED LIGHT CAM ON LIGHT ON NORWOOD +GRAND GRAND/RIO LINDA,STREET TRANSPORTATION IS STILL AROUND?

ACCIDENTS ON NORWOOD, INCLUDING ME REAR ENDED
*SPANISH

WIDER BIKE LANES

SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE MORE DESTINATION TO GO TO THEN HAVE TO WALK OR TAKE TRAIN ACROSS FROM PARK, 15MPH COVERED BY TREE. PEOPLE ARE SPEEDING. MORE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AND

PEOPLE NEED TO LEARN HOW TO LET THE PEDESTRIANS WALK ALL THE WAY ACROSS BECAUSE I ALMOST GOT HIT PLEASE LOOK INTO ROBLA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. THE SCHOOL NEED SIDEWALK FOR THE KIDS AND FAMILIES.

WE SPOKE WITH THE DISTRICT AND THEY THERE NO ARE FUNDS! PLEASE CONSIDER FOR THE SAFETY OF THE Center mediums. Ways to slow down vehiclar traffic. Vehicles routinely speed over 40 mph. Add a traffic signal light Post no parking signs on both sides of the street by the Viva Market.

Keep lanes narrow and only one lane in each direction. This will keep the speed down. There’s not actually that much traffic, so one lane is enough.

Use roundabouts. Use them at each intersection and the major shopping entrances. Don’t use traffic lights. The cars back up waiting for the lights to change when there’s no oncoming traffic. Roundabouts prevent this.

Separate pedestrian traffic with a parallel protected bike path. Don’t put side walks on either side of the road, use protected bike/pedestrian paths. Reducing to one lane will free up plenty of space for this. Plant trees in the protection buffer.

B - Alternatives Development
Report, July 2025

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project –
Alternatives Development Report

July 2025

Prepared For:

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 ii

Prepared for 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
Sean Carney
Sylinda Villado

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 iii

Table of Contents
Glossary of Terms ............................................................................ 1 Introduction .................................................................................... 4 Feasibility Analysis Methodology ....................................................... 5 Travel Demand Forecasting .......................................................... 5 Right-of-Way Assessment ............................................................. 6 Level of Traffic Stress Analysis ...................................................... 7 Traffic Operations Analysis ........................................................... 9 Safety Assessment ................................................................... 10 Transit Assessment .................................................................. 10 Community Priority Alignment......................................................... 11 Alternatives Evaluation .................................................................. 11 Common Elements for All Alternatives ........................................... 11 Alternative 1 ........................................................................... 15 Alternative 2 ........................................................................... 28 Alternative 3 ........................................................................... 44 Comparison of Alternative Analysis Results ...................................... 59 Appendix ......................................................................................... 2

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 iv

List of Figures
Figure 1. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Scores ........................... 8 Figure 2. Walking Level of Traffic Stress .................................... 9 Figure 3: Alternative 1 Cross-Section ...................................... 15 Figure 4: Alternative 1 Plan View of Proposed Improvements ....... 16 Figure 5: Future (2045) Turning Movement Volumes Alternative 1 . 18 Figure 6: Walking Level of Traffic Stress – Alternative 1 ............. 20 Figure 7: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress – Alternative 1 .............. 22 Figure 8: Future (2045) AM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Intersection Queues ............................................................................. 25 Figure 9: Future (2045) PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Intersection Queues ............................................................................. 26 Figure 10: Alternative 2A Cross-Section .................................. 30 Figure 11: Alternative 2B Cross-Section .................................. 31 Figure 12: Alternative 2C Cross-Section .................................. 31 Figure 13: Alternative 2 Plan View of Proposed Improvements ...... 32 Figure 14: Future (2045) Turning Movement Volumes Alternative 2 34 Figure 15: Walking Level of Traffic Stress – Alternative 2 ........... 36 Figure 16: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress – Alternative 2 ............. 38 Figure 17: Future (2045) AM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Intersection Queues Alternative 2 ........................................................... 41 Figure 18: Future (2045) PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Intersection Queues Alternative 2 ........................................................... 42 Figure 19: Alternative 3 Cross-Section .................................... 44 Figure 20: Alternative 2 Plan View of Proposed Improvements ...... 45 Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 v

Figure 21: Future (2045) Turning Movement Volumes Alternative 3 49 Figure 22: Walking Level of Traffic Stress – Alternative 3 ........... 51 Figure 23: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress – Alternative 3 ............. 53 Figure 24: Future (2045) AM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Intersection Queues Alternative 3 ........................................................... 56 Figure 25: Future (2045) PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Intersection Queues Alternative 3 ........................................................... 57

List of Tables
Table 1: Level of Service Criteria Definitions .................................. 10 Table 2: Analysis of Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress –Alternative 1 ... 19 Table 3. Analysis of Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress – Alternative1 ........ 21 Table 4: Future (2045) Alternative 1 Intersection Operational Analysis Results .................................................................................. 24 Table 5: Analysis of Walking Level of Traffic Stress –Alternative 2 ....... 35 Table 6. Analysis of Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress – Alternative 2 ....... 37 Table 7: Future (2045) Alternative 2 Intersection Operational Analysis Results .................................................................................. 40 Table 8: Analysis of Walking Level of Traffic Stress –Alternative 3 ....... 50 Table 9. Analysis of Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress – Alternative 3 ....... 52 Table 10: Future (2045) Alternative 3 Intersection Operational Analysis Results .................................................................................. 55

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 1

Glossary of Terms
95th Percentile Queue: A queue is a line of vehicles waiting to be served, such as at a traffic signal, that occurs due to demand exceeding the available capacity. The 95th percentile queue is the length of the queue which is exceeded five percent of the time during the analysis time period. The 95th percentile queue is useful in determining the appropriate storage requirements such as length of turn pockets but is not representative of what an average driver would typically experience during their commute.

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

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

Bicycle Detection: Passive traffic signal system that detects the presence of a person bicycling to trigger a green light without requiring the person bicycling to press a button.

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS): A numeric suitability rating (1 = low stress, 4 = high stress) that assesses how safe and comfortable a bike route feels to a person bicycling, accounting for factors like lane separation, width, and traffic speed.

Bike Box: A painted area at a traffic signal that gives people on bicycles a designated and visible space to wait in front of cars during a red light.

Bus Bulb-Out: A sidewalk extension at bus stops allowing buses to load/unload passengers without leaving the travel lane, improving accessibility and reducing dwell time.

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 an intersection that separates right-turning 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 pedestrians due to higher vehicle speeds.

Class I Shared Use Path : A fully separated shared use path shared by people walking and biking. A Class I shared use path is defined separately from a Class IV bikeway by its width and the requirement that it have wider horizontal separation from vehicle traffic.

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

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 2

Class IV Bikeway – Separated Bikeway: A fully separated facility for bicycles, often at sidewalk level and protected by landscaping or physical barriers from vehicle travel lanes.

Conflict Zone: Area where multiple travel modes cross each other and are in conflict. A few examples are where driveways cross sidewalks or bikeways, where bikeways cross with transit vehicles at bus stops, or at intersections where those walking, rolling, or biking cross with vehicle paths.

Controlled Pedestrian Crossings: A designated area for people bicycling, walking, or rolling to cross a street where traffic is controlled (where a traffic signal, stop sign, or yield sign directs driver movement) to allow people a safer opportunity to cross.

Dilemma Zone Detection: A type of traffic signal technology that helps reduce crashes by detecting vehicles approaching an intersection near the end of the signal phase and can adjust timing to reduce the likelihood of a collision if it is likely that a driver would enter the intersection on red.

High Injury Network: Streets or intersections where a high number of severe or fatal crashes have occurred, as identified by the City in its Vision Zero Plan.

Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI): A traffic signal timing strategy that gives pedestrians a head start to cross the street before vehicles get a green light.

Level of Service (LOS): The LOS is a measure of street performance when compared to user’s expectations. Streets are given a “letter grade” of “A” through “F” where “A” represents little to no experienced delay or travel congestion and “F” represents high delay or travel congestion. The calculation of LOS is based on the methodologies as outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition published by the Transportation Research Board. The calculation of LOS varies by the type of facility or intersection being reviewed.

On-Street Parking: Parking of vehicles along the sides of public streets, often in designated spaces marked by painted lines, signs, or meters.

Pedestrian/Walking Level of Traffic Stress (PLTS): A numeric suitability rating (1 = low stress, 4 = high stress) that indicates how safe and comfortable walking conditions are, considering sidewalk width, speed limits, and buffer zones.

Queue: A queue is 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.

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 3

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 Sacramento Regional Transit District operates public transit services and collaborates on transit stop modifications and pedestrian access enhancements.

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

Safety Corridor: A designation street 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 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 Sidewalk Scale Lighting: Lower height lighting installed along sidewalks to enhance visibility and safety for people walking, especially at night. It is designed specifically to illuminate the sidewalk rather than the vehicle travel lanes and typically includes shorter poles and may include decorative elements.

Signal Modifications: Upgrades to traffic signals to meet modern standards, including pedestrian countdown timers, improved visibility, and transit signal priority features.

Turn Pocket: Vehicle storage lane at an intersection which does not extend to the previous intersection. Typically used to accommodate turning vehicles at an intersection.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): A metric representing the total distance driven by all vehicles in a specified area and timeframe, used to evaluate environmental and land use impacts.

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

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 4

Introduction
The purpose of this report is to summarize the initially proposed project alternatives for the Norwood Mobility Project. The following conditions were determined from the existing conditions analysis that the project alternatives are to address:
 There are gaps in the walking infrastructure and most of the existing sidewalks on the corridor are 5’ in width without separation between the sidewalk and the vehicle travel lanes. Community input identified enhancements to the walking infrastructure as a top priority.
 Only a small portion of the corridor has dedicated space for people riding bicycles.  There is a trend of injury collisions involving people walking and biking, particularly near the Robertson Community Center and in the block between Bell Avenue and Jessie Avenue. The collision trends, field observations, and community input show that people are crossing where infrastructure does not exist to support them and that additional infrastructure is needed.
 There is a trend of broadside collisions at the majority of intersections along the corridor. Rear end crashes, driving at unsafe speeds, and signal violations were mostly concentrated between the I-80 Interchange and Harris Avenue where congestion during commute periods can occur. The most common cited causes of collisions were:
o Auto right-of-way (violations involve a street user failing to yield the legal right-of- way to another vehicle when required under the California Vehicle Code (CVC), generally by failing to yield when entering a roadway, intersection, or when merging. );
o Unsafe speed (a street user travelling faster than is safe for street or weather conditions), and;
o Signal and sign violations (a street user not following the direction provided by a sign or traffic signal).
 All intersections operate at Level of Service (LOS) C or better during peak hours, but some locations have turn movement queues which extend beyond the available turn pockets. Related to this, travel times along the corridor are highly variable, primarily driven by operations at the I-80 interchange especially during commute periods.

Outside commute periods, travel times along the corridor are consistent and uncongested.
 There is limited right of way (ROW) throughout the corridor for modifications.

Generally, the corridor varies between 48 and 78 feet in width with limited to no space to widen the paved street without impacting the use of adjacent properties. There is no room to modify the street on the bridge over I-80 without widening the structure.

From these findings, the following priorities were considered when developing project alternatives:

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 5

 Improve walking infrastructure including the addition of striped and signal-protected crossing opportunities, wherever feasible.
 Create low stress facilities that improve safety for people biking, walking, and rolling.  Improve corridor safety, particularly between Jessie Avenue and Bell Avenue and between Silver Eagle Road and Harris Avenue.
 Create low stress, accessible travel paths for people biking, walking, and rolling to reach transit
 Ensure project implementation does not negatively impact the operations and values of any private properties along Norwood Avenue.

The city currently has an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) project underway for the Norwood corridor. The project would upgrade traffic signal controllers and communications by replacing existing end-of-life equipment and outdated communication systems with fiber optic cable-based systems, network switches, new cabinets and controllers, and traffic monitoring cameras. The project would also provide significant multi-modal safety benefits with updated vehicle and bicycle detection, adding yellow reflective border signal heads, pedestrian countdown signal heads, and accessible pedestrian signal push buttons.

The remainder of this report describes several alternatives for consideration for the Norwood Mobility Project. All alternatives contained herein are draft concepts and subject to change based on input from the community and project partners.

Feasibility Analysis Methodology
To determine the feasibility of each proposed alternative, several forms of analysis were conducted. This analysis includes:
 Travel Demand Forecasting
 Right-Of-Way Assessment
 Walking Level of Traffic Stress Analysis
 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Analysis
 Traffic Operations Analysis
 Safety Benefit Assessment
 Transit Assessment
The analysis methodology for each of these assessments is described in further detail in the following sections.

Travel Demand Forecasting
Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 6

A modified version of the SACOG SacSim-19 Travel Demand Model was used to develop future year vehicle travel demand along Norwood Avenue. This model is consistent with the modeling used for the City’s 2040 General Plan Update with only minor revisions made in the vicinity of the study area to better reflect local streets which are part of the project.

The model is generally only sensitive to major changes in street design which affect either vehicle capacity or transit capacity. For this reason, changes in future vehicle demand for Norwood Avenue are only shown when the number of vehicle travel lanes is changed in an alternative.

The travel demand model was used to develop future year AADT and future year vehicle turning movement demand. Model outputs for AADT and vehicle turning movement demand were adjusted using the post processing methodology described in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 765 (NCHRP-765) Analytical Travel Forecasting Approaches for Project-Level Planning and Design.

Estimates for VMT were derived from the travel demand model and made in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as updated by California Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) based on the Guidelines published by the Natural Resources Agency. VMT is a systemic metric and is a useful indicator of overall land use and transportation efficiency, where the most efficient system is one that minimizes VMT by encouraging shorter vehicle trip lengths, more walking and biking, or increased carpooling and transit.

VMT is not a good indicator of congestion nor is it useful for identifying hot-spot locations or infrastructure deficiencies. Measuring VMT requires estimating or measuring the full length of vehicle trips by purpose, such as commutes, deliveries, or shopping trips that often cross between cities, counties, or states. For this reason, regional travel demand models, “big data,” and household travel surveys that are less limited by local agency boundaries are the preferred tools to estimate VMT under SB 743. VMT is reported by travel speed for all vehicles on all streets within the region for each alternative.

Right-of-Way Assessment
The existing right-of-way was measured on publicly available aerial imagery at multiple points along Norwood Avenue to determine the smallest common cross section, from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk, along the corridor. From this analysis, it was determined that there is generally 72 feet or more of current right-of-way along Norwood Avenue. The exceptions to this are:
 The bridge structure over I-80 (Where Caltrans requires additional lane width between vehicle travel lanes and sidewalks);
 The southern end of the corridor south of Fairbanks Avenue (55 feet), and;  The Northern end of the corridor north of Berthoud Street (66 feet).

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 7

For the bridge over I-80, the plan alternatives specifically avoid making recommendations for changing the allocation of right-of-way as there are limited options available without needing to widen the bridge structure. At the southern end of the corridor, the plan alternatives do not propose any changes, as this section is already two vehicle travel lanes with a Class II bikeway in each direction and seven-foot sidewalks. At the north end of the corridor, the plan alternatives continue with their standard cross sections as there are undeveloped and soon to be developed parcels fronting Norwood Avenue which can implement the plan improvements when they move forward with construction.

Level of Traffic Stress Analysis
Bicycling LTS
The bicycling LTS analysis was calculated using the methodologies describe in the Mineta Transportation Institute Report 11-19 Low Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity (2012). Bicycling LTS scores quantify the stress 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. Bicycle LTS is given a score of 1 through 4, with 1 being the most comfortable and 4 being the least comfortable for people bicycling. Typically, a LTS score of 1 indicates that the stress level of a street is suitable for most people bicycling regardless of skill such as children, while an LTS of 4 indicates that the stress level is better suited for more skilled bicyclists, as shown in Figure 1.

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 8

Figure 1. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Scores
Walking LTS
The walking level of traffic stress (LTS) analysis was done using the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Level of Traffic Stress Analysis Procedures (2020). Similar to bicycling LTS methodology, walking LTS also undergoes several criteria to develop a LTS score of 1 through 4 including the presence of sidewalks, crosswalks, median refuges, traffic volume, and current speed limits as shown in Figure 2.

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 9

Figure 2. Walking Level of Traffic Stress
Traffic Operations Analysis
The study intersections were analyzed using the Synchro 12 software package for signalized intersections and Sidra 9.1 software package for roundabouts. Each study intersection was evaluated for operational performance during typical weekday AM and PM peak hour operations. Key performance metrics include average vehicle delay, intersection LOS1, and 95th percentile queue.

The delay and LOS analysis is based on the latest version of the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. This methodology assigns an LOS grade to intersection operations based on the average vehicle control delay, ranging from LOS A (free flow) to LOS F (most congested conditions). Table 1 documents the LOS criteria for signalized intersections and roundabouts. The latest version of the Synchro analysis software was used to report the 95th percentile queue lengths for approach lanes to signalized study intersections. Sidra 9.1 was used to perform this same analysis for study roundabouts.

1 A Level of Service (LOS) analysis refers to the quantifiable assessment of traffic under various scenarios.

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 10

Table 1: Level of Service Criteria Definitions
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, 7 th Edition
Safety Assessment
Each alternative was qualitatively reviewed for improvements which directly affect collision trends which were identified in the Existing Conditions Report. This includes looking at elements which reduce travel speeds, reduce potential conflicts between vehicles or between vehicles and those walking, biking, or rolling, or better alert people to these potential conflicts. As this project is still in the planning phase, there is not sufficient design data at this time in the project alternatives to quantify collision reductions associated with the proposed improvements.

Transit Assessment
Each alternative was qualitatively reviewed for its compatibility with future transit enhancements. Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT) owns, operates, and maintains Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 11

transit facilities and services along Norwood Avenue and has identified planned and desired improvements to stops along the corridor in their 2023 Bus Stop Improvement Plan. The Norwood Mobility Project is supportive of these proposed improvements and the transit assessment of each alternative will identify if the project option meets or exceeds the planned improvements from SacRT
Community Priority Alignment
Based on community feedback from the Community Advisory Committee, during the in- person and virtual community workshops, and from the project website, the following community priorities for the project were identified:
 Improve corridor safety, particularly between Jessie Avenue and Bell Avenue, and between Silver Eagle Road and Harris Avenue
 Improve walking infrastructure, including the addition of signal-protected crossing opportunities, wherever feasible
 Create low-stress facilities that improve safety and comfort for people walking, rolling, and bicycling to reach transit
 Create low-stress facilities that improve safety and comfort for people biking Each alternative will be qualitatively evaluated for alignment with these priorities.

Alternatives Evaluation
Common Elements for All Alternatives
This section lists the common elements that are proposed for all alternatives. The project elements in this section are compatible with all of the major project alternatives and have major safety and functionality benefits without affecting the corridor’s vehicle operating capacity.

Remove On-Street Parking between Jessie Avenue and Bell Avenue Norwood Avenue is one of the few arterial streets in Sacramento, outside of the Central City, that has on-street parking. This condition does not align with current City standards.

Over the past five years, collision trends have shown more collisions in this segment with on-street parking compared to the rest of the corridor. Many of these collisions involve people walking or biking. From site observations, people frequently cross the street in this section outside of designated crossing locations, after parking their vehicle. The parked vehicles create sight distance issues for drivers to see these people crossing, particularly in this section where the driver is not alerted to be searching for people crossing the Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 12

street. Similarly, there are no bike lanes in this section and bicyclists frequently have to avoid the door zone of parked vehicles by shifting into the path of vehicles traveling at 35 miles per hour.

Install Sidewalks
There are two locations that lack sidewalks along Norwood Avenue. One is on the west side of the street from approximately Berthoud Street to Grace Avenue. In this section, there is an informal asphalt path which is overgrown in places and shows cracking and degradation. The second gap is on the east side of the street from Grace Avenue to Main Avenue. The northern portion of this gap will be constructed by planned housing development in the near future. The Norwood Mobility Project ensures that the corridor has sidewalks along the entire corridor.

Signalize Channelized Right Turns at the I-80 Interchange Interchanges generally pose a challenge to people walking or biking to cross. At the I- 80/Norwood Avenue Interchange there is no dedicated space for people or bicycling and people walking are required to cross channelized uncontrolled right-turn movements at both intersections where people driving enter and exit the freeway. Three out of four of these crossings are currently unmarked (no crosswalk) which creates a higher stress environment for those walking to cross the vehicle lane. Additionally, the lack of marked crosswalks reduces visibility and awareness of someone walking to cross their path.

Current Caltrans and City standards support signalizing. Converting the sweeping right turn to an appropriately designed slip lane, with a straight approach, with a pedestrian and bike crossing perpendicular to the lane, placed before the vehicles turning movement, increases driver focus and attention on persons crossing the lane, which can reduce conflicts. It also improves the ability to signalize the approach.

Signalize Midblock Pedestrian Crossings
From both anecdotal evidence during the community workshops and observation during the project site walk, people who walk along Norwood Avenue are looking for additional protected crossing opportunities. People regularly cross Norwood Avenue at unmarked locations which has contributed to a concentration of collisions between Jessie Avenue and Bell Avenue and between Silver Eagle Road and Morey Avenue. There is approximately 1,200 feet and 1,600 feet between signalized crossing opportunities in these two cases respectively. Based on observations and collision data, it is recommended that a signalized crossing be added near the north end of the Robertson Community Center, and another be added near the north end of the Norwood Center shopping plaza. SacRT also identified the need for a pedestrian crossing at Kesner Avenue in their 2023 Bus Stop Improvement Plan to enhance access to transit.

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 13

Shorten Pedestrian Crossing Distances
For all alternatives, it is recommended that the project try to achieve the shortest crossing distance feasible to reduce pedestrian exposure to traffic. Reducing lane widths and adding intersection curb extensions are a few ways this may be achieved. Curb extension additionally helps the person walking be more visible and helps drivers determine that the person walking is committed to that crossing, improving the driver’s recognition of the person intending to cross.

Modify Signal Operations
For all alternatives, it is recommended that the traffic signals be brought up to current City standards. This process has already started with upgrades at Bell Avenue and Silver Eagle Road. Upgrades at a minimum should include retro-reflective back plates for signal heads, advanced dilemma zone detection, accessible pedestrian signal upgrades, leading pedestrian interval signal timing per city policies and guidelines, curb ramp upgrades to current standards, and crosswalk restriping for high visibility. Consideration should also be given to implementing transit signal priority, especially for alternatives which reallocate ROW away from vehicle travel lanes.

Implement Bus Stop Infrastructure and Stop Amenities
SacRT completed their Bus Stop Improvement Plan in February 2023 which identified several stops along Norwood Avenue for enhancements, including:
 SB Norwood Avenue north of Jessie Street – construct a new concrete pad behind the sidewalk and add a transit shelter and bench
 NB Norwood Avenue north of Jessie Street – construct a new concrete pad behind the sidewalk
 NB Norwood Avenue north of Morrison Avenue – construct a new concrete pad behind the sidewalk with a retaining wall
 NB Norwood Avenue south of Lindsay Avenue – construct a new concrete pad behind the sidewalk and add a transit shelter and bench  SB Norwood Avenue south of Grand Avenue – construct a new concrete pad behind the sidewalk and add a transit shelter and bench
 NB Norwood Avenue north of Kesner Avenue – construct a new concrete pad behind the sidewalk with a retaining wall
 NB Norwood Avenue north of Hayes Avenue – construct a new concrete pad behind the sidewalk with retaining curbs and add a transit shelter and bench  SB Norwood Avenue north of Silver Eagle Road (Robertson Community Center) – construct a new concrete pad behind the sidewalk with retaining curbs and add a transit shelter and bench
Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 14

 SB Norwood Avenue north of Carroll Avenue – construct a new concrete pad behind the sidewalk with a retaining wall
 NB Norwood Avenue north of Carroll Avenue – construct a new concrete pad behind the sidewalk with a retaining wall
The Norwood Mobility Project is an opportunity for the City to support these SacRT efforts.

Reduce Posted Speed Limits
Assembly Bills 43 and 1938 updated the California Vehicle Code to allow for a five mile per hour reduction of posted speed limits below what would be recommended based on 85th percentile observed speeds on streets that are designated as Safety Corridors or on streets adjacent to land uses that generate a high number of people walking or biking.

Only one speed limit reduction is allowed to be applied on each street. Norwood Avenue is eligible to be designated as a Safety Corridor. Norwood Avenue is also eligible to be designated as a high activity walking or biking corridor based on local land use patterns if it is not designated as a Safety Corridor. Streets in front of and up to ¼ mile from schools, public parks, houses of worship, community centers, and other facilities which encourage walking or biking may be designated as high walking and biking activity areas.

Enough of these uses exist along Norwood Avenue that virtually all of the study area is within ¼ mile of one of these land uses.

Provide Additional Storage Lanes for the I-80 Westbound On-Ramp The City should coordinate with Caltrans to add a second queue storage lane to the I-80 Westbound On-Ramp before the ramp meter. Currently it is the only ramp of four at this interchange which does not have two lanes of travel. The current design provides approximately 550 feet of storage between the ramp meter and Norwood Avenue. Based on vehicle speed and travel time data collected for Norwood Avenue, travel times on the corridor are highly variable and appear to be tied in part to queues at this on-ramp during peak hours. The additional lane could be designed as a high occupancy vehicle preference lane or a standard storage lane and would require additional operational study beyond this plan to determine the specifics of its design. This is not a currently planned Caltrans project and is outside of the City’s jurisdiction. This modification would require coordination between the City and Caltrans.

Add Wayfinding for People Walking and Biking
Installation of wayfinding signs placed at key locations along the corridor such as bus stops and high-volume areas will direct people to popular destinations, such as the community center, shopping opportunities, and the Sacramento Northern Parkway shared use path.

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 15

Alternative 1
Description
The majority of items included in Alternative 1 are consistent across all alternatives and presented in the previous section. This alternative is the only one that does not propose a right-of-way reallocation on Norwood Avenue. Elements unique to this alternative include:

Widen Sidewalks
Norwood Avenue is generally not wide enough to include standard bikeways without reducing the number of vehicle travel lanes. City Ordinance 10.76.0102 allows people to bicycle on sidewalk under certain requirements. In lieu of providing on-street bicycle infrastructure, this alternative widens the sidewalk on the west side of the street to allow people bicycling, walking, and rolling to navigate potential conflicts between users.

Figure 3 shows the general cross section proposed for this alternative. Figure 4 shows a representative map view of Norwood Avenue and where improvements would be applied.

Figure 3: Alternative 1 Cross-Section

2 City of Sacramento Ordinance 10.76.010

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 16

Figure 4: Alternative 1 Plan View of Proposed Improvements

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 17

Feasibility Analysis
Travel Demand Forecasting
Based on the SacSim-19 travel demand model as modified for the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan Update, future volumes on Norwood Avenue range between 19,000 and 41,000 AADT for Alternative 1. The highest volumes are on the segment between Jessie Avenue and Harris Avenue. These volumes drop to the 26,000-30,000 AADT range between Jessie Avenue and Bell Avenue and between Harris Avenue and Grand Avenue.

North of Bell Avenue and south of Grand Avenue, volumes drop to the 19,000-22,000 AADT range. The Travel demand model was also used to forecast future turning movement demand volumes at study intersection along the corridor. These volumes are shown in Figure 5. Because Alternative 1 does not change the vehicle capacity of Norwood Avenue, no net change in future VMT is expected.

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 18

Figure 5: Future (2045) Turning Movement Volumes Alternative 1

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 19

Level of Traffic Stress Analysis
The focus of Alternative 1 is to provide some improvements for those walking, biking, and rolling without significantly altering the vehicle capacity of Norwood Avenue. This alternative adds new crossing opportunities and widens the sidewalk on the west side of Norwood Avenue, but the improvements made do not significantly alter the walking and biking environment. Table 2 and Table 3 show the evaluation of the walking and biking level of traffic stress. Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the results of this evaluation in a map form.

Table 2: Analysis of Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress –Alternative 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 purposes of this analysis.

Main
Avenue
to Bell
Avenue
Bell Avenue
to I-80 WB
Ramps
I-80 EB
Ramps to
Fairbanks
Avenue
Fairbank
Avenue to
Arcade
Creek
Street Width
(Through Lanes
per Direction)
2 2 2 1
Buffer Type None None None None
Total Buffer
Width (Ft) 0 0 0 0
Sidewalk Width
(Ft) 5ft 5ft 5ft 5ft
Speed Limit Or
Prevailing
Speed A (MPH)
30 30 30 25
Existing PLTS
Score B 4 4 4 3
Alternative 1
PLTS Score 3 3 3 2
Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 20

Figure 6: Walking Level of Traffic Stress – Alternative 1

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 21

Table 3. Analysis of Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress – Alternative1 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 bi- directional. The Existing BLTS Score included in Table 7 is the highest existing score per segment for the purpose of this analysis.

Main Avenue
to Bell
Avenue
Bell Avenue
to I-80 EB
Ramps
I-80 EB
Ramps to
Fairbanks
Avenue
Fairbanks
Avenue to
Arcade Creek
Street Width
(Through
Lanes per
Direction)
2 2 2 1
Bike Lane
Width (Inc.

Bike Lane,
Buffer Width,
Gutter) (Ft)
0 0 0 5
Speed Limit
or Prevailing
Speed A
(MPH)
30 30 30 25
Physically
Separated
Bike Lane?
No No No No
Existing BLTS
Score B 4 4 4 3
Alternative 1
BLTS Score 3 3 3 2
Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 22

Figure 7: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress – Alternative 1

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 23

Traffic Operations Analysis
The analysis for Alternative 1 assumed minimal changes from the current operating conditions along the corridor. Signal timing adjustments were made in relation to the proposed improvements and to accommodate higher traffic volumes associated with future growth. All signals were assumed to operate without coordination, but signal coordination would likely improve operations from the results shown. Table 4 shows a comparison of anticipated future intersection delays compared to existing operations. 95th percentile queues were also evaluated for Alternative 1. The AM and PM peak hour queues are shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9 respectively. In these figures, lines are shown on each approach to the intersection representing the queue for the left turn lane (if one exists), the through movements, and the right turn lane (if one exists). These queues are generally color coded as green if they are less than the available vehicle storage, yellow if they are at or near the available vehicle storage, and red if they exceed the available vehicle storage or block access to adjacent lanes. Note that 95th percentile queues represent the longest queue that is likely to be observed during the peak hour and most queues would be shorter. From this analysis, the key finding is that queues are longest at the intersections which comprise the I-80 interchange. There are other locations where queues exceed their available storage along Norwood Avenue, but in most cases it is due to short formal turn pockets being blocked by through movement queues.

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 24

Table 4: Future (2045) Alternative 1 Intersection Operational Analysis Results Source: DKS Associates, March 2025.

Notes:

A. 20.6 (C) = Delay (LOS)
B. Not a study intersection, provided for informational purposes because of recommended control modifications
Intersection
AM Peak Hour A PM Peak Hour A
Existing Future Existing Future

1. Norwood Avenue / Bell Avenue 20.6 (C) 23.9 (C) 17.6 (B) 23.7 (C)

2. Norwood Avenue / Jessie
Avenue

28.2 (C) 29.3 (C) 23.8 (C) 30.7 (C)

3. Norwood Avenue / WB 80
Ramps

10.9 (B) 13.6 (B) 10.3 (B) 16.0 (B)

4. Norwood Avenue / EB 80
Ramps

12.0 (B) 16.3 (B) 12.0 (B) 16.0 (B)

5. Norwood Avenue / Harris
Avenue

19.7 (B) 25.8 (C) 19.2 (B) 24.4 (C)
Norwood Avenue / Morey Avenue B - 22.1 (C) - 9.7 (A)

6. Norwood Avenue / Silver Eagle
Road

18.6 (B) 11.4 (B) 18.2 (B) 23.1 (C)
Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 25

Figure 8: Future (2045) AM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Intersection Queues Alternative 1

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 26

Figure 9: Future (2045) PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Intersection Queues Alternative 1

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 27

Safety Benefit Assessment
Alternative 1 addresses some of the corridor-wide safety concerns by reducing the speed limit, removing on-street parking between Bell Avenue and Jesse Avenue, adding additional controlled crossing locations, and improving visibility of signals. An additional metered lane on the WB I-80 on-ramp would also help address congestion-based crashes.

These safety upgrades come from elements common across all alternatives and are not unique to Alternative 1.

Transit Assessment
Alternative 1 provides only minimal potential benefits for transit operations. This alternative would provide the least amount of improvement by supporting stop enhancements identified by SacRT and closing sidewalk gaps. The wider sidewalk on the west side of the street would provide some additional waiting area for transit stops used by people traveling in the southbound direction.

Community Priority Alignment
Alternative 1 improves corridor safety by removing on-street parking between Jessie Avenue and Bell Avenue and by reducing speed limits along the corridor. It also includes the addition of three new marked and signalized pedestrian crosswalks and signalizes pedestrian crossings at the freeway ramps. Alternative 1, while reducing the level of traffic stress slightly for people walking and biking by reducing traffic speeds, still does not provide any low stress segments or connections to transit.

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 28

Alternative 2
Description
Alternative 2 proposes installing a Class IV separated bikeway along Norwood Avenue by reallocating space from one of the vehicle travel lanes in each direction. There are multiple ways in which this alternative can be achieved and thus three sub alternatives (2A, 2B, and 2C) are included under Alternative 2. The primary way these sub alternatives are differentiated is in how they place the separated bikeway within the proposed cross section. The proposed cross sections for Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2C are shown in Figure 10, Figure 11, and Figure 12 respectively. All other elements in the alternative description are shared between the three sub-alternatives. Figure 4 shows a representative map view of Norwood Avenue and where improvements would be applied for Alternative 2. The elements in this alternative include:

Reallocate Street Space from Driving to Walking and Bicycling: Fairbanks Avenue to Grand Avenue and from Bell Avenue to Grace Avenue
In order to create space for walking and bicycling enhancements along the lower volume segments of the corridor, the number of vehicle travel lanes would be reduced from two per direction with a center turn lane to one per direction with a center turn lane. Sections south of Fairbanks Avenue and north of Grace Avenue would maintain their current cross- sections. The section between Harris Avenue to Jessie Avenue would be maintained as two lanes per direction to provide capacity for higher car and truck volumes and demands at the I-80 Interchange.

Install Roundabouts at Silver Eagle Road, Morey Avenue, and Bell Avenue A single lane roundabout at Silver Eagle Road and at Morey Avenue would slow traffic in the vicinity of the Robertson Community Center and two nearby parks.

A single lane roundabout at Morey Avenue would also provide a direct path for people wanting to cross the street at Morey Avenue, which is currently an offset intersection with a marked crossing in the middle of the intersection.

A single lane roundabout at Bell Avenue would slow southbound vehicles as they approach the higher residential density and commercial portion of the corridor. It would also reduce conflict points at this high crash location.

All three roundabout locations have undergone a preliminary review for right-of-way requirements to install a single lane roundabout, and it was found that a roundabout could be installed at each location without impacting existing structures or causing a loss of use for adjacent developed properties.

Install Separated Bikeway
Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 29

Removing an existing vehicle travel lane in each direction would provide sufficient space to add separated bikeways to the corridor. In Alternatives 2A and 2B, the separated bikeway would be kept at the same level as the vehicle travel lanes and separated with a painted buffer and raised elements separating the bikeway from vehicle lanes (precise design to be determined at a later date). In Alternative 2C, the separated bikeway is brought to sidewalk level and would be separated from the vehicle travel lanes by a landscaping strip. An additional one-foot buffer with visually and texturally unique elements placed parallel to the bikeway would be placed between the bikeway and the sidewalk to reduce potential conflicts between people walking and people biking. Due to lack of physical width available on the interchange, people riding bikes seeking to cross I- 80 would still need to ride on the sidewalk.

Add Bicycle Detection
The remaining signalized intersections (those not updated to roundabouts) would be updated to include bicycle detection. This would allow the signals to react to people on bicycles and change signal phases without requiring the person riding to dismount and cross the intersection as a pedestrian or wait for a vehicle trigger the signal phase change.

Widen Sidewalks and Add Landscape Buffer
Existing sidewalks along Norwood Avenue would be widened to more than five feet to allow for a more comfortable and low stress walking environment, regardless of existing utility and signal poles. Landscape buffers would be installed between traffic and the sidewalk north of Jessie Avenue and south of Harris Avenue to expand the low-stress walking network while keeping right-of-way acquisition minor and constrained to landscaping. Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2C allocate this landscaping buffer differently which changes what can ultimately be planted in this space. Alternative 2A would allow for grasses and small bushes to be planted in this space. Alternative 2B eliminates to landscape buffer on the east side of the street to allow for small to medium sized trees to be planted on the west side of the street. Alternative 2C moves the bikeway to sidewalk level eliminating the need for the buffer area between people riding bikes and vehicles and reallocates this space to the planted buffers. This would allow for large trees to be planted on the west side of the street and grasses and small bushes to be planted on the east side of the street.

Install Sidewalk Scale Lighting
Sidewalk scale lighting would ensure the area where people are walking is illuminated, increasing comfort and feelings of security and safety.

Relocate Utilities
Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 30

The installation of a landscape buffer and wider sidewalks would allow for an opportunity to relocate utility poles either outside of the walkway or underground to provide appropriate sidewalk widths. This would require collaboration with and support from utility providers.

Install Bus Bulb-Outs with In-Lane Bus Stops
The sidewalk would be extended to allow for the bus to load passengers directly from the vehicle travel lane, with the bikeway continuing behind the bus stop. This treatment would also allow some stops to be turned to allow for better protection from the sun. By allowing buses to stop in-lane, transit time reliability is improved by not requiring the bus to seek gaps in traffic to re-enter the travel lane. This is recommended as the default treatment for all bus stops along the corridor, but design specifics would have to be determined in coordination with SacRT, such as those requiring space for a bus to dwell for schedule adherence.

Figure 10: Alternative 2A Cross-Section

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 31

Figure 11: Alternative 2B Cross-Section

Figure 12: Alternative 2C Cross-Section

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 32

Figure 13: Alternative 2 Plan View of Proposed Improvements

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 33

Feasibility Analysis
Travel Demand Forecasting
Based on the SacSim-19 travel demand model as modified for the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan Update, future volumes on Norwood Avenue range between 17,000 and 37,000 AADT for Alternative 2. The highest volumes are on the segment between Jessie Avenue and Harris Avenue. These volumes drop to the 21,000-25,000 AADT range between Jessie Avenue and Bell Avenue and between Harris Avenue and Grand Avenue.

North of Bell Avenue and south of Grand Avenue, volumes drop to the 17,000-20,000 AADT range. These daily volumes are lower than those in Alternative 1 due to the reduction in travel lanes. A portion of the volume which was using Norwood Avenue before the reduction in travel lanes would instead use parallel roads such as Northgate Boulevard and Rio Linda Boulevard. The Travel demand model was also used to forecast future turning movement demand volumes at study intersections along the corridor. These volumes are shown in Figure 14.

Alternative 2 reduces the total number of vehicle travel lanes on Norwood Avenue which could potentially cause an increase in VMT related to the infrastructure project. Based on the Transportation Analysis under CEQA for Projects on the State Highway System guidelines published by Caltrans, projects which reduce the number of through lanes and projects which add or enhance bikeways and walking facilities would not likely lead to a measurable increase in VMT. All elements which are proposed under Alternative 2 would meet the State’s screening criteria guidance for VMT analysis and do not require further evaluation for VMT impacts.

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 34

Figure 14: Future (2045) Turning Movement Volumes Alternative 2

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 35

Level of Traffic Stress Analysis
The focus of Alternative 2 is to provide significant improvements for those walking, biking, and rolling by reallocating existing right-of-way away from vehicles and towards walking and biking. This alternative adds new crossing opportunities and widens the sidewalks on Norwood Avenue. Additionally, this alternative provides a separated bikeway to enhance safety and comfort for those biking. Table 2 and Table 3 show the evaluation of the walking and biking level of traffic stress. Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the results of this evaluation in a map form.

Table 5: Analysis of Walking Level of Traffic Stress –Alternative 2 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.

Main
Avenue
to Bell
Avenue
Bell Avenue
to I-80 WB
Ramps
I-80 EB
Ramps to
Fairbanks
Avenue
Fairbank
Avenue to
Arcade
Creek
Street Width
(Through Lanes
per Direction)
1 1 1 1
Buffer Type Landscaped
Buffer
Landscaped
Buffer
Landscaped
Buffer None
Total Buffer
Width (Ft) 13.5ft 13.5ft 13.5ft 0
Sidewalk Width
(Ft) 6 6 6 6
Speed Limit or
Prevailing
Speed A (MPH)
30 30 30 25
Existing PLTS
Score B 4 4 4 3
Alternative 2
PLTS Score 1 1 1 2
Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 36

Figure 15: Walking Level of Traffic Stress – Alternative 2

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 37

Table 6. Analysis of Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress – Alternative 2 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.

Main Avenue
to Bell
Avenue
Bell Avenue
to I-80 EB
Ramps
I-80 EB
Ramps to
Fairbanks
Avenue
Fairbanks
Avenue to
Arcade Creek
Street Width
(Through
Lanes per
Direction)
1 1 1 1
Bike Lane
Width (Inc.

Bike Lane,
Buffer Width,
Gutter) (Ft)
9ft to 12ft 9ft to 12ft 9ft to 12ft 5
Speed Limit
or Prevailing
Speed A
(MPH)
30 30 30 25
Physically
Separated
Bike Lane?
Yes Yes Yes No
Existing BLTS
Score B 4 4 4 3
Alternative 2
BLTS Score 1 1 1 2
Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 38

Figure 16: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress – Alternative 2

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 39

Traffic Operations Analysis
The analysis for Alternative 2 includes adjustments to the number of vehicle lanes on Norwood Avenue and basic changes to intersection operational characteristics that would be associated with this lane removal. Signal timing adjustments were made in relation to the proposed improvements and to accommodate higher traffic volumes associated with future growth. All signals were assumed to operate without coordination, but signal coordination would likely improve operations from the results shown. Due to limitations in the analysis software, dedicated bicycle phases were not evaluated at the study intersections, but it is likely that there is sufficient vehicle capacity based on these results to incorporate dedicated bicycle phasing into the design at select locations. Table 7 shows a comparison of anticipated future intersection delays compared to existing operations.

Note that for the purposes of the traffic operations analysis that Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 2C are effectively the same so only one analysis was completed. 95th percentile queues were also evaluated for Alternative 2. The AM and PM peak hour queues are shown in Figure 17 and Figure 18 respectively. In these figures, lines are shown on each approach to the intersection representing the queue for the left turn lane (if one exists), the through movements, and the right turn lane (if one exists). These queues are generally color coded as green if they are less than the available vehicle storage, yellow if they are at or near the available vehicle storage, and red if they exceed the available vehicle storage or block access to adjacent lanes. Note that 95th percentile queues represent the longest queue that is likely to be observed during the peak hour and most queues would be shorter. From this analysis, the key finding is that queues are longest at the intersections which comprise the I-80 interchange. There are other locations where queues exceed their available storage along Norwood Avenue, but in most cases it is due to short formal turn pockets being blocked by through movement queues.

When compared to Alternative 1, queues are shorter in Alternative 2 at Bell Avenue, Morey Avenue, and Silver Eagle Road where the roundabouts would be installed with this alternative. Queues are longer at Harris Avenue and Jessie Avenue due to the reduction in travel lanes through the intersection. At Harris Avenue, this could be an issue as northbound queues would extend back to Grand Avenue. This could be addressed by adjusting the proposed design at Harris Avenue to maintain two through lanes in the northbound direction and should be evaluated further at the project design phase if Alternative 2 is selected as the preferred Alternative.

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 40

Table 7: Future (2045) Alternative 2 Intersection Operational Analysis Results Source: DKS Associates, March 2025.

Notes:

1. Norwood Avenue / Bell Avenue 20.6 (C) 16.2 (B) 17.6 (B) 15.4 (B)

2. Norwood Avenue / Jessie
Avenue

28.2 (C) 53.1 (D) 23.8 (C) 44.6 (D)

3. Norwood Avenue / WB 80
Ramps

10.9 (B) 12.6 (B) 10.3 (B) 14.2 (B)

4. Norwood Avenue / EB 80
Ramps

12.0 (B) 14.4 (B) 12.0 (B) 14.2 (B)

5. Norwood Avenue / Harris
Avenue

19.7 (B) 29.1 (C) 19.2 (B) 36.1 (D)
Norwood Avenue / Morey Avenue B - 8.5 (A) - 9.9 (A)

6. Norwood Avenue / Silver Eagle
Road

18.6 (B) 13.9 (B) 18.2 (B) 18.0 (B)
Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 41

Figure 17: Future (2045) AM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Intersection Queues Alternative 2

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 42

Figure 18: Future (2045) PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Intersection Queues Alternative 2

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 43

Safety Benefit Assessment
Alternative 2 provides safety benefits through traffic calming and separation of travel modes. This alternative would reduce speeds by narrowing vehicle travel lanes, removing a vehicle travel lane per direction, adding roundabouts at Bell Avenue, Morey Avenue, and Silver Eagle Road, and by reducing the speed limit on Norwood Avenue. The roundabouts at Bell Avenue and Silver Eagle Road also address the collision trends observed at these intersections by lowering speeds and eliminating several vehicle conflicts within the intersections.

The addition of a separated bikeway would separate those riding bicycles from vehicle traffic, reducing the observed trend of bicycle involved collisions. Added crossing opportunities would help address the observed trend of pedestrian involved collisions along Norwood Avenue at unmarked crossing locations.

Transit Assessment
Alternatives 2A and 2B provide opportunities for transit stop enhancements beyond the improvements identified by SacRT. The landscaping strip included with these alternatives gives space for expanding loading platforms and adding stop amenities such as benches and shade structures. Alternative 2B eliminates the landscape strip on the east side of the street to allow for a wider landscape strip on the west side of the street which can include tree planting. This modification means there would be fewer opportunities for enhanced bus stops with Alternative 2B when compared with Alternative 2A. In Alternatives 2A and 2B, the conflicts between the bus and people on bicycles would need to be handled at each stop and would follow SacRTs standard design plans.

Alternative 2C provides the same benefits as Alternative 2A, but because the bike path starts at sidewalk level, it would be easier to address the conflicts between those riding bicycles and those boarding transit. Additionally, the wider landscaping strips would allow for greater space at transit stops for amenities.

Community Priority Alignment
In addition to the safety benefits described above, Alternative 2 includes the addition of three new marked and signalized pedestrian crosswalks and signalizes pedestrian crossings at the freeway ramps. Alternative 2 also provides a low stress environment for people walking, biking, and accessing transit along most of the corridor by reducing traffic speeds and separating travel modes with physical buffers. The only gap in the low stress environment is across the freeway interchange.

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 44

Alternative 3
Description
Alternative 3 proposes installing a Class I shared use path along Norwood Avenue by reallocating space from one of the vehicle travel lanes in each direction. The proposed cross section for Alternative 3 is shown in Figure 19. Figure 20 shows a representative map view of Norwood Avenue and where improvements would be applied for Alternative

3. The elements in this alternative include:

Figure 19: Alternative 3 Cross-Section

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 45

Figure 20: Alternative 3 Plan View of Proposed Improvements

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 46

Reallocate Street Space from Driving to Walking and Bicycling: Fairbanks Avenue to Harris Avenue and from Jessie Avenue to Grace Avenue In order to create space for walking and bicycling improvements along the majority of the corridor, the number of vehicle travel lanes would be reduced from two per direction with a center running two way left turn lane to one per direction with a center running two way left turn lane. Sections south of Fairbanks Avenue and north of Grace Avenue would maintain their current cross-sections. The section from Harris Avenue to Jessie Avenue would be maintained as two lanes per direction to provide capacity for higher car and truck volumes and demands at the I-80 Interchange.

Install Roundabouts at Silver Eagle Road, Morey Avenue, and Bell Avenue A single lane roundabout at Silver Eagle Road and Morey Avenue would slow traffic in the vicinity of the Robertson Community Center and two nearby parks.

A single lane roundabout at Morey Avenue would also provide better pathing for people wanting to cross the street at Morey Avenue, which is currently an offset intersection with a marked crossing in the middle of the intersection.

All three roundabout locations have undergone a preliminary review for right-of-way requirements to install a single lane roundabout and it was found that a roundabout could be installed at each location without impacting existing structures or causing a loss of use for adjacent developed properties.

Install Shared Use Path
Removing an existing vehicle travel lane in each direction would provide sufficient space to add a shared use path to the western side of the corridor. This would be at sidewalk level and be separated from vehicle traffic by a planted buffer. Street and driveway crossings of the path would have conflict zone striping to alert people driving and people using the path of the crossing conflict. North of Grace Avenue, this design should be coordinated with developers so right-of-way can be preserved for this future improvement. The shared use path should end at Fairbanks Avenue with wayfinding directing people on bicycles to the Sacramento Northern Parkway shared use path.

Install Shared Use Path over I-80
There is insufficient width on the existing Norwood Avenue overcrossing structure over I- 80 to provide a lower stress crossing of the freeway. To create a lower stress method to connect people walking, rolling, and biking over I-80, a separated facility using either a cantilevered structure attached to the overpass or an independent structure would need to Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 47

be constructed between Jessie Avenue and Harris Avenue on the west side of Norwood Avenue. This would require significant design work and right-of-way acquisition beyond the scope of the current study so a specific alignment is not included. The goal should be to place this new facility on the west side of the street to align with the proposed shared use path. An alternative option to a fully separated structure could be a cantilevered path off of the existing bridge structure. This would be a lower cost option but may not be structurally feasible. Both options should be reviewed during the design process should Alternative 3 be selected as the preferred alternative.

Widen Sidewalks and Add Landscape Buffer
Similar to other alternatives, Alternative 3 includes wider sidewalks and a landscape buffer. Sidewalks would be widened to greater than five feet in width along the full corridor. The specific width of the landscaped buffer would vary throughout the corridor based on available right-of-way. Generally, the landscaped buffer would be at least eight feet (six feet dedicated landscaping plus two feet shoulder of shared use path) on the west side of the street and seven feet on the east side of the street. This would allow for larger shade trees to be planted on the west side of the street and small to medium sized trees to be planted on the east side of the street.

Install Sidewalk Scale Lighting
Sidewalk scale lighting along the entire length of the corridor would ensure the area where people are walking is illuminated and increase comfort and feelings of security and safety.

Relocate Utilities
The installation of a landscape buffer and wider sidewalks would allow for an opportunity to relocate utility poles either outside of the walkway or underground to provide appropriate sidewalk widths. This would require collaboration with and support from utility providers.

Install In-Lane Bus Stops
The sidewalk would be extended to allow for the bus to load passengers directly from the vehicle travel lane, with the shared use path continuing behind the bus stop. By allowing buses to stop in-lane, transit time reliability is improved by not requiring the bus to seek gaps in traffic to re-enter the travel lane. This is recommended as the default treatment for all bus stops along the corridor, but design specifics would have to be determined in coordination with SacRT , such as those requiring space for a bus to dwell for schedule adherence.

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 48

Feasibility Analysis
Travel Demand Forecasting
For the purposes of travel demand forecasting, Alternative 3 is effectively the same as Alternative 2 and thus the results in this section match those reported under Alternative

2. Based on the SacSim-19 travel demand model as modified for the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan Update, future volumes on Norwood Avenue range between 17,000 and 37,000 AADT for Alternative 3. The highest volumes are on the segment between Jessie Avenue and Harris Avenue. These volumes drop to the 21,000-25,000 AADT range between Jessie Avenue and Bell Avenue and between Harris Avenue and Grand Avenue.

North of Bell Avenue and south of Grand Avenue, volumes drop to the 17,000-20,000 AADT range. These daily volumes are lower than Alternative 1 due to the reduction in travel lanes. A portion of the volume which were using Norwood Avenue before the reduction in travel lanes would instead use parallel streets such as Northgate Boulevard and Rio Linda Boulevard. The Travel demand model was also used to forecast future turning movement demand volumes at study intersection along the corridor. These volumes are shown in Figure 14.

Alternative 3 does reduce the total number of vehicle travel lanes on Norwood Avenue which could potentially cause an increase in VMT related to the infrastructure project.

Based on the Transportation Analysis under CEQA for Projects on the State Highway System guidelines published by Caltrans, projects which reduce the number of through lanes and projects which add or enhance bikeways and walking facilities would not likely lead to a measurable increase in VMT. All elements which are proposed under Alternative 3 would meet the State’s screening criteria guidance for VMT analysis and do not require further evaluation for VMT impacts.

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 49

Figure 21: Future (2045) Turning Movement Volumes Alternative 3

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 50

Level of Traffic Stress Analysis
The focus of Alternative 3 is to provide significant improvements for those walking, biking, and rolling by reallocating existing right-of-way away from vehicles and towards walking and biking. This alternative adds new crossing opportunities and widens the sidewalks on Norwood Avenue. Additionally, this alternative provides a shared use path on the west side of the street to enhance safety and comfort for those walking, biking, and rolling.

Table 8 and Table 9 show the evaluation of the walking and biking level of traffic stress.

Figure 22 and Figure 23 show the results of this evaluation in a map form.

Table 8: Analysis of Walking Level of Traffic Stress –Alternative 3 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 purpose of this analysis.

Main
Avenue
to Bell
Avenue
Bell Avenue
to I-80 WB
Ramps
I-80 EB
Ramps to
Fairbanks
Avenue
Fairbank
Avenue to
Arcade
Creek
Street Width
(Through Lanes
per Direction)
1 1 1 1
Buffer Type Landscaped
Buffer
Landscaped
Buffer
Landscaped
Buffer None
Total Buffer
Width (Ft) 16 ft 16 ft 16 ft 0
Sidewalk Width
(Ft) 6 6 6 6
Speed Limit Or
Prevailing
Speed A (MPH)
30 30 30 25
Existing PLTS
Score B 4 4 4 3
Alternative 3
PLTS Score 1 1 1 2
Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 51

Figure 22: Walking Level of Traffic Stress – Alternative 3

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 52

Table 9. Analysis of Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress – Alternative 3 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.

Main Avenue
to Bell
Avenue
Bell Avenue
to I-80 EB
Ramps
I-80 EB
Ramps to
Fairbanks
Avenue
Fairbanks
Avenue to
Arcade Creek
Street Width
(Through
Lanes per
Direction)
1 1 1 1
Bike Lane
Width (Inc.

Bike Lane,
Buffer Width,
Gutter) (Ft)
16ft 16ft 16ft 5ft
Speed Limit
Or Prevailing
Speed A
(MPH)
30 30 30 25
Physically
Separated
Bike Lane?
Yes Yes Yes No
Existing BLTS
Score B 4 4 4 3
Alternative 3
BLTS Score 1 1 1 2
Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 53

Figure 23: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress – Alternative 3

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 54

Traffic Operations Analysis
This analysis matches the analysis done for Alternative 2 as from a traffic operations perspective, the two options are nearly identical. Where they differ is in how dedicated bicycle signal phasing would be implemented, but this analysis is beyond the capabilities of the analysis software used for this study. Additionally, more detailed analysis should be conducted on signal operations at a later project phase if Alternative 3 is selected as the preferred alternative.

The analysis for Alternative 3 includes adjustments to the number of vehicle lanes on Norwood Avenue and basic changes to intersection operational characteristics that would be associated with this lane removal. Signal timing adjustments were made in relation to the proposed improvements and to accommodate higher traffic volumes associated with future growth. All signals were assumed to operate without coordination, but signal coordination would likely improve operations from the results shown. Due to limitations in the analysis software, dedicated bicycle phases were not evaluated at the study intersections, but it is likely that there is sufficient vehicle capacity based on these results to incorporate dedicated bicycle phasing into the design at select locations. Table 10 shows a comparison of anticipated future intersection delays compared to existing operations.
95th percentile queues were also evaluated for Alternative 2. The AM and PM peak hour queues are shown in Figure 24 and Figure 25 respectively. In these figures, lines are shown on each approach to the intersection representing the queue for the left turn lane (if one exists), the through movements, and the right turn lane (if one exists). These queues are generally color coded as green if they are less than the available vehicle storage, yellow if they are at or near the available vehicle storage, and red if they exceed the available vehicle storage or block access to adjacent lanes. Note that 95th percentile queues represent the longest queue that is likely to be observed during the peak hour and most queues would be shorter.

From this analysis, the key finding is that queues are longest at the intersections which comprise the I-80 interchange. There are other locations where queues exceed their available storage along Norwood Avenue, but in most cases it is due to short formal turn pockets being blocked by through movement queues. When compared to Alternative 1, queues are shorter in Alternative 3 at Bell Avenue, Morey Avenue, and Silver Eagle Road where the roundabouts would be installed with this alternative. Queues are longer at Harris Avenue and Jessie Avenue due to the reduction in travel lanes through the intersection. At Harris Avenue, this could be an issue as northbound queues would extend back to Grand Avenue. This could be addressed by adjusting the proposed design at Harris Avenue to maintain two through lanes in the northbound direction and should be evaluated further at the project design phase if Alternative 3 is selected as the preferred Alternative.

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 55

Table 10: Future (2045) Alternative 3 Intersection Operational Analysis Results
Source: DKS Associates, March 2025.

Notes:

1. Norwood Avenue / Bell Avenue 20.6 (C) 16.2 (B) 17.6 (B) 15.4 (B)

2. Norwood Avenue / Jessie
Avenue

28.2 (C) 53.1 (D) 23.8 (C) 44.6 (D)

3. Norwood Avenue / WB 80
Ramps

10.9 (B) 12.6 (B) 10.3 (B) 14.2 (B)

4. Norwood Avenue / EB 80
Ramps

12.0 (B) 14.4 (B) 12.0 (B) 14.2 (B)

5. Norwood Avenue / Harris
Avenue

19.7 (B) 29.1 (C) 19.2 (B) 36.1 (D)
Norwood Avenue / Morey Avenue B - 8.5 (A) - 9.9 (A)

6. Norwood Avenue / Silver Eagle
Road

18.6 (B) 13.9 (B) 18.2 (B) 18.0 (B)
Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 56

Figure 24: Future (2045) AM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Intersection Queues Alternative 3

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 57

Figure 25: Future (2045) PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Intersection Queues Alternative 3

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 58

Safety Benefit Assessment
Alternative 3 provides safety benefits through traffic calming and separation of travel modes. This alternative would reduce speeds by narrowing vehicle travel lanes, removing a vehicle travel lane per direction, adding roundabouts at Bell Avenue, Morey Avenue, and Silver Eagle Road, and by reducing the speed limit on Norwood Avenue. The roundabouts at Bell Avenue and Silver Eagle Road also address the collision trends observed at these intersections by lowering speeds and eliminating several vehicle conflicts within the intersections.

The addition of a shared use path would separate those riding bicycles from vehicle traffic, reducing the observed trend of bicycle involved collisions. Added crossing opportunities would help address the observed trend of pedestrian involved collisions along Norwood Avenue at unmarked crossing locations.

Transit Assessment
Alternative 3 would provide similar transit benefit opportunities as Alternative 2C and provide for transit stop enhancements beyond the improvements identified by SacRT. The landscaping strip included with this alternative gives space for expanding loading platforms and adding stop amenities such as benches and shade structures.

Alternative 3 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.

Community Priority Alignment
In addition to the safety benefits described above, Alternative 3 includes the addition of three new marked and signalized pedestrian crosswalks and signalizes pedestrian crossings at the freeway ramps. Alternative 3 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, including a separated structure across the freeway interchange.

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 59

Comparison of Alternative Analysis Results
Table 11 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.

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 0

Table 11: Comparison of Alternatives
Metric No Build Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3
Defining
Characteristics
No Change
 Additional Crossing
Opportunities
 Widen Sidewalk on
West Side of Street
 Additional Crossing
Opportunities
 Separated Bikeway
 Landscaped buffers
 Roundabouts at Bell
Ave, Morey Ave, and
Silver Eagle Rd
 Additional Crossing
Opportunities
 Shared Use Path
 Landscaped buffers
 Roundabouts at Bell
Ave, Morey Ave, and
Silver Eagle Rd
 Shared Use Path
Over I-80
Average Level of
Traffic Stress

Walking 3 1 1
Biking 3 1 1
Travel Demand
Traffic Diversion
to Parallel Streets
N/A None ~10% ~10%
Increases in VMT N/A None None None
Traffic Operations
Intersection Delay LOS C or Better LOS C or Better LOS D or Better LOS D or Better Extensive Queues
 Jessie Ave
 I-80 WB Ramps
 I-80 EB Ramps
 Harris Ave
 Silver Eagle Rd
 Jessie Ave
 I-80 WB Ramps
 I-80 EB Ramps
 Harris Ave
 Silver Eagle Rd
 Jessie Ave
 I-80 WB Ramps
 I-80 EB Ramps
 Harris Ave
 Jessie Ave
 I-80 WB Ramps
 I-80 EB Ramps
 Harris Ave
Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • July 2025 1

Metric No Build Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3
Safety
Improvements

Added Crossing
Opportunities
N/A 3 3 3
Traffic Calming
Elements
N/A
 Speed Limit
Reduction
 Lane Width Reduction

 Speed Limit
Reduction
 Lane Width Reduction
 Roundabout at Bell
Ave
 Roundabout at Morey
Ave
 Roundabout at Silver
Eagle Rd
 Speed Limit
Reduction
 Lane Width Reduction
 Roundabout at Bell
Ave
 Roundabout at Morey
Ave
 Roundabout at Silver
Eagle Rd
Other Safety
Enhancements
N/A
 Removal of On-Street
Parking
 Crossing
Enhancements at I-
80 Interchange
 Removal of On-Street
Parking
 Crossing
Enhancements at I-
80 Interchange
 Separated Bikeways
 Landscaped Buffers
 Pedestrian Scale
Lighting
 Removal of On-Street
Parking
 Crossing
Enhancements at I-
80 Interchange
 Separated Bikeways
 Landscaped Buffers
 Pedestrian Scale
Lighting
Transit
Enhancements
N/A
 Added Bus Shelters
 Wider Sidewalks
Increase Waiting
Area
 Added Bus Shelters
 Wider Sidewalks
Increase Waiting
Area
 In Lane Bus Stops
 Added Bus Shelters
 Wider Sidewalks
Increase Waiting
Area
 In Lane Bus Stops

Appendix

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • Jul y 2025

Section 1. Synchro Intersection Analysis Results

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Norwood Avenue & Bell Avenue Future No Build AM
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 60 150 155 220 90 155 70 515 250 145 635 45 Future Volume (veh/h) 60 150 155 220 90 155 70 515 250 145 635 45 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1841 1841 1841 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 60 150 155 220 90 155 70 515 250 145 635 45 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 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 111444333333
Cap, veh/h 450 203 210 272 253 209 188 740 320 262 853 60 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 831 859 1753 1841 1520 1767 3526 1525 1767 3331 236 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 60 0 305 220 90 155 70 515 250 145 336 344 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 0 1690 1753 1841 1520 1767 1763 1525 1767 1763 1804 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 0.0 11.6 8.5 3.1 5.1 2.6 9.4 5.6 5.3 12.2 12.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 0.0 11.6 8.5 3.1 5.1 2.6 9.4 5.6 5.3 12.2 12.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.51 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 450 0 413 272 253 209 188 740 320 262 451 462 V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 0.00 0.74 0.81 0.36 0.74 0.37 0.70 0.78 0.55 0.74 0.75 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 674 0 1099 658 1197 988 668 2293 992 661 1147 1174 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.3 0.0 24.3 28.5 27.3 15.8 29.0 25.5 6.9 27.6 23.9 23.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.2 0.3 1.9 0.5 0.4 1.6 0.7 0.9 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 4.6 3.4 1.3 2.3 1.0 3.7 3.4 2.2 4.9 5.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 20.3 0.0 25.3 30.6 27.6 17.8 29.5 26.0 8.5 28.3 24.8 24.8 L n G r p L O S C CCCBCCACCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 365 465 835 825
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.5 25.8 21.0 25.4
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.1 14.2 11.0 22.5 14.6 21.7 14.2 19.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.6 * 4.6 3.6 * 4.6 3.8 * 4.6 3.9 * 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 26 * 45 26.4 * 45 26.2 * 45 26.1 * 45 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.8 7.1 4.6 14.3 10.5 13.6 7.3 11.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.5 0.1 2.9 0.3 1.4 0.2 2.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 23.9
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Norwood Avenue & Jessie Avenue Future No Build AM
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 50 95 215 195 70 55 140 710 105 55 935 45 Future Volume (veh/h) 50 95 215 195 70 55 140 710 105 55 935 45 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
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 0.97 1.00 0.97 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 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 50 95 215 195 70 55 140 710 105 55 935 45 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 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 222333333333
Cap, veh/h 104 198 261 245 88 69 179 1078 159 136 1119 54 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.10 0.35 0.35 0.08 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 634 1205 1585 1059 380 299 1767 3067 453 1767 3423 165 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 145 0 215 320 0 0 140 408 407 55 481 499 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1839 0 1585 1738 0 0 1767 1763 1757 1767 1763 1825 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.1 0.0 11.2 14.9 0.0 0.0 6.6 16.7 16.8 2.5 21.7 21.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.1 0.0 11.2 14.9 0.0 0.0 6.6 16.7 16.8 2.5 21.7 21.7 Prop In Lane 0.34 1.00 0.61 0.17 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.09
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 303 0 261 401 0 0 179 619 617 136 576 596 V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.00 0.82 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.66 0.66 0.41 0.84 0.84 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 784 0 676 741 0 0 547 935 932 547 935 968 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.4 0.0 34.6 31.0 0.0 0.0 37.6 23.4 23.4 37.7 26.7 26.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 2.5 1.4 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.7 1.6 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 0.0 4.3 6.2 0.0 0.0 2.9 6.5 6.5 1.1 9.0 9.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 32.9 0.0 37.1 32.4 0.0 0.0 40.4 23.9 23.9 38.4 28.4 28.3 L n G r p L O S C DC DCCDCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 360 320 955 1035
Approach Delay, s/veh 35.4 32.4 26.3 28.9
Approach LOS DCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.3 12.2 32.6 17.6 10.1 34.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 3.5 * 4.6 3.5 3.5 * 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.5 26.5 * 45 36.5 26.5 * 45 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.9 8.6 23.7 13.2 4.5 18.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.2 0.2 4.3 0.9 0.1 3.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 29.3
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Norwood Avenue & WB 80 On-Ramp/WB 80 Off-Ramp Future No Build AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 350 5 240 315 845 0 0 855 560 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 350 5 240 315 845 0 0 855 560 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000
Lane Width Adj. 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
Parking Bus, Adj 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
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 0 0 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 354 0 0 315 845 0 0 855 0
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 444440022
Cap, veh/h 586 0 388 2274 0 0 1266
Arrive On Green 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3506 0 1560 1753 3589 0 0 3647 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 354 0 0 315 845 0 0 855 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1753 0 1560 1753 1749 0 0 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.5 0.0 0.0 8.2 5.4 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.5 0.0 0.0 8.2 5.4 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 586 0 388 2274 0 0 1266
V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.00 0.81 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.68
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2621 0 965 2556 0 0 2598
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.6 0.0 0.0 17.8 3.9 0.0 0.0 13.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.7 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh 26.60 22.40
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 19.0 0.0 26.6 20.9 4.0 0.0 0.0 13.6 22.4 LnGrp LOS B C C A B C
Approach Vol, veh/h 474 1160 1135
Approach Delay, s/veh 20.9 8.6 15.8
Approach LOS C A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.1 22.0 12.0 36.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.8 4.0 4.8
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.5 35.2 36.0 35.2
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.2 11.8 6.5 7.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 5.3 0.7 5.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 13.6
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [WBR, SBR] is included in calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Norwood Avenue & EB 80 Off-Ramp/EB 80 On-Ramp Future No Build AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
T r a f f i c V o l u m e ( v e h / h ) 3 8 05 5 1 00000 7 8 0 3 0 0 3 8 5 8 2 00 F u t u r e V o l u m e ( v e h / h ) 3 8 05 5 1 00000 7 8 0 3 0 0 3 8 5 8 2 00 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000 000000
Lane Width Adj. 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
Parking Bus, Adj 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
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1826 1826 1826 0 1841 1841 1841 1841 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 384 0 0 0 780 0 385 820 0
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 555 044440
Cap, veh/h 619 0 0 1117 458 2271 0
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.26 0.65 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3478 0 1547 0 3589 1560 1753 3589 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 384 0 0 0 780 0 385 820 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1739 0 1547 0 1749 1560 1753 1749 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.6 5.5 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.6 5.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 619 0 0 1117 458 2271 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.84 0.36 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2457 0 0 2416 912 2416 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.2 0.0 17.8 4.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 3.2 0.1 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 4.1 1.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh 44.50
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 19.7 0.0 44.5 0.0 15.8 0.0 21.0 4.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS B D B C A
Approach Vol, veh/h 639 780 1205
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.6 15.8 9.6
Approach LOS C B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.9 16.8 21.1 13.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.8 3.5 4.8 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.2 26.5 35.2 36.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.5 12.6 12.0 7.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.3 0.8 4.3 0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 16.3
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is included in calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Norwood Avenue & EB 80 Off-Ramp/EB 80 On-Ramp Future No Build AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 5
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Norwood Avenue & Harris Avenue Future No Build AM
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 155 15 50 15 30 100 45 840 15 60 985 310 Future Volume (veh/h) 155 15 50 15 30 100 45 840 15 60 985 310 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
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 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1707 1707 1707 1826 1826 1826 1870 1870 1870 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 155 15 50 15 30 100 45 840 15 60 985 310 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 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 1 3 1 3 1 3555222444 Cap, veh/h 215 21 321 83 166 212 144 1522 27 150 1122 351 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.08 0.43 0.43 0.09 0.43 0.43 Sat Flow, veh/h 1489 144 1413 599 1197 1526 1781 3570 64 1753 2606 815 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 170 0 50 45 0 100 45 418 437 60 659 636 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1633 0 1413 1796 0 1526 1781 1777 1857 1753 1749 1672 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.5 0.0 2.1 1.7 0.0 4.6 1.8 13.3 13.3 2.4 26.0 26.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.5 0.0 2.1 1.7 0.0 4.6 1.8 13.3 13.3 2.4 26.0 26.4 Prop In Lane 0.91 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.49
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 236 0 321 249 0 212 144 757 792 150 753 720 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.00 0.16 0.18 0.00 0.47 0.31 0.55 0.55 0.40 0.87 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 787 0 798 861 0 732 861 833 871 847 820 784 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.8 0.0 23.5 28.7 0.0 30.0 32.7 16.3 16.3 32.7 19.6 19.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 9.6 10.8 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 1.6 0.8 4.8 5.1 1.0 11.6 11.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 32.4 0.0 23.6 28.9 0.0 30.6 33.2 16.7 16.7 33.3 29.2 30.5 L n G r p L O S C CC CCBBCCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 220 145 900 1355
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.4 30.0 17.5 30.0
Approach LOS C C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.3 9.6 37.1 14.5 9.9 36.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.8 3.5 * 4.6 3.6 3.5 * 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.2 36.5 * 35 36.4 36.5 * 35 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.6 3.8 28.4 9.5 4.4 15.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.0 4.1 0.7 0.1 4.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 25.8
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Norwood Avenue & Silver Eagle Road Fu ture No Build AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 260 110 195 45 115 45 135 600 20 25 665 190 Future Volume (veh/h) 260 110 195 45 115 45 135 600 20 25 665 190 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
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 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1826 1826 1826 1856 1856 1856 1870 1870 1870 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 260 110 195 45 115 45 135 600 20 25 665 190 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 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 555333222333
Cap, veh/h 310 142 251 150 189 74 222 1358 45 89 840 240 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.39 0.39 0.05 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 1739 584 1035 1767 1261 493 1781 3509 117 1767 2688 767 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 260 0 305 45 0 160 135 304 316 25 436 419 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1739 0 1619 1767 0 1754 1781 1777 1849 1767 1763 1692 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 0.0 11.6 1.6 0.0 5.6 4.7 8.3 8.3 0.9 14.9 14.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.5 0.0 11.6 1.6 0.0 5.6 4.7 8.3 8.3 0.9 14.9 14.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.64 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.45
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 310 0 393 150 0 262 222 688 716 89 551 529 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.00 0.78 0.30 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.44 0.44 0.28 0.79 0.79 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 698 0 641 710 0 705 715 953 992 710 946 908 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.2 0.0 23.3 28.3 0.0 26.3 27.3 14.9 14.9 30.2 20.7 20.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 0.0 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.9 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.9 0.0 4.3 0.7 0.0 2.3 1.9 2.9 3.0 0.4 5.8 5.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 28.5 0.0 24.6 28.7 0.0 27.1 28.3 15.1 15.1 30.8 21.7 21.8 L n G r p L O S C CC CCBBCCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 565 205 755 880
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.4 27.5 17.5 22.0
Approach LOS C C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.3 13.8 11.7 25.2 9.1 19.9 6.8 30.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 * 3.9 3.5 * 4.6 3.5 3.9 3.5 * 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.5 * 27 26.5 * 35 26.5 26.1 26.5 * 35 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.5 7.6 6.7 16.9 3.6 13.6 2.9 10.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.5 0.1 3.6 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 22.1
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
33: Norwood Avenue & Morey Avenue Future No Build AM
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
T r a f f i c V o l u m e ( v e h / h ) 9 01 4 5515 2 3 8 8 111 1004 45 F u t u r e V o l u m e ( v e h / h ) 9 01 4 5515 2 3 8 8 111 1004 45 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
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 A d j F l o w R a t e , v e h / h 9 81 4 9515 2 5 9 5 811 1091 49 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 136 1 68 11 2 11 52 1825 2 4 1638 74
Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.47 0.47 Sat Flow, veh/h 1133 12 567 770 154 770 1781 3643 4 1781 3464 156 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 148 0 0 11 0 0 25 467 492 1 560 580 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1712 0 0 1693 0 0 1781 1777 1870 1781 1777 1842 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 8.8 8.8 0.0 12.0 12.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 8.8 8.8 0.0 12.0 12.0 Prop In Lane 0.66 0.33 0.45 0.45 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.08
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 206 0 0 24 0 0 52 890 936 4 840 871 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.53 0.53 0.28 0.67 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 867 0 0 854 0 0 183 1681 1769 180 1678 1740 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.0 0.0 0.0 24.2 0.0 0.0 23.7 8.4 8.4 24.7 10.1 10.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.6 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.5 0.5 37.4 0.9 0.9 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 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.4 2.5 0.0 3.8 3.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 25.6 0.0 0.0 37.2 0.0 0.0 30.3 8.9 8.8 62.1 11.0 10.9 L n G r p L O S C D CAAEBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 148 11 984 1141
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.6 37.2 9.4 11.0
Approach LOS C D A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.6 29.3 10.5 6.0 27.9 5.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 46.9 25.1 5.1 46.8 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 10.8 6.1 2.7 14.0 2.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.7 0.7 0.0 9.4 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 11.4
HCM 7th LOS B
Queues
1: Norwood Avenue & Bell Avenue Future No Build AM
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 60 305 220 90 155 70 515 250 145 680 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.73 0.65 0.26 0.38 0.33 0.64 0.46 0.54 0.63 Control Delay (s/veh) 27.7 42.7 48.4 45.0 10.3 50.6 39.0 7.8 49.6 34.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 27.7 42.7 48.4 45.0 10.3 50.6 39.0 7.8 49.6 34.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 24 147 118 50 0 38 141 0 80 186
Queue Length 95th (ft) 73 309 261 120 60 106 267 69 184 331 Internal Link Dist (ft) 878 976 1238 453
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 195 200 75 200 95
Base Capacity (vph) 610 880 510 931 849 519 1787 896 513 1767 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.10 0.35 0.43 0.10 0.18 0.13 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.38 Intersection Summary
Queues
2: Norwood Avenue & Jessie Avenue Future No Build AM
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 2
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 145 215 320 140 815 55 980
v/c Ratio 0.60 0.54 0.79 0.63 0.54 0.35 0.75
Control Delay (s/veh) 60.2 12.0 57.2 63.7 27.2 62.0 37.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 60.2 12.0 57.2 63.7 27.2 62.0 37.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 103 0 220 100 225 39 316
Queue Length 95th (ft) 196 73 381 195 388 95 #550
Internal Link Dist (ft) 758 547 632 1238
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100 120
Base Capacity (vph) 610 671 581 423 1534 423 1442
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.24 0.32 0.55 0.33 0.53 0.13 0.68
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
3: Norwood Avenue & WB 80 On-Ramp/WB 80 Off-Ramp Future No Build AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 3
Lane Group WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 178 177 240 315 845 855 560
v/c Ratio 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.72 0.36 0.63 0.76
Control Delay (s/veh) 37.5 37.3 16.4 38.2 5.8 22.8 20.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 37.5 37.3 16.4 38.2 5.9 22.8 20.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 86 85 32 143 70 167 126
Queue Length 95th (ft) 167 166 108 274 146 307 #356
Internal Link Dist (ft) 874 446 632
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 175 75
Base Capacity (vph) 834 837 856 646 2929 1750 883
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000 7 0 000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.28 0.49 0.38 0.49 0.63
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
4: Norwood Avenue & EB 80 Off-Ramp/EB 80 On-Ramp Future No Build AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 194 191 510 780 300 385 820
v/c Ratio 0.40 0.39 0.89 0.76 0.45 0.84 0.39
Control Delay (s/veh) 29.8 29.6 40.1 35.9 5.7 53.2 11.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 29.8 29.6 40.1 35.9 5.7 53.2 11.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 101 98 210 238 0 234 137
Queue Length 95th (ft) 177 174 #420 323 61 #448 194
Internal Link Dist (ft) 679 657 446
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 220 180
Base Capacity (vph) 662 665 718 1376 782 518 2502
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.29 0.29 0.71 0.57 0.38 0.74 0.33
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
5: Norwood Avenue & Harris Avenue Future No Build AM
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 5
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 170 50 45 100 45 855 60 1295
v/c Ratio 0.61 0.11 0.19 0.35 0.21 0.56 0.31 0.90
Control Delay (s/veh) 42.5 6.4 38.3 12.2 39.7 21.3 42.3 34.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 42.5 6.4 38.3 12.2 39.7 21.3 42.3 34.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 87 0 22 0 22 176 30 332
Queue Length 95th (ft) 150 23 60 47 60 298 74 #592
Internal Link Dist (ft) 655 515 251 657
Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 85 110
Base Capacity (vph) 703 891 774 717 776 1526 761 1432
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.24 0.06 0.06 0.14 0.06 0.56 0.08 0.90 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
6: Norwood Avenue & Silver Eagle Road Fu ture No Build AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 6
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL W BT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 260 305 45 160 135 620 25 855
v/c Ratio 0.73 0.54 0.22 0.56 0.55 0.39 0.14 0.78
Control Delay (s/veh) 48.6 27.2 47.0 43.2 49.4 19.7 47.6 34.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 48.6 27.2 47.0 43.2 49.4 19.7 47.6 34.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 138 128 24 79 73 102 13 214
Queue Length 95th (ft) 280 243 72 168 162 243 48 398
Internal Link Dist (ft) 710 228 480 903
Turn Bay Length (ft) 110 95 55
Base Capacity (vph) 526 585 537 548 542 1646 537 1395
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.49 0.52 0.08 0.29 0.25 0.38 0.05 0.61 Intersection Summary
Queues
33: Norwood Avenue & Morey Avenue Future No Build AM
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 7
Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 148 11 25 959 1 1140
v/c Ratio 0.44 0.06 0.16 0.45 0.01 0.56
Control Delay (s/veh) 26.5 27.4 35.9 8.8 36.0 11.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 26.5 27.4 35.9 8.8 36.0 11.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 33 2 7 67 0 86
Queue Length 95th (ft) 129 21 41 254 6 322
Internal Link Dist (ft) 329 438 256 304
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 50
Base Capacity (vph) 776 760 159 2938 156 2916
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.01 0.16 0.33 0.01 0.39
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Norwood Avenue & Bell Avenue Future No Build PM
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 15 90 115 300 115 130 130 445 335 130 610 20 Future Volume (veh/h) 15 90 115 300 115 130 130 445 335 130 610 20 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
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 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1870 1870 1870 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 15 90 115 300 115 130 130 445 335 130 610 20 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 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 111222111111
Cap, veh/h 376 125 159 353 271 224 253 767 333 278 823 27 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.17 0.17 0.20 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 741 947 1781 1870 1544 1795 3582 1557 1795 3536 116 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 15 0 205 300 115 130 130 445 335 130 309 321 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 0 1688 1781 1870 1544 1795 1791 1557 1795 1791 1861 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 0.0 7.3 10.4 3.6 3.4 4.3 7.1 7.5 4.2 10.2 10.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 0.0 7.3 10.4 3.6 3.4 4.3 7.1 7.5 4.2 10.2 10.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.56 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.06
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 376 0 284 353 271 224 253 767 333 278 417 433 V/C Ratio(X) 0.04 0.00 0.72 0.85 0.42 0.58 0.51 0.58 1.00 0.47 0.74 0.74 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 736 0 1199 730 1328 1097 741 2543 1106 733 1272 1321 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.2 0.0 25.2 24.7 24.9 12.0 25.4 22.5 7.6 24.6 22.7 22.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.2 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.3 15.1 0.5 1.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.0 2.9 4.1 1.5 1.7 1.7 2.7 5.3 1.7 4.1 4.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 20.2 0.0 26.5 26.9 25.3 12.9 26.0 22.8 22.7 25.1 23.7 23.7 L n G r p L O S C CCCBCCFCCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 220 545 910 760
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.0 23.2 23.2 23.9
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.0 13.9 12.6 19.5 16.5 15.4 13.8 18.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.6 * 4.6 3.6 * 4.6 3.8 * 4.6 3.9 * 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 26 * 45 26.4 * 45 26.2 * 45 26.1 * 45 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.4 5.6 6.3 12.2 12.4 9.3 6.2 9.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.6 0.1 2.6 0.4 0.9 0.2 2.4 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 23.7
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Norwood Avenue & Jessie Avenue Future No Build PM
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 35 55 165 235 90 50 215 835 155 100 860 25 Future Volume (veh/h) 35 55 165 235 90 50 215 835 155 100 860 25 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
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 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 35 55 165 235 90 50 215 835 155 100 860 25 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 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 111111111111
Cap, veh/h 101 159 219 275 105 59 255 1022 190 172 1044 30 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.34 0.34 0.10 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 719 1130 1559 1115 427 237 1795 3001 557 1795 3551 103 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 90 0 165 375 0 0 215 498 492 100 434 451 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1849 0 1559 1780 0 0 1795 1791 1767 1795 1791 1863 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.8 0.0 8.7 17.2 0.0 0.0 10.0 21.7 21.7 4.6 19.3 19.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.8 0.0 8.7 17.2 0.0 0.0 10.0 21.7 21.7 4.6 19.3 19.3 Prop In Lane 0.39 1.00 0.63 0.13 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.06
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 260 0 219 439 0 0 255 610 602 172 527 548 V/C Ratio(X) 0.35 0.00 0.75 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.82 0.82 0.58 0.82 0.82 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 790 0 666 760 0 0 557 952 939 557 952 990 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.2 0.0 35.3 30.7 0.0 0.0 35.7 25.7 25.7 37.0 28.1 28.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 2.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 2.9 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.3 1.2 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 1.7 0.0 3.3 7.4 0.0 0.0 4.4 8.8 8.7 2.0 8.1 8.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 33.5 0.0 37.3 32.6 0.0 0.0 38.6 27.3 27.4 38.2 29.4 29.3 L n G r p L O S C DC DCCDCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 255 375 1205 985
Approach Delay, s/veh 35.9 32.6 29.4 30.2
Approach LOS DCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.6 15.6 29.7 15.5 11.7 33.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 3.5 * 4.6 3.5 3.5 * 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.5 26.5 * 45 36.5 26.5 * 45 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.2 12.0 21.3 10.7 6.6 23.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.4 0.2 3.8 0.6 0.1 3.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 30.7
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Norwood Avenue & WB 80 On-Ramp/WB 80 Off-Ramp Future No Build PM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 320 0 350 435 970 0 0 765 550 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 320 0 350 435 970 0 0 765 550 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000
Lane Width Adj. 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
Parking Bus, Adj 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
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 0 0 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 320 0 0 435 970 0 0 765 0
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 111110011
Cap, veh/h 579 0 509 2390 0 0 1131
Arrive On Green 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3591 0 1598 1795 3676 0 0 3676 1598
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 320 0 0 435 970 0 0 765 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 0 1598 1795 1791 0 0 1791 1598 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.2 0.0 0.0 11.8 6.3 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.2 0.0 0.0 11.8 6.3 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 579 0 509 2390 0 0 1131
V/C Ratio(X) 0.55 0.00 0.86 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.68
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2517 0 927 2455 0 0 2455
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.8 0.0 0.0 17.4 3.9 0.0 0.0 15.3 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.9 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh 38.50 32.30
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 20.1 0.0 38.5 20.6 4.0 0.0 0.0 15.8 32.3 LnGrp LOS C D C A B C
Approach Vol, veh/h 495 1405 1040
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.6 9.1 20.2
Approach LOS C A C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.1 21.0 12.3 39.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.8 4.0 4.8
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.5 35.2 36.0 35.2
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.8 11.5 6.2 8.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.8 4.7 0.6 5.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 16.0
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [WBR, SBR] is included in calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Norwood Avenue & EB 80 Off-Ramp/EB 80 On-Ramp Future No Build PM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
T r a f f i c V o l u m e ( v e h / h ) 5 2 0 1 5 4 6 50000 8 8 5 3 2 5 3 3 0 7 5 50 F u t u r e V o l u m e ( v e h / h ) 5 2 0 1 5 4 6 50000 8 8 5 3 2 5 3 3 0 7 5 50 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000 000000
Lane Width Adj. 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
Parking Bus, Adj 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
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 0 1870 1870 1885 1885 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 531 0 0 0 885 0 330 755 0
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 333 022110
Cap, veh/h 708 0 0 1232 400 2274 0
Arrive On Green 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.22 0.63 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3534 0 1572 0 3647 1585 1795 3676 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 531 0 0 0 885 0 330 755 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 0 1572 0 1777 1585 1795 1791 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.6 0.0 9.3 5.2 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.6 0.0 9.3 5.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 708 0 0 1232 400 2274 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.82 0.33 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2382 0 0 2342 891 2361 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.2 0.0 19.8 4.5 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 3.3 0.1 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 3.9 1.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh 33.50
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 20.7 0.0 33.5 0.0 15.8 0.0 23.0 4.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS C C B C A
Approach Vol, veh/h 761 885 1085
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.6 15.8 10.2
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 38.7 15.4 23.3 14.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.8 3.5 4.8 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.2 26.5 35.2 36.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.2 11.3 13.6 9.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.8 0.6 4.9 1.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 16.0
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is included in calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Norwood Avenue & EB 80 Off-Ramp/EB 80 On-Ramp Future No Build PM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 5
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Norwood Avenue & Harris Avenue Future No Build PM
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 230 15 45 20 10 95 30 965 25 70 1035 140 Future Volume (veh/h) 230 15 45 20 10 95 30 965 25 70 1035 140 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
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 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1885 1885 1885 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 230 15 45 20 10 95 30 965 25 70 1035 140 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 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 333333111333
Cap, veh/h 302 20 377 168 84 217 112 1316 34 166 1245 168 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.06 0.37 0.37 0.09 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 1664 109 1537 1197 599 1549 1795 3564 92 1767 3107 420 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 245 0 45 30 0 95 30 485 505 70 587 588 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1772 0 1537 1796 0 1549 1795 1791 1865 1767 1763 1764 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 0.0 1.6 1.1 0.0 4.0 1.1 16.9 16.9 2.7 21.5 21.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.5 0.0 1.6 1.1 0.0 4.0 1.1 16.9 16.9 2.7 21.5 21.6 Prop In Lane 0.94 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.24
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 321 0 377 252 0 217 112 661 689 166 706 707 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.44 0.27 0.73 0.73 0.42 0.83 0.83 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 895 0 875 902 0 778 910 880 916 895 866 867 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.0 0.0 21.2 27.1 0.0 28.4 32.2 19.7 19.7 30.8 19.4 19.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.8 1.7 0.6 5.4 5.4 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 4.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 1.4 0.5 6.5 6.8 1.1 9.1 9.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 29.4 0.0 21.3 27.2 0.0 28.9 32.7 21.5 21.4 31.4 24.7 24.9 L n G r p L O S C CC CCCCCCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 290 125 1020 1245
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.2 28.5 21.8 25.2
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.9 8.0 33.5 16.7 10.3 31.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.8 3.5 * 4.6 3.6 3.5 * 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.2 36.5 * 35 36.4 36.5 * 35 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.0 3.1 23.6 11.5 4.7 18.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.0 5.3 1.0 0.1 4.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 24.4
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Norwood Avenue & Silver Eagle Road Fu ture No Build PM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 280 160 230 15 120 40 190 625 25 45 610 235 Future Volume (veh/h) 280 160 230 15 120 40 190 625 25 45 610 235 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
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 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1870 1870 1870 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 280 160 230 15 120 40 190 625 25 45 610 235 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 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 111111222111
Cap, veh/h 332 202 290 65 192 64 237 1265 51 137 771 296 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.29 0.29 0.04 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.36 0.36 0.08 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 693 996 1795 1348 449 1781 3478 139 1795 2506 964 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 280 0 390 15 0 160 190 319 331 45 436 409 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 0 1690 1795 0 1797 1781 1777 1840 1795 1791 1679 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.0 0.0 14.2 0.5 0.0 5.6 6.9 9.3 9.3 1.6 14.8 14.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.0 0.0 14.2 0.5 0.0 5.6 6.9 9.3 9.3 1.6 14.8 14.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.59 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.57
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 332 0 491 65 0 256 237 647 669 137 551 516 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.00 0.79 0.23 0.00 0.63 0.80 0.49 0.49 0.33 0.79 0.79 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 714 0 662 714 0 715 708 944 977 714 951 892 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.2 0.0 21.8 31.2 0.0 26.9 28.1 16.4 16.4 29.2 21.1 21.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 0.0 3.3 0.7 0.0 0.9 2.4 0.2 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.3 0.0 5.6 0.2 0.0 2.3 2.9 3.3 3.4 0.7 5.9 5.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 28.5 0.0 25.1 31.9 0.0 27.8 30.5 16.7 16.6 29.7 22.1 22.2 L n G r p L O S C CC CCBBCCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 670 175 840 890
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.5 28.2 19.8 22.5
Approach LOS C C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.8 13.4 12.3 25.1 5.9 23.3 8.6 28.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 * 3.9 3.5 * 4.6 3.5 3.9 3.5 * 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.5 * 27 26.5 * 35 26.5 26.1 26.5 * 35 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.0 7.6 8.9 16.9 2.5 16.2 3.6 11.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 0.5 0.2 3.6 0.0 1.2 0.0 2.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 23.1
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
33: Norwood Avenue & Morey Avenue Future No Build PM
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
T r a f f i c V o l u m e ( v e h / h ) 4 51 2 3515 4 5 8 9 911 1009 90 F u t u r e V o l u m e ( v e h / h ) 4 51 2 3515 4 5 8 9 911 1009 90 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
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 A d j F l o w R a t e , v e h / h 4 51 2 3515 4 5 8 9 911 1009 90 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 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 72 2 37 11 2 11 85 1899 2 4 1567 140
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.47 0.47 Sat Flow, veh/h 1116 25 571 770 154 770 1781 3642 4 1781 3300 294 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 69 0 0 11 0 0 45 439 461 1 543 556 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1712 0 0 1693 0 0 1781 1777 1870 1781 1777 1817 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.1 7.1 7.1 0.0 10.4 10.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.1 7.1 7.1 0.0 10.4 10.4 Prop In Lane 0.65 0.33 0.45 0.45 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.16
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 110 0 0 24 0 0 85 926 975 4 844 863 V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.47 0.47 0.25 0.64 0.64 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 952 0 0 938 0 0 257 1843 1939 201 1788 1829 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.6 0.0 0.0 22.1 0.0 0.0 21.0 6.9 6.9 22.5 9.0 9.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.8 0.0 0.0 12.8 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.4 0.4 30.6 0.8 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.6 1.7 0.0 3.1 3.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 26.4 0.0 0.0 34.8 0.0 0.0 26.0 7.2 7.2 53.1 9.8 9.8 LnGrp LOS C C C A A D A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 69 11 945 1100
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.4 34.8 8.1 9.8
Approach LOS C C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.6 28.0 7.4 6.7 25.9 5.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.1 46.8 25.1 6.5 45.4 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 9.1 3.8 3.1 12.4 2.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.1 0.3 0.0 9.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 9.7
HCM 7th LOS A
Queues
1: Norwood Avenue & Bell Avenue Future No Build PM
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 15 205 300 115 130 130 445 335 130 630 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.66 0.59 0.14 0.17 0.54 0.55 0.55 0.52 0.75 Control Delay (s/veh) 36.8 41.0 38.4 23.9 6.6 49.6 35.4 7.4 48.6 40.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 36.8 41.0 38.4 23.9 6.6 49.6 35.4 7.4 48.6 40.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 8 90 148 35 0 72 117 0 72 175
Queue Length 95th (ft) 27 190 #349 134 53 158 205 73 158 294 Internal Link Dist (ft) 878 976 1238 453
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 195 200 75 200 95
Base Capacity (vph) 521 861 505 930 838 513 1767 941 508 1758 Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.24 0.59 0.12 0.16 0.25 0.25 0.36 0.26 0.36 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
2: Norwood Avenue & Jessie Avenue Future No Build PM
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 2
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 90 165 375 215 990 100 885
v/c Ratio 0.43 0.51 0.79 0.73 0.74 0.54 0.77
Control Delay (s/veh) 58.9 13.7 53.9 64.2 35.7 65.2 42.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 58.9 13.7 53.9 64.2 35.7 65.2 42.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 65 0 248 153 324 72 314
Queue Length 95th (ft) 133 66 #510 289 520 155 497
Internal Link Dist (ft) 758 547 632 1238
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100 120
Base Capacity (vph) 593 614 576 417 1470 417 1423
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.15 0.27 0.65 0.52 0.67 0.24 0.62
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
3: Norwood Avenue & WB 80 On-Ramp/WB 80 Off-Ramp Future No Build PM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 3
Lane Group WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 160 160 350 435 970 765 550
v/c Ratio 0.43 0.43 0.80 0.78 0.40 0.67 0.82
Control Delay (s/veh) 33.3 33.3 34.8 42.6 7.9 29.4 26.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 33.3 33.3 34.8 42.6 8.1 29.4 26.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 83 83 125 230 110 187 147
Queue Length 95th (ft) 148 148 232 #502 220 301 #383
Internal Link Dist (ft) 874 446 632
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 175 75
Base Capacity (vph) 722 722 739 559 2752 1487 787
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000 7 5 400
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.47 0.78 0.49 0.51 0.70
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
4: Norwood Avenue & EB 80 Off-Ramp/EB 80 On-Ramp Future No Build PM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 265 270 465 885 325 330 755
v/c Ratio 0.57 0.58 0.81 0.78 0.30 0.76 0.35
Control Delay (s/veh) 33.3 33.5 29.2 33.3 1.9 45.5 9.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 33.3 33.5 29.2 33.3 1.9 45.5 9.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 132 135 141 232 0 170 98
Queue Length 95th (ft) 241 247 297 375 35 #347 174
Internal Link Dist (ft) 679 657 446
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 220 180
Base Capacity (vph) 763 767 817 1586 1267 603 2770
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.35 0.35 0.57 0.56 0.26 0.55 0.27
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
5: Norwood Avenue & Harris Avenue Future No Build PM
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 5
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 245 45 30 95 30 990 70 1175
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.08 0.12 0.32 0.13 0.62 0.33 0.77
Control Delay (s/veh) 43.9 6.4 38.6 12.2 39.7 23.4 43.2 27.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 43.9 6.4 38.6 12.2 39.7 23.4 43.2 27.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 130 0 15 0 15 230 37 305
Queue Length 95th (ft) 214 22 45 47 46 366 84 #495
Internal Link Dist (ft) 655 515 251 657
Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 85 110
Base Capacity (vph) 803 1042 810 753 817 1597 801 1533
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.31 0.04 0.04 0.13 0.04 0.62 0.09 0.77 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
6: Norwood Avenue & Silver Eagle Road Fu ture No Build PM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 6
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL W BT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 280 390 15 160 190 650 45 845
v/c Ratio 0.75 0.62 0.08 0.55 0.66 0.43 0.25 0.80
Control Delay (s/veh) 51.1 30.4 49.3 45.6 51.7 21.9 50.9 36.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 51.1 30.4 49.3 45.6 51.7 21.9 50.9 36.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 158 157 8 85 109 150 26 226
Queue Length 95th (ft) #329 356 34 178 220 260 75 #409
Internal Link Dist (ft) 710 228 480 903
Turn Bay Length (ft) 110 95 55
Base Capacity (vph) 526 632 526 540 521 1576 526 1363
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.53 0.62 0.03 0.30 0.36 0.41 0.09 0.62 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
33: Norwood Avenue & Morey Avenue Future No Build PM
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 7
Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 69 11 45 900 1 1099
v/c Ratio 0.26 0.06 0.21 0.35 0.01 0.49
Control Delay (s/veh) 23.8 25.1 31.6 6.3 32.0 10.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 23.8 25.1 31.6 6.3 32.0 10.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 2 14 46 0 125
Queue Length 95th (ft) 63 19 56 203 6 274
Internal Link Dist (ft) 329 438 256 304
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 50
Base Capacity (vph) 863 847 227 2898 178 2801
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.01 0.20 0.31 0.01 0.39
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Norwood Avenue & Bell Avenue Future AM Road Diet
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 75 190 100 135 95 180 55 445 220 225 500 55 Future Volume (veh/h) 75 190 100 135 95 180 55 445 220 225 500 55 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1841 1841 1841 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 75 190 100 135 95 180 55 445 220 225 500 55 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 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 111444333333
Cap, veh/h 295 232 122 172 238 193 130 466 230 256 778 86 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.40 0.40 0.14 0.48 0.48 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 1143 602 1753 1841 1490 1767 1161 574 1767 1637 180 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 75 0 290 135 95 180 55 0 665 225 0 555 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 0 1744 1753 1841 1490 1767 0 1735 1767 0 1818 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.0 0.0 17.6 8.3 5.2 11.0 3.3 0.0 41.1 13.8 0.0 25.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.0 0.0 17.6 8.3 5.2 11.0 3.3 0.0 41.1 13.8 0.0 25.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.34 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.10
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 295 0 354 172 238 193 130 0 696 256 0 863 V/C Ratio(X) 0.25 0.00 0.82 0.79 0.40 0.93 0.42 0.00 0.95 0.88 0.00 0.64 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 426 0 717 416 756 613 390 0 744 386 0 863 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.3 0.0 42.1 48.7 44.2 32.8 48.9 0.0 32.1 46.3 0.0 21.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 1.8 3.0 0.4 8.3 0.8 0.0 21.4 10.2 0.0 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 0.0 7.8 3.7 2.4 4.3 1.5 0.0 20.4 6.7 0.0 10.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 40.4 0.0 43.9 51.7 44.6 41.1 49.7 0.0 53.5 56.5 0.0 23.2 L n G r p L O S D DDDDD DE C
Approach Vol, veh/h 365 410 720 780
Approach Delay, s/veh 43.2 45.4 53.2 32.8
Approach LOS DDDC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.8 18.9 11.8 57.1 14.6 27.0 19.9 49.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.6 * 4.6 3.6 * 4.6 3.8 * 4.6 3.9 * 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 26 * 45 24.4 * 47 26.2 * 45 24.1 * 47 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.0 13.0 5.3 27.5 10.3 19.6 15.8 43.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.6 0.0 2.4 0.1 1.3 0.2 1.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 43.2
HCM 7th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Norwood Avenue & Jessie Avenue Future AM Road Diet
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 45 95 210 245 80 65 125 570 100 45 685 35 Future Volume (veh/h) 45 95 210 245 80 65 125 570 100 45 685 35 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
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 0.97 1.00 0.97 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 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 45 95 210 245 80 65 125 570 100 45 685 35 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 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 222333333333
Cap, veh/h 89 189 240 265 86 70 151 800 658 100 704 36
Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.43 0.43 0.06 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 592 1249 1585 1092 357 290 1767 1856 1527 1767 1750 89 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 140 0 210 390 0 0 125 570 100 45 0 720 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1841 0 1585 1739 0 0 1767 1856 1527 1767 0 1839 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.9 0.0 16.4 27.8 0.0 0.0 8.8 32.0 5.1 3.1 0.0 48.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.9 0.0 16.4 27.8 0.0 0.0 8.8 32.0 5.1 3.1 0.0 48.8 Prop In Lane 0.32 1.00 0.63 0.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.05
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 278 0 240 421 0 0 151 800 658 100 0 740 V/C Ratio(X) 0.50 0.00 0.88 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.71 0.15 0.45 0.00 0.97 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 457 0 394 500 0 0 355 800 658 355 0 745 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.5 0.0 52.7 47.0 0.0 0.0 57.1 29.6 22.0 58.0 0.0 37.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 6.8 19.9 0.0 0.0 4.4 2.6 0.0 1.2 0.0 26.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.1 0.0 6.9 14.3 0.0 0.0 4.1 14.3 1.8 1.4 0.0 26.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 50.0 0.0 59.4 66.8 0.0 0.0 61.5 32.2 22.0 59.1 0.0 63.4 LnGrp LOS D E E E C C E E
Approach Vol, veh/h 350 390 795 765
Approach Delay, s/veh 55.7 66.8 35.5 63.1
Approach LOS E E D E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 34.2 14.3 55.6 22.7 10.7 59.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 3.5 * 4.6 3.5 3.5 * 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.5 25.5 * 51 31.5 25.5 * 51 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 29.8 10.8 50.8 18.4 5.1 34.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.0 2.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 53.1
HCM 7th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Norwood Avenue & WB 80 On-Ramp/WB 80 Off-Ramp Future AM Road Diet Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 285 5 205 300 735 0 0 695 560 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 285 5 205 300 735 0 0 695 560 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000
Lane Width Adj. 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
Parking Bus, Adj 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
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 0 0 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 289 0 0 300 735 0 0 695 0
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 444440022
Cap, veh/h 643 0 378 2136 0 0 1114
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3506 0 1560 1753 3589 0 0 3647 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 289 0 0 300 735 0 0 695 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1753 0 1560 1753 1749 0 0 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.1 0.0 0.0 6.9 4.4 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.1 0.0 0.0 6.9 4.4 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 643 0 378 2136 0 0 1114
V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.00 0.79 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.62
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2951 0 1086 2878 0 0 2924
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.5 0.0 0.0 15.9 4.1 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh 23.10 20.20
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 15.7 0.0 23.1 18.7 4.2 0.0 0.0 13.0 20.2 LnGrp LOS B C B A B C
Approach Vol, veh/h 394 1035 975
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.7 8.4 15.0
Approach LOS B A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.7 18.2 11.8 30.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.8 4.0 4.8
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.5 35.2 36.0 35.2
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.9 9.1 5.1 6.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 4.3 0.5 4.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 12.6
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [WBR, SBR] is included in calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Norwood Avenue & EB 80 Off-Ramp/EB 80 On-Ramp Future AM Road Diet Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
T r a f f i c V o l u m e ( v e h / h ) 3 6 05 4 3 50000 6 5 5 2 9 5 3 7 5 6 0 50 F u t u r e V o l u m e ( v e h / h ) 3 6 05 4 3 50000 6 5 5 2 9 5 3 7 5 6 0 50 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000 000000
Lane Width Adj. 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
Parking Bus, Adj 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
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1826 1826 1826 0 1841 1841 1841 1841 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 364 0 0 0 655 0 375 605 0
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 555 044440
Cap, veh/h 672 0 0 995 454 2162 0
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.26 0.62 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3478 0 1547 0 3589 1560 1753 3589 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 364 0 0 0 655 0 375 605 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1739 0 1547 0 1749 1560 1753 1749 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 9.4 3.7 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 9.4 3.7 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 672 0 0 995 454 2162 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.83 0.28 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2682 0 0 2637 995 2637 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.7 0.0 16.3 4.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 2.9 0.1 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 3.6 0.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh 27.70
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 17.2 0.0 27.7 0.0 15.3 0.0 19.2 4.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS B C B B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 579 655 980
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.1 15.3 9.9
Approach LOS C B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 33.7 15.6 18.1 13.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.8 3.5 4.8 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.2 26.5 35.2 36.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.7 11.4 9.7 6.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.7 0.8 3.6 0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 14.4
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is included in calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Norwood Avenue & EB 80 Off-Ramp/EB 80 On-Ramp Future AM Road Diet Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 5
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Norwood Avenue & Harris Avenue Future AM Road Diet
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 150 25 40 15 35 115 45 680 20 95 670 285 Future Volume (veh/h) 150 25 40 15 35 115 45 680 20 95 670 285 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
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 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1707 1707 1707 1826 1826 1826 1870 1870 1870 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 150 25 40 15 35 115 45 680 20 95 670 285 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 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 1 3 1 3 1 3555222444 Cap, veh/h 206 34 323 75 176 211 143 739 22 179 792 656 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.08 0.41 0.41 0.10 0.43 0.43 Sat Flow, veh/h 1403 234 1413 540 1259 1512 1781 1806 53 1753 1841 1524 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 175 0 40 50 0 115 45 0 700 95 670 285 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1637 0 1413 1799 0 1512 1781 0 1859 1753 1841 1524 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.8 0.0 1.7 1.9 0.0 5.4 1.8 0.0 27.3 3.9 24.9 10.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.8 0.0 1.7 1.9 0.0 5.4 1.8 0.0 27.3 3.9 24.9 10.0 Prop In Lane 0.86 1.00 0.30 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 240 0 323 251 0 211 143 0 760 179 792 656 V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.00 0.12 0.20 0.00 0.54 0.31 0.00 0.92 0.53 0.85 0.43 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 780 0 790 852 0 717 851 0 862 838 853 706 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.2 0.0 23.5 29.1 0.0 30.6 33.1 0.0 21.4 32.6 19.5 15.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.0 13.6 0.9 7.2 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.1 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.9 0.8 0.0 13.2 1.7 11.3 3.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 32.8 0.0 23.6 29.2 0.0 31.4 33.6 0.0 35.0 33.5 26.7 15.6 L n G r p L O S C CC CC DCCB
Approach Vol, veh/h 215 165 745 1050
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.1 30.8 34.9 24.3
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.5 9.7 37.5 14.8 11.3 35.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.8 3.5 * 4.6 3.6 3.5 * 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.2 36.5 * 35 36.4 36.5 * 35 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 3.8 26.9 9.8 5.9 29.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 0.0 3.1 0.7 0.1 2.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 29.1
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Norwood Avenue & Silver Eagle Road Future AM Road Diet Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 200 125 270 50 125 30 195 475 25 10 420 190 Future Volume (veh/h) 200 125 270 50 125 30 195 475 25 10 420 190 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1826 1826 1826 1856 1856 1856 1870 1870 1870 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 200 125 270 50 125 30 195 475 25 10 420 190 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 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 555333222333
Cap, veh/h 234 133 287 134 295 71 229 845 44 39 447 202 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.21 0.21 0.13 0.48 0.48 0.02 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 1739 505 1090 1767 1440 346 1781 1761 93 1767 1199 542 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 200 0 395 50 0 155 195 0 500 10 0 610 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1739 0 1595 1767 0 1786 1781 0 1853 1767 0 1741 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.0 0.0 23.7 2.6 0.0 7.4 10.5 0.0 18.8 0.5 0.0 33.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.0 0.0 23.7 2.6 0.0 7.4 10.5 0.0 18.8 0.5 0.0 33.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.68 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.31
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 234 0 421 134 0 366 229 0 889 39 0 650 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.00 0.94 0.37 0.00 0.42 0.85 0.00 0.56 0.26 0.00 0.94 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 471 0 426 479 0 484 392 0 889 389 0 719 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.4 0.0 35.2 43.0 0.0 33.8 41.7 0.0 18.1 47.0 0.0 29.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.4 0.0 28.2 0.6 0.0 0.3 3.4 0.0 0.5 1.3 0.0 18.4 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 4.9 0.0 12.3 1.2 0.0 3.2 4.7 0.0 7.5 0.3 0.0 16.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 44.8 0.0 63.5 43.6 0.0 34.1 45.1 0.0 18.6 48.3 0.0 48.0 LnGrp LOS D E D C D B D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 595 205 695 620
Approach Delay, s/veh 57.2 36.4 26.0 48.0
Approach LOS E D C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.7 23.9 16.1 41.1 10.9 29.7 5.6 51.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 * 3.9 3.5 * 4.6 3.5 3.9 3.5 * 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.5 * 27 21.5 * 40 26.5 26.1 21.5 * 40 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.0 9.4 12.5 35.1 4.6 25.7 2.5 20.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.5 0.2 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 42.2
HCM 7th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
33: Norwood Avenue & Morey Avenue Future AM Road Diet
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
T r a f f i c V o l u m e ( v e h / h ) 9 01 4 5515 2 3 6 8 111 6 7 9 4 5 F u t u r e V o l u m e ( v e h / h ) 9 01 4 5515 2 3 6 8 111 6 7 9 4 5 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
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 A d j F l o w R a t e , v e h / h 9 81 4 9515 2 5 7 4 011 7 3 8 4 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 135 1 67 11 2 11 51 1008 1 3 889 59
Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow, veh/h 1133 12 567 770 154 770 1781 1867 3 1781 1734 115 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 148 0 0 11 0 0 25 0 741 1 0 787
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1712 0 0 1693 0 0 1781 0 1870 1781 0 1850 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 20.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 20.0 Prop In Lane 0.66 0.33 0.45 0.45 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.06
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 204 0 0 24 0 0 51 0 1010 3 0 948 V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.73 0.31 0.00 0.83 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 774 0 0 766 0 0 164 0 1590 161 0 1569 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.5 0.0 0.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 26.4 0.0 9.7 27.6 0.0 11.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.9 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 1.1 47.2 0.0 2.0 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 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 4.9 0.1 0.0 6.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 28.4 0.0 0.0 40.4 0.0 0.0 33.4 0.0 10.7 74.7 0.0 13.4 LnGrp LOS C D C B E B
Approach Vol, veh/h 148 11 766 788
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.4 40.4 11.5 13.5
Approach LOS C D B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.6 34.4 11.1 6.1 32.8 5.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 47.0 25.0 5.1 46.9 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 18.7 6.6 2.8 22.0 2.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.4 0.7 0.0 6.4 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 14.0
HCM 7th LOS B
Queues
1: Norwood Avenue & Bell Avenue Future AM Road Diet
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 75 290 135 95 180 55 665 225 555
v/c Ratio 0.21 0.82 0.65 0.37 0.49 0.37 0.99 0.79 0.62
Control Delay (s/veh) 43.2 64.9 70.0 58.5 12.2 66.4 70.4 71.4 30.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 43.2 64.9 70.0 58.5 12.2 66.4 70.4 71.4 30.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 50 216 107 76 0 43 ~530 174 329
Queue Length 95th (ft) 104 342 194 140 70 98 #989 #332 601 Internal Link Dist (ft) 878 976 1238 453
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 195 200 75 95
Base Capacity (vph) 423 648 368 671 671 346 675 341 890 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.45 0.37 0.14 0.27 0.16 0.99 0.66 0.62 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: Norwood Avenue & Jessie Avenue Future AM Road Diet
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 2
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 140 210 390 125 570 100 45 720
v/c Ratio 0.66 0.57 0.84 0.68 0.69 0.14 0.35 1.00
Control Delay (s/veh) 71.6 13.2 62.2 75.7 36.5 11.0 69.3 73.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 71.6 13.2 62.2 75.7 37.3 11.0 69.3 73.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 117 0 305 104 395 18 37 ~609
Queue Length 95th (ft) 196 74 #555 183 619 60 86 #1050
Internal Link Dist (ft) 758 547 632 1238
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100 120
Base Capacity (vph) 442 541 485 342 827 699 342 721
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000 7 6000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.32 0.39 0.80 0.37 0.76 0.14 0.13 1.00 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
3: Norwood Avenue & WB 80 On-Ramp/WB 80 Off-Ramp Future AM Road Diet Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 3
Lane Group WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 145 145 205 300 735 695 560
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.46 0.45 0.68 0.31 0.54 0.75
Control Delay (s/veh) 33.6 33.6 8.2 34.8 5.3 20.3 17.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 33.6 33.6 8.2 34.8 5.3 20.3 17.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 57 57 0 109 47 111 83
Queue Length 95th (ft) 137 137 54 260 124 240 293
Internal Link Dist (ft) 874 446 632
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 175 75
Base Capacity (vph) 933 937 956 723 3064 1959 984
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.16 0.15 0.21 0.41 0.24 0.35 0.57
Intersection Summary
Queues
4: Norwood Avenue & EB 80 Off-Ramp/EB 80 On-Ramp Future AM Road Diet Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 184 181 435 655 295 375 605
v/c Ratio 0.49 0.48 0.77 0.65 0.45 0.72 0.27
Control Delay (s/veh) 30.8 30.6 20.2 27.9 5.8 35.8 7.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 30.8 30.6 20.2 27.9 5.8 35.8 7.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 76 75 61 135 0 142 50
Queue Length 95th (ft) 165 162 195 255 59 #402 127
Internal Link Dist (ft) 679 657 446
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 220 180
Base Capacity (vph) 847 851 922 1762 915 663 2973
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.22 0.21 0.47 0.37 0.32 0.57 0.20
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
5: Norwood Avenue & Harris Avenue Future AM Road Diet
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 5
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 175 40 50 115 45 700 95 670 285
v/c Ratio 0.64 0.09 0.22 0.40 0.22 0.92 0.47 0.82 0.38
Control Delay (s/veh) 44.9 7.1 39.8 12.4 40.9 45.8 45.6 34.3 11.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 44.9 7.1 39.8 12.4 40.9 45.8 45.6 34.3 11.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 90 0 25 0 22 339 49 325 51
Queue Length 95th (ft) 160 21 67 51 62 #726 107 #642 135 Internal Link Dist (ft) 655 515 251 657
Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 85 110
Base Capacity (vph) 671 849 738 696 739 759 725 813 747 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.05 0.07 0.17 0.06 0.92 0.13 0.82 0.38 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
6: Norwood Avenue & Silver Eagle Road Future AM Road Diet Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 6
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL W BT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 200 395 50 155 195 500 10 610
v/c Ratio 0.74 0.83 0.30 0.49 0.76 0.50 0.07 0.91
Control Delay (s/veh) 61.1 47.1 54.6 45.5 64.7 20.5 52.4 52.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 61.1 47.1 54.6 45.5 64.7 20.5 52.4 52.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 134 220 33 92 131 200 7 390
Queue Length 95th (ft) 232 365 81 178 235 446 27 #779
Internal Link Dist (ft) 710 228 480 903
Turn Bay Length (ft) 110 95 55
Base Capacity (vph) 428 478 436 449 357 993 353 671
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.47 0.83 0.11 0.35 0.55 0.50 0.03 0.91 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
33: Norwood Avenue & Morey Avenue Future AM Road Diet
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 7
Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 148 11 25 741 1 787
v/c Ratio 0.56 0.08 0.22 0.57 0.01 0.64
Control Delay (s/veh) 35.9 30.6 42.2 11.3 39.0 14.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 35.9 30.6 42.2 11.3 39.0 14.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 51 2 10 120 0 133
Queue Length 95th (ft) 129 21 41 512 6 #630
Internal Link Dist (ft) 329 438 256 304
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 50
Base Capacity (vph) 565 552 116 1294 113 1238
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.02 0.22 0.57 0.01 0.64
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Norwood Avenue & Bell Avenue Future PM Road Diet
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 20 115 85 205 145 170 95 320 250 195 495 30 Future Volume (veh/h) 20 115 85 205 145 170 95 320 250 195 495 30 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
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 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1870 1870 1870 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 20 115 85 205 145 170 95 320 250 195 495 30 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 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 111222111111
Cap, veh/h 286 154 114 246 232 187 195 354 277 240 692 42 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.37 0.37 0.13 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 995 736 1781 1870 1511 1795 970 758 1795 1757 106 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 20 0 200 205 145 170 95 0 570 195 0 525 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 0 1731 1781 1870 1511 1795 0 1728 1795 0 1863 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 0.0 9.0 9.1 6.0 6.9 4.0 0.0 25.4 8.6 0.0 19.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 0.0 9.0 9.1 6.0 6.9 4.0 0.0 25.4 8.6 0.0 19.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.43 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 1.00 0.06
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 286 0 268 246 232 187 195 0 631 240 0 734 V/C Ratio(X) 0.07 0.00 0.75 0.83 0.63 0.91 0.49 0.00 0.90 0.81 0.00 0.72 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 579 0 968 575 1046 845 584 0 966 577 0 1042 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.0 0.0 32.8 34.1 33.8 20.3 34.0 0.0 24.4 34.2 0.0 20.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 1.6 2.8 1.0 6.5 0.7 0.0 5.8 2.5 0.0 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 0.0 3.8 3.9 2.6 3.4 1.7 0.0 10.4 3.8 0.0 8.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 29.1 0.0 34.4 36.9 34.8 26.8 34.7 0.0 30.2 36.7 0.0 21.3 L n G r p L O S C CDCCC CD C
Approach Vol, veh/h 220 520 665 720
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.9 33.0 30.9 25.5
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.5 14.7 12.4 36.6 15.0 17.2 14.8 34.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.6 * 4.6 3.6 * 4.6 3.8 * 4.6 3.9 * 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 26 * 45 26.4 * 45 26.2 * 45 26.1 * 45 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.8 8.9 6.0 21.3 11.1 11.0 10.6 27.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.8 0.1 2.3 0.2 0.9 0.2 2.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 29.9
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Norwood Avenue & Jessie Avenue Future PM Road Diet
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 25 65 155 240 95 40 215 615 200 95 640 20 Future Volume (veh/h) 25 65 155 240 95 40 215 615 200 95 640 20 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 25 65 155 240 95 40 215 615 200 95 640 20 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 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 111111111111
Cap, veh/h 66 171 194 265 105 44 245 825 682 133 682 21 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.14 0.44 0.44 0.07 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 516 1343 1530 1144 453 191 1795 1885 1558 1795 1816 57 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 90 0 155 375 0 0 215 615 200 95 0 660 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1859 0 1530 1788 0 0 1795 1885 1558 1795 0 1873 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.2 0.0 11.4 23.7 0.0 0.0 13.7 31.6 9.6 6.0 0.0 39.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.2 0.0 11.4 23.7 0.0 0.0 13.7 31.6 9.6 6.0 0.0 39.5 Prop In Lane 0.28 1.00 0.64 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 236 0 194 414 0 0 245 825 682 133 0 703 V/C Ratio(X) 0.38 0.00 0.80 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.75 0.29 0.72 0.00 0.94 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 504 0 415 562 0 0 409 825 682 409 0 812 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.5 0.0 49.3 43.4 0.0 0.0 49.2 27.3 21.1 52.6 0.0 35.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 2.8 12.6 0.0 0.0 6.0 3.3 0.1 2.7 0.0 16.2 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 2.4 0.0 4.4 11.9 0.0 0.0 6.4 14.3 3.4 2.8 0.0 20.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 46.9 0.0 52.1 56.1 0.0 0.0 55.2 30.5 21.2 55.3 0.0 51.2 LnGrp LOS D D E E C C E D
Approach Vol, veh/h 245 375 1030 755
Approach Delay, s/veh 50.2 56.1 33.9 51.7
Approach LOS D E C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.4 19.4 48.2 18.3 12.1 55.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 3.5 * 4.6 3.5 3.5 * 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.5 26.5 * 50 31.5 26.5 * 50 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 25.7 15.7 41.5 13.4 8.0 33.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.2 0.2 2.1 0.5 0.1 2.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 44.6
HCM 7th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Norwood Avenue & WB 80 On-Ramp/WB 80 Off-Ramp Future PM Road Diet Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 285 0 325 415 855 0 0 630 505 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 285 0 325 415 855 0 0 630 505 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000
Lane Width Adj. 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
Parking Bus, Adj 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
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 0 0 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 285 0 0 415 855 0 0 630 0
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 111110011
Cap, veh/h 634 0 497 2265 0 0 1001
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3591 0 1598 1795 3676 0 0 3676 1598
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 285 0 0 415 855 0 0 630 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 0 1598 1795 1791 0 0 1791 1598 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 0.0 0.0 10.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 0.0 0.0 10.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 634 0 497 2265 0 0 1001
V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.00 0.84 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.63
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2808 0 1033 2738 0 0 2738
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.0 0.0 0.0 15.7 4.1 0.0 0.0 14.5 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh 30.70 25.10
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 17.1 0.0 30.7 18.5 4.2 0.0 0.0 15.0 25.1 LnGrp LOS B C B A B C
Approach Vol, veh/h 450 1270 885
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.1 8.8 17.9
Approach LOS C A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.2 17.7 12.1 33.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.8 4.0 4.8
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.5 35.2 36.0 35.2
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.0 9.1 5.3 7.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.8 3.8 0.5 5.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 14.2
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [WBR, SBR] is included in calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Norwood Avenue & EB 80 Off-Ramp/EB 80 On-Ramp Future PM Road Diet Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
T r a f f i c V o l u m e ( v e h / h ) 5 1 5 1 5 4 2 00000 7 5 0 2 8 5 3 0 5 6 1 00 F u t u r e V o l u m e ( v e h / h ) 5 1 5 1 5 4 2 00000 7 5 0 2 8 5 3 0 5 6 1 00 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000 000000
Lane Width Adj. 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
Parking Bus, Adj 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
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 0 1870 1870 1885 1885 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 526 0 0 0 750 0 305 610 0
Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 333 022110
Cap, veh/h 728 0 0 1123 382 2164 0
Arrive On Green 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.21 0.60 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3534 0 1572 0 3647 1585 1795 3676 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 526 0 0 0 750 0 305 610 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 0 1572 0 1777 1585 1795 1791 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 7.5 3.8 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 7.5 3.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 728 0 0 1123 382 2164 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.80 0.28 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2742 0 0 2695 1025 2717 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.0 17.3 4.4 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.9 0.1 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 3.0 0.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh 25.00
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 17.7 0.0 25.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 20.2 4.4 0.0 LnGrp LOS B C B C A
Approach Vol, veh/h 736 750 915
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.8 14.3 9.7
Approach LOS B B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 32.8 13.4 19.5 13.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.8 3.5 4.8 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.2 26.5 35.2 36.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.8 9.5 10.5 8.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.7 0.6 4.2 1.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 14.2
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is included in calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: Norwood Avenue & EB 80 Off-Ramp/EB 80 On-Ramp Future PM Road Diet Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 5
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: Norwood Avenue & Harris Avenue Future PM Road Diet
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 230 25 50 40 15 155 30 715 30 85 815 130 Future Volume (veh/h) 230 25 50 40 15 155 30 715 30 85 815 130 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
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 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1885 1885 1885 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 230 25 50 40 15 155 30 715 30 85 815 130 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 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 333333111333
Cap, veh/h 285 31 365 162 61 191 105 787 33 155 868 713 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.06 0.44 0.44 0.09 0.47 0.47 Sat Flow, veh/h 1601 174 1537 1302 488 1532 1795 1794 75 1767 1856 1525 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 255 0 50 55 0 155 30 0 745 85 815 130 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1775 0 1537 1790 0 1532 1795 0 1869 1767 1856 1525 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.5 0.0 2.3 2.5 0.0 8.9 1.4 0.0 33.7 4.2 37.8 4.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.5 0.0 2.3 2.5 0.0 8.9 1.4 0.0 33.7 4.2 37.8 4.5 Prop In Lane 0.90 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 316 0 365 223 0 191 105 0 820 155 868 713 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.00 0.14 0.25 0.00 0.81 0.29 0.00 0.91 0.55 0.94 0.18 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 714 0 710 617 0 528 625 0 937 615 930 765 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.7 0.0 27.3 35.8 0.0 38.6 40.8 0.0 23.7 39.6 22.9 14.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.9 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 3.1 0.5 0.0 11.3 1.1 16.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.5 0.0 0.8 1.1 0.0 3.4 0.6 0.0 15.9 1.8 19.1 1.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 37.6 0.0 27.4 36.0 0.0 41.7 41.4 0.0 35.0 40.7 38.9 14.1 L n G r p L O S D CD DD DDDB
Approach Vol, veh/h 305 210 775 1030
Approach Delay, s/veh 35.9 40.2 35.3 35.9
Approach LOS DDDD
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.1 8.8 47.0 19.7 11.4 44.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.8 3.5 * 4.6 3.6 3.5 * 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.2 31.5 * 45 36.4 31.5 * 45 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.9 3.4 39.8 14.5 6.2 35.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 0.0 2.6 1.0 0.1 2.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 36.1
HCM 7th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: Norwood Avenue & Silver Eagle Road Futu re PM Road Diet Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 205 185 260 20 140 40 210 455 30 45 480 180 Future Volume (veh/h) 205 185 260 20 140 40 210 455 30 45 480 180 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
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 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1870 1870 1870 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 205 185 260 20 140 40 210 455 30 45 480 180 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 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 111111222111
Cap, veh/h 241 188 264 77 250 71 245 802 53 117 507 190 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.27 0.27 0.04 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.46 0.46 0.07 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 699 982 1795 1405 401 1781 1732 114 1795 1296 486 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 205 0 445 20 0 180 210 0 485 45 0 660 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 0 1681 1795 0 1807 1781 0 1846 1795 0 1782 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.8 0.0 25.5 1.0 0.0 8.8 11.2 0.0 18.6 2.3 0.0 34.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.8 0.0 25.5 1.0 0.0 8.8 11.2 0.0 18.6 2.3 0.0 34.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.58 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.27
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 241 0 452 77 0 321 245 0 854 117 0 697 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.00 0.98 0.26 0.00 0.56 0.86 0.00 0.57 0.38 0.00 0.95 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 491 0 452 491 0 494 395 0 854 398 0 742 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.0 0.0 35.2 44.9 0.0 36.4 40.9 0.0 19.0 43.5 0.0 28.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.3 0.0 37.8 0.7 0.0 0.6 5.7 0.0 0.6 0.8 0.0 20.0 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 4.9 0.0 14.9 0.5 0.0 3.9 5.1 0.0 7.4 1.1 0.0 18.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 44.3 0.0 73.0 45.6 0.0 37.0 46.6 0.0 19.5 44.2 0.0 48.6 LnGrp LOS D E D D D B D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 650 200 695 705
Approach Delay, s/veh 64.0 37.8 27.7 48.3
Approach LOS E D C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.5 21.2 16.8 42.5 7.7 30.0 9.8 49.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 * 3.9 3.5 * 4.6 3.5 3.9 3.5 * 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.5 * 27 21.5 * 40 26.5 26.1 21.5 * 40 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.8 10.8 13.2 36.7 3.0 27.5 4.3 20.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.5 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 45.6
HCM 7th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
33: Norwood Avenue & Morey Avenue Future PM Road Diet
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
T r a f f i c V o l u m e ( v e h / h ) 4 51 2 3515 4 5 6 5 411 8 1 4 9 0 F u t u r e V o l u m e ( v e h / h ) 4 51 2 3515 4 5 6 5 411 8 1 4 9 0 I n i t i a l Q ( Q b ) , v e h 000000000000
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 A d j F l o w R a t e , v e h / h 4 51 2 3515 4 5 6 5 411 8 1 4 9 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 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 64 1 33 11 2 11 79 1153 2 3 950 105
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.57 0.57 Sat Flow, veh/h 1116 25 571 770 154 770 1781 1867 3 1781 1655 183 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 69 0 0 11 0 0 45 0 655 1 0 904
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1712 0 0 1693 0 0 1781 0 1870 1781 0 1837 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 Prop In Lane 0.65 0.33 0.45 0.45 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.10
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 99 0 0 24 0 0 79 0 1154 3 0 1055 V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.57 0.33 0.00 0.86 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 736 0 0 728 0 0 153 0 1511 153 0 1485 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.9 0.0 0.0 28.5 0.0 0.0 27.2 0.0 6.6 29.0 0.0 10.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.5 0.0 0.0 13.5 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.4 52.5 0.0 3.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 3.0 0.1 0.0 8.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 35.4 0.0 0.0 41.9 0.0 0.0 33.5 0.0 7.0 81.5 0.0 14.1 LnGrp LOS D D C A F B
Approach Vol, veh/h 69 11 700 905
Approach Delay, s/veh 35.4 41.9 8.7 14.2
Approach LOS D D A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.6 40.4 7.9 7.1 37.9 5.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 47.0 25.0 5.0 47.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 14.0 4.3 3.4 26.0 2.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.6 0.3 0.0 7.4 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 13.0
HCM 7th LOS B
Queues
1: Norwood Avenue & Bell Avenue Future PM Road Diet
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 20 200 205 145 170 95 570 195 525 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.73 0.75 0.32 0.34 0.52 0.81 0.72 0.63
Control Delay (s/veh) 44.5 58.8 65.9 44.6 9.4 63.4 42.7 64.6 31.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 44.5 58.8 65.9 44.6 9.4 63.4 42.7 64.6 31.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 14 126 146 76 0 68 355 139 287
Queue Length 95th (ft) 38 235 266 196 66 143 #758 253 547 Internal Link Dist (ft) 878 976 1238 453
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 195 200 75 95
Base Capacity (vph) 421 704 407 742 719 414 708 409 835 Starvation Cap Reductn 000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.05 0.28 0.50 0.20 0.24 0.23 0.81 0.48 0.63 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
2: Norwood Avenue & Jessie Avenue Future PM Road Diet
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 2
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 90 155 375 215 615 200 95 660
v/c Ratio 0.48 0.52 0.86 0.80 0.73 0.26 0.58 0.91
Control Delay (s/veh) 66.5 14.9 67.4 76.4 38.2 11.9 74.2 57.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 66.5 14.9 67.4 76.4 39.9 11.9 74.2 57.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 76 0 297 179 423 40 80 535
Queue Length 95th (ft) 138 67 #539 299 724 115 153 #973 Internal Link Dist (ft) 758 547 632 1238
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100 120
Base Capacity (vph) 449 495 504 364 841 756 364 725
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000 1 0 2000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.31 0.74 0.59 0.83 0.26 0.26 0.91 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
3: Norwood Avenue & WB 80 On-Ramp/WB 80 Off-Ramp Future PM Road Diet Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 3
Lane Group WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 142 143 325 415 855 630 505
v/c Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.74 0.71 0.35 0.58 0.76
Control Delay (s/veh) 32.3 32.4 26.7 34.0 6.2 25.4 18.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 32.3 32.4 26.7 34.0 6.2 25.4 18.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 62 63 73 162 71 132 86
Queue Length 95th (ft) 134 134 186 #431 157 221 240
Internal Link Dist (ft) 874 446 632
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 175 75
Base Capacity (vph) 848 848 865 657 3044 1746 894
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000 6 8 500
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.38 0.63 0.36 0.36 0.56
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
4: Norwood Avenue & EB 80 Off-Ramp/EB 80 On-Ramp Future PM Road Diet Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 263 267 420 750 285 305 610
v/c Ratio 0.59 0.60 0.72 0.69 0.27 0.70 0.28
Control Delay (s/veh) 31.6 31.7 20.1 28.1 1.9 38.3 8.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 31.6 31.7 20.1 28.1 1.9 38.3 8.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 105 106 70 148 0 119 57
Queue Length 95th (ft) 240 244 222 306 34 298 136
Internal Link Dist (ft) 679 657 446
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 220 180
Base Capacity (vph) 890 895 934 1850 1355 703 3049
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.45 0.41 0.21 0.43 0.20
Intersection Summary
Queues
5: Norwood Avenue & Harris Avenue Future PM Road Diet
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 5
Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 255 50 55 155 30 745 85 815 130
v/c Ratio 0.77 0.11 0.28 0.51 0.17 0.89 0.47 0.92 0.17
Control Delay (s/veh) 55.7 7.4 48.6 13.9 47.7 41.7 53.6 43.4 11.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 55.7 7.4 48.6 13.9 47.7 42.4 53.6 43.4 11.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 157 0 33 0 18 422 53 501 27
Queue Length 95th (ft) 255 26 80 63 52 #804 109 #867 71 Internal Link Dist (ft) 655 515 251 657
Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 85 110
Base Capacity (vph) 631 794 545 581 553 837 542 890 743 Starvation Cap Reductn 00000 1 3000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.40 0.06 0.10 0.27 0.05 0.90 0.16 0.92 0.17 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
6: Norwood Avenue & Silver Eagle Road Futu re PM Road Diet Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 6
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL W BT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 205 445 20 180 210 485 45 660
v/c Ratio 0.73 0.83 0.12 0.64 0.76 0.52 0.28 0.93
Control Delay (s/veh) 58.5 47.3 51.3 52.4 62.3 23.1 54.4 54.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 58.5 47.3 51.3 52.4 62.3 23.1 54.4 54.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 130 234 12 109 133 223 28 405
Queue Length 95th (ft) 236 #446 42 203 #254 438 76 #858 Internal Link Dist (ft) 710 228 480 903
Turn Bay Length (ft) 110 95 55
Base Capacity (vph) 456 534 456 470 367 941 370 706
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.45 0.83 0.04 0.38 0.57 0.52 0.12 0.93 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues
33: Norwood Avenue & Morey Avenue Future PM Road Diet
Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan Synchro 12 Report DKS Associates (04/07/2025) Page 7
Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 69 11 45 655 1 904
v/c Ratio 0.37 0.08 0.39 0.45 0.01 0.70
Control Delay (s/veh) 31.8 29.2 47.4 7.4 37.0 15.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 31.8 29.2 47.4 7.4 37.0 15.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 22 3 21 75 0 247
Queue Length 95th (ft) 65 19 #61 364 6 #707
Internal Link Dist (ft) 329 438 256 304
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 50
Base Capacity (vph) 569 556 114 1453 114 1300
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.02 0.39 0.45 0.01 0.70
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project • Alternatives Development Report • Jul y 2025

Section 2. Sidra Intersection Analysis Results

SITE LA
YOUT
Site: 1 [Norwood/Bell
-
AM No Build (Site Folder: General)]
Norwood/Bell
-
AM No Build
Site Category: Future Conditions 1
Roundabout
Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data.

They are not design drawin
gs.

SIDRA
INTERSECTION 9.1
|
Copyright © 2000
-2024
Akcelik and
Associates Pty Ltd
|
sidrasolutions.com
Organisation: DKS

ASSOCIA
TES
|
Licence: NETWORK / FLOA
TING
|
Created:

Thursday
,
February 20, 2025 6:48:4
9 PM
Project:

L:\All
-DKS\SAC\P\24000\700s\P24795
-000 Norwood
A
venue Complete Streets
T
ransportation
Plan\06
Analysis\Sidra\F
uture Conditions
Alternatives.sip9

SITE LA
YOUT
Site: 1 [Norwood/Bell
-
AM Road Diet (Site Folder: General)]
Norwood/Bell
-
AM Road Diet
Site Category: Future Conditions 2
Roundabout
Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data.

They are not design drawin
gs.

SIDRA
INTERSECTION 9.1
|
Copyright © 2000
-2024
Akcelik and
Associates Pty Ltd
|
sidrasolutions.com
Organisation: DKS

ASSOCIA
TES
|
Licence: NETWORK / FLOA
TING
|
Created:

Thursday
,
February 20, 2025 6:48:4
9 PM
Project:

L:\All
-DKS\SAC\P\24000\700s\P24795
-000 Norwood
A
venue Complete Streets
T
ransportation
Plan\06
Analysis\Sidra\F
uture Conditions
Alternatives.sip9

SITE LA
YOUT
Site: 33 [Norwood/Morey
-
AM No Build (Site Folder: General)]
Norwood/Morey
-
AM No Build
Site Category: Future Conditions 1
Roundabout
Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data.

They are not design drawin
gs.

SIDRA
INTERSECTION 9.1
|
Copyright © 2000
-2024
Akcelik and
Associates Pty Ltd
|
sidrasolutions.com
Organisation: DKS

ASSOCIA
TES
|
Licence: NETWORK / FLOA
TING
|
Created:

Thursday
,
February 20, 2025 6:48:5
0 PM
Project:

L:\All
-DKS\SAC\P\24000\700s\P24795
-000 Norwood
A
venue Complete Streets
T
ransportation
Plan\06
Analysis\Sidra\F
uture Conditions
Alternatives.sip9

SITE LA
YOUT
Site: 1 [Norwood/Morey
-
AM Road Diet (Site Folder: General)]
Norwood/Morey
-
AM Road Diet
Site Category: Future Conditions 2
Roundabout
Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data.

They are not design drawin
gs.

SIDRA
INTERSECTION 9.1
|
Copyright © 2000
-2024
Akcelik and
Associates Pty Ltd
|
sidrasolutions.com
Organisation: DKS

ASSOCIA
TES
|
Licence: NETWORK / FLOA
TING
|
Created:

Thursday
,
February 20, 2025 6:48:5
1 PM
Project:

L:\All
-DKS\SAC\P\24000\700s\P24795
-000 Norwood
A
venue Complete Streets
T
ransportation
Plan\06
Analysis\Sidra\F
uture Conditions
Alternatives.sip9

SITE LA
YOUT
Site: 1 [Norwood/Silver Eagle Road
-
AM No Build (Site Folder:

General)]
Norwood/Silver Eagle Road
-
AM No Build
Site Category: Future Conditions 1
Roundabout
Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data.

They are not design drawin
gs.

SIDRA
INTERSECTION 9.1
|
Copyright © 2000
-2024
Akcelik and
Associates Pty Ltd
|
sidrasolutions.com
Organisation: DKS

ASSOCIA
TES
|
Licence: NETWORK / FLOA
TING
|
Created:

Thursday
,
February 20, 2025 6:48:5
1 PM
Project:

L:\All
-DKS\SAC\P\24000\700s\P24795
-000 Norwood
A
venue Complete Streets
T
ransportation
Plan\06
Analysis\Sidra\F
uture Conditions
Alternatives.sip9

SITE LA
YOUT
Site: 1 [Norwood/Silver Eagle Road
-
AM Road Diet (Site Folder:

General)]
Norwood/Silver Eagle Road
-
AM Road Diet
Site Category: Future Conditions 2
Roundabout
Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data.

They are not design drawin
gs.

SIDRA
INTERSECTION 9.1
|
Copyright © 2000
-2024
Akcelik and
Associates Pty Ltd
|
sidrasolutions.com
Organisation: DKS

ASSOCIA
TES
|
Licence: NETWORK / FLOA
TING
|
Created:

Thursday
,
February 20, 2025 6:48:5
2 PM
Project:

L:\All
-DKS\SAC\P\24000\700s\P24795
-000 Norwood
A
venue Complete Streets
T
ransportation
Plan\06
Analysis\Sidra\F
uture Conditions
Alternatives.sip9

MOVEMENT SUMMAR
Y
Site: 1 [Norwood/Bell
-
AM No Build (Site Folder: General)]
Output produced by SIDRA

INTERSECTION V
ersion: 9.1.6.228
Norwood/Bell
-
AM No Build
Site Category: Future Conditions 1
Roundabout
V
ehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
T
urn
Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
A
ver
.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Ef
f.

Stop
Rate
A
ver
.

No. of
Cycles
A
ver
.

Speed
[
T
otal
HV ]
[
T
otal
HV ]
[ V
eh.

Dist ]
veh/h
%
veh/h
%
v/c
sec
veh
ft
mph
South: Norwood
A
ve
3 L2
All MCs
70 3.0
70 3.0

0.428

8.5 LOS
A

2.2 55.9

0.57 0.40

0.57 25.9
8 T1
All MCs
515

3.0 515

3.0 0.428

8.5 LOS
A

2.2 55.9

0.57 0.40

0.57 26.2
18 R2
All MCs
250

3.0 250

3.0 0.428

8.5 LOS
A

2.2 55.9

0.57 0.40

0.57 26.1
Approach
835

3.0 835

3.0 0.428

8.5 LOS
A

2.2 55.9

0.57 0.40

0.57 26.1
East: Bell
A
ve
1 L2
All MCs
220

4.0 220

4.0 0.624

15.4 LOS B

4.7 121.8

0.77 0.90

1.31 23.6
6 T1
All MCs
90 4.0
90 4.0

0.624

15.4 LOS B

4.7 121.8

0.77 0.90

1.31 23.8
16 R2
All MCs
155

4.0 155

4.0 0.624

15.4 LOS B

4.7 121.8

0.77 0.90

1.31 23.7
Approach
465

4.0 465

4.0 0.624

15.4 LOS B

4.7 121.8

0.77 0.90

1.31 23.7
North: Norwood
A
ve
7 L2
All MCs
145

3.0 145

3.0 0.436

8.8 LOS
A

2.4 61.4

0.59 0.46

0.65 25.5
4 T1
All MCs
635

3.0 635

3.0 0.436

8.8 LOS
A

2.4 61.4

0.59 0.46

0.65 26.1
14 R2
All MCs
45 3.0
45 3.0

0.436

8.8 LOS
A

2.4 61.4

0.59 0.46

0.65 26.2
Approach
825

3.0 825

3.0 0.436

8.8 LOS
A

2.4 61.4

0.59 0.46

0.65 26.0
W
est: Bell
A
ve
5 L2
All MCs
60 1.0
60 1.0

0.636

19.6 LOS B

3.9 98.7

0.80 1.01

1.38 22.9
2 T1
All MCs
150

1.0 150

1.0 0.636

19.6 LOS B

3.9 98.7

0.80 1.01

1.38 23.1
12 R2
All MCs
155

1.0 155

1.0 0.636

19.6 LOS B

3.9 98.7

0.80 1.01

1.38 23.1
Approach
365

1.0 365

1.0 0.636

19.6 LOS B

3.9 98.7

0.80 1.01

1.38 23.1
All V
ehicles
2490

2.9 2490

2.9 0.636
1 1.5
LOS B

4.7 121.8

0.65 0.61

0.85 25.1
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parame ter Settings dialog (Opti
ons tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections.

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

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

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

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (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 V
ehicle Model Designation.

Arrival
Flows
used
in
performance
calculations
are
adjusted
to
include
any
Initial
Queued
Demand
an
d
Upstream
Capacity
Const
raint
ef
fects.

SIDRA
INTERSECTION 9.1
|
Copyright © 2000
-2024
Akcelik and
Associates Pty Ltd
|
sidrasolutions.com
Organisation: DKS

ASSOCIA
TES
|
Licence: NETWORK / FLOA
TING
|
Processed:

Thursda
y
, February 20, 2025 6:48
:32 PM
Project:

L:\All
-DKS\SAC\P\24000\700s\P24795
-000 Norwood
A
venue Complete Streets
T
ransportation
Plan\06
Analysis\Sidra\F
uture Conditions
Alternatives.sip9

MOVEMENT SUMMAR
Y
Site: 1 [Norwood/Bell
-
PM No Build (Site Folder: General)]
Output produced by SIDRA

INTERSECTION V
ersion: 9.1.6.228
Norwood/Bell
-
PM No Build
Site Category: Future Conditions 1
Roundabout
V
ehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
T
urn
Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
A
ver
.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Ef
f.

Stop
Rate
A
ver
.

No. of
Cycles
A
ver
.

Speed
[
T
otal
HV ]
[
T
otal
HV ]
[ V
eh.

Dist ]
veh/h
%
veh/h
%
v/c
sec
veh
ft
mph
South: Norwood
A
ve
3 L2
All MCs
130

1.0 130

1.0 0.403

7.3 LOS
A

2.2 55.7

0.47 0.29

0.47 26.1
8 T1
All MCs
445

1.0 445

1.0 0.403

7.3 LOS
A

2.2 55.7

0.47 0.29

0.47 26.4
18 R2
All MCs
335

1.0 335

1.0 0.403

7.3 LOS
A

2.2 55.7

0.47 0.29

0.47 26.5
Approach
910

1.0 910

1.0 0.403

7.3 LOS
A

2.2 55.7

0.47 0.29

0.47 26.4
East: Bell
A
ve
1 L2
All MCs
300

2.0 300

2.0 0.662

15.6 LOS B

6.1 155.0

0.79 0.93

1.39 23.5
6 T1
All MCs
1 15

2.0 1
15 2.0

0.662

15.6 LOS B

6.1 155.0

0.79 0.93

1.39 23.7
16 R2
All MCs
130

2.0 130

2.0 0.662

15.6 LOS B

6.1 155.0

0.79 0.93

1.39 23.6
Approach
545

2.0 545

2.0 0.662

15.6 LOS B

6.1 155.0

0.79 0.93

1.39 23.5
North: Norwood
A
ve
7 L2
All MCs
130

1.0 130

1.0 0.452

9.9 LOS
A

2.7 67.2

0.66 0.62

0.84 25.2
4 T1
All MCs
610

1.0 610

1.0 0.452

9.9 LOS
A

2.7 67.2

0.66 0.62

0.84 25.8
14 R2
All MCs
20 1.0
20 1.0

0.452

9.9 LOS
A

2.7 67.2

0.66 0.62

0.84 25.9
Approach
760

1.0 760

1.0 0.452

9.9 LOS
A

2.7 67.2

0.66 0.62

0.84 25.7
W
est: Bell
A
ve
5 L2
All MCs
15 1.0
15 1.0

0.391

12.3 LOS B

1.7 42.2

0.70 0.78

0.91 24.8
2 T1
All MCs
90 1.0
90 1.0

0.391

12.3 LOS B

1.7 42.2

0.70 0.78

0.91 25.1
12 R2
All MCs
1 15

1.0 1
15 1.0

0.391

12.3 LOS B

1.7 42.2

0.70 0.78

0.91 25.0
Approach
220

1.0 220

1.0 0.391

12.3 LOS B

1.7 42.2

0.70 0.78

0.91 25.0
All V
ehicles
2435

1.2 2435

1.2 0.662

10.4 LOS B

6.1 155.0

0.62 0.58

0.83 25.3
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parame ter Settings dialog (Opti
ons tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections.

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

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

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

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (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 V
ehicle Model Designation.

Arrival
Flows
used
in
performance
calculations
are
adjusted
to
include
any
Initial
Queued
Demand
an
d
Upstream
Capacity
Const
raint
ef
fects.

SIDRA
INTERSECTION 9.1
|
Copyright © 2000
-2024
Akcelik and
Associates Pty Ltd
|
sidrasolutions.com
Organisation: DKS

ASSOCIA
TES
|
Licence: NETWORK / FLOA
TING
|
Processed:

Thursda
y
, February 20, 2025 6:48
:33 PM
Project:

L:\All
-DKS\SAC\P\24000\700s\P24795
-000 Norwood
A
venue Complete Streets
T
ransportation
Plan\06
Analysis\Sidra\F
uture Conditions
Alternatives.sip9

MOVEMENT SUMMAR
Y
Site: 1 [Norwood/Bell
-
AM Road Diet (Site Folder: General)]
Output produced by SIDRA

INTERSECTION V
ersion: 9.1.6.228
Norwood/Bell
-
AM Road Diet
Site Category: Future Conditions 2
Roundabout
V
ehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
T
urn
Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
A
ver
.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Ef
f.

Stop
Rate
A
ver
.

No. of
Cycles
A
ver
.

Speed
[
T
otal
HV ]
[
T
otal
HV ]
[ V
eh.

Dist ]
veh/h
%
veh/h
%
v/c
sec
veh
ft
mph
South: Norwood
A
ve
3 L2
All MCs
55 3.0
55 3.0

0.584

12.7 LOS B

4.8 123.9

0.73 0.77

1.13 24.5
8 T1
All MCs
445

3.0 445

3.0 0.584

12.7 LOS B

4.8 123.9

0.73 0.77

1.13 24.7
18 R2
All MCs
220

3.0 220

3.0 0.256

6.9 LOS
A

1.2 29.7

0.56 0.42

0.56 26.4
Approach
720

3.0 720

3.0 0.584

10.9 LOS B

4.8 123.9

0.68 0.66

0.95 25.2
East: Bell
A
venue
1 L2
All MCs
135

4.0 135

4.0 0.578

14.5 LOS B

4.3 1
1 1.2

0.78 0.84

1.19 23.7
6 T1
All MCs
95 4.0
95 4.0

0.578

14.5 LOS B

4.3 1
1 1.2

0.78 0.84

1.19 23.9
16 R2
All MCs
180

4.0 180

4.0 0.578

14.5 LOS B

4.3 1
1 1.2

0.78 0.84

1.19 23.9
Approach
410

4.0 410

4.0 0.578

14.5 LOS B

4.3 1
1 1.2

0.78 0.84

1.19 23.8
North: Norwood
A
ve
7 L2
All MCs
225

3.0 225

3.0 0.793

19.3 LOS B

16.4 418.9

0.95 1.08

1.73 22.6
4 T1
All MCs
500

3.0 500

3.0 0.793

19.3 LOS B

16.4 418.9

0.95 1.08

1.73 22.9
14 R2
All MCs
55 3.0
55 3.0

0.793

19.3 LOS B

16.4 418.9

0.95 1.08

1.73 22.8
Approach
780

3.0 780

3.0 0.793

19.3 LOS B

16.4 418.9

0.95 1.08

1.73 22.8
W
est: Bell
A
venue
5 L2
All MCs
75 1.0
75 1.0

0.667

21.8 LOS C

4.6 1

15.5 0.85

1.03 1.40

22.1 2
T1
All MCs
190

1.0 190

1.0 0.667

21.8 LOS C

4.6 1

15.5 0.85

1.03 1.40

22.4 12
R2
All MCs
100

1.0 100

1.0 0.667

21.8 LOS C

4.6 1

15.5 0.85

1.03 1.40

22.3 Approach
365

1.0 365

1.0 0.667

21.8 LOS C

4.6 1

15.5 0.85

1.03 1.40

22.3 All V
ehicles
2275

2.9 2275

2.9 0.793

16.2 LOS B

16.4 418.9

0.82 0.90

1.33 23.6
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parame ter Settings dialog (Opti
ons tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections.

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

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

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

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (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 V
ehicle Model Designation.

Arrival
Flows
used
in
performance
calculations
are
adjusted
to
include
any
Initial
Queued
Demand
an
d
Upstream
Capacity
Const
raint
ef
fects.

SIDRA
INTERSECTION 9.1
|
Copyright © 2000
-2024
Akcelik and
Associates Pty Ltd
|
sidrasolutions.com
Organisation: DKS

ASSOCIA
TES
|
Licence: NETWORK / FLOA
TING
|
Processed:

Thursda
y
, February 20, 2025 6:48
:33 PM
Project:

L:\All
-DKS\SAC\P\24000\700s\P24795
-000 Norwood
A
venue Complete Streets
T
ransportation
Plan\06
Analysis\Sidra\F
uture Conditions
Alternatives.sip9

MOVEMENT SUMMAR
Y
Site: 1 [Norwood/Bell
-
PM Road Diet (Site Folder: General)]
Output produced by SIDRA

INTERSECTION V
ersion: 9.1.6.228
Norwood/Bell
-
PM Road Diet
Site Category: Future Conditions 2
Roundabout
V
ehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
T
urn
Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
A
ver
.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Ef
f.

Stop
Rate
A
ver
.

No. of
Cycles
A
ver
.

Speed
[
T
otal
HV ]
[
T
otal
HV ]
[ V
eh.

Dist ]
veh/h
%
veh/h
%
v/c
sec
veh
ft
mph
South: Norwood
A
ve
3 L2
All MCs
95 1.0
95 1.0

0.402

7.7 LOS
A

2.1 52.7

0.54 0.37

0.54 25.7
8 T1
All MCs
320

1.0 320

1.0 0.402

7.7 LOS
A

2.1 52.7

0.54 0.37

0.54 26.0
18 R2
All MCs
250

1.0 250

1.0 0.253

6.1 LOS
A

1.2 30.8

0.49 0.33

0.49 26.6
Approach
665

1.0 665

1.0 0.402

7.1 LOS
A

2.1 52.7

0.52 0.36

0.52 26.2
East: Bell
A
venue
1 L2
All MCs
205

2.0 205

2.0 0.607

13.3 LOS B

5.8 147.0

0.77 0.79

1.17 23.9
6 T1
All MCs
145

2.0 145

2.0 0.607

13.3 LOS B

5.8 147.0

0.77 0.79

1.17 24.2
16 R2
All MCs
170

2.0 170

2.0 0.607

13.3 LOS B

5.8 147.0

0.77 0.79

1.17 24.1
Approach
520

2.0 520

2.0 0.607

13.3 LOS B

5.8 147.0

0.77 0.79

1.17 24.1
North: Norwood
A
ve
7 L2
All MCs
195

1.0 195

1.0 0.840

25.3 LOS C

15.9 401.1

1.00 1.36

2.18 21.4
4 T1
All MCs
495

1.0 495

1.0 0.840

25.3 LOS C

15.9 401.1

1.00 1.36

2.18 21.6
14 R2
All MCs
30 1.0
30 1.0

0.840

25.3 LOS C

15.9 401.1

1.00 1.36

2.18 21.5
Approach
720

1.0 720

1.0 0.840

25.3 LOS C

15.9 401.1

1.00 1.36

2.18 21.5
W
est: Bell
A
venue
5 L2
All MCs
20 1.0
20 1.0

0.410

13.3 LOS B

2.0 49.4

0.74 0.79

0.93 24.3
2 T1
All MCs
1 15

1.0 1
15 1.0

0.410

13.3 LOS B

2.0 49.4

0.74 0.79

0.93 24.6
12 R2
All MCs
85 1.0
85 1.0

0.410

13.3 LOS B

2.0 49.4

0.74 0.79

0.93 24.5
Approach
220

1.0 220

1.0 0.410

13.3 LOS B

2.0 49.4

0.74 0.79

0.93 24.5
All V
ehicles
2125

1.2 2125

1.2 0.840

15.4 LOS B

15.9 401.1

0.77 0.85

1.29 23.8
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parame ter Settings dialog (Opti
ons tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections.

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

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

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

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (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 V
ehicle Model Designation.

Arrival
Flows
used
in
performance
calculations
are
adjusted
to
include
any
Initial
Queued
Demand
an
d
Upstream
Capacity
Const
raint
ef
fects.

SIDRA
INTERSECTION 9.1
|
Copyright © 2000
-2024
Akcelik and
Associates Pty Ltd
|
sidrasolutions.com
Organisation: DKS

ASSOCIA
TES
|
Licence: NETWORK / FLOA
TING
|
Processed:

Thursda
y
, February 20, 2025 6:48
:33 PM
Project:

L:\All
-DKS\SAC\P\24000\700s\P24795
-000 Norwood
A
venue Complete Streets
T
ransportation
Plan\06
Analysis\Sidra\F
uture Conditions
Alternatives.sip9

MOVEMENT SUMMAR
Y
Site: 33 [Norwood/Morey
-
AM No Build (Site Folder: General)]
Output produced by SIDRA

INTERSECTION V
ersion: 9.1.6.228
Norwood/Morey
-
AM No Build
Site Category: Future Conditions 1
Roundabout
V
ehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
T
urn
Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
A
ver
.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Ef
f.

Stop
Rate
A
ver
.

No. of
Cycles
A
ver
.

Speed
[
T
otal
HV ]
[
T
otal
HV ]
[ V
eh.

Dist ]
veh/h
%
veh/h
%
v/c
sec
veh
ft
mph
South: Norwood
A
ve
3 L2
All MCs
23 3.0
23 3.0

0.360

6.1 LOS
A

2.0 50.6

0.29 0.12

0.29 26.8
8 T1
All MCs
881

3.0 881

3.0 0.360

6.1 LOS
A

2.0 50.6

0.29 0.12

0.29 27.1
18 R2
All MCs
1 3.0
1 3.0

0.360

6.1 LOS
A

2.0 50.6

0.29 0.12

0.29 27.0
Approach
905

3.0 905

3.0 0.360

6.1 LOS
A

2.0 50.6

0.29 0.12

0.29 27.1
East: Morey
A
ve
1 L2
All MCs
5 1.0
5 1.0

0.019

6.4 LOS
A

0.1 1.5

0.59 0.53

0.59 26.0
6 T1
All MCs
1 1.0
1 1.0

0.019

6.4 LOS
A

0.1 1.5

0.59 0.53

0.59 26.2
16 R2
All MCs
5 1.0
5 1.0

0.019

6.4 LOS
A

0.1 1.5

0.59 0.53

0.59 26.2
Approach
1 1

1.0 1
1 1.0

0.019

6.4 LOS
A

0.1 1.5

0.59 0.53

0.59 26.1
North: Norwood
A
ve
7 L2
All MCs
1 3.0
1 3.0

0.394

5.9 LOS
A

2.4 60.6

0.16 0.04

0.16 26.9
4 T1
All MCs
1004

3.0 1004

3.0 0.394

5.9 LOS
A

2.4 60.6

0.16 0.04

0.16 27.2
14 R2
All MCs
45 3.0
45 3.0

0.394

5.9 LOS
A

2.4 60.6

0.16 0.04

0.16 27.1
Approach
1050

3.0 1050

3.0 0.394

5.9 LOS
A

2.4 60.6

0.16 0.04

0.16 27.2
W
est: Morey
A
ve
5 L2
All MCs
90 1.0
90 1.0

0.239

9.5 LOS
A

0.8 21.2

0.65 0.65

0.65 24.8
2 T1
All MCs
1 1.0
1 1.0

0.239

9.5 LOS
A

0.8 21.2

0.65 0.65

0.65 25.1
12 R2
All MCs
45 1.0
45 1.0

0.239

9.5 LOS
A

0.8 21.2

0.65 0.65

0.65 25.0
Approach
136

1.0 136

1.0 0.239

9.5 LOS
A

0.8 21.2

0.65 0.65

0.65 24.9
All V
ehicles
2102

2.9 2102

2.9 0.394

6.2 LOS
A

2.4 60.6

0.25 0.12

0.25 27.0
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parame ter Settings dialog (Opti
ons tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections.

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

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

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

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (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 V
ehicle Model Designation.

Arrival
Flows
used
in
performance
calculations
are
adjusted
to
include
any
Initial
Queued
Demand
an
d
Upstream
Capacity
Const
raint
ef
fects.

SIDRA
INTERSECTION 9.1
|
Copyright © 2000
-2024
Akcelik and
Associates Pty Ltd
|
sidrasolutions.com
Organisation: DKS

ASSOCIA
TES
|
Licence: NETWORK / FLOA
TING
|
Processed:

Thursda
y
, February 20, 2025 6:48
:34 PM
Project:

L:\All
-DKS\SAC\P\24000\700s\P24795
-000 Norwood
A
venue Complete Streets
T
ransportation
Plan\06
Analysis\Sidra\F
uture Conditions
Alternatives.sip9

MOVEMENT SUMMAR
Y
Site: 33 [Norwood/Morey
-
PM No Build (Site Folder: General)]
Output produced by SIDRA

INTERSECTION V
ersion: 9.1.6.228
Norwood/Morey
-
PM No Build
Site Category: Future Conditions 1
Roundabout
V
ehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
T
urn
Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
A
ver
.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Ef
f.

Stop
Rate
A
ver
.

No. of
Cycles
A
ver
.

Speed
[
T
otal
HV ]
[
T
otal
HV ]
[ V
eh.

Dist ]
veh/h
%
veh/h
%
v/c
sec
veh
ft
mph
South: Norwood
A
ve
3 L2
All MCs
45 3.0
45 3.0

0.360

5.8 LOS
A

2.0 52.1

0.20 0.06

0.20 26.8
8 T1
All MCs
899

3.0 899

3.0 0.360

5.8 LOS
A

2.0 52.1

0.20 0.06

0.20 27.2
18 R2
All MCs
1 3.0
1 3.0

0.360

5.8 LOS
A

2.0 52.1

0.20 0.06

0.20 27.1
Approach
945

3.0 945

3.0 0.360

5.8 LOS
A

2.0 52.1

0.20 0.06

0.20 27.2
East: Morey
A
ve
1 L2
All MCs
5 1.0
5 1.0

0.019

6.4 LOS
A

0.1 1.5

0.59 0.53

0.59 26.0
6 T1
All MCs
1 1.0
1 1.0

0.019

6.4 LOS
A

0.1 1.5

0.59 0.53

0.59 26.2
16 R2
All MCs
5 1.0
5 1.0

0.019

6.4 LOS
A

0.1 1.5

0.59 0.53

0.59 26.2
Approach
1 1

1.0 1
1 1.0

0.019

6.4 LOS
A

0.1 1.5

0.59 0.53

0.59 26.1
North: Norwood
A
ve
7 L2
All MCs
1 3.0
1 3.0

0.421

6.5 LOS
A

2.6 66.6

0.23 0.08

0.23 26.7
4 T1
All MCs
1009

3.0 1009

3.0 0.421

6.5 LOS
A

2.6 66.6

0.23 0.08

0.23 27.0
14 R2
All MCs
90 3.0
90 3.0

0.421

6.5 LOS
A

2.6 66.6

0.23 0.08

0.23 26.9
Approach
1 100

3.0 1
100

3.0 0.421

6.5 LOS
A

2.6 66.6

0.23 0.08

0.23 27.0
W
est: Morey
A
ve
5 L2
All MCs
45 1.0
45 1.0

0.122

7.8 LOS
A

0.4 10.2

0.62 0.62

0.62 25.3
2 T1
All MCs
1 1.0
1 1.0

0.122

7.8 LOS
A

0.4 10.2

0.62 0.62

0.62 25.6
12 R2
All MCs
23 1.0
23 1.0

0.122

7.8 LOS
A

0.4 10.2

0.62 0.62

0.62 25.5
Approach
69 1.0
69 1.0

0.122

7.8 LOS
A

0.4 10.2

0.62 0.62

0.62 25.4
All V
ehicles
2125

2.9 2125

2.9 0.421

6.2 LOS
A

2.6 66.6

0.23 0.09

0.23 27.0
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parame ter Settings dialog (Opti
ons tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections.

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

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

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

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (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 V
ehicle Model Designation.

Arrival
Flows
used
in
performance
calculations
are
adjusted
to
include
any
Initial
Queued
Demand
an
d
Upstream
Capacity
Const
raint
ef
fects.

SIDRA
INTERSECTION 9.1
|
Copyright © 2000
-2024
Akcelik and
Associates Pty Ltd
|
sidrasolutions.com
Organisation: DKS

ASSOCIA
TES
|
Licence: NETWORK / FLOA
TING
|
Processed:

Thursda
y
, February 20, 2025 6:48
:34 PM
Project:

L:\All
-DKS\SAC\P\24000\700s\P24795
-000 Norwood
A
venue Complete Streets
T
ransportation
Plan\06
Analysis\Sidra\F
uture Conditions
Alternatives.sip9

MOVEMENT SUMMAR
Y
Site: 1 [Norwood/Morey
-
AM Road Diet (Site Folder: General)]
Output produced by SIDRA

INTERSECTION V
ersion: 9.1.6.228
Norwood/Morey
-
AM Road Diet
Site Category: Future Conditions 2
Roundabout
V
ehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
T
urn
Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
A
ver
.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Ef
f.

Stop
Rate
A
ver
.

No. of
Cycles
A
ver
.

Speed
[
T
otal
HV ]
[
T
otal
HV ]
[ V
eh.

Dist ]
veh/h
%
veh/h
%
v/c
sec
veh
ft
mph
South: Norwood
A
ve
3 L2
All MCs
23 3.0
23 3.0

0.579

9.4 LOS
A

4.9 125.7

0.44 0.19

0.44 25.5
8 T1
All MCs
681

3.0 681

3.0 0.579

9.4 LOS
A

4.9 125.7

0.44 0.19

0.44 25.8
18 R2
All MCs
1 3.0
1 3.0

0.579

9.4 LOS
A

4.9 125.7

0.44 0.19

0.44 25.6
Approach
705

3.0 705

3.0 0.579

9.4 LOS
A

4.9 125.7

0.44 0.19

0.44 25.7
East: Morey
A
venue
1 L2
All MCs
5 1.0
5 1.0

0.019

6.3 LOS
A

0.1 1.7

0.61 0.51

0.61 25.8
6 T1
All MCs
1 1.0
1 1.0

0.019

6.3 LOS
A

0.1 1.7

0.61 0.51

0.61 26.1
16 R2
All MCs
5 1.0
5 1.0

0.019

6.3 LOS
A

0.1 1.7

0.61 0.51

0.61 26.0
Approach
1 1

1.0 1
1 1.0

0.019

6.3 LOS
A

0.1 1.7

0.61 0.51

0.61 25.9
North: Norwood
A
ve
7 L2
All MCs
1 3.0
1 3.0

0.557

7.8 LOS
A

4.9 126.1

0.24 0.07

0.24 25.9
4 T1
All MCs
679

3.0 679

3.0 0.557

7.8 LOS
A

4.9 126.1

0.24 0.07

0.24 26.2
14 R2
All MCs
45 3.0
45 3.0

0.557

7.8 LOS
A

4.9 126.1

0.24 0.07

0.24 26.1
Approach
725

3.0 725

3.0 0.557

7.8 LOS
A

4.9 126.1

0.24 0.07

0.24 26.2
W
est: Morey
A
venue
5 L2
All MCs
90 1.0
90 1.0

0.206

7.9 LOS
A

0.8 21.3

0.64 0.57

0.64 25.1
2 T1
All MCs
1 1.0
1 1.0

0.206

7.9 LOS
A

0.8 21.3

0.64 0.57

0.64 25.4
12 R2
All MCs
45 1.0
45 1.0

0.206

7.9 LOS
A

0.8 21.3

0.64 0.57

0.64 25.3
Approach
136

1.0 136

1.0 0.206

7.9 LOS
A

0.8 21.3

0.64 0.57

0.64 25.1
All V
ehicles
1577

2.8 1577

2.8 0.579

8.5 LOS
A

4.9 126.1

0.37 0.17

0.37 25.9
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parame ter Settings dialog (Opti
ons tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections.

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

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

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

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (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 V
ehicle Model Designation.

Arrival
Flows
used
in
performance
calculations
are
adjusted
to
include
any
Initial
Queued
Demand
an
d
Upstream
Capacity
Const
raint
ef
fects.

SIDRA
INTERSECTION 9.1
|
Copyright © 2000
-2024
Akcelik and
Associates Pty Ltd
|
sidrasolutions.com
Organisation: DKS

ASSOCIA
TES
|
Licence: NETWORK / FLOA
TING
|
Processed:

Thursda
y
, February 20, 2025 6:48
:35 PM
Project:

L:\All
-DKS\SAC\P\24000\700s\P24795
-000 Norwood
A
venue Complete Streets
T
ransportation
Plan\06
Analysis\Sidra\F
uture Conditions
Alternatives.sip9

MOVEMENT SUMMAR
Y
Site: 1 [Norwood/Morey
-
PM Road Diet (Site Folder: General)]
Output produced by SIDRA

INTERSECTION V
ersion: 9.1.6.228
Norwood/Morey
-
PM Road Diet
Site Category: Future Conditions 2
Roundabout
V
ehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
T
urn
Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
A
ver
.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Ef
f.

Stop
Rate
A
ver
.

No. of
Cycles
A
ver
.

Speed
[
T
otal
HV ]
[
T
otal
HV ]
[ V
eh.

Dist ]
veh/h
%
veh/h
%
v/c
sec
veh
ft
mph
South: Norwood
A
ve
3 L2
All MCs
45 3.0
45 3.0

0.548

8.2 LOS
A

4.6 1

18.9 0.30

0.10 0.30

25.8 8
T1
All MCs
654

3.0 654

3.0 0.548

8.2 LOS
A

4.6 1

18.9 0.30

0.10 0.30

26.1 18
R2
All MCs
1 3.0
1 3.0

0.548

8.2 LOS
A

4.6 1

18.9 0.30

0.10 0.30

26.0 Approach
700

3.0 700

3.0 0.548

8.2 LOS
A

4.6 1

18.9 0.30

0.10 0.30

26.0 East: Morey
A
venue
1 L2
All MCs
5 1.0
5 1.0

0.018

6.0 LOS
A

0.1 1.6

0.59 0.49

0.59 25.9
6 T1
All MCs
1 1.0
1 1.0

0.018

6.0 LOS
A

0.1 1.6

0.59 0.49

0.59 26.2
16 R2
All MCs
5 1.0
5 1.0

0.018

6.0 LOS
A

0.1 1.6

0.59 0.49

0.59 26.1
Approach
1 1

1.0 1
1 1.0

0.018

6.0 LOS
A

0.1 1.6

0.59 0.49

0.59 26.0
North: Norwood
A
ve
7 L2
All MCs
1 3.0
1 3.0

0.712
1 1.4
LOS B

8.9 227.2

0.47 0.16

0.47 24.9
4 T1
All MCs
814

3.0 814

3.0 0.712
1 1.4
LOS B

8.9 227.2

0.47 0.16

0.47 25.2
14 R2
All MCs
90 3.0
90 3.0

0.712
1 1.4
LOS B

8.9 227.2

0.47 0.16

0.47 25.1
Approach
905

3.0 905

3.0 0.712
1 1.4
LOS B

8.9 227.2

0.47 0.16

0.47 25.2
W
est: Morey
A
venue
5 L2
All MCs
45 1.0
45 1.0

0.121

7.8 LOS
A

0.5 1

1.5 0.64

0.61 0.64

25.1 2
T1
All MCs
1 1.0
1 1.0

0.121

7.8 LOS
A

0.5 1

1.5 0.64

0.61 0.64

25.4 12
R2
All MCs
23 1.0
23 1.0

0.121

7.8 LOS
A

0.5 1

1.5 0.64

0.61 0.64

25.3 Approach
69 1.0
69 1.0

0.121

7.8 LOS
A

0.5 1

1.5 0.64

0.61 0.64

25.2 All V
ehicles
1685

2.9 1685

2.9 0.712

9.9 LOS
A

8.9 227.2

0.40 0.16

0.40 25.5
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parame ter Settings dialog (Opti
ons tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections.

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

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

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

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (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 V
ehicle Model Designation.

Arrival
Flows
used
in
performance
calculations
are
adjusted
to
include
any
Initial
Queued
Demand
an
d
Upstream
Capacity
Const
raint
ef
fects.

SIDRA
INTERSECTION 9.1
|
Copyright © 2000
-2024
Akcelik and
Associates Pty Ltd
|
sidrasolutions.com
Organisation: DKS

ASSOCIA
TES
|
Licence: NETWORK / FLOA
TING
|
Processed:

Thursda
y
, February 20, 2025 6:48
:35 PM
Project:

L:\All
-DKS\SAC\P\24000\700s\P24795
-000 Norwood
A
venue Complete Streets
T
ransportation
Plan\06
Analysis\Sidra\F
uture Conditions
Alternatives.sip9

MOVEMENT SUMMAR
Y
Site: 1 [Norwood/Silver Eagle Road
-
AM No Build (Site Folder:

General)]
Output produced by SIDRA

INTERSECTION V
ersion: 9.1.6.228
Norwood/Silver Eagle Road
-
AM No Build
Site Category: Future Conditions 1
Roundabout
V
ehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
T
urn
Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
A
ver
.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Ef
f.

Stop
Rate
A
ver
.

No. of
Cycles
A
ver
.

Speed
[
T
otal
HV ]
[
T
otal
HV ]
[ V
eh.

Dist ]
veh/h
%
veh/h
%
v/c
sec
veh
ft
mph
South: Norwood
A
ve
3 L2
All MCs
135

2.0 135

2.0 0.401

8.3 LOS
A

2.0 49.9

0.58 0.43

0.58 25.7
8 T1
All MCs
600

2.0 600

2.0 0.401

8.3 LOS
A

2.0 49.9

0.58 0.43

0.58 26.2
18 R2
All MCs
20 2.0
20 2.0

0.401

8.3 LOS
A

2.0 49.9

0.58 0.43

0.58 26.3
Approach
755

2.0 755

2.0 0.401

8.3 LOS
A

2.0 49.9

0.58 0.43

0.58 26.1
East: Silver Eagle Road
1 L2
All MCs
45 3.0
45 3.0

0.375

12.3 LOS B

1.5 38.7

0.69 0.76

0.89 24.7
6 T1
All MCs
1 15

3.0 1
15 3.0

0.375

12.3 LOS B

1.5 38.7

0.69 0.76

0.89 25.0
16 R2
All MCs
45 3.0
45 3.0

0.375

12.3 LOS B

1.5 38.7

0.69 0.76

0.89 24.9
Approach
205

3.0 205

3.0 0.375

12.3 LOS B

1.5 38.7

0.69 0.76

0.89 24.9
North: Norwood
A
ve
7 L2
All MCs
25 3.0
25 3.0

0.426

8.1 LOS
A

2.2 57.6

0.54 0.36

0.54 26.1
4 T1
All MCs
665

3.0 665

3.0 0.426

8.1 LOS
A

2.2 57.6

0.54 0.36

0.54 26.4
14 R2
All MCs
190

3.0 190

3.0 0.426

8.1 LOS
A

2.2 57.6

0.54 0.36

0.54 26.3
Approach
880

3.0 880

3.0 0.426

8.1 LOS
A

2.2 57.6

0.54 0.36

0.54 26.4
W
est: Silver Eagle Road
5 L2
All MCs
260

5.0 260

5.0 0.553

14.5 LOS B

3.3 85.3

0.74 0.85

1.17 23.6
2 T1
All MCs
1 10

5.0 1
10 5.0

0.553

14.5 LOS B

3.3 85.3

0.74 0.85

1.17 23.8
12 R2
All MCs
195

5.0 195

5.0 0.319

10.2 LOS B

1.2 32.4

0.65 0.63

0.72 25.5
Approach
565

5.0 565

5.0 0.553

13.0 LOS B

3.3 85.3

0.71 0.77

1.01 24.3
All V
ehicles
2405

3.2 2405

3.2 0.553

9.7 LOS
A

3.3 85.3

0.60 0.51

0.69 25.6
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parame ter Settings dialog (Opti
ons tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections.

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

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

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

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (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 V
ehicle Model Designation.

Arrival
Flows
used
in
performance
calculations
are
adjusted
to
include
any
Initial
Queued
Demand
an
d
Upstream
Capacity
Const
raint
ef
fects.

ASSOCIA
TES
|
Licence: NETWORK / FLOA
TING
|
Processed:

Thursda
y
, February 20, 2025 6:48
:36 PM
Project:

L:\All
-DKS\SAC\P\24000\700s\P24795
-000 Norwood
A
venue Complete Streets
T
ransportation
Plan\06
Analysis\Sidra\F
uture Conditions
Alternatives.sip9

MOVEMENT SUMMAR
Y
Site: 1 [Norwood/Silver Eagle Road
-
PM No Build (Site Folder:

General)]
Output produced by SIDRA

INTERSECTION V
ersion: 9.1.6.228
Norwood/Silver Eagle Road
-
PM No Build
Site Category: Future Conditions 1
Roundabout
V
ehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
T
urn
Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
A
ver
.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Ef
f.

Stop
Rate
A
ver
.

No. of
Cycles
A
ver
.

Speed
[
T
otal
HV ]
[
T
otal
HV ]
[ V
eh.

Dist ]
veh/h
%
veh/h
%
v/c
sec
veh
ft
mph
South: Norwood
A
ve
3 L2
All MCs
190

2.0 190

2.0 0.480

10.2 LOS B

3.1 77.7

0.66 0.61

0.85 25.0
8 T1
All MCs
625

2.0 625

2.0 0.480

10.2 LOS B

3.1 77.7

0.66 0.61

0.85 25.7
18 R2
All MCs
25 2.0
25 2.0

0.480

10.2 LOS B

3.1 77.7

0.66 0.61

0.85 25.8
Approach
840

2.0 840

2.0 0.480

10.2 LOS B

3.1 77.7

0.66 0.61

0.85 25.5
East: Silver Eagle Road
1 L2
All MCs
15 1.0
15 1.0

0.328
1 1.6
LOS B

1.3 32.0

0.70 0.75

0.83 25.1
6 T1
All MCs
120

1.0 120

1.0 0.328
1 1.6
LOS B

1.3 32.0

0.70 0.75

0.83 25.3
16 R2
All MCs
40 1.0
40 1.0

0.328
1 1.6
LOS B

1.3 32.0

0.70 0.75

0.83 25.3
Approach
175

1.0 175

1.0 0.328
1 1.6
LOS B

1.3 32.0

0.70 0.75

0.83 25.3
North: Norwood
A
ve
7 L2
All MCs
45 1.0
45 1.0

0.430

8.1 LOS
A

2.3 58.1

0.56 0.38

0.56 26.1
4 T1
All MCs
610

1.0 610

1.0 0.430

8.1 LOS
A

2.3 58.1

0.56 0.38

0.56 26.4
14 R2
All MCs
235

1.0 235

1.0 0.430

8.1 LOS
A

2.3 58.1

0.56 0.38

0.56 26.3
Approach
890

1.0 890

1.0 0.430

8.1 LOS
A

2.3 58.1

0.56 0.38

0.56 26.3
W
est: Silver Eagle Road
5 L2
All MCs
280

1.0 280

1.0 0.563

13.1 LOS B

3.9 98.2

0.73 0.81

1.14 24.0
2 T1
All MCs
160

1.0 160

1.0 0.563

13.1 LOS B

3.9 98.2

0.73 0.81

1.14 24.3
12 R2
All MCs
230

1.0 230

1.0 0.323

9.0 LOS
A

1.4 34.3

0.63 0.57

0.66 25.9
Approach
670

1.0 670

1.0 0.563
1 1.7
LOS B

3.9 98.2

0.70 0.73

0.97 24.7
All V
ehicles
2575

1.3 2575

1.3 0.563

10.0 LOS
A

3.9 98.2

0.64 0.57

0.78 25.5
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parame ter Settings dialog (Opti
ons tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections.

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

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

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

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (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 V
ehicle Model Designation.

Arrival
Flows
used
in
performance
calculations
are
adjusted
to
include
any
Initial
Queued
Demand
an
d
Upstream
Capacity
Const
raint
ef
fects.

ASSOCIA
TES
|
Licence: NETWORK / FLOA
TING
|
Processed:

Thursda
y
, February 20, 2025 6:48
:36 PM
Project:

L:\All
-DKS\SAC\P\24000\700s\P24795
-000 Norwood
A
venue Complete Streets
T
ransportation
Plan\06
Analysis\Sidra\F
uture Conditions
Alternatives.sip9

MOVEMENT SUMMAR
Y
Site: 1 [Norwood/Silver Eagle Road
-
AM Road Diet (Site Folder:

General)]
Output produced by SIDRA

INTERSECTION V
ersion: 9.1.6.228
Norwood/Silver Eagle Road
-
AM Road Diet
Site Category: Future Conditions 2
Roundabout
V
ehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
T
urn
Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
A
ver
.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Ef
f.

Stop
Rate
A
ver
.

No. of
Cycles
A
ver
.

Speed
[
T
otal
HV ]
[
T
otal
HV ]
[ V
eh.

Dist ]
veh/h
%
veh/h
%
v/c
sec
veh
ft
mph
South: Norwood
A
ve
3 L2
All MCs
195

2.0 195

2.0 0.740

17.1 LOS B
1 1.7
296.8

0.88 0.98

1.55 23.2
8 T1
All MCs
475

2.0 475

2.0 0.740

17.1 LOS B
1 1.7
296.8

0.88 0.98

1.55 23.4
18 R2
All MCs
25 2.0
25 2.0

0.740

17.1 LOS B
1 1.7
296.8

0.88 0.98

1.55 23.3
Approach
695

2.0 695

2.0 0.740

17.1 LOS B
1 1.7
296.8

0.88 0.98

1.55 23.3
East: Silver Eagle Road
1 L2
All MCs
50 3.0
50 3.0

0.392

13.1 LOS B

1.8 45.8

0.74 0.78

0.91 24.2
6 T1
All MCs
125

3.0 125

3.0 0.392

13.1 LOS B

1.8 45.8

0.74 0.78

0.91 24.4
16 R2
All MCs
30 3.0
30 3.0

0.392

13.1 LOS B

1.8 45.8

0.74 0.78

0.91 24.3
Approach
205

3.0 205

3.0 0.392

13.1 LOS B

1.8 45.8

0.74 0.78

0.91 24.4
North: Norwood
A
ve
7 L2
All MCs
10 3.0
10 3.0

0.688

15.4 LOS B

8.8 225.5

0.83 0.89

1.38 23.8
4 T1
All MCs
420

3.0 420

3.0 0.688

15.4 LOS B

8.8 225.5

0.83 0.89

1.38 24.1
14 R2
All MCs
190

3.0 190

3.0 0.688

15.4 LOS B

8.8 225.5

0.83 0.89

1.38 24.0
Approach
620

3.0 620

3.0 0.688

15.4 LOS B

8.8 225.5

0.83 0.89

1.38 24.0
W
est: Silver Eagle Road
5 L2
All MCs
200

5.0 200

5.0 0.390

8.9 LOS
A

1.9 48.8

0.61 0.51

0.67 24.9
2 T1
All MCs
125

5.0 125

5.0 0.390

8.9 LOS
A

1.9 48.8

0.61 0.51

0.67 25.2
12 R2
All MCs
270

5.0 270

5.0 0.344

8.7 LOS
A

1.6 41.1

0.62 0.49

0.62 25.8
Approach
595

5.0 595

5.0 0.390

8.8 LOS
A

1.9 48.8

0.62 0.50

0.65 25.3
All V
ehicles
21 15

3.2 21
15 3.2

0.740

13.9 LOS B
1 1.7
296.8

0.78 0.80

1.18 24.2
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parame ter Settings dialog (Opti
ons tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections.

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

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

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

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (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 V
ehicle Model Designation.

Arrival
Flows
used
in
performance
calculations
are
adjusted
to
include
any
Initial
Queued
Demand
an
d
Upstream
Capacity
Const
raint
ef
fects.

ASSOCIA
TES
|
Licence: NETWORK / FLOA
TING
|
Processed:

Thursda
y
, February 20, 2025 6:48
:37 PM
Project:

L:\All
-DKS\SAC\P\24000\700s\P24795
-000 Norwood
A
venue Complete Streets
T
ransportation
Plan\06
Analysis\Sidra\F
uture Conditions
Alternatives.sip9

MOVEMENT SUMMAR
Y
Site: 1 [Norwood/Silver Eagle Road
-
PM Road Diet (Site Folder:

General)]
Output produced by SIDRA

INTERSECTION V
ersion: 9.1.6.228
Norwood/Silver Eagle Road
-
PM Road Diet
Site Category: Future Conditions 2
Roundabout
V
ehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
T
urn
Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
A
ver
.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Ef
f.

Stop
Rate
A
ver
.

No. of
Cycles
A
ver
.

Speed
[
T
otal
HV ]
[
T
otal
HV ]
[ V
eh.

Dist ]
veh/h
%
veh/h
%
v/c
sec
veh
ft
mph
South: Norwood
A
ve
3 L2
All MCs
210

2.0 210

2.0 0.81
1 22.9
LOS C

14.0 354.7

0.98 1.25

1.99 21.9
8 T1
All MCs
455

2.0 455

2.0 0.81
1 22.9
LOS C

14.0 354.7

0.98 1.25

1.99 22.1
18 R2
All MCs
30 2.0
30 2.0

0.81 1

22.9 LOS C

14.0 354.7

0.98 1.25

1.99 22.0
Approach
695

2.0 695

2.0 0.81
1 22.9
LOS C

14.0 354.7

0.98 1.25

1.99 22.0
East: Silver Eagle Road
1 L2
All MCs
20 1.0
20 1.0

0.365

12.0 LOS B

1.7 41.9

0.73 0.75

0.86 24.6
6 T1
All MCs
140

1.0 140

1.0 0.365

12.0 LOS B

1.7 41.9

0.73 0.75

0.86 24.9
16 R2
All MCs
40 1.0
40 1.0

0.365

12.0 LOS B

1.7 41.9

0.73 0.75

0.86 24.8
Approach
200

1.0 200

1.0 0.365

12.0 LOS B

1.7 41.9

0.73 0.75

0.86 24.8
North: Norwood
A
ve
7 L2
All MCs
45 1.0
45 1.0

0.760

18.3 LOS B

12.5 314.7

0.91 1.05

1.66 23.1
4 T1
All MCs
480

1.0 480

1.0 0.760

18.3 LOS B

12.5 314.7

0.91 1.05

1.66 23.3
14 R2
All MCs
180

1.0 180

1.0 0.760

18.3 LOS B

12.5 314.7

0.91 1.05

1.66 23.2
Approach
705

1.0 705

1.0 0.760

18.3 LOS B

12.5 314.7

0.91 1.05

1.66 23.3
W
est: Silver Eagle Road
5 L2
All MCs
205

1.0 205

1.0 0.662

15.2 LOS B

6.4 160.9

0.81 0.90

1.34 23.5
2 T1
All MCs
185

1.0 185

1.0 0.662

15.2 LOS B

6.4 160.9

0.81 0.90

1.34 23.7
12 R2
All MCs
260

1.0 260

1.0 0.662

12.5 LOS B

6.4 160.9

0.74 0.78

1.09 24.5
Approach
650

1.0 650

1.0 0.662

14.1 LOS B

6.4 160.9

0.78 0.85

1.24 24.0
All V
ehicles
2250

1.3 2250

1.3 0.81
1 18.0
LOS B

14.0 354.7

0.88 1.03

1.57 23.2
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parame ter Settings dialog (Opti
ons tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections.

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

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

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

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (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 V
ehicle Model Designation.

Arrival
Flows
used
in
performance
calculations
are
adjusted
to
include
any
Initial
Queued
Demand
an
d
Upstream
Capacity
Const
raint
ef
fects.

ASSOCIA
TES
|
Licence: NETWORK / FLOA
TING
|
Processed:

Thursda
y
, February 20, 2025 6:48
:37 PM
Project:

L:\All
-DKS\SAC\P\24000\700s\P24795
-000 Norwood
A
venue Complete Streets
T
ransportation
Plan\06
Analysis\Sidra\F
uture Conditions
Alternatives.sip9

C - Engagement Summaries
Phase 1 Engagement Materials

Phase 1 Engagement Summary
NORWOOD AVENUE MOBILITY PROJECT • EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT • APRIL 2025 52 Phase 1 Public Engagement Summary
The following section summarizes engagement methods and feedback received during the first round of public engagement.

Public Engagement Events
In-Person Events
The project team attended the Harvest Festival
on Saturday, October 26, 2024. The Harvest
Festival is a family friendly event that is highly
attended and includes vendors, local
organizations, and public agencies to promote
their services and goods while providing a space
for families to “trick or treat”. This event was
attended by the City to promote awareness of
the Norwood Mobility Project, gather public
input about current issues along the corridor,
and encourage community members to
complete a project survey. The project team
interacted with over 50 people at the Harvest
Festival.

A public workshop was held on Monday, November 18, 2024, from 6:30 to 8:00 pm. The workshop provided residents, employees, business owners, school district officials, parents, and other interested parties an opportunity to learn about the study and the City’s efforts to improve corridor conditions. Attendees were introduced to the project’s purpose, need, and goals, provided an opportunity to complete a community survey, and/or leave comments on the social pinpoint interactive
map. Four comment boards were also
provided to gather public input with each
board denoting a transportation mode (i.e.,
walking, biking, driving, or transit).

Approximately 10 people from the public
attended the workshop. Attendees were
engaged and receptive to the project and
provided feedback regarding areas of concern
on Norwood Avenue and potential
improvements they would support.

On December 19, 2024, City staff attended a public workshop hosted by the Neighborhood Development Action Team (NDAT). The NDAT wo rkshop was held at Bella’s Boba, east of Norwood Avenue on Eleanor Avenue. This event was attended by approximately 20

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 53

members of the community and provided attendees with project information and the opportunity to complete a community survey, provide input on a map board, or discuss corridor issues with project staff.

Virtual Meeting
On Monday, December 9, 2024, a virtual community meeting was held. This virtual meeting served the same purpose as the in-person workshop to raise project awareness, gather public comment, and concerns. The event was held via Zoom from 6:30pm to 7:30pm in an effort to ensure community members could participate in project discussion and provide input. The virtual workshop consisted of a brief presentation to introduce the project purpose, need, and overall goals. During th e virtual meeting, attendees were given the opportunity to provide comments, questions, or raise concerns to project staff. Participants were also given the project website information to complete the survey and/or interactive map on their own time.

Engagement Media Methods
Project Website
Integrated into the City of Sacramento website, a project specific webpage was created for the Norwood Mobility Project 17 . As shown in Figure 27, information such as project background, corridor extents, project sch edule, and input methods are provided. The project webpage offers two forms of public input such as a community survey and interactive Social Pinpoint map (Figure 28). The community survey was provided at the in- person workshop in English and Spanish, the online version allows for translation ( Figure 29).

17 Norwood Mobility Project

NORWOOD AVENUE MOBILITY PROJECT • EXIS TING CONDITIONS REPORT • APRIL 2025 54

Figure 27. Norwood Mobility Project Web Page

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 55

Figure 28. Norwood Avenue Interactive Comment Map

NORWOOD MOBILITY PROJECT • EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT • DECEMBER 2024 56

Figure 29. Norwood Avenue Community Survey
Event Flyers
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. As shown in Figure 30, 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.

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 57

Figure 30. Norwood Avenue Event Flyer
Public Engagement Results
Since the project webpage launch in September up to December 2024, the Norwood Mobility Project received several comments through various outlets such as the interactive map, public survey, and engagement events.

The community survey results are based on 75 respondents, 49 of the survey responses are from in-person events. Survey results indicated that around 76% of survey respondents travel on Norwood Avenue daily; about 75% typically drive in their personal vehicle, approximately 29% walk/roll, and about 16% take public transit on Norwood Avenue.

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 58

Survey respondents were mostly interested in improving crossing opportunities for those walking and bicycling on Norwood Avenue, redu ced driver speed, improved driver safety, and improved walking conditions such as wider sidewalks and street trees.

Based on 54 comments received via the online interactive map and in-person events, 26 comments were specific to Bell Avenue, Jessie Avenue, and I-80 eastbound and westbound on/off ramps and generated the most concern from those who provided input (Figure 31).

Walking access, driving operations, and safety were the most prominent concerns for respondents at Bell Avenue, Jessie Avenue and I-80 ramps. Jessie Avenue is one of the primary community focal points along with the Robertson Community Center and Pothong Market. The Jessie Avenue intersection provid es key access to the Viva Supermarket, Rite Aid, Arco, and fast-food restaurants. Additionally, I-80 westbound on-off ramps are directly accessed by Jessie Avenue. Bell Avenue is a key intersection for people living in adjacent multi-family housing to access Norwood Avenue.

Figure 32 illustrates the comments stratified by transportation mode on Norwood Avenue.

Approximately 43% revolve around walking concerns, such as areas where people walking feel unsafe. As noted, community members would support improved safety for people walking, including high-visibility crosswalks and lighting. The complete list of survey results and comments received are included in Appendix E.

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 59

Figure 31. Engagement comments by Major Intersection

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 60

Figure 32. Comments by Type

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 61

Existing Transportation Challenges and Constraints
To gain a greater understanding of the challenges presented by this corridor, the primary concerns are outlined below. Figure 33 illustrates the existing infrastructure along Norwood Avenue and identifies bicycle lanes and sidewalk gaps.

Figure 33. Infrastructure Gaps and Constraints

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 62

Walking Infrastructure
Sidewalks exist throughout the study corridor except along the northbound travel lanes from Grace Avenue to Main Avenue and alon g the southbound travel lanes from Grace Avenue to Berthoud Street. The existing sidewalks along Norwood Avenue do not show significant deterioration but contain some cr acks and chipped concrete. In addition to sidewalk conditions, throughout the corridor the sidewalk width is five feet but are obstructed by utility poles placed within the sidewalk, reducing the available sidewalk width.

The sidewalk along the northbo und lanes from Grace Avenue to Berthoud Street do not contain significant shade for people walking. Increased shade cover from street trees is prevalent from Berthoud Street to Jessie Avenue, the remainder of the corridor from Jessie Avenue to Arcade Creek consists of substantia l tree cover to protect people walking from extreme temperatures.

There are 11 intersections that have controlle d marked crosswalks, five are north of I-80 and six are south of I-80. The distance between marked controlled crosswalks can vary between 650 to over 1,500 feet. South of I- 80, Morey Avenue is an offset controlled intersection with three marked crosswalks. At uncontrolled intersections south of I-80, there are no Norwood Avenue crossi ng opportunities which can pr esent non-intuitive crossing needs for people walking, promoting crossing activity at uncontrolled locations.

Additionally, the I-80 freeway ramps can create another barrier to people walking. The lack of control and visibility enhancements at the freeway ramps create a high-stress environment for people walking as vehicles increase speeds to enter the freeway and there is no traffic control for vehicles exiting the freeway and merging onto Norwood Avenue.

Future potential design alternatives will seek to address increasing visibility and improving walking comfortability.

Bicycling Infrastructure
Bicycling infrastructure along Norwood Avenue is inconsistent and disconnected throughout the study corridor. Bike lane widths at the following locations are five feet and do not provide green paint to highlight conflict areas between modes or physical barriers to separate people biking from vehicle traffic. Bike lanes are present at the following locations:
 Northbound and southbound from Arcade Creek to Carroll Avenue  Northbound Bell Avenue 200 feet south of the intersection approach  Northbound from Bell Avenue to Grace Avenue.
 Southbound from Main Avenue to Grace Avenue

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 63

Having bike parking at locations could increase interest in biking as a form of transportation, allowing people biking to park their bike at commercial and recreational centers. Within the study corridor, there are five locations with bike parking ranging between three to seven spaces listed below:
 Robertson Community Center
 Nuevo Park
 Dollar General
 Department of Human Assistance
 Norwood Center
Future potential design alternatives will se ek to address bicycle lane gaps, provide connection to the adjacent Sacramento Northern Bike Trail and Walter S. Ueda Bikeway, and improve access and comfortability for all ages and abilities of people biking.

Transit Infrastructure
Norwood Avenue is served by SacRT Route 19 and Route 86. Route 19 has 60-minute all day headways on weekdays and weekends. Route 86 has 30-minute weekday headways and between 45 and 60-minute headways on weekends.

Norwood Avenue has 14 bus stops with only one providing a bus shelter. The existing shelter is at the Norwood Avenue and Bell Avenue southbound bus stop and includes a bench for seating but does not have a trash bin. Bus stop locations vary along the corridor as being nearside or far-side of signalized intersections. All of the bus stops are located in-lane and, though the lanes are wider than City standards, a bus loading passengers would still block traffic.

Bus stops are heavily concentrat ed from Silver Eagle Road to Arcade Creek and there are no bus stops north of Bell Avenue. All bus stops along the corridor are identified by a transit sign. None of the bus stops are accessible via a low-stress walking or biking network.

Crashes
The study corridor experienced 137 injury crashes from 2018 to 2022. Of the 137 crashes, 21% were bicycle and pedestrian crashes (29 crashes). Fatal and severe injury crashes accounted for 34% of the 29 bicycle and pedestrian crashes. The highest density of crashes for all modes from 2018 to 2022 occurred between Bell Avenue and I-80, with 43% of all crashes occurring in Segment 2 of the corridor, making it a priority location for safety improvements.

This segment includes a mix of residential and commercial land use, on-street parking, and a high density of driveways. Of the 29 cr ashes involving people walking and biking, 16 occurred on this same segment between Bell Avenue and I-80.

The issues the design alternatives will seek to address are reducing uncontrolled conflicts between different modes of travel along the corridor, improving visibility and awareness of

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 64

potential conflict zones, reducing speeds al ong the corridor, and creating additional controlled crossing opportunities at high demand locations along the corridor.

OPERATIONS
Much of the corridor experiences unreliable travel times and congestion. Although corridor intersections operate acceptably, many of them experience weekday AM/PM peak hour queue conditions that exceed available storage. The corridor design alternatives will seek to address consistent cross-sections throughout the corridor, efficient signal timing for all users of the corridor including buses, providing sufficient storage for queuing, and operational modifications that improve safety for all roadway users.

Right of Way
Right of way (ROW) along the corridor varies throughout Norwood Avenue. From curb to curb, the ROW varies from 48 to 70 feet wide involving the following components:
 Inside travel lanes are 11 feet.
 Outside travel lane widths vary from 12 to 14 feet.
 Two-way center left turn lane is 10 feet.
 Sidewalks along the study corridor are 5 feet but are the responsibility of the fronting property owner18. Utility poles are located within the sidewalk width.  Along the few segments where on-street parking is allowed, the parking lane is 8 feet.

Additional consideration for ROW will need to be given to the I-80 overpass and Arcade Creek bridge due to reduced roadway width and the structure providing a constrained roadway width. Where the corridor is two lanes per direction with a two-way center left turn lane, design alternatives will seek to use existing roadway space to improve infrastructure for people walking or biking such as widening sidewalks or implementing marked bike lanes or buffered bike lanes.

18 Sacramento City Code, Section 12.32.020
Phase 2 Engagement Materials
You shared ideas for changes to Norwood Avenue and we
heard you. We developed concepts based on your input
and we want your feedback!
Share your input on proposed solutions
at the next community workshop!
¡Comparta su opinión sobre las soluciones
propuestas en el próximo taller comunitario!
June 7, 2025 | 7 de junio de 2025
10:00 AM - 11:30 AM
Robertson Community Center
3525 Norwood Ave, Sacramento
June 9, 2025 | 9 de junio de 2025
6:30 PM - 7:30 PM
Via Zoom Meeting | Vía reunión de Zoom
Register on project website:

Regístrese en el sitio web del proyecto:
www.NorwoodMobility.org
Meeting ID | ID de reunión:
841 8286 4546
Re
gistration is required to attend.

Es necesario registrarse para asistir.
in-person
en persona
virtual
virtual
Ustedes compartieron ideas para cambios en Norwood Avenue, y los escuchamos. Desarrollamos conceptos basados en sus aportes, ¡y ahora queremos saber qué opinan!
N

NO SCALE
Plan Corridor
Bikeways
Transit Stops
School
80 MLK Jr
Tech
Academy
Norwood
Junior High

A R C A D E C R E E K

MAIN AVENUE

BERTHOUD ST

GRACE AVE

BELL AVE

JESSIE AVE

RIO LINDA BOULEVARD
Norwood Avenue

SAC NORTHERN

SILVER EAGLE RD

CARROL AVE

FORD RD

SOUTH AVE

FORD RD

LINDSAY AVE

GRAND AVEGRAND AVE

MORRISON AVEMORRISON AVE

JESSIE AVE

BELL AVE

BERTHOUD ST

GRACE AVE

MAIN AVENUE

RIO LINDA BOULEVARD

SAC NORTHERN

LINDSAY AVE

MOREY AVEMOREY AVE

HARRIS AVEHARRIS AVE

SOUTH AVE

SILVER EAGLE RD
Robertson
Community
Center
Robertson
Community
Center
Norwood Avenue
MLK Jr
Tech
Academy
Del Paso
Heights
Elementary
Del Paso
Heights
Elementary
Taylor Street
Elementary
Taylor Street
ElementaryGlenwood
Elementary
Glenwood
Elementary

CARROL AVE
Norwood
Junior High

A R C A D E C R E E K
SCAN HERE TO REGISTER:

ESCANEE EL CÓDIGO PARA REGISTRARSE:

You shared ideas for changes to Norwood Avenue and we
heard you. We developed concepts based on your input
and we want your feedback!
Share your input on
proposed solutions at the
next community workshop!
¡Comparta su opinión sobre
las soluciones propuestas en el
próximo taller comunitario!
June 17, 2025 | 17 de junio de 2025
6:30 PM - 7:30 PM
Via Zoom Meeting | Vía reunión de Zoom
Register on project website:

Regístrese en el sitio web del proyecto:
www.NorwoodMobility.org
Meeting ID | ID de reunión:
854 6961 1459
Registration is required to attend.

Es necesario registrarse para asistir.
!/i.sc/r.sc/t.sc/u.sc/a.sc/l.sc
!/i.sc/r.sc/t.sc/u.sc/a.sc/l.sc
Ustedes compartieron ideas para cambios en Norwood Avenue, y los escuchamos. Desarrollamos conceptos basados en sus aportes, ¡y ahora queremos saber qué opinan!
N

NO SCALE
Plan Corridor
Bikeways
Transit Stops
School
80 MLK Jr
Tech
Academy
Norwood
Junior High

ARCADE CREEK

MAIN AVENUE

BERTHOUD ST

GRACE AVE

BELL AVE

JESSIE AVE

RIO LINDA BOULEVARD
Norwood Avenue

SAC NORTHERN

SILVER EAGLE RD

CARROL AVE

FORD RD

SOUTH AVE

FORD RD

LINDSAY AVE

GRAND AVEGRAND AVE

MORRISON AVEMORRISON AVE

JESSIE AVE

BELL AVE

BERTHOUD ST

GRACE AVE

MAIN AVENUE

RIO LINDA BOULEVARD

SAC NORTHERN

LINDSAY AVE

MOREY AVEMOREY AVE

HARRIS AVEHARRIS AVE

SOUTH AVE

CARROL AVE
Norwood
Junior High

ARCADE CREEK
SCAN HERE TO REGISTER:

ESCANEE EL CÓDIGO PARA REGISTRARSE:

NEW DA TE!
¡/n.sc/u.sc/e.sc!/a.sc /f.sc/e.sc/c.sc,/a.sc!

Phase 2 Engagement Summary

PHASE 2 OUTREACH SUMMARY
DATE: July 11, 2025
TO: Charisse Padilla | City of Sacramento
FROM: Elise Brockett | DKS Associates
Alice Chen | DKS Associates
Jim Damkowitch | DKS Associates
SUBJECT: Norwood Mobility Project Project #24795

INTRODUCTION
This memo provides an overview of the feedback received during Phase 2 of public outreach for the Norwood Mobility 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 2 – July 6, 2025:
• In-Person Workshop – June 7 from 10 – 11:30 a.m. at the Robertson Community Center • Virtual Workshop – June 17 from 6:30 – 7:30 p.m. via Zoom • Robla Park Community Association (RPCA) Mini Workshop #1 – June 25 from 7 – 8:30 p.m. • Robla Park Community Association (RPCA) Action Committee Mini Workshop #2 – July 2 from 6:30 – 8:00 p.m.

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.

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 feedback received both online and in person, Alternatives 2 and 3 were generally favored among respondents as opposed to Alternative 1. Alternative 3 received the most praise NORWOOD MOBILITY PROJECT • PHASE 2 OUTREACH SUMMARY • JULY 10, 2025 2

and positive feedback, specifically for its ability to
address pedestrian and bicycle safety, provide
additional lighting and landscaping, and slow traffic to increase safety, despite the higher cost. Alternative 2 included three variations to the roadway configuration
with varying locations and widths for elements such as
landscaping, walking and biking facilities, and lighting.

Respondents liked Alternative 2c the most, citing the
inclusion of both street lighting and landscaping as a
benefit due to the increased separation of pedestrians
and bicyclists from vehicles.

While some respondents appreciate that Alternative 1
provides wider sidewalks and more bike and pedestrian
crossings, almost all agreed that this option wouldn’t
be worth the time and funding to make minor
improvements to an area that is plagued by unsafe travel conditions.

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

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

1. Improve corridor safety, particularly between
Jessie Avenue and Bell Avenue and between
Silver Eagle Road and Harris Avenue.

2. Improve walking infrastructure, including the
addition of signal-protected crossing
opportunities where feasible.

3. Create low-stress facilities that improve safety
and comfort for people walking, rolling, and
bicycling to reach transit.

4. Create low-stress facilities that improve safety
and comfort for people biking.

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 1: ATTENDEES AT THE JUNE 7

WORKSHOP REVIEW THE ALTERNATIVES
FIGURE 2: CHARISSE PADILLA, PROJECT

MANAGER WITH THE CITY OF

SACRAMENTO, PRESENTS ON THE

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES

NORWOOD MOBILITY PROJECT • PHASE 2 OUTREACH SUMMARY • JULY 10, 2025 3

FIGURE 3 : FEEDBACK ON COMMUNITY PRIORITIES

Additionally, respondents were asked to select their preferred alternative. Figure 4 shows that 50% preferred Alternative 2c and 42% preferred Alternative 3.

FIGURE 4 : PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE – SOCIAL PINPOINT DATA

NORWOOD MOBILITY PROJECT • PHASE 2 OUTREACH SUMMARY • JULY 10, 2025 4

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
Alternative 1 was generally received with mixed reviews, skewing towards negative responses overall. While a few participants acknowledged some positive elements, such as widening sidewalks or maintaining current vehicle capacity, many were critical of its lack of changes or improvements to the current roadway. Several comments stated that the option does not do enough to address corridor safety, comfort of people walking and biking, or biking infrastructure and needs. One respondent explicitly stated that it is "pretty much the same, dangerous road," reflecting a broader sentiment that Alternative 1 fails to offer a meaningful transformation of the corridor.

Those who liked Alternative 1 brought up their concerns around reducing vehicle lanes and how it would impact traffic congestion on Norwood Avenue, which is already a prominent concern among residents. Some attendees at the RPCA mini workshops expressed concerns about this issue, particularly with the increase in new developments in the area, questioning how much congestion would increase if Norwood Avenue were reduced to two lanes.

ALTERNATIVE 2
Alternative 2 received more favorable responses, with many people saying it meets their expectations for addressing specific community priorities – mainly creating low stress facilities for those walking, biking, and rolling. Respondents showed appreciation for enhanced safety and improvements to walking and biking infrastructure, but expressed uncertainty about how well these ideas would be implemented, depending on configuration a, b, or c. Without a more distinct separation of vehicles from bikes and pedestrians, respondents had reservations about how effective this would be for improving safety. Option 2c was noted as the best long-term option for expanding green space, lighting, and comfortability along the corridor. Many respondents liked the inclusion of roundabouts for slowing traffic and reducing the potential for vehicle collisions, especially since Norwood Avenue is prone to motorists who travel at high speeds.

ALTERNATIVE 3
Alternative 3 received the most discussion and feedback during all outreach activities. This option was viewed as the boldest and most transformative of the three. Residents liked specific elements such as roundabouts, improved landscaping, and separated bike and pedestrian facilities, all of which contributed to a perception of enhanced safety and increased comfort along the corridor .

Concerns were raised about the tradeoffs of implementing a road diet and some of the other major changes proposed in Alternative 3. Specifically, some respondents wondered how reduced on- street parking and lane reductions would affect access to nearby neighborhoods and small businesses. Though some responded negatively due to the change in lane configuration, this did not outweigh the support shown for Alternative 3 due to the improvements to on-street facilities, safety, and comfortability of Norwood Avenue.

NORWOOD MOBILITY PROJECT • PHASE 2 OUTREACH SUMMARY • JULY 10, 2025 5

FEEDBACK ON INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ELEMENTS
Respondents to the online form were asked to share feedback on various proposed elements of the project: widening and completing sidewalks, adding signalized crosswalks, removing on-street parking south of Bell Avenue, adding bus shelters and benches, adding sidewalk-scale lighting, removing a travel lane in each direction, adding roundabouts, adding a landscaping buffer, adding a separated bikeway in each direction, adding shade trees where space permits, and adding a shared use path on the west side with a cantilever structure across the freeway.

Feedback on these elements echoed many of the overarching themes in the previous section. • Roundabouts were generally favored for traffic-calming and the safety benefits they would bring to users of the Norwood Avenue corridor. However, there were some concerns about the associated learning curve for motorists not used to traveling through roundabouts. • Comments were supportive of removing on-street parking to use the space for protected bike lanes or wider sidewalks, if there is sufficient parking elsewhere to support visitors of local businesses.
• All improvements to walking, biking, and transit infrastructure and facilities were broadly supported in comments.
• Respondents generally supported the addition of signalized crosswalks and saw them as necessary, however, some questioned whether the high cost would be worth it since motorists don’t always stop.
• Similarly, the proposed bike facilities, bus shelters, and sidewalk widening were seen as essential for improving safety and equity for active transportation users. • Comments emphasized the need for clearly delineated routes that are separated from vehicles, reflecting the community’s desire to make biking a more accessible travel option in the neighborhood. However, commenters were split on the idea of adding a shared use path with a cantilever across the freeway. Some saw it as an expensive and unnecessary addition, while others viewed it as a creative solution to create a low-stress option for crossing the freeway. • As stated in previous sections, the reduction in travel lanes received positive feedback, while also acknowledging the potential for increasing traffic congestion. However, most respondents saw it as an important tradeoff in slowing traffic, increasing safety, and utilizing the extra space for landscaping, lighting, and comfortable walking and biking facilities.

Phase 3 Engagement Materials
The Norwood Mobility Public Draft Plan is
Ready for Review!

IN-PERSON
October 18, 2025
1:00 - 2:00 PM
Robertson Community
Center
3525 Norwood Ave,
Sacramento

VIRTUAL
October 20, 2025
6:00 - 7:00 PM
Zoom Meeting
Register for the workshop:
www.NorwoodMobility.org
Want to learn more? Attend a Community Workshop:

Review and comment October 10 - November 2
at www.NorwoodMobility.org
The Norwood Mobility Public Draft Plan is
Ready for Review!

IN-PERSON
October 18, 2025
1:00 - 2:00 PM
Robertson Community
Center
3525 Norwood Ave,
Sacramento

VIRTUAL
October 20, 2025
6:00 - 7:00 PM
Zoom Meeting
Register for the workshop:
www.NorwoodMobility.org
Want to learn more? Attend a Community Workshop:

Review and comment October 10 - November 2
at www.NorwoodMobility.org

Phase 3 Engagement Summary

PHASE 3 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
DATE: November 26, 2025
TO: Charisse Padilla | City of Sacramento
FROM: Elise Brockett | DKS Associates
Alice Chen | DKS Associates
Josh Pilachowski | DKS Associates
SUBJECT: Norwood Mobility Project Project #24795-000

INTRODUCTION
This memo provides an overview of the feedback received during Phase 3 of public engagement for the Norwood Mobility Project in October/November 2025.

The City of Sacramento planned and/or attended the following events or activities during the public engagement period from October 10 – November 2, 2025:
• Hagginwood Community Meeting – October 1 at
6:00 p.m. at the Hagginwood Community Center
• District 2 Town Hall – October 15 at 6:00 p.m. at
the Hagginwood Community Center
• Active Transportation Commission Meeting –
October 16 at 5:30 p.m. at the City Hall Complex
• Community Workshop (in-person) – October 18
from 12:00 – 2:00 p.m. at the Robertson
Community Center
• Virtual Workshop – October 20 from 6:00 – 7:00
p.m. via Zoom
• Hmong Youth and Parents United (HYPU) Trunk or
Treat – October 24 from 6:00 – 9:00 p.m. at the
HOPE Center
• Mutual Assistance Network (MAN) Harvest Festival
– October 25 from 11 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. at the
Robertson Community Center
FIGURE 1: POP -IN AT THE HYPU TRUNK
OR TREAT EVENT ON OCT. 24
NORWOOD MOBILITY PROJECT • PHASE 3 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY • NOVEMBER 26 , 2025 2

• Robla Park Community Association (RPCA) Community Meeting – October 29 from 7:00 – 8:30 p.m. at Glenwood Elementary School
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.

SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK AND OVERALL THEMES
Several themes were noted in public feedback on the draft plan centering around safety, user access, and corridor design. Respondents shared their thoughts on proposed roundabouts, lane reductions, landscaping, and safety improvements for those walking and biking along Norwood Avenue.

ROUNDABOUTS
The following points were made regarding proposed
roundabouts on Norwood Avenue:
• Roundabouts will be beneficial for the area if
landscaping in the center does not obstruct
driver view.
• Exploring a future roundabout at Morey
Avenue would be beneficial.
• Proposed roundabout designs appear to
require more space than necessary, with
suggestions to explore smaller center circles to
avoid right-of-way impacts.
• A two-lane roundabout may be unnecessary
where only a right-turn slip lane exists today,
as it could circumvent traffic calming goals.

LANE REDUCTION
The following points were made regarding the proposed lane reduction and parking reduction on Norwood Avenue:
• A reduction to one lane of traffic could impact traffic congestion on Norwood Avenue. • There were concerns regarding the reduction of parking availability south of Bell Avenue on Norwood Avenue

LANDSCAPING
The following points were made regarding the proposed landscaping improvements on Norwood Avenue:
• There is support for landscaping in roundabouts, with the caveat that plants should be low height to maintain visibility and safety for drivers.
• Green walkways with trees, flowers, and shrubs will make the corridor more inviting and offer some privacy for nearby residents.

FIGURE 2: POP -IN AT THE MAN HARVEST
FESTIVAL ON OCT. 25
NORWOOD MOBILITY PROJECT • PHASE 3 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY • NOVEMBER 26 , 2025 3

• The landscaping should be sustainable in the long term.

OTHER COMMENTS
• Some commenters showed concerns that the project limits don’t extend further south along Norwood Avenue, which may exclude some communities and neighborhoods from safety and accessibility benefits.
• There were also suggestions for the following:
o Adding multi-use lanes between Interstate 80 (I-80) north to Main Avenue and between I-80 south to Carrol Avenue
o Adding a left-hand turning lane northbound at Jesse and Norwood and a left-hand turning lane southbound to prevent unsafe pedestrian crossings near the Chevron gas station.

D - Concept Plan Set
11'
CENTER

TURN LANE
11'
TRAVEL
LANE
11'
TRAVEL
LANE
5'
BIKE
LANE

0.5' CURB w/

1.5' GUTTER
6'
SIDE-
WALK
1' BUFFER

TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
(NOT TO SCALE)

NORWOOD AVENUE

ROAD DIET

0.5' CURB w/

1.5' GUTTER
8'

PLANTER
5'
BIKE
LANE
6'
SIDE-
WALK1' BUFFER
3' PLANTER
LEGEND:

Landscaping and/or Trees
Concrete Barrier
Crash Attenuator/Guardrail System
Retaining Wall
Modify Existing
Traffic Signal
Pedestrian Signal
Roadway Pavement
Concrete Sidewalk/ Bike
Lane/ Driveways
SACRTExisting Transit Stop
Crosswalk

MATCH LINE 'A'
(SEE BELOW LEFT)

MATCH LINE 'A'
(SEE ABOVE RIGHT)

MATCH LINE 'B'
(SEE SHEET 2)

FAIRBANKS AVE

CARROLL AVE

FORD AVE

SILVER EAGLE RD

HAYES AVE

NORWOOD AVE
ROUNDABOUT IS CONCEPTUAL.

ENGINEERING STUDY IS NEEDED
TO DETERMINE SPECIFIC DESIGN.

THE NORWOOD MOBILITY PLAN

ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT PLAN

NORWOOD AVE
1 RELOCATE TRANSIT STOP

NORTH OF PROPOSED

ROUNDABOUT
(SEE SHEET 2)

LEGEND:

TURN LANE
11'
TRAVEL
LANE
11'
TRAVEL
LANE
5'
BIKE
LANE

0.5' CURB w/

1.5' GUTTER
6'
SIDE-
WALK
1' BUFFER

0.5' CURB w/

1.5' GUTTER
8'

PLANTER
5'
BIKE
LANE
6'
SIDE-
WALK1' BUFFER
3' PLANTER

MATCH LINE 'C'
(SEE BELOW LEFT)

MATCH LINE 'B'
(SEE SHEET 1)

MATCH LINE 'C'
(SEE ABOVE RIGHT)

MATCH LINE 'D'
(SEE SHEET 3)

SOUTH AVE

KESNER AVE

MOREY AVE

LINDSAY AVE

GRAND AVE

MORRISON AVE

THE NORWOOD MOBILITY PLAN

ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT PLAN

MOREY AVE

NORWOOD AVE

NORWOOD AVE
2 ROUNDABOUT IS CONSIDERED
AT MOREY AVENUE INTERSECTION.

ENGINEERING STUDY IS NEEDED
TO DETERMINE FEASIBILITY.

TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
(NOT TO SCALE)

NORWOOD AVENUE

ROAD DIET
LEGEND:

TURN LANE
12'
TRAVEL
LANE
5'
BIKE
LANE

2.5' BARRIER
6'
SIDE-
WALK
12'
TRAVEL
LANE
12'
TRAVEL
LANE
12'
TRAVEL
LANE
5'
BIKE
LANE
6'
SIDE-
WALK

2.5' BARRIER

TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
(NOT TO SCALE)

NORWOOD AVENUE
I-80 INTERCHANGE

MATCH LINE 'D'
(SEE SHEET 2)

MATCH LINE 'E'
(SEE BELOW LEFT)

MATCH LINE 'E'
(SEE ABOVE RIGHT)

MATCH LINE 'F'
(SEE SHEET 4)

HARRIS AVE EB OFF-RAMP

EB ON-RAMP

WB ON-RAMP

WB OFF-RAMP

JESSIE AVE

MATCH LINE 'I'
(SEE SHEET 6)
I-80

THE NORWOOD MOBILITY PLAN

ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT PLAN

INSTALL CANTILEVER STRUCTURES

TO ACCOMMODATE BIKE

LANE AND SIDEWALK

NORWOOD AVE
3 NORWOOD AVE

LEGEND:

TURN LANE
11'
TRAVEL
LANE
11'
TRAVEL
LANE
5'
BIKE
LANE

0.5' CURB w/

1.5' GUTTER
6'
SIDE-
WALK
1' BUFFER

TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
(NOT TO SCALE)

NORWOOD AVENUE

ROAD DIET

0.5' CURB w/

1.5' GUTTER
8'

PLANTER
5'
BIKE
LANE
6'
SIDE-
WALK1' BUFFER
3' PLANTER

MATCH LINE 'F'
(SEE SHEET 3)

MATCH LINE 'G'
(SEE SHEET 5)

BELL AVE

BERTHOUD ST

THE NORWOOD MOBILITY PLAN

ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT PLAN
ROUNDABOUT IS CONCEPTUAL.

ENGINEERING STUDY IS NEEDED
TO DETERMINE SPECIFIC DESIGN.

NORWOOD AVE
4 LEGEND:

TURN LANE
11'
TRAVEL
LANE
11'
TRAVEL
LANE
5'
BIKE
LANE

0.5' CURB w/

1.5' GUTTER
6'
SIDE-
WALK
1' BUFFER

TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
(NOT TO SCALE)

NORWOOD AVENUE

ROAD DIET

0.5' CURB w/

1.5' GUTTER
8'

PLANTER
5'
BIKE
LANE
6'
SIDE-
WALK1' BUFFER
3' PLANTER

MATCH LINE 'G'
(SEE SHEET 4)

MATCH LINE 'H'
(SEE BELOW LEFT)

MATCH LINE 'H'
(SEE ABOVE RIGHT)

GRACE AVE

MAIN AVE

THE NORWOOD MOBILITY PLAN

ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT PLAN

NORWOOD AVE
5 NORWOOD AVE
LEGEND:

MATCH LINE 'I'
(SEE SHEET 3)

WB ON-RAMP
I-80

THE NORWOOD MOBILITY PLAN

ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT PLAN

ADDITIONAL WESTBOUND ON-RAMP LANE

TO INCREASE CAPACITY
6 E - Planning Level Cost Estimates

ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
NO.
1 AC 0.60 $200,000 $120,000
2 AC 1.30 $653,400 $850,000
3 LS 1 $1,136,800 $1,140,000
4 LF 19,900 $11 $220,000
5 SF 99,500 $8 $800,000
6 CY 26,400 $350 $9,240,000
7 TON 2,040 $300 $620,000
8 LF 42,400 $3 $130,000
9 SF 5,400 $10 $60,000
10 TON 11,200 $250 $2,800,000
11 CY 30,400 $300 $9,120,000
12 SF 16,300 $30 $490,000
13 LF 5,600 $24 $140,000
14 LF 22,800 $50 $1,140,000
15 SF 221,900 $7 $1,560,000
16 SF 15,200 $20 $310,000
17 SF 11,500 $15 $180,000
18 LF 800 $300 $240,000
19 LF 50 $60 $3,000
20 EA 2 $3,000 $6,000
21 SF 2,040 $200 $410,000
22 LS 1 $8,400,000 $8,400,000
23 LF 27,000 $6 $170,000
24 SF 13,900 $15 $210,000
25 LS 1 $40,000 $40,000
26 EA 4 $75,000 $300,000
27 EA 67 $40,000 $2,680,000
28 EA 9 $500,000 $4,500,000
29 LS 1 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
30 LS 1 $800,000 $800,000
SUBTOTAL $54,500,000
Contingency (25%) $13,625,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE $68,125,000
Project Development Support Costs (35%) $23,843,750
TOTAL COST ESTIMATE $91,968,750
10 Year Escalated Subtotal $88,800,000
10 Year Escalated Contingency (25%) $22,200,000
10 Year Escalated CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE $111,000,000 10 Year Escalated Project Development Support Costs (35%) $38,900,000 10 Year Escalated TOTAL COST ESTIMATE $149,900,000
* Escalation is 5% per year
9/29/2025

ITEM DESCRIPTION
PCC (Curb & Gutter - Type 2) to Construct
Bridge Widening
PCC (Driveway) to Construct
Concrete Barrier (Type 60M)
Midwest Guardrail System
Alternative In-Line Terminal System
Roadway Excavation
Remove Striping
Remove Pavement Markings
Base Repair
Striping
PCC (Curb)
Landscaping
Overhead Signage
Utility Adjustments
Pavement Markings
Roadside Signage
Street Lighting
Traffic Signal Modifications
Right of Way Take
Temporary Construction Easement

PRELIMINARY CONCEPT DESIGN - CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE NORWOOD AVE COMPLETE STREETS - ALTERNATIVE 2C
6DKS010700
Drainage System
Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter
Remove Concrete Sidewalk
Hot Mix Asphalt (includes 3" overlay over existing)
PCC (Sidewalk) to Construct
Class 2 Aggregate Base
PCC (Stamped Concrete) to Construct
PCC (Curb Ramp) to Construct
Retaining Wall
Attachment 4: Streets for People Plan Amendments
Add the following to the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan:
• New sidewalks north of Berthoud Street
• Lane reduction North of Jessie Avenue and South of Harris Avenue • Add crossing points:
o South of Bell Ave (see pg. 18 of Plan)
o I-80 ramps (see pg. 19 of Plan)
o Between off-set intersections of South Avenue (see pg. 21 of Plan) o North of Hayes Avenue (see pg. 21 of Plan)
The Norwood Mobility Plan
Streets for People Plan (current)

Sacramento City CouncilFebruary 24, 2026

Sacramento City Council
February 24, 2026