2026-00457 The Norwood Mobility Plan (T15180418) — Sacramento City Council, February 24, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

City of Sacramento
City Council - 2PM Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2026-00457 2/24/2026
The Norwood Mobility Plan (T15180418)
File ID: 2026-00457
Location: District 1 and 2
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution: 1) approving The Norwood Mobility Plan; and 2) amending the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan to reflect The Norwood Mobility Plan.

Contact: Charisse Padilla, Transportation Planner, (916) 808-6788, [email protected]; Jennifer Donlon Wyant, Mobility and Sustainability Division Manager, (916) 808-5913, [email protected]; Department of Public Works Presenter: None
Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-Resolution
3-Exhibit A - Norwood Mobility Plan
4-Exhibit B - Streets for People Plan Amendments
Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: In July 2024, the City of Sacramento kicked off The Norwood Mobility Project (Plan).

The purpose of The Norwood Mobility Plan (The Plan) is to identify a data-driven, community- supported plan to improve safety and mobility on the Norwood Avenue corridor from Main Avenue to Arcade Creek.

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

This is an action item to adopt a Resolution approving The Norwood Mobility Plan and amending the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan to include these bicycling and walking facilities. The timeline for the recently adopted Streets for People Plan was just ahead of The Norwood Mobility Project (Plan) efforts. Community input specifically for this corridor resulted in some recommendation changes that differed from the Streets for People Plan. The adopted Plan components will be incorporated into the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan.

Page 1 of 6 ends

File ID: 2026-00457 2/24/2026
Policy Considerations: The project is consistent with specific Sacramento 2040 General Plan goals and policies of promoting mobility, safety and enhancing livability, sustainability, and economic vitality:

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

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

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

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

M-1.9 Equitable Processes and Outcomes. The City shall ensure that the transportation system is planned and implemented with an equitable process to achieve equitable outcomes and investments so that all neighborhoods one day will have similar levels of transportation infrastructure such as sidewalks, marked low stress crossings, and bikeways.

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

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

M-4. A safer transportation system.

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

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

Page 2 of 6 ends

File ID: 2026-00457 2/24/2026
M-4.3 Vision Zero. The City shall utilize a data driven, “vision zero” approach to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries by 2027, while increasing safety, health, and equitable mobility for all.

Additionally, this is in accordance with the following Council approved plans:

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

Transportation Priorities Plan (TPP): Norwood Avenue is ranked high priority in the City’s Transportation Priorities Plan (TPP), which applies community-based values, criteria, and metrics to prioritize transportation investments in the city, including: 1) improving air quality and health; 2) providing equitable investment; 3) providing access to destinations; 4) improving transportation safety; and 5) fixing and maintaining the transportation system.

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

Economic Impacts: None.

Environmental Considerations:

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

Commission/Committee Action: At the January 15, 2026, Active Transportation Commission meeting, the Commission passed a motion to forward a recommendation to City Council to approve

Page 3 of 6 ends

File ID: 2026-00457 2/24/2026
The Norwood Mobility Plan.

Rationale for Recommendation: Norwood Avenue is part of the City’s Vision Zero high-injury network, corridors with the highest number of fatal and severe injury crashes in the city. It is also a priority project in the Transportation Priorities Plan. The City applied for, and was awarded, a Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant in late 2023 and started the planning effort in Spring 2024. The action requested is to adopt a Resolution adopting The Norwood Mobility Plan. Through engagement with the community, a two-year long planning process has resulted in The Norwood mobility Plan.

The recommended improvements included in this Plan enhance the transportation safety and mobility options for all modes of transportation along the Norwood Avenue corridor. The recommendations in the Plan are captured in the attached amendment to the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan.

Financial Considerations: The planning level estimated cost to implement The Norwood Mobility Plan is approximately $91,000,000, which includes conceptual design and environmental clearance, as well as final design and implementation.

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

No General Funds are obligated with this recommendation.

Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not applicable.

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

Throughout community engagement and plan development, the following common community priorities emerged for Norwood Avenue:
· Make streets safer, especially in areas where a high number of crashes have occurred · Add better places to cross the street, crosswalks with signals, so it is easier and safer for people walking
· Build calm, comfortable routes that help people walk, bike, or roll to get to destinations and transit safely, and
· Providing facilities that accommodate people of all ages and abilities.

Page 4 of 6 ends

File ID: 2026-00457 2/24/2026
The plan was created with communities on and around the Norwood Avenue corridor. Engagement included community listening and collaboration, meeting residents where they are in their neighborhoods, as well as hosting in-person and virtual workshops and interactive resources on the project website. The planning process also included frequent presentations to the City’s Active Transportation Commission.

Development of The Norwood Mobility Plan Final Draft included three distinct phases of engagement:

Phase 1: Listen & Learn- Community Vision, Goals, and Information Gathering October - December 2024
To establish the community vision, the project team hosted in-person and virtual community workshops, as well as an interactive web map and survey (Social Pinpoint) on the project website.

Staff also attended Mutual Assistance Network’s (MAN) Annual Harvest Festival at Robertson Community Center and a community workshop facilitated by Neighborhood Development Action Team (NDAT) in coordination with Hmong Youth and Parents United (HYPU).

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

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

Engagement was led by City Staff with support from the consultant project team. This included hosting virtual and in-person community workshops, pop-ins at community association meetings and community events.

Additionally, staff sent out notifications through the City Minute Blog and Transportation Planning monthly newsletter, The Norwood Mobility Project mailing list, as well as a presentation at Active Transportation Commission.

Phase 3: Public Draft Plan Review and Comment
October - November 2025
Phase III community engagement sought to encourage community members to review the Public Draft Plan and provide feedback. Engagement efforts included an interactive document review platform (Konveio) on the project webpage where community members could review the Draft Plan

Page 5 of 6 ends

File ID: 2026-00457 2/24/2026
and leave comments in the document. It also included City hosted in-person and virtual workshops, and pop-ins at community meetings, destinations, and events (ex. Robla Park CA meeting, HYPU Trunk or Treat Event, and MAN Harvest Festival).

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

The Final Draft Plan features the following:
· Removing a travel lane in each direction north of Jesse Avenue and south of Harris Avenue
· New sidewalks north of Berthoud Street
· Sidewalk lighting, a landscaping buffer, as well as shade trees on the east side of the street
· Removal of on-street parking south of Bell Avenue
· A separated bikeway in each direction
· Roundabouts at Bell Ave and Silver Eagle Rd, with future evaluation of an additional roundabout at Morey Ave
· Signalized crosswalks at high demand locations and at I-80 ramp crossings · A cantilever structure on BOTH sides of the I-80 overpass · Future evaluation of median trees, where feasible
The Norwood Mobility Plan Final Draft is included as Attachment 3.

Page 6 of 6 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

Adopted by the Sacramento City Council

The Norwood Mobility Plan Final Draft (T15180418)

BACKGROUND
A. In July 2024 the City of Sacramento kicked off The Norwood Mobility Project.

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

C. Through the existing conditions analysis and engagement with communities on and around the corridor, the following common priorities emerged to guide the development of the plan for Norwood Avenue:
a. Make streets safer, especially in areas where a high number of crashes has occurred
b. Add better places to cross the street, crosswalks with signals, so it is easier and safer for people walking
c. Build calm, comfortable routes that help people walk, bike, or roll to get to destinations and transit safely
d. Providing facilities that accommodate people of all ages and abilities D. The Final Draft Plan was developed based on community listening and engagement, technical analysis, and best practices.

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

Section 1. The Norwood Mobility Plan (Attachment 3) is approved as the City’s guiding concept plan for Norwood Avenue from Main Avenue to Arcade Creek. Additional efforts will be taken for environmental clearance and final design.

Section 2. City Council hereby amends the City’s Streets for People Active Transportation Plan to modify components of the bicycle and pedestrian networks as set forth in Exhibit A and B

Section 3.

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

Table of Contents
Exhibit A – The Norwood Mobility Plan
Exhibit B – Streets for People Plan Amendments

FINAL DRAFT
The Norwood
Mobility Plan
December 2025
Acknowledgments

CITY STAFF
Charisse Padilla | Project Manager
Jennifer Donlon Wyant | Mobility and Sustainability Division Manager

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT TEAM (PDT)
Nick Ahantab | Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department Ryan Billeci | Senior Engineer, Public Works Department Elizabeth Boyd | Senior Planner, Community Development Department Pelle Clark | Senior Engineer, Public Works Department
Khisraw Ghazi | Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department Fatima Malik | Associate Planner, Community Development Department William Shunk | Senior Engineer, Public Works Department

COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Del Paso Heights Neighborhood Association
Greater Sacramento Urban League
Mutual Assistance Network
Mutual Housing
Robla Park Community Association
Robla School District
Strawberry Manor Neighborhood Association
Twin Rivers Unified School District

CONSULTANT TEAM
DKS Associates
PSOMAS
Table of Contents
1 Why Norwood Avenue? . . . . . . . . . .1
2 Project Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 3 The Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 4 Norwood Avenue Today . . . . . . . . . .5
5 Community Engagement . . . . . . . .9
6 The Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 7 How Do We Get There? . . . . . . . . . . .22
Appendix
A - Existing Conditions Analysis
Report, April 2025
B - Alternatives Development
Report, July 2025
C - Engagement Summaries
D - Concept Plan Set
E - Planning Level Cost Estimates
List of Figures
Figure 1 . Nor wood Avenue Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Figure 2 . Norwood Avenue Study Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Figure 3 . Nor wood Avenue Typical Existing
Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 4 . Norwood Avenue Study Area
Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 5 . Nor wood Avenue Study Area Segments . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 6 . Main A venue to Bell Avenue Existing
Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 7 . Bell A venue to I-80 Existing Cross Section . . . . . . . 6 Figure 8 . I-80 to Carroll Avenue Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 9 . Carroll A venue to Arcade Creek
Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 10 . Nor wood Avenue Crash Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 11 . Nor wood Avenue Crash Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 12 . Phase 1 Web-Based Engagement Tools . . . . . . . 10 Figure 13 . Engagement Comments by Cate gory . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 14 . Engagement Comment Types by Location . . . . 11 Figure 15 . Alternative 1 (Sidew alk Improvement) . . . . . . . 14 Figure 16 . Alternative 2a (L ane Reallocation) . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 17 . Alternative 2b (L ane Reallocation) . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 18 . Alternative 2c (Lane Reallocation) . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 19 . Alternative 3 (Shared Use P ath) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 20 . Proposed Alternatives by
Community Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 21 . Proposed Alternatives Ranked by
Community Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 22 . Phase 3 Online Feedback Page
for Draft Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 23 . Nor wood Avenue Recommended
Alternative Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 24 . Norwood Avenue
Recommended Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 25 . Project Elements Bet ween Bell
Avenue and Jessie Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 26 . Project Elements f or the
I-80 Interchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 27 . Project Elements Bet ween
Morrison Avenue and Morey Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 28 . Project Elements Between
Kesner Avenue and Silver Eagle Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1 Why
Norwood Avenue?

RIO LINDA BOULEVARDRIO LINDA BOULEVARDSACRAMENTO NORTHERN PARKWAY SHARED USE PATHSACRAMENTO NORTHERN PARKWAY SHARED USE PATH

STEELHEAD CREEKSTEELHEAD CREEK
Plan Corridor
Community Center
Park
School
LEGEND
N
NOT TO
SCALE
NOT TO
SCALE
80 A R C A D E C R E E K

MAIN AVENUE

BERTHOUD ST

GRACE AVE

BELL AVE

JESSIE AVE

SILVER EAGLE RD

CARROLL 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

LINDSAY AVE

MOREY AVEMOREY AVE

HARRIS AVEHARRIS AVE

SOUTH AVE

SILVER EAGLE RD

FAIRBANKS AVEFAIRBANKS AVE
Robertson
Community
Center
Robertson
Community
Center
Gateway ParkGateway ParkGateway ParkGateway Park
Richardson
Village Park
Richardson
Village Park
Richardson
Village Park
Richardson
Village Park
Norwood AvenueNorwood Avenue
MLK Jr
Tech
Academy
MLK Jr
Tech
Academy
Del Paso
Heights
Elementary
Del Paso
Heights
Elementary
Taylor Street
Elementary
Taylor Street
Elementary
Glenwood
Elementary
Glenwood
Elementary
Norwood
Junior High
Norwood
Junior High

CARROLL AVE
A R C A D E C R E E KStrawberry
Manor Park
Strawberry
Manor Park
Strawberry
Manor Park
Strawberry
Manor Park
Robert
Brookins Park
Robert
Brookins Park
Robert
Brookins Park
Robert
Brookins ParkRobertson Park
Skate Park
Robertson Park
Skate Park
Robertson Park
Skate Park
Robertson Park
Skate Park
Del Paso ParkDel Paso ParkDel Paso ParkDel Paso Park
Robla
Community
Park
Robla
Community
Park
Robla
Community
Park
Robla
Community
Park
North
Northwood
Park
North
Northwood
Park
North
Northwood
Park
North
Northwood
Park
Nuevo Park
Playground
Nuevo Park
Playground
Nuevo Park
Playground
Nuevo Park
Playground
FIGURE 1. NORWOOD AVENUE STUDY AREA
Norwood Avenue is a critical corridor serving communities, schools and businesses.

Over 17,000 people live within 0.5 miles of Norwood Avenue, giving them access to places that shape daily life:

Five schools
Nine parks
A community center
Supermarkets, restaurants, and
other businesses
Norwood Avenue is a vital north-south connection in northern Sacramento. As shown in Figure 1, this plan includes
Norwood Avenue from Main Avenue in the north to Arcade
Creek in the south.
1 The Norwood Mobility Plan • Why Norwood Avenue?
Norwood Avenue links two historically disadvantaged communities, and connects people to schools, homes, parks, local businesses, and regional destinations. It is the backbone for thousands of residents who live and work nearby.

Today, Norwood Avenue reflects an older design focused primarily on moving cars through, not supporting the communities who need access to destinations along the street. The street has narrow or missing sidewalks, limited space for biking, and inconsistent connections to transit. People using the corridor face barriers to mobility, including long distances between marked and controlled crossings, high vehicle speeds, and limited shade. These challenges make it difficult for the area communities, especially youth, seniors, and people with disabilities, to get where they need to go.

Norwood Avenue is a high priority for the City of Sacramento.

It is part of the City’s Vision Zero High Injury Network, a list of corridors with the most severe and fatal crashes. It is identified as a priority project in the City’s Transportation Priorities Plan, which was shaped by extensive community input. The corridor plays an important role in meeting broader City goals around climate action, community equity, and active transportation, supporting efforts like the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Regional Trail Network, and the Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT) Bus Stop Improvement Plan.

The purpose of The Norwood Mobility
Plan is to transform this corridor into
a place that better reflects the needs
and aspirations of the communities
on and near the street. Through
strong partnerships and meaningful
engagement, the Plan will help
redesign Norwood Avenue
as a welcoming, inclusive, and
connected corridor, making it easier
and more comfortable for people to
walk, bike, take transit, and reach
daily destinations.

The project team walking the Norwood Avenue corridor to document existing conditions. They took note of multiple transit stops (left) and school zones (right).
2 The Norwood Mobility Plan • Why Norwood Avenue?
2 Project
Goals

MOBILITY
This goal aims to connect people to school, work, parks, and essential services. This includes:
• Supporting transit, including SacRT Routes 19 and 86 that serve Norwood Avenue, connecting communities with limited mobility options
• Eliminating the I-80 barrier for people walking and bicycling • Supporting access to I-80 for regional travel

COMMUNITY
This goal aims to support and uplift community. This includes:
• Addressing long-faced barriers to transportation access, housing, and services in two disadvantaged communities in the corridor
• Centering local voices in the corridor planning process for a more connected, inclusive corridor
The area surrounding Norwood Avenue is home to over 17,000 people and includes 1,900 jobs. Norwood Avenue runs through two disadvantaged communities where residents have long faced barriers to transportation access, housing, and services.

The corridor planning process centered local voices for a more connected, inclusive corridor.

Historic neighborhoods adjacent to Norwood Avenue, such as West Del Paso Heights and Strawberry Manor, reflect deep roots with legacy connections to farming and multi -generational communities.

Community organizations such as the Hmong Youth and Parents United (HYPU) and Mutual Assistance Network (MAN) provide vital support for youth, families, and neighborhood development.

Cultural, recreational, and civic spaces like the Robertson Community Center and nearby parks highlight the community’s resilience and engagement.

SAFETY
This goal aims to address transportation safety challenges.

Between 2018 and 2022, 137 crashes on Norwood resulted in an injury, injuring:
• 13 people walking
• 16 people biking
• 108 people in a car

MOVING TOWARDS VISION ZERO
The City is currently working on an update to the 2018 Vision Zero Action Plan:
• Using historic crash data to pinpoint the factors contributing to traffic deaths and serious injuries
• Identifying proven safety countermeasures to address
those factors through education, engineering, enforcement, and evaluation
• Taking a systematic and comprehensive approach to our transportation environment
3 The Norwood Mobility Plan • Project Goals
3 The
Process
To achieve the project goals, the Norwood Mobility study followed a four-step process, as shown chronologically in Figure 2 and listed below:

1. UNDERSTAND EXISTING CONDITIONS

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

2. DEVELOP AND EVALUATE CORRIDOR

DESIGN ALTERNA TIVES
In response to both technical findings and community needs, three design alternatives were created. Each proposed new sidewalks, bikeways, crosswalks, intersection changes, and safety improvements. These alternatives are described in Appendix B – Alternatives Development Report.

3. SELECT A PREFERRED DESIGN CONCEPT
The three alternatives were presented to the community for feedback. Based on community input, the City identified a preferred design concept that addresses safety, connectivity, and community vision. This Plan reflects that preferred concept.

4. PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Concept plans and cost estimates were prepared for the
preferred concept to position the City for next steps towards implementation. The concept plans are provided in Appendix D - Concept Plan Set, while the cost estimates are in
Appendix E - Planning Level Cost Estimates.

SCHEDULE
FIGURE 2. NORWOOD AVENUE STUDY PROCESS
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB

EXISTING

CONDITIONS

ANALYSIS

AL TERNATIVES

ANALYSIS
DRAFT
PLAN
FINAL
PLAN

COMMUNITY

POP-INS IN-PERSON

OPEN HOUSE

VIRTUAL

OPEN HOUSE

IN-PERSON

COMMUNITY

WORKSHOPS

VIRTUAL

COMMUNITY

WORKSHOPS

SURVEY AND

FOCUS GROUPS,

COMMUNITY

POP-INS
PUBLIC

COMMENT

PROJECT

TOWN HALL
2024
2026 2025
1 2
3 4
4 The Norwood Mobility Plan • The Process
4 Norwood Avenue
Today

CORRIDOR DESCRIPTION
The Norwood Avenue planning area is from Main Avenue in the north to Arcade Creek in the south, covering approximately 1.7 miles. It includes the I-80 interchange and overpass, which is one of the only crossings of the freeway in the area, making Norwood Avenue a critical connector for communities traveling to other neighborhoods, schools, parks, and regional destinations.

The corridor primarily features two travel lanes in each direction, with a center two-way left-turn lane along many segments, as shown in Figure 3. It passes through a mix of single-family and multi-family residential areas, schools, local parks, and community- serving commercial and industrial zones, including a retail job center near Jessie Avenue and an industrial job center south of the freeway. While there is only one school on the street, there are four other schools immediately off the corridor.

Today, Norwood Avenue lacks consistent sidewalks, bikeways, and crossings. SacRT’s Route 19 provides the only fixed-route transit service along the corridor. SacRT’s Route 86 runs perpendicular to the corridor, however, it overlaps Route 19 between Grand Avenue and Silver Eagle Road. These gaps (as shown in Figure 4) limit mobility options and comfort for people walking, biking, or riding transit—especially given the corridor’s role in serving two historically underserved communities and multiple schools and parks.

FIGURE 3. NORWOOD AVENUE TYPICAL EXISTING CROSS SECTION The corridor was organized into four segments (as shown in Figure 5 on the following page) based on general characteristics and surrounding land use.

A summary of each segment is included below, with more detailed information about the study corridor and current conditions included in Appendix A.

FIGURE 4. NORWOOD AVENUE STUDY AREA EXISTING CONDITIONS

RIO LINDA BOULEVARDRIO LINDA BOULEVARDSACRAMENTO NORTHERN PARKWAY SHARED USE PATHSACRAMENTO NORTHERN PARKWAY SHARED USE PATH

STEELHEAD CREEKSTEELHEAD CREEK
Plan Corridor
Community Center
Park
Transit Stop
Signalized Intersection
Crosswalk
Sidewalk Gap
Bike Lanes
School
LEGEND
N
NOT TO
SCALE
NOT TO
SCALE
80 ARCAD E C REEK

MAIN AVENUE

BERTHOUD ST

GRACE AVE

BELL AVE

JESSIE AVE

SILVER EAGLE RD

CARROLL 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

LINDSAY AVE

MOREY AVEMOREY AVE

HARRIS AVEHARRIS AVE

SOUTH AVE

SILVER EAGLE RD

FAIRBANKS AVEFAIRBANKS AVE
Robertson
Community
Center
Robertson
Community
Center
Gateway ParkGateway ParkGateway ParkGateway Park
Norwood AvenueNorwood Avenue
MLK Jr
Tech
Academy
MLK Jr
Tech
Academy
Del Paso
Heights
Elementary
Del Paso
Heights
Elementary
Taylor Street
Elementary
Taylor Street
ElementaryGlenwood
Elementary
Glenwood
Elementary
Norwood
Junior High
Norwood
Junior High

CARROLL AVE

ARCAD E C REEK
CENTER

TURN LANE
11’
72’ ROW

SIDEWALK
5’

SIDEWALK
5’ 2’ 2’

TRAVEL LANE
13’

TRAVEL LANE
11’

TRAVEL LANE
12’
6” CURB
w/ 1.5’
GUTTER
6” CURB
w/ 1.5’
GUTTER
5 The Norwood Mobility Plan • Norwood Avenue Today
FIGURE 5. NORWOOD AVENUE STUDY AREA SEGMENTS
SEGMENT #1: MAIN AVENUE TO BELL AVENUE
Adjacent land uses include residential and vacant lands, with Norwood Junior High School located south of Main Avenue. This segment of Norwood Avenue has one lane per direction from Grace Avenue to Main Avenue and transitions to two lanes per direction with a center turn-lane from Grace Avenue to Bell Avenue.

The posted speed limit for Segment 1 is 25 MPH in the school zone, and 35 MPH outside of the school zone. The annual daily traffic is 12,064 vehicles. While there are places where there are sidewalks and bikeways, there are also locations that do not have sidewalks or bikeways (gaps in the network). The sidewalks and bikeways are also inconsistent in width. There is lighting for the street except at vacant parcels. There is no existing transit service in this segment.

Figure 6 shows the existing cross section view of Segment 1.

FIGURE 6. MAIN AVENUE TO BELL AVENUE EXISTING CROSS SECTION Typical alignment along Segment 1.

SEGMENT #2: BELL AVENUE TO I-80
Adjacent land uses include residential and commercial uses, with some parking lot frontage and fast-food restaurants near the freeway. This segment of Norwood Avenue is two lanes per direction with a center turn-lane.

The posted speed limit for Segment 2 is 35 MPH, and the annual daily traffic is 19,310 vehicles. There are sidewalks on both sides of the street. The only bikeway is a 200-foot- segment that approaches Bell Avenue from the south. Lighting is provided for the street and sidewalks. Bus Route 19 operates south of Bell Avenue.

On-street parking is allowed between Bell Avenue and Jessie Avenue on both sides of the street, in front of adjacent apartments and businesses.

Figure 7 shows the existing cross section view of Segment 2.

FIGURE 7. BELL AVENUE TO I-80 EXISTING CROSS SECTION
Typical alignment along Segment 2.

RIO LINDA BOULEVARDRIO LINDA BOULEVARDSACRAMENTO NORTHERN PARKWAY SHARED USE PATHSACRAMENTO NORTHERN PARKWAY SHARED USE PATH

STEELHEAD CREEKSTEELHEAD CREEK
Plan Corridor
Community Center
Park
Segments
School
LEGEND
N
NOT TO
SCALE
NOT TO
SCALE
80 ARCAD E C REEK

MAIN AVENUE

BERTHOUD ST

GRACE AVE

BELL AVE

JESSIE AVE

SILVER EAGLE RD

CARROLL 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

LINDSAY AVE

MOREY AVEMOREY AVE

HARRIS AVEHARRIS AVE

SOUTH AVE

SILVER EAGLE RD

CARROLL AVE

ARCAD E C REEK
SEGMENT 1SEGMENT 1SEGMENT 2SEGMENT 2SEGMENT 3SEGMENT 3SEGMENT 4SEGMENT 4

TRAVEL LANE
19’

TRAVEL LANE
19’11’

SIDEWALK BIKE
LANE

PARKING
LANE
5’ 5’8’
67’ ROW
CENTER

TURN LANE

TRAVEL LANE
11’

TRAVEL LANE
18’10’

SIDEWALK TRAVEL LANE
5’

SIDEWALK
5’16’
76’ ROW
CENTER

TURN LANE
6The Norwood Mobility Plan • Norwood Avenue Today

SEGMENT #3: I-80 TO CARROLL AVENUE
Adjacent land uses include residential and commercial uses, along with some parks and Robertson Community Center. This segment of Norwood Avenue is two lanes per direction with a center turn-lane.

The posted speed limit for Segment 3 is 25 MPH in the school zone, and 35 MPH outside of the school zone. The annual daily traffic is 10,772 vehicles. There are sidewalks on both sides. There are no bikeways. There is lighting for the street except at vacant parcels. Bus Route 86 crosses Norwood Avenue in this segment and Bus Route 19 operates in both directions along this segment with ten stops.

Figure 8 shows the existing cross section view of Segment 3.

FIGURE 8. I-80 TO CARROLL AVENUE CROSS SECTION
Typical alignment along Segment 3.

SEGMENT #4: CARROLL AVENUE TO ARCADE CREEK
Adjacent land use is mostly residential and includes Gateway Park on the east side. This segment of Norwood Avenue is two lanes per direction with a center turn lane from Carroll Avenue to Fairbanks Avenue. From Fairbanks Avenue to Arcade Creek the roadway narrows to one lane per direction across the Arcade Creek bridge.

The posted speed limit for Segment 4 is 35 MPH, and the annual daily traffic is 14,302 vehicles. This segment has consistent sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides of the street. Lighting is present for the street and sidewalks. Bus Route 19 operates in both directions along the segment.

Figure 9 shows the existing cross section view of Segment 4.

FIGURE 9. CARROLL AVENUE TO ARCADE CREEK CROSS SECTION Typical alignment along Segment 4.

TRAVEL LANE
11’

TRAVEL LANE
15’11’

SIDEWALK TRAVEL LANE
5’

SIDEWALK
5’17’
75’ ROW
CENTER

TURN LANE

TRAVEL LANE
11’

TRAVEL LANE
12’
CENTER

TURN LANE
10’

SIDEWALK TRAVEL LANE
6’ 12’

SIDEWALK
6’
BIKE
LANE
6’
BIKE
LANE
6’
69’ ROW
7 The Norwood Mobility Plan • Norwood Avenue Today
FIGURE 10. NORWOOD AVENUE CRASH FACTORS FIGURE 11. NORWOOD AVENUE CRASH LOCATIONS

RIO LINDA BOULEVARDRIO LINDA BOULEVARDSACRAMENTO NORTHERN PARKWAY SHARED USE PATHSACRAMENTO NORTHERN PARKWAY SHARED USE PATH

STEELHEAD CREEKSTEELHEAD CREEK
N
NOT TO
SCALE
NOT TO
SCALE
Plan Corridor
Community Center
Park
School
LEGEND
Fatal Injury
Severe Injury
Minor Injury
Possible Injury
80 ARCAD E C REEK

MAIN AVENUE

BERTHOUD ST

GRACE AVE

BELL AVE

JESSIE AVE

SILVER EAGLE RD

CARROLL 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

LINDSAY AVE

MOREY AVEMOREY AVE

HARRIS AVEHARRIS AVE

SOUTH AVE

SILVER EAGLE RD

CARROLL AVE

ARCAD E C REEK

CRASH TRENDS
Between 2018 and 2022, a total of
16 fatal or serious injury crashes
occurred along Norwood Avenue,
reemphasizing the safety need identified in the City’s 2018 Vision Zero Action Plan.

The top three primary crash factors on Norwood
Avenue were:

Driver failing to yield the right-of-way
Disobeying traffic signals or signs
Unsafe speeds
Figures 10 and 11 show the crash causes, types, frequency, and locations along Norwood Avenue. Crashes were most
common at intersections, especially in the central portion of the corridor. Broadside crashes were the most frequent overall, often happening where vehicles failed to yield while turning.

The area between the I-80 interchange and Harris Avenue showed more rear-end crashes, often linked to congestion during peak hours. Signal violations were reported at Grand Avenue and Silver Eagle Road, while unsafe speeds were a factor between Silver Eagle Road and Fairbanks Avenue.

The highest concentration of crashes occurred between
Bell Avenue and Jessie Avenue, where a mix of head-on,
sideswipe, and turning-related collisions were recorded.

This segment also had the most reported crashes involving people walking or biking, including sideswipes and
midblock conflicts.

At Norwood Avenue and Grand Avenue, multiple DUI and
hit-object crashes were reported, along with sideswipe
crashes involving people biking.

Norwood Ave &
Fairbanks Ave
Norwood Ave
& Ford Rd
Norwood Ave
& Silver
Eagle Rd
Norwood
Ave &
Morey Ave
Norwood
Ave &
Grand Ave
Norwood
Ave &
Harris Ave
Norwood
Ave & I-80
Norwood Ave
& Jessie Ave
Norwood Ave
& Bell Ave
Norwood Ave &
Main Avenue
Bell Ave to
Jessie Ave
Bell Ave to
Jessie Ave
2 3
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 4
1 CRASH CAUSES

CRASH TYPES
Unsafe
Speed
Tied for second most
commonly cited factor.

Signal or
Sign Violation
Tied for the second most
commonly cited factor.
1 2
3 4 5 6
7 8
9 10 11
1 2
3 4 5 6
7 8 9
10 11
Auto
Right-of-Way
Most common factor,
involving cars at
uncontrolled driveways.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 Improper
Turning
Turning crashes mainly
occured between Bell
Ave and Jessie Ave.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 Under the
Inﬂuence
Occured along the
corridor but most
occurances at Grand Ave.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 Pedestrian
Crossing Midblock
1 2 3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 Broadside
Most common crash
type, involved in almost
50% of crashes.
1 2
3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 Rear
End
Second most common
crash type, involved in
19% of crashes, mainly
south of the interchange.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
Sideswept
Sideswipe crashes
mainly occured between
Bell Ave and Jessie Ave.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 Head-On
Head-on crashes mainly
occured between Bell
Ave and Jessie Ave.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 Hit
Object
Vehicles hit objects at
Grant Avenue.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 Bicycle
Broadside
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 Bicycle
Sideswipe
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 Highlighted
intersections had at
least 2 crashes of
the associated type
or primary cause.
#
8The Norwood Mobility Plan • Norwood Avenue Today

5 Community
Engagement
The Norwood Avenue Mobility Project
is rooted in the voices and experiences
of the people who live, work, travel,
and gather along the corridor.

From the beginning, the planning process has emphasized community engagement and feedback to ensure that the corridor vision is shaped by local priorities, values, and lived realities.

Engagement efforts sought to reach a broad cross-section of the corridor’s diverse residents, businesses, and organizations, recognizing the long history of transportation barriers and the community’s vision for a safer and more connected Norwood Avenue. The following chapter outlines how community voices shaped the planning process and how they were incorporated into the final plan.

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

ENGAGEMENT METHODS
The Community Engagement Plan took place in three phases:
• Phase 1: Listen and Learn
• Phase 2: Share and Refine
• Phase 3: Report Back

COMMUNITY IDENTIFIED PRIORITIES
• Make streets safer, especially in areas where lots of crashes have happened.
• Add more designated places to cross the street, like
crosswalks with signals, so it’s easier and safer for
people walking.
• Plant trees to calm traffic, provide shade for people walking and bicycling, and to create a sense of inviting space. • Build calm, comfortable routes that help people walk, bike, or roll to get to the bus safely.

More details about the engagement can be found in Appendix C – Engagement Summaries.

The project team connecting with the community at a variety of engagement events. 9 The Norwood Mobility Plan • Community Engagement
PHASE 1: LISTEN AND LEARN
The first engagement phase introduced the planning process and invited community members to share their needs and ideas through the following elements:
• City webpage
• Web-based engagement tools (as shown in Figure 12)
» Community Needs and Priorities Surveys
» Online Mapping/Comment Capture Tool
» City Newsletter/ Blog posts
• Multilingual Engagement Materials and Tools
• Community Advisory Committee
• Pop-ins at Local Events
» Harvest Festival
» Community Association Meetings
• Virtual and In-Person Workshops
Figures 13 and 14 on the following page provide a summary of the engagement comments by type, location, and category.

FIGURE 12. PHASE 1 WEB-BASED ENGAGEMENT TOOLS
Community feedback was collected in a variety of formats.

The project team handed out flyers with links to online engagement tools (top), in addition to participating in pop-ins at local events and hosting virtual and in-person workshops (middle, bottom).
10The Norwood Mobility Plan • Community Engagement

Through the community needs and priority surveys, the planning team learned:
• High daily use: 76% of survey respondents travel on Norwood Avenue every day
• Travel modes: 75% typically drive, 29% walk or roll, and 16% use public transit
• Top priorities:
» Safer and more frequent pedestrian/bike crossings
» Slower driver speeds, improved driver safety
» Better walking conditions (e.g., wider sidewalks, added street trees)
Based on responses from the online interactive map and in-person events, the primary locations of concern were the intersections of Norwood Avenue with Bell Avenue, Jessie Avenue, and I-80 eastbound and westbound on/off ramps. These four locations made up almost half of the comments collected during this phase.

Walking access, driving operations, and safety were the most prominent concerns for respondents at those locations.

FIGURE 13. ENGAGEMENT COMMENTS BY CATEGORY FIGURE 14. ENGAGEMENT COMMENT TYPES BY LOCATION

TRANSIT
7%

BICYCLING
6%

WALKING
31%
OTHER
17%

GENERAL
SAFETY
19%

DRIVING
20%
Walking Driving General
Safety
Other Transit Bicycling

ENGAGEMENT COMMENT CATEGORY
80 ARCAD E C REEK

MAIN AVE

BERTHOUD ST

GRACE AVE

BELL AVE

JESSIE AVE

SILVER EAGLE RD

CARROLL AVE

FORD RD

SOUTH AVE

FORD RD

LINDSAY AVE

GRAND AVEGRAND AVE

MORRISON AVEMORRISON AVE

JESSIE AVE

BELL AVE

BERTHOUD ST

GRACE AVE

MAIN AVE

LINDSAY AVE

MOREY AVEMOREY AVE

HARRIS AVEHARRIS AVE

SOUTH AVE

SILVER EAGLE RD

CARROLL AVE

ARCAD E C REEK

MAIN AVE

GRACE AVE

BELL AVE

JESSIE AVE
INTERSTATE 80

COMMENT CATEGORY
Walking
Bicycling
Transit
Driving
General Safety
Other

HARRIS AVE

GRAND AVE

MOREY AVE

SOUTH AVE

SILVER EAGLE RD

FAIRBANKS AVE

ARCADE CREEK
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

COMMENTS PER INTERSECTION (PERCENT)
11The Norwood Mobility Plan • Community Engagement

INCORPORATING COMMUNITY INPUT
Based on identified needs for the corridor and community comments, the project team identified five key elements to incorporate into a corridor vision.

KEY ELEMENTS TO ADDRESS WALKING

AND ROLLING NEEDS
• Wider and connected sidewalks that are low stress and comfortable to walk and roll along
• Shade trees and landscape buffer to provide relief for people walking and provide separation for people walking • Striped and signalized crosswalks for accessible and safer crossing for all users
• Connections to parks, schools and recreation opportunities

COMMUNITY INPUT
“[Need] wider sidewalks.”
“Provide safe crossways”; “make crossing more visible
and safer.”
“Improved child safety to/from/around schools.”
“Would love to have wide sidewalks all the way
through Norwood.”
“Sidewalks are too narrow and does not allow for enough clearance for wheelchairs, strollers, etc.”

KEY ELEMENTS TO ADDRESS BICYCLING NEEDS
• Bikeways separated from the street for a more
comfortable and low stress environment for people biking • Intersection treatments to reduce conflicts and provide bicycle detection at traffic signals
• Connections to parks, schools and recreation opportunities

COMMUNITY INPUT
“[Need] wider bike lanes.”
“Smoother roads to get rid of cracks and holes are
dangerous for bikers.”
“Bike lanes seem to be non-existent.”

KEY ELEMENTS TO ADDRESS TRANSIT NEEDS
• Lower stress environment providing buffered sidewalks and bikeways, and marked crosswalks to bus stops for
all users
• Improved stop amenities with shade, seating, lighting and maintenance consistent with demand and service
• Intersection and stop treatments to improve
on-time performance

COMMUNITY INPUT
“[Need] more transportation service and more frequent.” “Bus stops don’t feel safe. No division between property and bus stop- no benches, etc.”
“Bus stops need shelters + places to sit.”
12The Norwood Mobility Plan • Community Engagement

KEY ELEMENTS TO ADDRESS DRIVING NEEDS
• Access to homes, businesses and schools with a
consistent design
• Reallocated street space to enhance safety by minimizing conflicts between people driving and other street users • Street lighting to improve visibility at intersections and along the corridor at night
• Roundabouts to improve access to key side streets

COMMUNITY INPUT
“[Need] proper lighting.”
“Use roundabouts.”
“[Need] ways to slow down vehicular traffic. Vehicles
routinely speed over 40 mph.”
“Speeding cars make it difficult to get from side streets to Norwood center lane.”
“Meter entering west bound on I-80 causes bottleneck on northbound and southbound.”

KEY ELEMENTS TO SUPPORT COMMUNITY HEALTH
• Low stress and safer elements will encourage people
to walk and bike recreationally
• Elements that improve the attractiveness of
the corridor (like landscaping and art) will spur
economic investment
• Gateway elements like roundabouts and trees will
lower speeds in the corridor and improve air quality

COMMUNITY INPUT
“[Install] artworks of Norwood Jr. High students.”
“[Find] ways to slow down vehicular traffic.”
“Use roundabouts.”
“Need more flowers and trees.”
“More TREES!”
“Improved access to park.”
13 The Norwood Mobility Plan • Community Engagement

CREATING A CONCEPT DESIGN
Based on community priorities and the conditions of Norwood Avenue, the project team identified a set of design elements that could help achieve the project’s goals. Each element was reviewed individually and in combination to form different corridor alternatives. These alternatives, shown in Figures 15-19, offered a range of approaches for improving mobility and safety while reflecting community needs.

OVERCOMING CHALLENGES AND CONSTRAINTS
Community members shared their vision on how to improve mobility and safety while meeting the project’s goals. While many ideas were suggested, Norwood Avenue does not have space for every feature, and widening the corridor by taking private property is not a feasible option. The project team balanced community input, safety, mobility for all users, effectiveness, and feasibility to identify options that best fit community priorities within the existing street space.

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

Mobility
Safety
Community
Each alternative was also evaluated on how well it met the project’s priorities:

Mobility Priorities:
• Improve signal protected crossing opportunities
• Create low stress, accessible paths to transit
Safety Priorities:
• Improve safety between Jessie Avenue and Belle Avenue • Improve safety between Harris Avenue and Silver Eagle Road • Create low stress, separated space for people biking

NORWOOD AVENUE ALTERNATIVES
FIGURE 15. AL TERNATIVE 1 (SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT)
FIGURE 16. AL TERNATIVE 2A (LANE REALLOCATION)
FIGURE 17. AL TERNATIVE 2B (LANE REALLOCATION)
FIGURE 18. AL TERNATIVE 2C (LANE REALLOCATION)
FIGURE 19. AL TERNATIVE 3 (SHARED USE PATH)
TRAVEL
LANE
CENTER

TURN LANE
TRAVEL
LANE
8’ 2’ 11’ 11’ 11’
TRAVEL
LANE
11’
TRAVEL
LANE
11’ 5’
6” CURB
w/ 1.5’
GUTTER
2’
6” CURB
w/ 1.5’
GUTTER

SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
72’ ROW72’ ROW

SIDEWALK SIDEWALKBIKE
LANE
TRAVEL
LANE
CENTER

TURN LANE
TRAVEL
LANE
BUFFER
BUFFER

3.5’ 5’
BIKE
LANE
5’3’ 3’6’ 6’11’ 11’ 11’

PLANTER PLANTER
2’ 3.5’2’
6” CURB
w/ 1.5’
GUTTER
6” CURB
w/ 1.5’
GUTTER
72’ ROW72’ ROW

SIDEWALK SIDEWALKBIKE
LANE
TRAVEL
LANE
CENTER

TURN LANE
TRAVEL
LANE
BUFFER
BUFFER
7’ 5’
BIKE
LANE
5’3’ 3’6’ 6’11’ 11’ 11’

PLANTER
2’ 2’
6” CURB
w/ 1.5’
GUTTER 6” CURB w/

1.5’ GUTTER
72’ ROW72’ ROW

SIDEWALK BIKE
LANE

TRAVEL LANE CENTER

TURN LANE

TRAVEL LANE
BUFFER
5’ 8’6’ 11’ 11’ 11’1’

SIDEWALKBIKE
LANE
BUFFER
5’3’ 6’1’

PLANTER PLANTER
2’ 2’
6” CURB w/

1.5’ GUTTER
6” CURB w/

1.5’ GUTTER
72’ ROW72’ ROW
CENTER

TURN LANE
TRAVEL
LANE

SHARED USE PATH
6’ 6’2’ 11’ 11’
TRAVEL
LANE
11’

SIDEWALK
6’6’

PLANTER PLANTER
BUFFER
2’ 2’ 7’2’
BUFFER
6” CURB
w/ 1.5’
GUTTER
6” CURB
w/ 1.5’
GUTTER
72’ ROW72’ ROW
14The Norwood Mobility Plan • Community Engagement

PHASE 2: SHARE AND REFINE
The second engagement phase focused on sharing potential improvements based on community input and refining them through continued feedback, with clear documentation of how ideas shaped the final plan.
• City webpage
• Web-based Engagement Tools
» Alternative and Proposed Element Surveys
» City Newsletter/ Blog posts
• Multilingual Engagement Materials and Tools
• Community Advisory Committee
• Pop-ins at Local Events
» Robla Park Community Association Meetings/
Mini-Workshops
» Hagginwood Community Association Meeting
» Council District 1 Community Conversations Event
• Virtual and In-Person Workshops

FEEDBACK ON PROJECT ELEMENTS
• Roundabouts were generally favored for traffic-calming and safety benefits
• Removing on-street parking to use the space for protected bike lanes or wider sidewalks was supported, if there is sufficient parking provided elsewhere to support visitors of local businesses
• All improvements to walking, biking, and transit infrastructure and facilities were broadly supported
• Adding signalized crosswalks was supported as necessary, however, there were concerns about cost
• Bikeways, bus shelters, and sidewalk widening were seen as essential for improving safety and equity for active transportation users
• The need for clearly delineated routes that are separated from vehicles was emphasized
• Reducing vehicle travel lanes received positive feedback, while recognizing it could increase congestion
• Future evaluation of median street trees was requested by the community
More details about the engagement can be found in Appendix C – Engagement Summaries.

COMMUNITY EVENTS
• Community pop-ins and presentations
• Five in-person and virtual workshops
• Online surveys and virtual map
Community members viewing and giving feedback on the Norwood Avenue alternatives.

FIGURE 20. PROPOSED AL TERNATIVES BY COMMUNITY PREFERENCE FIGURE 21. PROPOSED AL TERNATIVES RANKED BY

COMMUNITY PRIORITIES
ALTERNATIVE 2C
50%
ALTERNATIVE 1
ALTERNATIVE 2A
0%
ALTERNATIVE 2B
8%
ALTERNATIVE 3
42%
Alternative 2C Alternative 3 Alternative 2B

ALTERNATIVES
WHAT IS YOUR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE?
ON A SCALE FROM 1-5, HOW WELL DOES EACH
ALTERNATIVE MEET COMMUNITY PRIORITIES?
Improve corridor safety
(particularly between Jessie
Avenue and Bell Avenue and
between Silver Eagle Road and
Harris Avenue)
Alternative 1
5 0
1 2
3 4
5 0
1 2
3 4
5 0
1 2
3 4
5 0
1 2
3 4
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Create low stress facilities
that improve safety and
comfort for people walking,
rolling, and bicycling to
reach transit
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Improve walking infrastructure
(including the addition of
signal-protected crossing
opportunities where feasible)
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Create low stress facilities that
improve safety and comfort for
people biking
Alternative 1
Alternative 3
Alternative 2
15The Norwood Mobility Plan • Community Engagement

PHASE 3: PUBLIC REVIEW OF DRAFT PLAN
The third engagement phase focused on presenting the draft plan for public review and incorporating community feedback into the final plan.
• City webpage
• Web-based Engagement Tool s
» Online feedback page for draft plan, as shown in Figure 22 » City Ne
wsletter/ Blog posts
• Multilingual Engagement
Materials and Tools
• Pop-ins at Local Events
» Hagginwood Community Association Meeting
» District
2 Town Hall
» Active Transportation Commission Meeting
» Hmong Youth and Parents United (HYPU) Trunk or
Treat
Event
» Mutual Assistance Network (MAN) Harvest Festival
» Robla Park
Community Association Meeting
•
Virtual and In-Person Workshops

COMMUNITY EVENTS
• Six community pop-in events and presentations
• One in-person and one virtual workshop
• Online engagement form for reviewing and commenting
on the draft
plan
Pop-in at the HYPU Trunk or Treat on October 24.

Pop-in at the MAN Harvest Festival on October 25.

FIGURE 22. PHASE 3 ONLINE FEEDBACK PAGE FOR DRAFT PLAN

COMMUNITY FEEDBACK
• Roundabouts were generally favored with some specific suggestions made:
» Ensure landscaping in the center does not obstruct
driver vie
w.
» Exploring a future roundabout at Morey Avenue would
be supported.
» Consider smaller center circles in roundabouts 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.
• Green walkways with trees, flowers, and shrubs will make the corridor more inviting and offer some privacy for nearby residents. Landscaping along Norwood Avenue should be
sustainable in the long term.
• Project limits don’t extend further south along Norwood Avenue, which may exclude some communities and
neighborhoods from safety and accessibility benefits.
• Feedback suggested adding multi-use lanes between
Interstate 80 (I-80) north to Main Avenue and between I-80 south to Carrol Avenue.
• Feedback suggested 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.
• Concerns on how a lane reduction could impact congestion on Norwood A
venue.
• There were concerns regarding the reduction of parking availability south of Bell Avenue on Norwood Avenue.

More details about phase 3 engagement can be found in Appendix C – Engagement Summaries.
16The Norwood Mobility Plan • Community Engagement

6 The
Vision

ADVANCING A CONCEPT DESIGN
After evaluating three alternatives (Appendix B) and incorporating community feedback, the following key elements were selected for further design refinement.

Appendix D includes a conceptual design drawing that provides more detail for the entire study area.

CROSS SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommended cross section (shown below in Figure 23) is primarily based on Alternative 2C, with an added connection over both sides of the interchange from Alternative 3. It includes:
• Adding street shade trees on the west side of the street, sidewalk lighting, and a landscaping buffer
• Adding sidewalks north of Berthoud Street
• Removing a travel lane in each direction north of Jessie Avenue and south of Harris Avenue
• Adding a separated bikeway in each direction
• Removing on-street parking south of Bell Avenue
• Adding a cantilever bridge on both sides of the I-80 overpass to provide connections for people walking and biking over the overpass
• Constructing roundabouts at key intersections to slow vehicle speeds and reduce conflicts between vehicles
Figure 24 shows the recommended alternative applied to the whole corridor.

FIGURE 23. NORWOOD AVENUE RECOMMENDED AL TERNATIVE

CROSS SECTION
FIGURE 24. NORWOOD AVENUE RECOMMENDED AL TERNATIVE
CENTER

TURN LANE
11’

SIDEWALK
5’

SIDEWALK
5’ 2’ 2’

TRAVEL LANE
13’

TRAVEL LANE
11’

TRAVEL LANE
12’
6” CURB w/

1.5’ GUTTER
6” CURB w/

1.5’ GUTTER

SIDEWALK BIKE
LANE

TRAVEL LANE CENTER

TURN LANE

TRAVEL LANE
BUFFER
5’6’ 11’ 11’ 11’1’

SIDEWALKBIKE
LANE
BUFFER
5’ 6’1’2’ 2’ 8’

PLANTER
3’

PLANTER
72’ ROW72’ ROW

EXISTINGEXISTING
72’ ROW72’ ROW

RECOMMENDEDRECOMMENDED

RIO LINDA BOULEVARDRIO LINDA BOULEVARDSACRAMENTO NORTHERN PARKWAY SHARED USE PATHSACRAMENTO NORTHERN PARKWAY SHARED USE PATH

STEELHEAD CREEKSTEELHEAD CREEK
Plan Corridor
Community Center
Park
School
LEGEND
Tra ffic Signal

EXISTING
Pedestrian Signal
Class II Bike Lane
Transit Stop

PROPOSED
Landscaped Buff er
Shade Trees
Roundabout
Separated Bikeway
Cantilevered
Separated Bikeway
Note: The placement of
existing and proposed
elements on the corridor are
illustrative and not to scale.

See cross sections for exact
changes in street with.

N
NOT TO
SCALE
NOT TO
SCALE
80 A R C A D E C R E E K

MAIN AVENUE

BERTHOUD ST

GRACE AVE

BELL AVE

JESSIE AVE

SILVER EAGLE RD

CARROLL 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

LINDSAY AVE

MOREY AVEMOREY AVE

HARRIS AVEHARRIS AVE

SOUTH AVE

SILVER EAGLE RD

CARROLL AVE

A R C A D E C R E E K
17 The Norwood Mobility Plan • The Vision
No Scale
N

BELL AVE

JESSIE AVE

NORWOOD AVE
Roundabout (Bell Avenue)
• Slow traffic
• Reduce severity of crashes
• Gateway treatment
Removal of On-Street Parking
• Reduced demand for midblock crossing
Shade Trees, Widened Sidewalk, Separated
Bikeway, & Sidewalk Scale Lighting
• Separation for people walking and biking from people driving • Shade provides relief from high temperatures and sun exposure • Sidewalk lighting provides comfort and increased safety Striped Crosswalk and Signalized Pedestrian Crossing
• Increased visibility and safety at preferred crossing locations Bus Stop Shelter With Benches
• Bus stop shelter rotated to protect from sun
• Increased waiting space
FIGURE 25. PROJECT ELEMENTS BETWEEN BELL AVENUE AND JESSIE AVENUE 18The Norwood Mobility Plan • The Vision

FIGURE 26. PROJECT ELEMENTS FOR THE I-80 INTERCHANGE
No Scale
N
80 WB ON-RAMP

EB ON-RAMP

WB OFF-RAMP

EB OFF-RAMP

NORWOOD AVE
Striped & Signalized Pedestrian Crossing
• Increased visibility and safety at ramp crossing
Additional Capacity
• This plan includes Caltrans adding additional storage lane for the I-80 Westbound on-ramp
Consistent Freeway Access
• Maintaining current number of vehicle travel lanes near the interchange will allow for consistent freeway access operations and truck tra ffic
Freeway With Cantilever Bikeway on Both Sides
• Separation for people walking and biking from people driving • Cantilever structure will allow necessary width without a new structure
19The Norwood Mobility Plan • The Vision

FIGURE 27. PROJECT ELEMENTS BETWEEN MORRISON AVENUE AND MOREY AVENUE No Scale
N

MORRISON AVE

GRAND AVE

LINDSAY AVE

MOREY AVE

NORWOOD AVE
Future Study
• A future feasibility study will determine if a roundabout at Morey Ave can be implemented
• A roundabout will slow tra ffic and simplify the o ffset crossing Shade Trees, Widened Sidewalk, Separated
Bikeway, & Sidewalk Scale Lighting
• Separation for people walking and biking from people driving • Shade provides relief from high temperatures and sun exposure • Sidewalk lighting provides comfort and increased safety Bus Stop Shelter With Benches
• Bus stop shelter rotated to protect from sun
• Increased waiting space
20The Norwood Mobility Plan • The Vision

FIGURE 28. PROJECT ELEMENTS BETWEEN KESNER AVENUE AND SILVER EAGLE ROAD No Scale
N
Roundabout (Silver Eagle Road)
• Slow traffic
• Reduce severity of crashes
• Gateway treatment
Shade Trees, Widened Sidewalk, Separated
Bikeway, & Sidewalk Scale Lighting
• Separation for people walking and biking from people driving • Shade provides relief from high temperatures and sun exposure • Sidewalk lighting provides comfort and increased safety Striped & Signalized Pedestrian Crossing
• Increased visibility and safety
• Gap closure for Bikeway on South Avenue Striped Crosswalk & Signalized Pedestrian Crossing
• Increased visibility and safety at
preferred crossing locations
• Access to and from bus stops and
Community Center
Future Refinement and Coordination Needed
As design progresses, the City will consider the following items for refinement and coordination:
• Any change to lane capacity or control on Caltrans freeway ramps will need to be coordinated with Caltrans
• Utility relocation will need to be coordinated with Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD).
•
A structural analysis will be needed to confirm that a cantilever structure over I-80 is feasible. Alternatively, a separate structure could be considered over I-80 with safe and comfortable crossings to connect the new structure back to Norwood Avenue.
• The feasibility of median trees at certain locations, as desired by the community, will be determined.

SOUTH AVE

HAYES AVE
SILVER

EAGLE RD

NORWOOD AVE
21The Norwood Mobility Plan • The Vision

7 How Do We
Get There?
The Norwood Mobility Plan presents
a vision for a future Norwood Avenue
that will improve safety and mobility.

This plan is expected to be brought to City Council for their consideration for adoption in early 2026. With plan adoption, the City will move forward towards securing funding (e.g., federal or state grants with local matches) for the implementation of the vision outlined in this plan. Given the cost of the preferred concept, the City will look for ways to implement the proposed changes in phases or look for quick-build opportunities to help address key safety needs as quickly as possible.

PROJECT COST
The cost for the preferred concept is estimated at $149.9 million based on recent construction bid unit costs with an escalation factor of 5% to account for construction in ten years.

Major construction cost items include roadway excavation and improvements for the bikeway and sidewalk improvements as well as cantilever structure over the freeway. A contingency factor was included to account for refinement of project design, changes in project details, or unforeseen changes in construction costs. The soft costs for environmental, PS&E and construction administration and oversight are included in the Project Development Support costs.

Actual project costs will be determined by surveyed base mapping, geotechnical reports, concept refinement, environmental reviews, right of way availability, project phasing, and bid conditions at the time of advertisement. Project costs would be reviewed prior to any grant application or initiation of a Capital Improvement Project to revalidate and update the assumptions in this study as necessary.

A detailed cost estimate is provided in Appendix E - Planning Level Cost Estimates.

MAJOR COST CATEGORIES

PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
• Conducts public and stakeholder engagement to refine the proposed concepts developed from the planning study and ensure it meets the community and stakeholder needs
• Advances the engineering and design of the project to a 30% level of completion. Better defines project solutions, footprint, feasibility and costs
• Identifies a project’s potential impacts and mitigates significant impacts on the community and the environment
• Determines implementation pathways, including how the project will be phased and built

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

CONSTRUCTION, INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION
• Includes hiring contractors and building the work to
city standards
• Includes opportunities for local contractors and businesses to work on the proposed project and what to anticipate
during construction
A snapshot of present-day Norwood Avenue, a vital north-south corridor and opportunity for improved mobility for the communities who live, work, and travel in the area.
22 The Norwood Mobility Plan • How Do We Get There?
Appendix

A - Existing Conditions
Analysis Report, April 2025

Norwood Avenue Mobility Project
Existing Conditions Analysis Report

April 2025

PREPARED FOR:

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 ii

Prepared for City of Sacramento

Charisse Padilla, Project Manager
Jennifer Donlon Wyant, Mobility and Sustainability Division Manager Ryan Dodge, Associate Planner
Prepared by DKS Associates

Josh Pilachowski, Project Manager
Jim Damkowitch
Sean Carney
Sylinda Villado
Bincy Koshy

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 iii

Table of Contents
Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 Project Background ............................................................................. 1 Policy Framework and Setting ................................................................ 1 Literature Review ...................................................................................... 5 Norwood Area Circulation and Infrastructure Plan (2007) ............................. 5 Vision Zero Action Plan (2018) ............................................................... 5 Transportation Priorities Plan (2022) ....................................................... 5 2040 General Plan - Environmental Justice Element (2024) .......................... 5 Climate Action & Adapta tion Plan (2024) .................................................. 6 Streets for People: Sacramento’s Active Transportation Plan (Draft 2024-2025) 6 Description of the Norwood Avenue Corridor ................................................ 6 Socio-Economic Ch aracteristics .............................................................. 6 Physical Characteristics ........................................................................ 7 Existing Conditions Multimodal Anal ysis .................................................... 18 Study Intersections ........................................................................... 18 Transit Data Summary ....................................................................... 19 Level of Traffic Stress/All Ages and Ab ilities Walking /Bicycle analysis .......... 21 Parking Inventory and Utilization Summary ............................................. 27 Crash Analysis Summary .................................................................... 28 Existing Conditions Tr affic Analysis .......................................................... 37 Traffic Operations Standa rds and Methodology ........................................ 37 Intersection Operat ions Analysis .......................................................... 38 Travel Time Reliabilit y and Congestion .................................................. 43 Public Engageme nt Summa ry .................................................................... 52 Public Engagement Events .................................................................. 52 Engagement Media Methods ................................................................. 53 Public Engagement Results .................................................................. 57 Existing Transportation Challe nges and Constraints ................................... 61 Walking Infrastr ucture ....................................................................... 62 Bicycling Infrastructure ...................................................................... 62 Transit Infras tructure ........................................................................ 63 Crashes .......................................................................................... 63 Operati o
ns ...................................................................................... 64 Right of Way .................................................................................... 64 Appendix ................................................................................................. 65

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 iv

List of Figures
Figure 1. Norwood Avenue Roadway Segments ......................................... 9 Figure 2. Segment 1: Norwood Avenue (Main Avenue to Bell Avenue) ........... 14 Figure 3. Segment 2: Norwood Avenue (Bell Avenue to I-80) ...................... 15 Figure 4. Segment 3: Norwood Avenue (I-80 to Carroll Avenue) .................. 16 Figure 5. Segment 4: Norwood Avenue (Carroll Avenue to Arcade Creek) ....... 17 Figure 6. SacRT Monthly Transit Ridership ............................................. 20 Figure 7. SacRT Transit Ridership by Bu s Stop on Norwood Avenue (Segment 1- 4) ................................................................................................ 20 Figure 8. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Scores ....................................... 21 Figure 9. Norwood Avenue Bicycle LTS .................................................. 23 Figure 10. Walking Level of Traffic Stress .............................................. 24 Figure 11. Norwood Avenue Walking LTS ............................................... 26 Figure 12. Norwood Avenue Total on-street Parking Spaces ........................ 27 Figure 13: Crash Map by Severity ........................................................ 29 Figure 14: Crashes by Type ................................................................ 31 Figure 15: Crashes by Primary Crash Factor ........................................... 32 Figure 16: Pedestrian Crash Map ......................................................... 34 Figure 17: Bicycle Crash Map .............................................................. 34 Figure 18: Crash Trends by Location .................................................... 36 Figure 19. Existing Traffic Volumes and Operation Results at Study Intersections .................................................................................. 40 Figure 20: Relationship Between Averag e Travel Time and 95th Percentile Travel Time which Results in the Buffer Time Index ................................. 44 Figure 21. Autos AM Peak Hour Reliability and Congestion ......................... 46 Figure 22. Autos PM Peak Hour Reliability and Congestion ......................... 47 Figure 23. Trucks AM Peak Hour Reliability and Congestion ........................ 48

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 v

Figure 24. Trucks PM Peak Hour Reliability and Congestion ........................ 49 Figure 25. Autos and Trucks AM Peak Hour Reliability and Congestion ........... 50 Figure 26. Autos and Trucks PM Peak Hour Reliability and Congestion ........... 51 Figure 27. Norwood Mobility Project Web Page ........................................ 54 Figure 28. Norwood Avenue Interactive Comment Map .............................. 55 Figure 29. Norwood Avenue Community Survey ....................................... 56 Figure 30. Norwood Avenue Event Flyer ................................................ 57 Figure 31. Engagement comments by Major Intersection ............................ 59 Figure 32. Comments by Type ............................................................. 60 Figure 33. Infrastructure Gaps and Constraints ....................................... 61

List of Tables
Table 1. Recommended Circulation and Roadway Improvements ................... 4 Table 2. Summary of Existing Conditions and Characteristics along Norwood Avenue ......................................................................................... 10 Table 3. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Criteria ....................................... 22 Table 4. Walking Level of Traffic Stress Criteria ...................................... 25 Table 5. Midday and Evening Parking Utilization ...................................... 28 Table 6: Crashes by Severity .............................................................. 29 Table 7: Crashes by Segment ............................................................. 30 Table 8: Study Corridor Crashes by Day of Week and Time of Day ............... 30 Table 9: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes ................................................ 33 Table 10: Level of Service Criteria Definitions ........................................ 38 Table 11: Existing Conditions Operational Analysis Results ........................ 39 Table 12. 95 th Percentile Queueing Results at Study Intersections ............... 42 Table 13. Congestion and Reliability Performance Measures ....................... 45

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 1

Introduction
Project Background
Norwood Avenue is part of the High Injury Network in the City of Sacramento’s Vison Zero Action Plan1, which means that the corridor experiences a high number of fatal and serious injury crashes for people driving, walking, and bicycling. Additionally, Norwood Avenue is a high priority corridor in the Sacramento Transportation Priorities Plan2. The purpose of the Norwood Mobility Project is to evaluate the safety and mobility for all users of the corridor and identify areas for improvements that wi ll eliminate barriers, improve access, and support the needs of the surrounding community. The project will also meet State, regional, and local requirements such as California Executive Order of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) Climate Action Plan of investing in safer walking and bicycling infrastructure, Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT) Bus Stop Improvement Plan, and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Regional Trail Network.

Policy Framework and Setting
In 2019, the City of Sacramento adopted a Complete Streets Policy 3 which confirms the City’s commitment to Complete Streets to ensure that future transportation projects support a safer, accessible, and connected multi-modal transportation network.

On February 27, 2024, the City of Sacramento adopted the Sacramento 2040 General Plan and Climate Action & Adaptation Plan. The Gene ral Plan lists several goals, policies, and implementation actions for the City. The Mobility section of the 2040 General Plan outlines several policies that are related to the Norwood Mobility Plan.

The following policies relate to Norwood Avenue:
 M-1.1. The City shall maintain a street classification system that considers the role of streets as corridors for movement but prioritizes a context-sensitive Complete Streets concept that enables connected, comfortable, and convenient travel for those walking, rolling, and taking transit.
 M-1.2. The City shall prioritize mobility, comfort, health, safety, and convenience for those walking, followed by those bicycling and riding transit, ahead of design and operations for those driving.
 M-1.3. The City shall plan and make investments to foster a transportation system that improves the health of Sacramento residents through actions that make active transportation, nonmotorized modes, high-o ccupancy, and zero emission vehicles

1 City of Sacramento Vision Zero Action Plan (2018)
2 City of Sacramento Transportation Priorities Plan (2022) 3 Resolution 2019-0460

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 2

(ZEVs) viable, attractive alternatives to automobiles that use internal combustion engines.
 M-1.4. In planning, designing, and managing the transportation system, the City shall prioritize person throughput to shift trips to more efficient travel modes and upgrade the performance of limited street space.
 M-1.5. The City shall maintain street design and operations standards that prioritize comfort and travel time for walking, bicycling, and transit, while managing vehicle speeds and traffic volumes, updating them as best practices evolve.  M-1.6. Wherever feasible, the City shall design buildings, the public realm, streets, and pedestrian access to integrate transit into existing neighborhoods and proposed developments and destinations such as schools, employment centers, commercial centers, major attractions, and public walking spaces to improve access for users by transit.
 M-1.9. The City shall ensure that the transportation system is planned and implemented with an equitable process to achieve equitable outcomes and investments so that all neighborhoods one day will have similar levels of transportation infrastructure such as sidewalks, marked low stress crossings, and bikeways.
 M-1.10. The City shall continue to engage the community in decisions that affect mobility, including planning, design outcomes and implementation, with a particular focus on planning with, and not for, historically marginalized, disadvantaged communities and environmental justice communities.
 M.1.11. The City shall strive to increase bicycling and walking citywide so that it can meet its equity, reduced vehicle miles traveled, and sustainability goals.  M-1.13. The City shall design streets to prioritize walking by including design elements such as the following:
o Grid networks that provide high levels of connectivity; o Closely spaced intersections;
o Frequent and low-stress crossings;
o Wide, unobstructed walkable sidewalks;
o Separation from vehicle traffic;
o Street trees that provide shading; and
o Minimal curb cuts.
 M-1.14. The City shall work to complete the network of tree-shaded sidewalks throughout the city, to the greatest extent feasible, by building new sidewalks and crossings, especially within the high-injury network, in disadvantaged communities, near high-ridership transit stops, and near important destinations, such as schools, parks, and commercial areas. Walking facilities should incorporate shade trees.  M-1.15. The City shall require new subdivi sions, new multi-unit dwelling developments, and new developments along commercial corridors to include well-lit, tree-shaded walkways where feasible, that provide direct links to the public realm or adjacent public destinations such as transit stops and stations, schools, parks and shopping centers.

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 3

 M-1.16. The City shall remove barriers to walking, where feasible, and work with utility companies to remove barriers to allow people of all abilities to move with comfort and convenience throughout the city, including through the following:
o Provisions of curb ramps, crosswalks, and overpasses; o Relocation of infrastructure of street furniture that impedes travel pathways; o Reducing or consolidating driveways and curb cuts;
o Providing long and short-term bicycle and scooter parking to minimize sidewalk obstructions; and
o Creation of additional walking entrances to important destinations like schools, parks, and commercial areas.
 M-1.17. The City shall plan and seek funding for a continuous, low-stress bikeway network consisting of bicycling-friendly facilities that connect neighborhoods with destinations and activity centers throughout the city.
 M-1.8. When designing projects, the City shall prioritize designs that strengthen the protection of people bicycling such as improvements that increase visibility of bicyclists, increase bikeway widths, raise bikeways, design safer intersection crossings and turns, and separate bikeways from driving traffic wherever feasible.  M-1.9. When designing projects, the City shall prioritize designs that encourage walking and improve walking safety best practice designs and considerations for efficiencies in walking.
 M-1.26. The City shall encourage the Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT) to implement bus shelter design that enco urages transit use, informed by ADA- compliance, bus stop placement, and pa ssenger safety best practices. Where feasible, the City should collaborate with SacRT on bus stop designs for major corridor improvement projects.

Additionally, in the 2040 General Plan is the North Sacramento Community Plan, which identifies policies specific to North Sacramento which includes Norwood Avenue. The North Sacramento Community Plan also identifies the Norwood Area Circulation and Infrastructure Plan (2007) as a plan that is directly related to the North Sacramento community.

The following North Sacramento Community Plan policies in the 2040 General Plan relate to Norwood Avenue:
 NS-M-2. The City shall continue to support community efforts to offer, promote, and expand access to bikes, bike skills, and bike repair.
 NS-M-3. The City shall continue to invest in walking improvements in North Sacramento Community Plan Area, working closely with the communities to ensure the community needs are addressed.
 NS-M-4. When making street improvements the City shall recognize that speed is the greatest factor in collisions, and this should be addressed in the North Sacramento Community Plan Area. Staff should apply speed reduction measures as funding allows.

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 4

 NS-M-5. The City should encourage and collaborate with the Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT) to plan and im plement high frequency, connected, and convenient trans tot the North Natomas Community Plan Area and the wider city.  NS-M-6. The City shall continue to seek funding to carry out improvements as prioritized in the Transportation Priorities Plan for streets that lack sidewalks and street lighting, are under heavy use by pedestrians, or will not be improved through new development and assessment districts.
 NS-PFS-7. The City shall encourage property owners to form assessment districts in order to support the provision of infrastructure.

The Norwood Area Circulation & Infrastructure Plan recommendations for Norwood Avenue include, “stripe the bike lanes and properly mark them along Norwood Avenue to improve the safety of the bicyclists and request that RT provide bus shelters and other pertinent improvements at the existing bus stops to improve the comfort of riders as well as aesthetics. Additionally, as improvements occur along Norwood Avenue, sidewalk improvements should comply with ADA requirements, including removing impediments in the sidewalks and improving the curb ramps to current standards.” Similar recommendations are provided in the Norwood Circulation & Infrastructure Plan for adjacent corridors included in the Norwood Mobility Plan. Table 1 shows recommendations for Norwood Avenue and adjacent roadways from the Norwood Area Circulation & Infrastructure Plan.

Table 1. Recommended Circulation and Roadway Improvements Norwood Area
Roadways
Roadway
Curb/Gutter
Parkway
Sidewalk
Bike Lanes
Bus Stop
Improvements
Lighting
Traffic Calming Devices Speed Humps
Stop Signs
Crosswalks
Traffic Signs
Speed Limit
Norwood Avenue X X X
Morrison Avenue X X X X X X
Morey Avenue X X X X X X X X X
South Avenue X X X X X X X X X
Silver Eagle
Road X X X X X X X X X X
Ford Road X X X X X X X
Western Avenue X X X X X X X X
Source: Norwood Area Circulation & Infrastructure Plan, 2007.

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 5

Literature Review
The City of Sacramento has developed planning studies that overlap with the Norwood Mobility Project corridor. This section provides a brief literature review of several key plans and policies by the City of Sacramento, focusing on their relevance to Norwood Avenue.

Norwood Area Circul ation and Infrastructure Plan (2007) In 2007, the Norwood Area Circulation and Infras tructure Plan was adopted by the City of Sacramento. The Norwood Area Circulation and Infrastructure Plan assessed existing circulation patterns and infrastructure conditions to provide recommendations for improvements for existing and future development.

Vision Zero Action Plan (2018)
In January 2017, the City of Sacramento adopte d a goal to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries4. Norwood Avenue was identified in the City of Sacramento Visions Zero Action Plan as a High Injury Corridor. The Sa cramento Vision Zero Action Plan aims to support the City’s General Plan in maintaining safety and health of its residents and visitors.

The Vision Zero Action Plan outlines crash trends and patterns in the City while providing a short- and long-term action plan for improv ing transportation safety and eventually eliminating fatal and severe injury crashes. Th e Vision Zero Plan is actively updated with new traffic data and progress towards a Vision Zero goal.

Transportation Prio rities Plan (2022)
In November 2022, the City of Sacramento adopted a list of priority transportation projects.

The Transportation Priorities Plan (TPP) provides the city with a prioritized list of projects and funding needs for improvements. The TPP outlines funding sources for transportation projects, priority areas, and needs of the city. In the TPP, Norwood Avenue and intersecting corridors are identified as medium to high priority corridors for projects that include streetscape, walking improvements, and bike lanes.
2040 General Plan - Environmental Justice Element (2024) In the 2040 Sacramento General Plan, Norwood Avenue is a designated Disadvantaged Community (DAC) in Sacramento. DAC designation is determined based on several factors such as pollution, income, and food resources.

4 Resolution NO. 2017-0032

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 6

Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (2024)
On February 27, 2024, the City of Sacramento adopted the Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (CAAP). The CAAP includes measures for Sacramento to implement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 2030. The CA AP builds upon the City’s 2012 Climate Action Plan and emphasizes the need for active transportation as a key strategy for reducing GHG.

Streets for People: Sacramento’s Active Transportation Plan (Draft 2024-2025)
Streets for People: Sacramento’s Active Transportation Plan (S4P) is currently in draft form and aims to improve walking, biking, and rolling in Sacramento. S4P will serve to update the City’s 2018 Bicycle Master Plan and 2006 Pedestrian Master Plan. The draft S4P plan will serve as a guide for city staff, local agencies, public officials, residents, and developers to create a balanced and connected transportation system that supports all modes of travel and encourages active transportation. The primary goal of the draft S4P plan is to address active transportation needs and focus on impr oving infrastructure pr imarily in areas that are disadvantaged or marginalized.

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

Socio-Economic Characteristics
Norwood Avenue is located in North Sacramento, west of the Del Paso Heights community.

As described by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), Norwood Avenue is in an Environmental Justice (EJ) community of low income and minority groups. The Norwood Avenue Mobility Project corridor is also within two SB 535 disadvantaged communities

5. As illustrated in the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan6, Norwood Avenue is in an area with the highest cumulative air pollution burden.

According to the American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, the four census tracts surrounding the project area contain approximately 17,4377 people with an average annual median household income of $ 60,570, whereas the citywide median household income is

5 These areas represent the 25% highest scoring census tracts in CalEnviroScreen 4.0, census tracts previously identified in the top 25% in CalEnviroScreen 3.0, census tracts with high amounts of pollution and low populations, and federally recognized tribal areas as identified by the Census in the 2021 American Indian Areas Related National Geodatabase. https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535
6 City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan, Map EJ-2: Census Tracts with Highest Cumulative Air Pollution Burden 7 ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates, Table S0101

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 7

$83,7538. Citywide, 14.4% of the population experience poverty, whereas the population of the four census tracts surrounding the project corridor range between 14.5% to 31.3% of people experiencing poverty 9. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Climate and Economic Justice Sc reening Tool, Norwood Avenue is located in disadvantaged communities that are above the percentile threshold for low income, fine particulate (PM 2.5) exposure, asthma, low life expectancy, housing costs, and wastewater discharge.

Physical Characteristics
Norwood Avenue is a north-south arterial th at connects the North Sacramento community to Interstate 80, employment and retail destinations, and other services.

The road profile consists of two general purpose travel lanes per direction with a striped center two way left turn median. However, from Grace Avenue to Main Avenue, the roadway is one travel lane per direction with no tw o-way left turn lane median. Lane widths throughout the corridor vary from 11 to 12 feet for through travel lanes and 10 to 11 feet for two-way left turn center lanes. Per the City’s standards, the minimum lane width for travel lanes is 11 feet unless the City Traffic Engineer deems appropriate otherwise

10. Norwood Avenue consists of 11 signalized intersections, two of which are at I-80 on and off ramps. The posted speed limit throughout the st udy corridor is 35 mph. The right-of-way (ROW) of the study corridor varies between 50 to 70 feet, when measured from curb to curb.

Throughout the study corridor, sidewalks are approximately five f eet wide. The corridor consists of two major sidewalk gaps on the west side of the road from Berthoud Street to Grace Avenue where there is an informal asph alt path and on the east side of Norwood Avenue from Grace Avenue to Main Avenue there is no sidewalk present. However, the sidewalk gap on the east side of the corridor from Grace Avenue to Main Avenue will be closed with future planned development. Throug hout the entire corridor, utility poles are installed in the sidewalk, creating regular obstructions in the sidewalk width. The City has completed recent crosswalk upgrades at the intersection of Norwood Avenue and Bell Avenue. The remaining crosswalk locations along the corridor require some level of improvement to meet City standards including updates to push buttons, curb ramps, accessible pedestrian signal (APS) upgrades, and/or striping. The City Engineering Services team is currently upgrading several intersections on Norwood Avenue to include intelligent transportation systems (ITS) that will improve safety and efficiency.

Norwood Avenue consists of disconnected and incomplete bike lanes and lacks any striped markings or wayfinding signage for existing bicycle facilities. From Main Avenue to Norwood Junior High School, a bike lane exists along the southbound travel lane but drops off 160

8 ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates, Table S1901
9 ACS 2023 5-Year Estimates, Table S1701
10 City of Sacramento, Section 15 - Street Design Standards

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 8

feet north of the Norwood Avenue and Grac e Avenue intersection. A bike lane begins approximately 200 feet south of the northbo und Bell Avenue intersection approach and continues along the northbound travel lanes from Bell Avenue to Grace Avenue. At the southern end of the corridor, from the Arcade Creek overpass to Carroll Avenue, bike lanes are present along the northbound and southbound travel lanes.

The corridor has been broken into four segmen ts for the purposes of this study based on their general characteristics. This segmentation is shown in Figure 1 and Table 2 and provides a summary of the existing conditions and characteristics for each road segment.

Each segment is further described in the following sections.

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 9

Figure 1. Norwood Avenue Roadway Segments

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 10

Table 2. Summary of Existing Conditions and Characteristics along Norwood Avenue Road Segment 1 Road Segment 2 Road Segment 3 Road Segment 4 Boundaries Main Avenue to Bell Avenue Bell Avenue to I-80 I- 80 to Carroll Avenue Carroll Avenue to Arcade Creek Length
(Approx) 2,670 ft 2,300 ft 5,300 ft 1,200 ft
Number of
Lanes 2 - 4 4 4 2-3
Lighting Street Lighting Street and Pedestrian
Lighting Street Lighting Street and Pedestrian Lighting Posted Speed
Limit
25 MPH – School Zone
35 MPH
35 MPH
25 MPH – School Zone
35 MPH
35 MPH
Annual Daily
Traffic 12,064 19,310 10,772 14,302
Adjacent Land
Uses
Standard Single-Family,
Single-Family Alternative,
Agricultural, and Multi-
Family
Multi-Family,
Commercial, and
Industrial
Multi-Family, Standard
Single-Family, Single-
Family Alternative,
Commercial
Multi-Family and Single-Family
Standard

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 11

Road Segment 1 Road Segment 2 Road Segment 3 Road Segment 4 Notable
Locations Norwood Junior High School Norwood Center
Sacramento County
Department of Human
Assistance, Dollar
General, Robertson
Community Center, Del
Paso Park
Gateway Park
Major Cross-
Streets within
Road Segment
Grace Avenue, Bell Avenue Jessie Avenue
Harris Avenue, Morrison
Avenue, Grand Avenue,
Silver Eagle Road, Ford
Road
Fairbanks Avenue
Median Types None None None None
Existing
Bicycle
Facilities
Bike Lanes-SB Lane from
Main Avenue to Norwood Jr
High parking lot exit and
NB lane north of Bell
Avenue to Grace Avenue
Bike Lane – NB lane
approx. 200 ft
prevailing
Bell/Norwood
intersection
None
Bike Lanes – NB and SB lanes
from Arcade Creek overpass to
Carroll Avenue

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 12

Road Segment 1 Road Segment 2 Road Segment 3 Road Segment 4 Condition of
Walking
Facilities
 No sidewalk along NB
lane from Grace Ave to
Main Ave
 Sidewalks are
continuous with no
obvious deterioration
along SB lane from
Main Ave to Grace Ave
 Sidewalk from Grace
Ave to Berthoud St
along SB lane is
discontinuous in
material transitioning
from concrete to
asphalt and consists of
cracks is deteriorating
 Sidewalks are
continuous and
does not show
obvious signs of
deteriorating but
contains some
cracks in the
concrete.
 Sidewalk lacks
buffers from
travel lanes
 Sidewalks are
continuous but
consists of concrete
gaps and uneven
pavement
 Sidewalk lacks
buffers from travel
lanes
 Utility poles within
sidewalk width
 Sidewalks is continuous and
does not consist of obvious
signs of deterioration
Parking
On-street parking along SB
lanes from Main Ave to
Norwood JHS
On-street parking
along NB and SB
lanes from Bell Ave to
Jessie Ave
No on-street parking No on-street parking
Bus Shelter
Locations None 1 – Route 19 at
Bell/Norwood (SB) None None

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 13

Segment 1: Norwood Avenue - Main Avenue to Bell Avenue
The northernmost segment on the study corridor as shown in Figure 2 begins at Main Avenue and ends at Bell Avenue. The adjacent land use is residential, with Norwood Junior High School located south of Main Avenue. This segment of Norwood Avenue has one lane per direction from Grace Avenue to Main Avenue and transitions to two lanes per direction with a center turn-lane from Grace Avenue to Bell Avenue.

On-street parking is permitted from Main Avenue to Norwood Junior High School along the southbound travel lane. Sidewalks along this segment have inconsistent widths with gaps in the network on either side and are in fair to poor condition. Bicycle lanes are present on one side of the roadway (southbound north of Grace Avenue, and northbound south of Grace Avenue). No public transit bus stops are present along Segment 1.

While walking and biking infrastructure does no t currently exist at the southeast corner of Norwood Avenue and Main Avenue, a future planned development will incorporate roadway widening and pavement addition for a travel lane, buffered bike lane, on-street parking, curb & gutter, a 6’ wide landscape planer and a 6’ wide sidewalk. The future roadway configuration with the planned development w ill be two northbound through lanes, one northbound left turn pocket, one right northbound turn lane, and one northbound buffered bike lane.

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 14

Figure 2. Segment 1: Norwood Avenue (Main Avenue to Bell Avenue) Segment 2: Norwood Avenue - Bell Avenue to I-80
The second segment stretches from Bell Avenue to I-80 as shown in Figure 3. Adjacent land uses include residential and commercial uses, with some parking lot frontage and fast- food restaurants near the freeway. This segment of Norwood Avenue is two lanes per direction with a center turn-lane. Sidewalks are present on both sides of the roadway. The only bike lane that exists in Segment 2 is a 200-foot-long bicycle lane at the northbound Bell Avenue intersection approach. On-street parking is permitted between Bell Avenue and Jessie Avenue along the northb ound and southbound travel lanes, in front of adjacent apartments and businesses.

Route 19 operated by SacRT runs along Norwood Avenue, turns onto Bell Avenue and continues onto Rio Linda Boulevard, operating on one-hour headways. There is a bus stop located approximately 250 feet from the Norwood Avenue/Bell Avenue intersection in the eastbound direction on Bell Avenue; along Norw ood Avenue in the southbound direction, there is another bus stop located approximately 80 feet south of the intersection. Route 19 bus stops also exist in both directions on Norwood Avenue, 100 feet north of Jessie Avenue.

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 15

Figure 3. Segment 2: Norwood Avenue (Bell Avenue to I-80)

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 16

Segment 3: Norwood Avenue - I-80 to Carroll Avenue
The third segment begins at I- 80 and ends at Carroll Avenue, with two travel lanes per direction with a center two-way turn lane as shown in Figure 4. There is a mix of single family and multi-family residential adjacent to Norwood Avenue, as well as commercial land use along the segment, including a Dollar General, parks, and the Robertson Community Center. There are consistent sidewalks on both sides but no bike lanes. Route 86 and Route 19 are operated by SacRT and have several stops on this segment near Harris Avenue, Morrison Avenue, Lindsay Avenue, Kesner Avenue, South Avenue, Hayes Avenue, Silver Eagle Road, Ford Road, and Carroll Avenue.

Figure 4. Segment 3: Norwood Avenue (I-80 to Carroll Avenue)

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 17

Segment 4: Norwood Avenue - Ca rroll Avenue to Arcade Creek Segment 4 starts at Carroll Avenue and ends at Arcade Creek as shown in Figure 5. The adjacent land use is made up of single-family and multi-family residential and includes Gateway Park. There are two lanes per direction with a center turn lane from Carroll Avenue to Fairbanks Avenue. From Fairbanks Avenue to Arcade Creek the roadway narrows to one lane per direction across the Arcade Creek bridge. There are consistent sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides of the road in this segment. SacRT Route 19 runs through this segment with a bus stop located at the Caroll Avenue intersection along the northbound travel lanes.

Route 19 operates on a one-hour headway.

Figure 5. Segment 4: Norwood Avenue (Carroll Avenue to Arcade Creek)

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 18

Existing Conditions Multimodal Analysis
This section summarizes the findings of existing multimodal conditions which includes vehicles, people walking, biking, or taking transit. The multimodal findings are further detailed in the following sections.

Study Intersections
Six study intersections were identified and ev aluated as part of the analysis of traffic operations. The study area consisted of the following signalized study intersections:

1. Norwood Avenue / Bell Avenue

2. Norwood Avenue / Jessie Avenue

3. Norwood Avenue / WB I-80 Ramps

4. Norwood Avenue / EB I-80 Ramps

5. Norwood Avenue / Harris Avenue

6. Norwood Avenue / Silver Eagle Road
Traffic Volumes
Vehicle, walking, and bicycle counts were collected during weekday a.m. (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and p.m. (4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) pea k hours on Tuesday, October 8, 2024, when school was in session. The peak hours were found to be 7:30 to 8:30 AM and 5:00 to 6:00 PM. Turning Movement Count sheets can be found in Appendix A.

The intersection with the highest vehicle tr affic was Norwood Avenue and Jessie Avenue.

Vehicle traffic at Norwood Ave nue and Jessie Avenue during the AM resulted in 3,589 vehicles, 59% of total AM traffic was during the AM peak hour. The PM vehicle traffic was higher than AM traffic with 4,285 total vehicles and 50% of PM traffic occurring during the PM peak hour.

Heavy vehicles such as trailers and other commercial fleets were included in traffic volume counts. Heavy vehicle counts for all intersecti ons ranged from 48 to 226 for AM and PM.

The Norwood Avenue and I-80 eastbound ramps and Harris Avenue intersections had the highest number of heavy vehicles with 354 and 310. At both locations, over 42% of heavy vehicle traffic occurred during the AM and PM peak hours.

Walking activity was greatest on the south le g of Norwood Avenue at Bell Avenue and the north leg of Norwood at Jessie Avenue. Both crosswalks at these locations experienced approximately 20 people walking at crossings per hour during the AM peak. The activity of people walking at Bell Avenue and Jessie Avenue can be attributed to adjacent commercial businesses and apartments, the Line 19 bus stops at both intersections, and Glenwood Elementary School.

Bicycle activity was greatest at Norwood Avenue and Silver Eagle Road with 10 people biking during the AM and 21 people biking during the PM. Both AM and PM peak hour bicycle counts accounted for over 54% of daily bicycling activity.

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 19

Transit Data Summary
Norwood Avenue is served by SacRT’s Route 19 and Route 86. Route 19 connects riders between the Arden/Del Paso Light Rail Station to Elverta Road and Watt Avenue. Route 86 provides connections between Downtown Sacr amento and the Marconi/Arcade Light Rail Station. Route 19 and Route 86 overlap for six stops on Norwood Avenue from Silver Eagle Road to Lindsay Avenue. On weekdays and we ekends, Route 19 operates on a 60-minute headway for Norwood Avenue bus stops. On weekdays, Route 86 operates Norwood Avenue stops between a 25-to-30-minute headway and a 60-minute headway on weekends.

Through coordination with SacRT, weekday ridership data was collected for the 14 existing transit stops along Norwood Avenue. The data given captures ridership from January to August 2024. As shown in Figure 6, the monthly total of all weekday ridership 11 for all
stops on Norwood Avenue is relatively steady with an exponential increase occurring in August.

The average monthly ridership from January to August was 195 riders across all stops in 2024. The average weekday ridership for all tr ansit stops on Norwood Avenue is 14 riders per stop. Stops serviced by only Route 19 had a total of 698 riders while stops serviced by both Route 19 and Route 86 had a total of 860 riders during this time period. Figure 7 shows the average weekday ridership by bus stops along Norwood Avenue. As shown, the southbound Norwood Avenue/Silver Eagle Road bus stop serviced by both Route 19 and Route 86 observed the highest average number of riders (25) on any given weekday from January to August. In contrast, the northbound Norwood Avenue/Carroll Avenue bus stop is serviced by only Route 19 and observed the lowest average number of riders (4) on any given weekday for the same time period.

11 Includes only boardings at bus stops

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 20

Figure 6. SacRT Mont hly Transit Ridership

Figure 7. SacRT Transit Ridership by Bus Stop on Norwood Avenue (Segment 1-4)

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 21

Level of Traffic Stress/All Ages and Abilities Walking /Bicycle analysis
A Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) analysis has been calculated for people walking and bicycling.

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 roadway 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 roadway 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 8.

Table 3 lists the criteria for each roadway segment and the associated LTS score. As shown in Figure 9, the existing LTS for people bicycling on Norwood Avenue is consistently high stress, often not comfortable for all ages and abilities. The only low stress environment on Norwood Avenue exists from Fairbanks Avenue to Arcade Creek, characterized by marked bike lanes and lower vehicle speeds.

Figure 8. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Scores

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 22

Table 3. Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Criteria

SEGMENT
POSTED
SPEED
(MPH)
BIKE

PRESENCE

AND TYPE

PARKING
LANE

NUMBER OF
TRAVEL
LANES
LTS
SCORE
SEGMENT 1 MAIN

AVENUE TO BELL
AVENUE
35 Yes
Class II Bike
Lanes
Yes: SB from
Main Ave to
Grace Ave
No: Grace Ave
to Bell Ave
1: Main Ave to
Berthoud St
2: Berthoud St
to Bell Ave
4 SEGMENT 2 BELL
AVENUE TO I-80 EB

ON/OFF RAMPS
35 No
Yes: Bell Ave to
Jessie Ave
No: Jessie Ave
to I-80 EB
2 4
SEGMENT 3
I-80 EB ON/OFF

RAMPS TO CARROLL
AVENUE
35 No No 2
4: I-80 EB
On/Off
Ramps to
Grand Ave
3: Grand
Ave to
Carroll Ave
SEGMENT 4 CARROLL

AVENUE TO ARCADE
CREEK
30 Yes
Class II Bike
Lanes
No 1
3: Carroll
Ave to
Fairbanks
Ave
1: Fairbanks
Ave to
Arcade
Creek

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 23

Figure 9. Norwood Avenue Bicycle LTS

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 24

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 10.

Table 4 lists the criteria for each roadway segment and the associated LTS score Similar to the bicycling LTS results, Norwood Avenue also received common LTS scores of 3 and 4 throughout the study limits indicating that the corridor is uncomfortable to traverse for the majority of people walking. As shown in Figure 11, walking LTS for people walking along the corridor is a primarily a high stress environment not suitable for all ages and abilities.

However, for people walking, low stress pockets exist near Fairbanks Avenue and Main Avenue.

Figure 10. Walking Level of Traffic Stress

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 25

Table 4. Walking Level of Traffic Stress Criteria

12 Lanes per direction and includes two-way left turn lane. 13 Posted speed limit or prevailing speed.

Segment
Street
Width 12
(Number
of Lanes)
Buffer Types Sidewalk
Width
Sidewalk
Condition
Speed
Limit 13 LTS Score
Segment 1
Main
Avenue to
Bell
Avenue
1: Main
Avenue to
Grace
Avenue
2: Grace
Avenue to
Bell Avenue
Landscaping
Buffer: SB
Norwood JHS to
Berthoud Street
5 ft: SB Main
Avenue to
Bell Avenue
5 ft: NB Bell
Avenue to
Grace
Avenue
0 ft: NB Main
Avenue to
Gace Avenue
Good: SB
Main Avenue
to Grace
Avenue
No Sidewalk:

Main Avenue
to Grace
Avenue
35 2: SB Norwood JHS
to Grace Avenue
3: SB Grace
Avenue to Bell
Avenue
4: NB Main Avenue
to Bell Avenue
Segment 2
Bell
Avenue to
I-80 EB
On/Off
Ramps
3 None 5 ft Fair 35 4
Segment 3
I-80 EB
On/Off
Ramps to
Carroll
Avenue
3 None 5 ft Fair 35 3: Grand Avenue to
Carroll Avenue
Segment 4
Carroll
Avenue to
Arcade
Creek
2: SB
Carroll
Avenue to
Fairbanks
Avenue
1:

Fairbanks
Avenue to
Arcade
Creek
Landscaping
Buffer: NB
Fairbanks to
South Gateway
Park
5 ft Good 35
2: SB Fairbanks
Avenue to South
Gateway Park
3: NB Arcade Creek
to Gateway Park,
Fairbanks Avenue
to Carroll Avenue,
SB Carroll Avenue
to Arcade Creek

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 26

Figure 11. Norwood Avenue Walking LTS

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 27

Parking Inventory and Utilization Summary
Parking Context
On-street parking along the study corridor is only permitted on the west side of Norwood Avenue along the SB travel lane between Ma in Avenue and the southern driveway of Norwood Junior High School (Segment 1) and along the NB and SB travel lanes from Bell Avenue to Jessie Avenue (Segment 2). The areas where on-street parking is permitted are not striped with individual parking spaces. Be ll and Jessie Avenues are characterized by multi-family housing and commercial businesse s with several driveways into parking lots, creating conflicts with through traffic. From Bell Avenue to Jessie Avenue, “No parking” signs exist within approximately 10 feet of an apartment driveway. Additionally, along the SB lane from Bell Avenue to the first drivew ay entrance at The Charleston, no parking is permitted at any time.

Given the high frequency and severity of crashes occurring between Bell Avenue and Jessie Avenue, parking data was collected on Tuesda y, November 17 at 1:00pm and 8:00pm, to determine midday and evening (overnight) on-str eet parking capacity and utilization. Due to the area being primarily residential, a low turnover rate of on-street parking spaces was observed.

Parking Capacity
Along the corridor there are several areas where on-street parking is permitted, varying in spots available from two to thirteen spaces for a total of 49 parking spaces. The majority of on-street parking exists on the east side of Norwood Avenue along the NB travel lanes. The parking zones and their associated occupancy are shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12. Norwood Avenue Total on-street Parking Spaces Parking Utilization & Findings
While there are 49 on-street parking spaces provided along Segment 2, not all spaces are filled at any given time. On-street parking utilization is a metric to determine the percentage of occupied spaces at different times of the day over the total number of spaces along the roadway. The midday and evening parking utilization between Bell Avenue and Jessie

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 28

Avenue is summarized in Table 5. During midday, on-street parking along the NB (east) side of Norwood Avenue approaches capacity at 88% utilized, whereas parking along the SB side is only at 20% of capacity. Evenin g parking operations along NB Norwood Avenue exceed parking capacity at 108% while the SB parking utilization increases slightly to 24%.

During the midday and evening hours, it was observed that NB parking consistently had vehicles that were illegally parked despite No-Parking signage and red curb markings. This can be attributed to the lack of marked crossings, lighting, and high speeds on Norwood Avenue that may influence drivers to illegally park along the NB lanes rather than seek SB side parking and cross on foot.

Table 5. Midday and Evening Parking Utilization
During the parking observation, it was noted that on-street parking is permitted on Bell Avenue from Norwood Avenue to Rio Linda Bo ulevard, adjacent to Robla Community Park and Morningside Creek apartments.

Crash Analysis Summary
Crash data was collected for the five-year period (2018-2022) from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) maintained by UC Berkeley to conduct an analysis of the corridor. TIMS data only includes injury crashes, so this analysis does not include property damage only crashes. The data consisted of injury crashes on Norwood Avenue from Main Avenue to Arcade Creek. Appendix B includes the detailed crash data.

The study corridor experienced a total of 137 injury crashes. Of these, 16 crashes resulted in someone being killed or severely injured (K SI). Of the total injury crashes, 29 crashes involved someone walking or biking.

Table 6 summarizes crashes by year and severity, and Figure 13 shows the location of crashes on the corridor during the analysis period. The map also shows nearby schools and community centers.

Northbound Southbound
Number of Spaces 24 25
Midday Utilization 21 5
Utilization/Spaces 88% 20%
Evening Utilization 26 6
Evening
Utilization/Spaces
108% 24%

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 29

Table 6: Crashes by Severity

Figure 13: Crash Map by Severity
Table 7 summarizes crashes by study segment. 86% of injury crashes and 88% of KSIs occur in Segment 2 and Segment 3, with similar results for bicycle- and pedestrian-involved crashes. As Segment 3 is almost twice the le ngth of Segment 2, the highest density of crashes occur in Segment 2, which is also ch aracterized by high density residential and commercial use, on-street parking, and high-volume uncontrolled access points.

Crash Severity 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total
Fatal Injury 1 0 0 1 1 3
Serious Injury 2 3 1 5 2 13
Minor Injury 5 6 5 12 9 37
Possible Injury 12 16 19 14 23 84
Total 20 25 25 32 35 137

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 30

Table 7: Crashes by Segment
Citywide, the highest frequency of crashes occurs during weekday afternoons, consistent with the evening commute period14. The Howe Avenue study corridor, in comparison, shows the highest frequency of crashes occurring Tuesday late afternoon (3pm-6pm) and the time period with the highest average frequency of crashes across all days to be the early afternoon period (12pm-3pm) as shown in Table 8.

Table 8: Study Corridor Crashes by Day of Week and Time of Day

14 Vision Zero Sacramento Action Plan, 2018; Transportation Injury Mapping System, https://safetrec.berkeley.edu/tools/transportation-injury-mapping-system-tims, 2025 Crash Segment Injury
Crashes KSI Crashes
Bicycle-
Involved
Crashes
Pedestrian-
Involved Crashes
Segment 1 9 1 1 0
Segment 2 60 7 7 9
Segment 3 58 7 8 3
Segment 4 10 1 0 1
Total 137 16 16 13
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 00:00-
02:59
0 0 0 0 0 1 0
03:00-
05:59
0 0 0 1 1 0 1
06:00-
08:59
3 3 1 1 2 1 0
09:00-
11:59
4 0 4 0 1 2 4
12:00-
14:59
3 5 7 6 9 3 2
15:00-
17:59
4 14 2 2 4 3 4
18:00-
20:59
5 4 2 1 3 3 5
21:00-
23:59
1 2 0 2 2 2 7

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 31

Crash Type Summary
Figure 14 shows crashes by type during the five-year data period. Of the 137 crashes, 65 of them were broadside crashes, with the next highest type being rear-end crashes (27 crashes). Both crash types occur primarily at intersections along the corridor, with 108 (79%) of the injury crashes occurring at intersections.

KSI (fatal and serious injury) crashes are also represented in Figure 14, showing that the highest crash type resulting in a fatality or serious injury is vehicle/pedestrian crashes, with 6 KSI crashes. Because people walking are more vulnerable without the protection of a vehicle, crashes involving people who walk are more likely to lead to more severe outcomes.

Figure 14: Crashes by Type
Primary Crash Factor Summary
Figure 15 shows the crashes by primary crash factor (PCF) as recorded by the reporting officer. Of the 137 crashes, the top three PCFs are: automobile right of way (36 crashes), unsafe speed (28 crashes), and traffic signals and signs (26 crashes). Automobile right of way generally indicates that a driver enters an intersection when they are not allowed to, such as when the signal is red. Traffic si gnals and signs may include disobeying traffic signals or road signs, such as red light running or not stopping at a stop sign, but could also include infrastructure, such as confusing or missing signage. Together, these three causes account for 66% of all crashes occurring along the corridor during the study period.

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 32

For KSI crashes, pedestrian violations, whic h are generally defined as events when a pedestrian crosses at an unstriped crossing or against a signal, were the primary crash factor for five of the 16 crashes during the analysis/study period, with the second highest PCF being DUI (driving or cycling under the influence) crashes (4 during the study period).

Figure 15: Crashes by Primary Crash Factor
Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes
The study corridor is located within Environmental Justice (EJ) communities with low income and minority groups where many residents re ly on modes of transportation other than private vehicles. Additionally, there are mult iple schools, parks, and community centers along the corridor that serve younger and older residents who are reliant on walking, biking, and transit to access key destinations. While the study corridor lacks consistent sidewalks and bicycle lanes, many people were still observed walking and biking along the corridor.

Initial analysis showed that there was a high frequency of crashes involving people walking and biking, many of which resulted in fatalitie s or severe injuries. Due to these elements, further safety analysis regarding those people walking and biking was determined to be needed. Table 9 summarizes crashes involving people walking or biking for all severities.

During the analysis study period, there were 29 crashes involving someone walking or biking, with 10 crashes resulting in KSI.

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 33

Table 9: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes
Of the 13 pedestrian-involved crashes, 6 were KS I crashes, and of the 16 bicycle crashes, 4 were KSI crashes. Of all crashes involving people walking or biking, 16 occurred in Segment 2 between Bell Avenue and I-80 as shown in Figure 16 and Figure 17. In Segment 2, there are apartments on the east side of the road, commercial uses on the west, and on-street parking is allowed, which can reduce visibility for drivers along this segment.

The primary crash factor resulting in the highest number of KSI crashes during the period was pedestrian violations. Of crashes involving people walking, 38% involved someone crossing outside of a marked crosswalk and 31% from walking in the road which includes the roadway shoulder. There is high walking activity on this segment of Norwood, and during the site walk people were observed crossing outside of a marked crosswalk.

Of the 16 bicycle crashes, there were no fatal crashes but four serious injuries. Roughly 44% of crashes involving someone biking were reported as broadside crashes, characterized by a vehicle hitting the side of a person biking . Additionally, 19% of the crashes involving someone biking were reported as sideswipes, where a vehicle collides with the side of someone biking in the same direction as the car. Notably 63% of bicycle crashes were a result of improper turning or automobile right of way as the primary collision factor.

Crash Category Pedestrian Crashes Bicycle Crashes
Fatal Injury 2 0
Serious Injury 4 4
Minor Injury 3 4
Possible Injury 4 8
Total 13 16

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 34

Figure 16: Pedestrian Crash Map

Figure 17: Bicycle Crash Map
Crash Trends by Location
The most frequently occurring primary collision factors and crash types reported for crashes along the study corridor, along with the associated locations, are provided in Figure 18.

Broadside crashes were the most common and occurred at most intersections along the corridor. Rear end crashes, unsafe speeds, and signal violations were mostly concentrated between the I-80 interchange and Harris Avenue where congestion during commute periods can occur. Signal violations were also cited at Grand Avenue and Silver Eagle Road. Unsafe speeds were also cited between Silver Eagle Road and Fairbanks Avenue on the southern portion of the corridor.

The highest concentration of crashes along the study corridor was between Belle Avenue and Jessie Avenue in Segment 2 and involves a unique crash profile with the majority of

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 35

head-on, sideswipe, and improper turning crashes occurring along this portion of the road.

Most of the crashes involving conflicts between cars and people walking or biking occurred on this stretch with people biking being broadsided or sideswept, and people crossing midblock.

The intersection of Norwood Avenue at Grand Avenue was the location of multiple DUIs, hit object crashes, and sideswipes involving someone biking.

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 36

Figure 18: Crash Trends by Location

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 37

Existing Conditions Traffic Analysis
Traffic Operations Standards and Methodology
The following section describes the methodolog y used to analyze and evaluate the traffic conditions at the study intersections and the potential operational effects at the study intersections. The analysis methodologies and level of service standards used to determine effect at study intersections are described.

Signalized Intersections
The study intersections were analyzed using the Synchro 12 software package. A model for existing conditions was developed in Synchro using the existing roadway geometry, signal timing plans, and intersection turn movement volumes for the peak hour within the weekday AM and weekday PM periods. Key performance metrics include average vehicle delay, intersection LOS
15, 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 th e average vehicle control delay, ranging from LOS A (free flow) to LOS F (most congested conditions). Table 10 documents the LOS criteria for signalized intersections. The latest version of the Synchro analysis software was used to report the 95th percentile queue lengths for approach lanes to study intersections.

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

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 38

Table 10: 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, 6th Edition
Intersection Operations Analysis
A model for existing conditions was developed in Synchro using the existing roadway geometry, signal timing plans, and intersection turn movement volumes for the weekday AM and weekday PM hours. Intersection geometry was derived from aerial photographs ( G o o g l e M a p s ) . T h e l a t e s t s i g n a l t i m i n g information was acquired from the City of Sacramento. Appendix C contains the Signal Timing Worksheets. Appendix D contains the Existing Conditions Synchro Reports (Lanes /Volumes/Timings, Queues, and delay/LOS) from Synchro.

Existing Vehicular Level of Service
Table 11 summarizes the existing peak hour intersection operating conditions. Results indicate that all study intersections operate at LOS C or better during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Figure 19 illustrates the AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts at the study intersections.

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 39

Table 11: Existing Conditions Operational Analysis Results Source: DKS Associates, December 2024.

Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(Seconds) LOS Delay
(Seconds) LOS

1. Norwood Avenue / Bell Avenue 20.6 C 17.6 B

2. Norwood Avenue / Jessie Avenue 28.2 C 23.8 C

3. Norwood Avenue / WB 80 ramps 10.9 B 10.3 B

4. Norwood Avenue / EB 80 ramps 12.0 B 12.0 B

5. Norwood Avenue / Harris Avenue 19.7 B 19.2 B

6. Norwood Avenue / Silver Eagle Road 18.6 B 18.2 B

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 40

Figure 19. Existing Traffic Volumes and Operation Results at Study Intersections
AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes, Level of Service, and Delay

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 41

95th Percentile Queueing
The 95th percentile queueing reported by Synchro refers to the queue length (in vehicles) that has only a five percent probability of being exceeded during the analysis time period (the average driver would likely experience shorter queue lengths than what is being reported).

Queue lengths are analyzed to determine if there are any potential safety impacts present, either from blocking side street or driveway access (a moderate safety concern) or extend to the point of creating queue spill-back cond itions in the nearest upstream intersection (larger safety concern). Queue overflows are described as the number of additional vehicles that may extend past the available storage, assuming 25 feet per vehicle, rounding up. As shown in Table 12, queue overflow can occur at five intersections listed below:
 Norwood Avenue/Bell Avenue
 Norwood Avenue/Jessie Avenue
 Norwood Avenue/ Westbound I-80 Ramps
 Norwood Avenue/ Eastbound I-80 Ramps
 Norwood Avenue/Silver Eagle Road

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 42

Table 12. 95 th Percentile Queueing Results at Study Intersections BOLD represents 95th percentile queueing above the available storage length.

Source: DKS Associates, December 2024.

Intersection
Existing Conditions
Turning
Movement
Available
Storage
Length
(Feet)
95th Percentile Queue (Feet) 1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

1. Norwood
Avenue / Bell
Avenue
NBL 75 66 112
SBL 95 132 84
EBL 150 51 20
WBL 195 183 131

2. Norwood
Avenue / Jessie
Avenue
NBL 100 192 242
SBL 120 90 96

3. Norwood
Avenue / WB 80
Ramps
WBL 435 137 111
NBL 175 222 259

4. Norwood
Avenue / EB 80
Ramps
EBL 360 118 203
SBL 180 295 220

5. Norwood
Avenue / Harris
Avenue
NBL 85 60 30
SBL 110 71 71

6. Norwood
Avenue / Silver
Eagle Road
EBL 110 208 219
WBL 210 41 22
NBL 95 128 105
SBL 55 43 63

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 43

Travel Time Reliability and Congestion
Two metrics for measuring traffic operations on a corridor level are congestion and travel time reliability. Congestion can be thought of as typical peak period travel times being significantly slower than the free flowing or desired travel time for the corridor. Travel time reliability is the measure of the variability in travel times and is used to calculate the predictability of how long a specific trip will take at the same time day after day. Typical factors which cause a corridor to have unreliable travel times are:
 Normal travel fluctuations
 Physical bottlenecks
 Special events
 Traffic incidents
 Inclement weather
 Traffic control devices
 Work/construction zones
Congestion is measured by travel time index which is calculated as the corridor travel time at a certain time of day divided by the free fl ow travel time. Travel time reliability is measured using the buffer time index which is the difference between the average travel time and the 95
th percentile travel time normalized to the free flow travel time. Another way to think of the buffer time index is how much additional time does a person need to dedicate to their trip to ensure they arrive to their destination in a timely manner. The relationship between the travel time index, 95
th percentile travel time index (also called the planning time index), and the buffer time index is shown in Figure 20.

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 44

Figure 20: Relationship Between Average Travel Time and 95th Percentile Travel Time which Results in the Buffer Time Index 16
Policies from the City of Sacramento General Plan indicate that corridor congestion is acceptable. The goal of improvements should be to improve travel for all users and to create a reliable travel experience, even if those impr ovements result in some increase in travel delays during peak hours. Reliable travel times allow people to consistently plan their driving and transit trips even if those trips are slower than their ideal travel time.

To calculate travel time reliability and congestion for Norwood Avenue, average speed data was obtained from the National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS) from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Congestion is defined for this data set as peak hour speeds that are 60% or less of free-flow speeds.

To reflect annual average weekday conditions, the data was filtered to isolate average conditions: Tues-Thurs AM/PM peak periods for passenger vehicles and heavy-duty trucks separately and together. The AM and PM peak periods were identified by the highest congestion continuous 60-minute span for both passenger vehicles and trucks. The free flow speed (FFS) of the corridor was determined through analyzing the fastest vehicle speeds recorded which typically occur during the hours of 12:00-3:00am. Additionally, the Highway Capacity Manual 7
th Edition defines congestion and reliability through thresholds shown in Table 13.

16 Source: Traffic Congestion and Reliability: Linking Solutions to Problems, FHWA, 2004 Difference between
the Average Travel
Time and the 95
th
Percentile Travel Time
normalized to Free
Flow Travel Time is

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 45

Table 13. Congestion and Reliability Performance Measures Reliable Moderately Reliable Unreliable
Buffer Time Index BTI < 1.25 BTI 1.25-< 1.5 BTI >= 1.5
Uncongested
>= 60% Of Free Flow
Predictable and efficient Not always predictable,
usually efficient
Unpredictable, not often
congested
Congested
<60% Of Free Flow
Predictable and
inefficient
Not always predictable,
usually inefficient
Unpredictable, not often
congestion
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition.

Travel time reliability and congestion was analyzed for passenger vehicles, trucks, and passenger vehicles and trucks combined duri ng the AM peak hour (8:00-9:00am) and PM peak hour (3:00-4:00pm). The results, as shown in Figure 21 to Figure 26, provide a summary of how reliable speeds and congestion are experienced by users during the AM and PM peak hour periods. The majority of the corridor experiences congested conditions during peak hours, but not consistently, with the exception of a small portion of Segment 2 near the I-80 interchange, which is reliably congested during the weekday PM peak hour.

While the figures show areas of free flow and congestion along the study corridor, the majority of the data along Segment 1, Segment 2, and Segment 3 shows that there is a high amount of variability in travel times along the corridor. The exception to this is a short southbound segment around the I-80 overpass which is reliably congested during the PM peak hour. Segment 4 shows generally reliable free flow travel in the northbound direction and unreliable free flow travel in the southbound direction during the AM and PM peak hours. From these results, it is clear that travel times vary widely along the Norwood Avenue Corridor from day to day. Based on the patterns of congested segments and field observations, it is clear that a majority of this variability in travel time is driven by two factors. The first is concentrated periods of congestion centered around the local school bell schedules. There are five schools either on or near Norwood Avenue which generate short periods of congestion that quickly dissipate outside of the times leading up to and following the school pick up and drop off periods. The second factor is queues coming from demand going to I-80. When the freeway is congested, this congestion spills back onto the local street system at the interchange

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 46

Figure 21. Autos AM Peak Hour Reliability and Congestion

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 47

Figure 22. Autos PM Peak Hour Reliability and Congestion

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 48

Figure 23. Trucks AM Peak Hour Reliability and Congestion

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 49

Figure 24. Trucks PM Peak Hour Reliability and Congestion

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 50

Figure 25. Autos and Trucks AM Peak Hour Reliability and Congestion

Norwood Mobility Project • Existing Conditions Report • April 2025 51

Figure 26. Autos and Trucks PM Peak Hour Reliability and Congestion

NORWOOD AVENUE MOBILITY PROJECT • EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT • APRIL 2025 52

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

APPENDIX

NORWOOD MOBILITY PROJECT • EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT • APRIL 2025

CONTENTS
APPENDIX A. TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
APPENDIX B. NORWOOD AVENUE COLLISION DATA
APPENDIX C: SIGNAL TIMING SHEETS
APPENDIX D: EXISTING CONDITIONS SYNCHRO REPORTS
APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS & COMMENTS

NORWOOD MOBILITY PROJECT • EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT • APRIL 2025

Appendix A. Turnin g Movement Counts

National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Norwood Ave & I-80 EB Ramps
City: Sacramento Project ID:

Control: Signalized Date:

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

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 104 55 0 53 103 0 0 56 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 454
7:15 AM 0 127 82 0 69 111 0 0 62 1 74 0 0 0 0 0 526
7:30 AM 0 154 93 0 105 146 0 0 57 1 88 0 0 0 0 0 644
7:45 AM 0 157 78 0 82 161 0 0 85 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 663
8:00 AM 0 133 65 0 95 160 0 0 75 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 617
8:15 AM 0 126 53 0 85 135 0 0 57 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 555
8:30 AM 0 131 62 0 79 122 0 0 54 1 91 0 0 0 0 0 540
8:45 AM 0 144 48 0 61 112 0 0 53 1 73 0 0 0 0 0 492

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 1076 536 0 629 1050 0 0 499 4 697 0 0 0 0 0 4491 APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 66.75% 33.25% 0.00% 37.46% 62.54% 0.00% 0.00% 41.58% 0.33% 58.08% 0.00% PEAK HR : 7:30 AM 39 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 570 289 0 367 602 0 0 274 1 376 0 0 0 0 0 2479 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.908 0.777 0.000 0.874 0.935 0.000 0.000 0.806 0.250 0.940 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 155 82 0 68 138 0 0 110 1 78 0 0 0 0 0 632
4:15 PM 0 161 38 0 72 149 0 0 94 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 594
4:30 PM 0 163 69 0 68 137 0 0 109 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 621
4:45 PM 0 159 53 0 49 131 0 0 111 1 96 0 0 0 0 0 600
5:00 PM 0 185 69 0 64 111 0 0 115 4 88 0 0 0 0 0 636
5:15 PM 0 176 71 0 78 143 0 0 106 4 86 0 0 0 0 0 664
5:30 PM 0 158 57 0 65 141 0 0 125 4 98 0 0 0 0 0 648
5:45 PM 0 150 49 0 57 138 0 0 120 0 97 0 0 0 0 0 611

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 1307 488 0 521 1088 0 0 890 14 698 0 0 0 0 0 5006 APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 72.81% 27.19% 0.00% 32.38% 67.62% 0.00% 0.00% 55.56% 0.87% 43.57% 0.00% PEAK HR : 5:00 PM 12:00 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 669 246 0 264 533 0 0 466 12 369 0 0 0 0 0 2559 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.904 0.866 0.000 0.846 0.932 0.000 0.000 0.932 0.750 0.941 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 24-070189-004
10/8/2024
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM

0.9630.901 0.902 0.933
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM

0.935
PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.869 0.950 0.880
AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - Total
Norwood Ave Norwood Ave I-80 EB Ramps I-80 EB Ramps
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Norwood Ave & Harris Ave
City: Sacramento Project ID:

Control: Signalized Date:

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

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 4 110 0 0 14 98 79 0 35 1 8 0 0 2 13 0 364
7:15 AM 3 164 1 0 13 101 66 0 37 0 7 0 5 5 14 0 416
7:30 AM 3 182 1 0 15 162 65 0 37 2 5 0 3 4 28 0 507
7:45 AM 16 193 3 0 17 143 80 0 30 3 4 0 2 8 17 0 516
8:00 AM 11 156 3 0 11 168 86 0 24 5 7 0 1 9 23 0 504
8:15 AM 14 134 4 0 13 150 74 0 31 3 15 0 3 5 19 0 465
8:30 AM 11 132 2 0 16 115 75 0 62 2 12 0 2 3 18 0 450
8:45 AM 9 94 3 0 16 113 55 0 63 3 17 0 3 9 17 0 402

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 71 1165 17 0 115 1050 580 0 319 19 75 0 19 45 149 0 3624 APPROACH %'s : 5.67% 92.98% 1.36% 0.00% 6.59% 60.17% 33.24% 0.00% 77.24% 4.60% 18.16% 0.00% 8.92% 21.13% 69.95% 0.00% PEAK HR : 7:30 AM 39 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 44 665 11 0 56 623 305 0 122 13 31 0 9 26 87 0 1992 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.688 0.861 0.688 0.000 0.824 0.927 0.887 0.000 0.824 0.650 0.517 0.000 0.750 0.722 0.777 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 2 132 7 0 20 178 24 0 70 3 14 0 4 5 32 0 491
4:15 PM 5 127 2 0 23 172 26 0 50 4 13 0 3 3 24 0 452
4:30 PM 5 140 4 0 15 182 18 0 57 3 10 0 0 1 29 0 464
4:45 PM 6 146 1 0 15 187 29 0 55 5 7 0 7 2 27 0 487
5:00 PM 4 132 4 0 13 150 28 0 79 4 17 0 2 2 24 0 459
5:15 PM 2 166 5 0 15 195 28 0 58 3 7 0 5 2 26 0 512
5:30 PM 5 158 4 0 13 204 20 0 38 2 8 0 3 0 16 0 471
5:45 PM 3 148 2 0 14 201 21 0 34 4 6 0 6 1 14 0 454

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 32 1149 29 0 128 1469 194 0 441 28 82 0 30 16 192 0 3790 APPROACH %'s : 2.64% 94.96% 2.40% 0.00% 7.15% 82.02% 10.83% 0.00% 80.04% 5.08% 14.88% 0.00% 12.61% 6.72% 80.67% 0.00% PEAK HR : 4:45 PM 12:00 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 17 602 14 0 56 736 105 0 230 14 39 0 17 6 93 0 1929 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.708 0.907 0.700 0.000 0.933 0.902 0.905 0.000 0.728 0.700 0.574 0.000 0.607 0.750 0.861 0.000 24-070189-005
10/8/2024
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM

0.9420.915 0.942 0.708 0.806
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM

0.965
PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.849 0.928 0.847 0.871
AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - Total
Norwood Ave Norwood Ave Harris Ave Harris Ave
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Norwood Ave & Silver Eagle Rd
City: Sacramento Project ID:

Control: Signalized Date:

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

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 9 67 1 0 3 72 19 0 18 5 16 0 3 8 11 0 232
7:15 AM 18 92 3 0 3 95 34 0 28 7 18 0 4 22 9 0 333
7:30 AM 24 131 5 0 6 137 37 0 42 10 31 0 12 17 10 0 462 7:45 AM 34 173 5 0 7 112 46 0 39 21 23 0 4 26 12 0 502
8:00 AM 28 144 3 0 3 109 53 0 63 16 22 0 4 19 9 0 473
8:15 AM 21 99 3 0 7 107 50 0 59 27 17 0 2 22 8 0 422
8:30 AM 10 92 2 0 6 105 67 0 42 26 19 0 6 20 8 0 403
8:45 AM 15 56 1 0 5 82 30 0 30 13 16 0 3 11 6 0 268

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 159 854 23 0 40 819 336 0 321 125 162 0 38 145 73 0 3095 APPROACH %'s : 15.35% 82.43% 2.22% 0.00% 3.35% 68.54% 28.12% 0.00% 52.80% 20.56% 26.64% 0.00% 14.84% 56.64% 28.52% 0.00% PEAK HR : 7:30 AM 39 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 107 547 16 0 23 465 186 0 203 74 93 0 22 84 39 0 1859 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.787 0.790 0.800 0.000 0.821 0.849 0.877 0.000 0.806 0.685 0.750 0.000 0.458 0.808 0.813 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 21 79 1 0 10 117 49 0 47 28 38 0 2 20 5 0 417
4:15 PM 17 97 4 0 8 110 36 0 51 37 26 0 1 16 4 0 407
4:30 PM 25 94 3 0 3 115 46 0 58 32 24 0 2 13 8 0 423
4:45 PM 25 101 2 0 11 106 51 0 57 36 29 0 2 16 8 0 444
5:00 PM 24 101 6 0 25 104 50 0 56 27 26 0 1 12 8 0 440
5:15 PM 20 98 3 0 6 116 39 0 74 40 24 0 1 20 10 0 451
5:30 PM 16 107 2 0 6 105 50 0 48 22 28 0 2 22 9 0 417
5:45 PM 25 120 5 0 4 132 48 0 47 21 35 0 5 20 9 0 471

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 173 797 26 0 73 905 369 0 438 243 230 0 16 139 61 0 3470 APPROACH %'s : 17.37% 80.02% 2.61% 0.00% 5.42% 67.19% 27.39% 0.00% 48.08% 26.67% 25.25% 0.00% 7.41% 64.35% 28.24% 0.00% PEAK HR : 5:00 PM 12:00 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 85 426 16 0 41 457 187 0 225 110 113 0 9 74 36 0 1779 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.850 0.888 0.667 0.000 0.410 0.866 0.935 0.000 0.760 0.688 0.807 0.000 0.450 0.841 0.900 0.000 24-070189-006
10/8/2024
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM

0.9440.878 0.931 0.812 0.875
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM

0.926
PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.790 0.936 0.898 0.863
AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - Total
Norwood Ave Norwood Ave Silver Eagle Rd Silver Eagle Rd National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Norwood Ave & Bell Ave
City: Sacramento Project ID:

Control: Signalized Date:

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

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 3 66 27 0 7 84 0 0 2 10 23 0 20 3 11 0 256
7:15 AM 11 83 28 0 7 109 1 0 0 10 33 0 43 7 18 0 350
7:30 AM 7 78 30 0 27 149 3 0 4 18 41 0 35 4 27 0 423
7:45 AM 17 98 44 0 43 142 14 1 12 23 39 0 40 19 40 0 532 8:00 AM 12 80 52 0 38 125 10 0 19 50 27 0 53 32 29 0 527 8:15 AM 10 64 47 0 10 97 5 0 8 31 20 0 58 17 20 0 387
8:30 AM 12 59 24 0 13 77 8 0 2 9 24 0 55 21 9 0 313
8:45 AM 13 50 17 0 8 79 2 0 1 8 19 0 39 11 14 0 261

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 85 578 269 0 153 862 43 1 48 159 226 0 343 114 168 0 3049 APPROACH %'s : 9.12% 62.02% 28.86% 0.00% 14.45% 81.40% 4.06% 0.09% 11.09% 36.72% 52.19% 0.00% 54.88% 18.24% 26.88% 0.00% PEAK HR : 7:30 AM 39 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 46 320 173 0 118 513 32 1 43 122 127 0 186 72 116 0 1869 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.676 0.816 0.832 0.000 0.686 0.861 0.571 0.250 0.566 0.610 0.774 0.000 0.802 0.563 0.725 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 28 90 37 0 18 109 3 0 2 8 20 0 40 24 20 0 399
4:15 PM 30 106 33 0 11 98 7 0 5 8 21 0 37 16 9 0 381
4:30 PM 32 103 50 0 23 99 4 0 5 10 19 0 29 16 20 0 410
4:45 PM 18 89 45 0 19 86 4 0 3 14 29 0 21 21 10 0 359
5:00 PM 21 87 57 0 15 98 2 0 5 11 15 0 37 17 18 0 383
5:15 PM 37 98 48 0 19 105 3 0 1 13 22 0 24 12 21 0 403
5:30 PM 29 82 55 0 21 108 7 0 2 15 14 0 38 17 16 0 404
5:45 PM 23 115 45 0 18 84 3 0 3 12 28 0 35 14 14 0 394

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 218 770 370 0 144 787 33 0 26 91 168 0 261 137 128 0 3133 APPROACH %'s : 16.05% 56.70% 27.25% 0.00% 14.94% 81.64% 3.42% 0.00% 9.12% 31.93% 58.95% 0.00% 49.62% 26.05% 24.33% 0.00% PEAK HR : 5:00 PM 12:00 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 110 382 205 0 73 395 15 0 11 51 79 0 134 60 69 0 1584 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.743 0.830 0.899 0.000 0.869 0.914 0.536 0.000 0.550 0.850 0.705 0.000 0.882 0.882 0.821 0.000 24-070189-002
10/8/2024
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM

0.9800.952 0.888 0.820 0.913
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM

0.878
PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.847 0.830 0.760 0.820
AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - Total
Norwood Ave Norwood Ave Bell Ave Bell Ave
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Norwood Ave & I-80 WB Ramps
City: Sacramento Project ID:

Control: Signalized Date:

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

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 57 103 0 0 0 84 108 0 0 0 0 0 71 0 50 0 473
7:15 AM 61 128 0 0 0 131 142 0 0 0 0 0 66 0 53 0 581
7:30 AM 75 135 0 0 0 171 161 0 0 0 0 0 82 0 50 0 674
7:45 AM 54 175 0 0 0 179 138 0 0 0 0 0 76 1 53 0 676
8:00 AM 68 148 0 0 0 157 119 0 0 0 0 0 67 0 64 0 623
8:15 AM 57 130 0 0 0 175 122 0 0 0 0 0 47 2 40 0 573
8:30 AM 69 115 0 0 0 137 100 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 56 0 544
8:45 AM 97 103 0 0 0 127 92 0 0 0 0 0 46 1 46 0 512

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 538 1037 0 0 0 1161 982 0 0 0 0 0 520 6 412 0 4656 APPROACH %'s : 34.16% 65.84% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 54.18% 45.82% 0.00% 55.44% 0.64% 43.92% 0.00% PEAK HR : 7:15 AM 38 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 258 586 0 0 0 638 560 0 0 0 0 0 291 1 220 0 2554 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.860 0.837 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.891 0.870 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.887 0.250 0.859 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 78 189 0 0 0 145 107 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 93 0 672
4:15 PM 75 181 0 0 0 143 106 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 65 0 647
4:30 PM 89 166 0 0 0 135 107 0 0 0 0 0 71 0 91 0 659
4:45 PM 93 193 0 0 0 122 89 0 0 0 0 0 57 0 77 0 631
5:00 PM 90 207 0 0 0 123 100 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 70 0 642
5:15 PM 78 203 0 0 0 158 88 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 82 0 674
5:30 PM 89 194 0 0 0 142 84 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 77 0 648
5:45 PM 67 208 0 0 0 124 119 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 80 0 670

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 659 1541 0 0 0 1092 800 0 0 0 0 0 516 0 635 0 5243 APPROACH %'s : 29.95% 70.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 57.72% 42.28% 0.00% 44.83% 0.00% 55.17% 0.00% PEAK HR : 5:00 PM 12:00 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 324 812 0 0 0 547 391 0 0 0 0 0 251 0 309 0 2634 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.900 0.976 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.866 0.821 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.872 0.000 0.942 0.000 24-070189-003
10/8/2024
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM

0.9770.956 0.953 0.921
07:15 AM - 08:15 AM

0.945
PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.921 0.902 0.970
AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
Data - Total
Norwood Ave Norwood Ave I-80 WB Ramps I-80 WB Ramps
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Norwood Ave & Jessie Ave
City: Sacramento Project ID:

Control: Signalized Date:

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

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 9 103 23 0 6 130 0 0 2 5 28 0 34 1 5 0 346
7:15 AM 25 94 18 0 7 163 1 0 2 7 33 0 44 4 8 0 406
7:30 AM 24 122 24 0 8 226 5 0 4 12 35 0 56 5 8 0 529
7:45 AM 42 120 21 0 14 180 13 0 8 22 70 0 40 27 11 0 568 8:00 AM 48 122 36 0 18 179 21 0 15 33 74 0 39 16 15 0 616 8:15 AM 23 99 19 0 11 154 5 0 9 28 36 0 59 20 7 0 470
8:30 AM 24 93 25 0 6 154 5 0 0 6 26 0 37 10 6 0 392
8:45 AM 17 87 27 0 9 147 2 0 3 8 22 0 32 7 10 0 371

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 212 840 193 0 79 1333 52 0 43 121 324 0 341 90 70 0 3698 APPROACH %'s : 17.03% 67.47% 15.50% 0.00% 5.40% 91.05% 3.55% 0.00% 8.81% 24.80% 66.39% 0.00% 68.06% 17.96% 13.97% 0.00% PEAK HR : 7:30 AM 39 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 137 463 100 0 51 739 44 0 36 95 215 0 194 68 41 0 2183 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.714 0.949 0.694 0.000 0.708 0.817 0.524 0.000 0.600 0.720 0.726 0.000 0.822 0.630 0.683 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 57 159 32 0 17 152 7 0 7 16 48 0 64 21 9 0 589
4:15 PM 53 161 32 0 12 161 3 0 9 12 36 0 38 13 9 0 539
4:30 PM 46 157 21 0 7 134 5 0 9 10 37 0 50 17 12 0 505
4:45 PM 48 178 39 0 17 129 3 0 9 16 32 0 42 8 6 0 527
5:00 PM 51 170 28 0 12 142 3 0 4 11 39 0 47 23 8 0 538
5:15 PM 49 159 38 0 13 130 3 0 8 11 40 0 36 19 10 0 516 5:30 PM 55 172 36 0 20 130 5 0 12 11 45 0 44 17 9 0 556 5:45 PM 53 173 38 0 16 138 6 0 8 19 39 0 52 13 8 0 563

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 412 1329 264 0 114 1116 35 0 66 106 316 0 373 131 71 0 4333 APPROACH %'s : 20.55% 66.28% 13.17% 0.00% 9.01% 88.22% 2.77% 0.00% 13.52% 21.72% 64.75% 0.00% 64.87% 22.78% 12.35% 0.00% PEAK HR : 5:00 PM 12:00 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 208 674 140 0 61 540 17 0 32 52 163 0 179 72 35 0 2173 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.945 0.974 0.921 0.000 0.763 0.951 0.708 0.000 0.667 0.684 0.906 0.000 0.861 0.783 0.875 0.000 Data - Total
Norwood Ave Norwood Ave Jessie Ave Jessie Ave

0.850 0.872 0.709 0.881
AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
24-070189-001
10/8/2024
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM

0.9650.968 0.966 0.908 0.917
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM

0.886

NORWOOD MOBILITY PROJECT • EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT • APRIL 2025

Appendix B. Norwood Avenue Collision Data

CASE_ID
COLLISION_
DATE

PRIMARY
_RD
SECOND
ARY_RD
DISTAN
CE
DIRE
CTIO
N
INTER
SECTI
ON
WEATH
ER_1

COLLISIO
N_SEVERI
TY
NUM
BER_
KILL
NUMBER_I
NJURED
PCF_VI
OL_CA
TEGOR
TYPE_OF
_COLLISI

ON MVIW
PED_ACTI

ON LIGHTING

CONTROL
_DEVICE

PEDESTRI
AN_ACCID
ENT
BICYCLE_

ACCIDENT

MOTORCY
CLE_ACCI
DENT
TRUCK_A

CCIDENT
ALCOHOL_I

NVOLVED

LONGITU
DE
LATIT
UDE
8619747 4/27/2018 NORWOO SILVER EA 0 Y A 3 0 1 12 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 8687238 8/22/2018 NORWOO MOREY AV 0 Y A 3 0 2 3 C C A A A -121.457 38.6 8713991 9/26/2018 NORWOO JESSIE AV 130 S N A 4 0 2 9 D C A A D -121.457 38.6 8536722 1/16/2018 NORWOO HARRIS A 1 S N A 3 0 1 8 B G A A D Y -121.457 38.6 8635403 6/6/2018 NORWOO JESSIE 390 S N A 4 0 2 3 C C A A A -121.457 38.6 8533477 1/2/2018 NORWOO JESSIE AV 120 S N B 4 0 3 9 D C A C D -121.457 38.6 8613904 4/13/2018 NORWOO GRACE AV 12 S N A 4 0 2 1 C C A C A Y -121.457 38.7 8637125 5/29/2018 NORWOO JESSIE AV 149 S N A 3 0 2 3 C C A A B -121.457 38.6 8715986 9/17/2018 NORWOO JESSIE AV 100 S N A 4 0 1 8 D G A A - Y -121.457 38.6 8720731 10/17/2018 NORWOO BELL AV 634 S N A 2 0 1 11 G B C C D Y -121.457 38.6 8772973 12/19/2018 NORWOO MOREY AV 0 Y - 3 0 2 12 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 8565227 2/4/2018 SILVER EA NORWOO 0 Y A 4 0 1 3 A C A C A -121.457 38.6 8580806 3/11/2018 NORWOO GRAND AV 0 Y A 4 0 2 12 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 8641605 6/12/2018 SILVER EA NORWOO 0 Y A 2 0 6 1 D C A A A Y -121.457 38.6 8651187 9/22/2018 NORWOO HAYES AV 0 Y A 1 1 0 11 G B D A D Y -121.457 38.6 8688230 8/12/2018 NORWOO JESSIE AV 27 N N A 4 0 1 8 E I A A A -121.457 38.6 8695610 9/13/2018 NORWOO JESSIE AV 792 N N A 4 0 2 0 B C A A A -121.457 38.6 8705472 9/23/2018 NORWOO JESSIE AV 21 S N A 4 0 1 11 G B E B A Y -121.457 38.6 8711659 10/14/2018 NORWOO KESNER A 0 Y A 4 0 1 8 D G A A A Y Y -121.457 38.6 8760801 12/28/2018 NORWOO GRAND AV 298 S N A 4 0 1 9 D C A A D -121.457 38.6 8906987 7/28/2019 JESSIE AV NORWOO 0 E N A 3 0 1 9 A C A B A -121.457 38.6 8907167 7/8/2019 NORWOO GRACE AV 0 Y A 3 0 2 12 D C A A A -121.457 38.7 8958359 10/12/2019 NORWOO BELL AV 0 S N A 3 0 1 9 D C A A D -121.457 38.6 8980984 10/23/2019 NORWOO SILVER EA 150 N N A 4 0 3 3 C C A C A Y -121.457 38.6 8762124 1/5/2019 NORWOO RT 80 0 Y B 4 0 1 12 D C A C A -121.457 38.6 8918341 8/11/2019 HARRIS AVNORWOO 0 Y A 4 0 3 12 - C A A A -121.457 38.6 8816469 2/25/2019 NORWOO HARRIS A 0 Y B 4 0 2 12 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 8818152 3/11/2019 NORWOO BELL AV 678 S N A 4 0 3 8 A C A C D -121.457 38.6 8833021 3/22/2019 NORWOO BELL AV 32 S N A 4 0 1 10 G B B A A Y -121.457 38.6 8845231 4/19/2019 NORWOO JESSIE AV 351 N N A 4 0 3 3 C C A A A -121.457 38.6 8859897 5/9/2019 NORWOO HARRIS A 0 Y A 4 0 1 12 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 8959662 8/6/2019 NORWOO HAYES AV 148 N N A 2 0 1 17 H G A C D Y -121.457 38.6 8975705 11/13/2019 NORWOO SILVER EA 0 Y A 3 0 1 12 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 8995600 12/1/2019 NORWOO FAIRBANK 0 Y C 4 0 1 3 B C A A D -121.457 38.6 9006252 12/28/2019 NORWOO SOUTH AV 3 N N A 4 0 1 1 D C A C A Y -121.457 38.6 8781799 1/24/2019 NORWOO HARRIS A 120 N N A 4 0 1 3 C C A A A -121.457 38.6 8825701 3/19/2019 NORWOO BELL AV 794 S N A 4 0 1 9 D G A A D Y -121.457 38.6 8838849 4/8/2019 NORWOO HARRIS A 0 Y A 4 0 2 12 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 8839370 4/7/2019 FORD RD NORWOO 0 Y B 4 0 1 0 H G A C A Y -121.457 38.6 8850332 4/5/2019 NORWOO BERTHOU 0 N N B 2 0 3 1 C C A A D -121.457 38.6 Study Area Crashes
8903231 7/22/2019 NORWOO MOREY AV 85 S N A 2 0 1 1 C G A C A Y Y -121.457 38.6 8931544 8/26/2019 NORWOO BERTHOU 0 Y A 3 0 1 - D G A A D Y -121.457 38.6 8981212 11/30/2019 NORWOO BERTHOU 0 Y A 3 0 3 9 D C A B A -121.457 38.6 8995266 12/7/2019 NORWOO MAIN AV 631 S N C 4 0 2 9 C C A C D -121.457 38.7 9004881 12/13/2019 NORWOO JESSIE AV 192 S N C 4 0 2 9 D C A A D -121.457 38.6 9051125 3/4/2020 NORWOO FAIRBANK 240 S N A 3 0 2 3 C - A A D -121.457 38.6 9170901 10/27/2020 NORWOO JESSIE AV 204 S N A 4 0 1 9 D C A A D -121.457 38.6 9093413 4/14/2020 NORWOO FAIRBANK 275 S N A 2 0 1 11 G B D A D Y -121.457 38.6 9126821 7/10/2020 GRAND AVNORWOO 0 Y A 4 0 2 3 C C A A A -121.457 38.6 9149312 9/9/2020 NORWOO FORD RD 0 Y A 4 0 1 9 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 9018759 1/11/2020 NORWOO FORD RD 0 Y A 4 0 2 9 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 9031298 1/17/2020 NORWOO JESSIE AV 300 N N A 4 0 1 11 G B D A D Y -121.457 38.6 9051222 2/28/2020 JESSIE AV NORWOO 12 E N A 4 0 1 9 D C A A D -121.457 38.6 9074513 5/10/2020 NORWOO JESSIE AV 21 S N A 3 0 3 - A C A A A -121.457 38.6 9122727 7/18/2020 NORWOO JESSIE AV 100 N N A 3 0 4 8 D C A A A Y -121.457 38.6 9126792 7/6/2020 NORWOO CARROLL 120 N N A 4 0 1 3 E I A A D -121.457 38.6 9128383 7/21/2020 NORWOO JESSIE AV 257 S N A 4 0 1 9 A C A A D -121.457 38.6 9153769 9/3/2020 NORWOO JESSIE ST 492 N N A 4 0 1 8 A C A A A -121.457 38.6 9025646 1/24/2020 NORWOO JESSIE AV 0 - A 4 0 1 22 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 9031282 1/24/2020 NORWOO JESSIE AV 204 S N A 4 0 2 9 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 9051185 3/5/2020 NORWOO FAIR BAN 0 Y A 4 0 1 3 - C A A A -121.457 38.6 9064923 3/16/2020 NORWOO GRAND AV 0 Y C 4 0 1 12 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 9069868 4/7/2020 NORWOO JESSIE AV 485 N N C 4 0 1 9 D C A A D -121.457 38.6 9088924 4/10/2020 NORWOO JESSIE AV 0 Y A 4 0 1 12 A C A C A -121.457 38.6 9140990 8/21/2020 NORWOO JESSIE AV 476 N N A 3 0 1 9 D C A A D Y -121.457 38.6 9140997 8/9/2020 NORWOO SILVER EA 0 Y A 4 0 1 12 D C A A A Y -121.457 38.6 9154021 9/3/2020 NORWOO FORD RD 0 Y A 3 0 4 12 F C A A A -121.457 38.6 9187339 11/21/2020 NORWOO SILVER EA 0 Y A 4 0 1 12 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 9194158 12/7/2020 NORWOO JESSIE AV 320 N N A 4 0 1 8 B G A A D Y -121.457 38.6 9195834 11/27/2020 NORWOO FORD RD 0 Y A 4 0 1 9 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 9371846 6/15/2021 NORWOO RT 80 107 N N A 4 0 1 3 C C A A A -121.457 38.6 9360464 11/2/2021 NORWOO HARRIS A 0 Y A 3 0 1 3 D C A A A Y Y Y -121.457 38.6 9256286 5/31/2021 NORWOO JESSIE AV 506 N N A 1 1 0 11 G B D B D Y Y -121.457 38.6 9234868 3/4/2021 NORWOO HAYES AV 118 N N A 4 0 2 9 D C A A D Y -121.457 38.6 9242987 3/15/2021 NORWOO JESSIE AV 0 Y A 3 0 1 3 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 9352387 11/2/2021 NORWOO FAIRBANK 184 N N B 4 0 1 3 C C A A A -121.457 38.6 9241512 3/16/2021 NORWOO JESSIE AV 223 N N A 4 0 1 9 D A A A D -121.457 38.6 9323174 9/11/2021 NORWOO RT 80 0 Y A 4 0 1 12 A C A A A -121.457 38.6 9341002 9/30/2021 NORWOO GRAND AV 0 Y A 3 0 1 - D C - A A Y -121.457 38.6 9245245 3/2/2021 NORWOO GRAND AV 0 Y A 3 0 2 1 E I A C A Y -121.457 38.6 9250566 3/22/2021 NORWOO JESSIE AV 208 S N A 4 0 1 9 - C A A D -121.457 38.6 9291014 7/3/2021 NORWOO FAIRBANK 0 Y A 3 0 1 12 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 9293418 7/25/2021 NORWOO HARRIS A 0 Y A 2 0 6 12 D C A C A -121.457 38.6 9293889 7/30/2021 NORWOO FAIRBANK 200 N N A 4 0 1 3 C C A A A -121.457 38.6 9299813 8/3/2021 NORWOO JESSIE AV 686 N N A 3 0 1 8 B E A A A Y -121.457 38.6 9316093 8/20/2021 NORWOO MORRISO 0 Y A 3 0 1 9 D G A A B Y -121.457 38.6 9324980 9/16/2021 NORWOO JESSIE AV 158 S N A 2 0 2 5 D C A C A Y -121.457 38.6 9325977 9/19/2021 NORWOO BELL AV 486 S N A 3 0 1 11 G B D D D Y -121.457 38.6 9326637 10/4/2021 NORWOO GRAND AV 0 Y A 3 0 2 1 E H A C A Y Y -121.457 38.6 9347044 9/26/2021 NORWOO GRAND AV 0 Y A 3 0 2 12 F C A A A -121.457 38.6 9220529 1/24/2021 NORWOO GRACE AV 0 S N A 3 0 1 3 C C A A A -121.457 38.7 9242942 3/26/2021 MAIN AV NORWOO 0 Y A 4 0 1 1 D C A C A Y -121.457 38.7 9254736 2/25/2021 NORWOO HARRIS A 44 S N A 4 0 1 3 C C A C A -121.457 38.6 9270442 5/22/2021 NORWOO SILVER EA 0 Y A 2 0 1 0 G B E C A Y -121.457 38.6 9291729 7/12/2021 NORWOO JESSIE AV 510 N N A 3 0 1 9 D C A A D Y -121.457 38.6 9373194 11/21/2021 NORWOO JESSIE AV 111 N N A 2 0 1 3 C G A A A Y -121.457 38.6 9373867 11/30/2021 NORWOO HARRIS A 0 Y A 4 0 1 12 D C A A D -121.457 38.6 9374589 11/16/2021 NORWOO JESSIE AV 655 S N A 4 0 2 3 C C A C A Y -121.457 38.6 9375036 11/25/2021 NORWOO JESSIE AV 0 Y A 2 0 1 11 G B E C A Y -121.457 38.6 9376581 12/7/2021 NORWOO SOUTH AV 0 Y A 4 0 2 8 B C A C A -121.457 38.6 9376786 12/5/2021 NORWOO SILVER EA 0 Y A 4 0 2 9 D C A B A -121.457 38.6 9379077 12/19/2021 NORWOO FAIRBANK 36 S N A 4 0 1 9 D C A C A -121.457 38.6

8.19E+07 9/13/2022 NORWOO JESSIE AV 300 S N A 3 0 4 9 D C A A D -121.457 38.6

8.20E+07 12/13/2022 NORWOO 80 EB 0 Y A 4 0 2 3 C C A A A -121.457 38.6 9380811 1/5/2022 NORWOO JESSIE AV 174 S N A 4 0 2 9 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 9413395 2/21/2022 NORWOO JESSE AV 190 S N A 4 0 1 3 G B E C D Y -121.457 38.6

8.19E+07 10/31/2022 NORWOO 80 EB 70 S N A 4 0 1 3 C C A A A -121.457 38.6

8.20E+07 12/2/2022 NORWOO GRAND AV 0 Y A 4 0 1 5 - G A A A Y -121.457 38.6 9380916 1/10/2022 NORWOO GRAND AV 0 Y B 4 0 1 12 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 9452448 5/24/2022 NORWOO LINDSAY A 90 S N A 4 0 1 3 C C A A A -121.457 38.6

8.19E+07 10/19/2022 NORWOO GRAND AV 0 Y A 4 0 1 8 B G A A A Y -121.457 38.6

8.19E+07 11/11/2022 NORWOO BELL AVE 33 S N A 3 0 1 0 G B B A A Y -121.457 38.6

8.19E+07 12/4/2022 NORWOO FORD RD 336 S N A 4 0 3 - H C A C D -121.457 38.6 9320495 2/10/2022 NORWOO GRAND AV 0 Y A 1 1 3 1 D C A C A Y -121.457 38.6 9422293 4/5/2022 NORWOO FORD RD 0 Y A 4 0 1 9 D C A C A -121.457 38.6 9422816 3/7/2022 NORWOO JESSIE AV 255 S N A 3 0 2 9 A C A A A -121.457 38.6 9453122 3/14/2022 NORWOO JESSIE AV 0 Y A 4 0 1 12 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 9462597 7/5/2022 NORWOO JESSIE AV 0 Y A 3 0 1 9 D G A A A Y Y -121.457 38.6 9485934 8/13/2022 NORWOO JESSIE AV 267 S N A 2 0 1 9 D G A A D Y -121.457 38.6

8.19E+07 9/18/2022 NORWOO FAIRBANK 30 N N A 4 0 1 1 C C A C A Y -121.457 38.6

8.19E+07 9/23/2022 NORWOO HARRIS A 375 N N A 4 0 3 8 D C A A D -121.457 38.6

8.19E+07 10/6/2022 NORWOO JESSIE AV 100 S N A 2 0 1 9 B C A A D Y -121.457 38.6

8.19E+07 10/12/2022 NORWOO FORD RD 0 Y A 4 0 1 9 D D A A A Y -121.457 38.6

8.19E+07 10/28/2022 NORWOO MOREY AV 0 Y A 4 0 1 21 C C A C A -121.457 38.6

8.19E+07 10/12/2022 NORWOO HARRIS A 423 N N A 4 0 1 3 C D A A D -121.457 38.6

8.19E+07 11/16/2022 FORD RD NORWOO 0 Y A 4 0 3 9 D D A C A -121.457 38.6

8.20E+07 12/21/2022 NORWOO JESSIE AV 215 N N A 4 0 1 9 H G A A A Y -121.457 38.6 9405766 2/2/2022 NORWOO RT 80 68 S N A 4 0 2 3 C C A A A -121.457 38.6 9410314 3/12/2022 NORWOO JESSIE AV 490 N N A 4 0 1 9 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 9421400 3/8/2022 NORWOO HARRIS A 0 Y A 3 0 2 3 C C A C A -121.457 38.6 9430466 3/26/2022 MAIN AV NORWOO 0 Y A 3 0 2 12 D C A C A Y -121.457 38.7 9446377 5/17/2022 RT 80 NORWOO 0 Y A 3 0 2 12 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 9452619 5/24/2022 NORWOO MORRISO 0 Y A 4 0 1 8 D C A A D -121.457 38.6 9480992 7/24/2022 NORWOO SILVER EA 0 Y A 4 0 1 12 D C A C A -121.457 38.6 9482155 8/7/2022 NORWOO BELL AV 535 S N A 4 0 1 8 B C A C D -121.457 38.6 9484501 5/17/2022 NORWOO RT 80 0 Y A 3 0 2 12 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 9491239 8/25/2022 NORWOO LINDLEY D 637 N N A 3 0 1 6 B C A A D Y Y Y -121.457 38.6 81969294 1/6/2023 NORWOO BELL AVE 300 S N B 3 0 1 8 C E A C D -121.457 38.6 81981245 1/13/2023 NORWOO BELL AVE 300 S N C 4 0 1 1 B E A C D Y -121.457 38.6 81988246 1/27/2023 NORWOO JESSIE AV 434 N N A 3 0 1 9 D C A A D -121.457 38.6 81993685 1/21/2023 NORWOO GRAND AV 0 Y B 4 0 1 1 D C A C A Y -121.457 38.6 81994782 2/4/2023 MAIN AVE NORWOO 8 E N A 3 0 1 1 E I A C A Y -121.457 38.7 82028440 1/27/2023 NORWOO JESSIE AV 27 N N A 4 0 1 3 C C A C A -121.457 38.6 82028943 3/13/2023 NORWOO JESSIE AV 0 Y A 4 0 1 12 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 82037229 3/25/2023 NORWOO JESSIE AV 0 Y A 4 0 1 12 D C A C A Y -121.457 38.6 82040057 3/19/2023 NORWOO SOUTH AV 0 Y A 4 0 1 9 D C A A D Y -121.457 38.6 82053349 4/13/2023 ARDEN WAARDEN W 0 Y A 4 0 1 - D C A C A -122.325 38.3 82057211 4/14/2023 NORWOO HARRIS A 0 Y A 4 0 1 12 D C A C A Y -121.457 38.6 82057675 4/17/2023 NORWOO MAIN AVE 0 Y A 3 0 2 1 D C A A A Y -121.457 38.7 82069521 4/23/2023 NORWOO 80 EB 25 N N A 4 0 1 3 C C A A A -121.457 38.6 82076961 5/13/2023 NORWOO GRAND AV 0 Y A 3 0 3 12 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 82086574 4/20/2023 NORWOO GRAND AV 0 Y A 3 0 4 12 D C A C A -121.457 38.6 82097498 6/3/2023 NORWOO GRAND AV 45 S N A 3 0 1 3 C C A A A -121.457 38.6 82103819 6/16/2023 NORWOO LINDSAY A 0 Y A 3 0 1 9 D G A A A Y -121.457 38.6 82107864 6/20/2023 NORWOO 80 EB 26 W N A 4 0 2 12 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 82109175 5/11/2023 FORD RD NORWOO 15 W N A 3 0 1 3 C C A B A Y -121.457 38.6 82114657 7/1/2023 NORWOO FORD RD 0 Y A 3 0 2 21 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 82119376 6/16/2023 NORWOO SILVER EA 360 N N A 4 0 1 0 C C A C D -121.457 38.6 82119386 7/5/2023 NORWOO BERTHOU 100 N N A 4 0 1 3 C C A A D -121.457 38.6 82132674 7/20/2023 NORWOO 80 EB 62 S N A 4 0 1 3 C C A A A -121.457 38.6 82139305 7/21/2023 NORWOO HARRIS A 168 N N A 4 0 2 3 C C A A A -121.457 38.6 82142336 7/30/2023 NORWOO GRAND AV 38 N N A 4 0 1 3 C C A A A -121.457 38.6 82148156 8/7/2023 NORWOO BELL AVE 0 Y A 3 0 1 12 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 82166422 8/30/2023 NORWOO JESSIE AV 252 N N A 4 0 1 7 D C A A A -121.457 38.6 82166667 8/29/2023 NORWOO HARRIS A 407 N N A 3 0 1 3 C C A A A -121.457 38.6 82169718 9/1/2023 NORWOO JESSIE AV 288 N N A 3 0 1 8 D C A C D Y -121.457 38.6 82180908 9/9/2023 FORD RD NORWOO 0 Y A 3 0 2 12 D D A C A -121.457 38.6 82187082 9/19/2023 NORWOO BELL AVE 465 S N A 2 0 1 1 B C A C D Y -121.457 38.6

NORWOOD MOBILITY PROJECT • EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT • APRIL 2025

Appendix C: Signal Timing Sheets

NORWOOD MOBILITY PROJECT • EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT • APRIL 2025

Appendix D: Existing Co nditions Synchro Reports

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
1 : Norwood Avenue & Bell Avenue 12/20/2024
Existing AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 4 3 122 127 186 72 116 46 320 173 119 513 32 Future Volume (vph) 43 122 127 186 72 116 46 320 173 119 513 32 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1 900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 195 200 70 200 90 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 35 50 70 45
Lane Util. Factor 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.99 0.96 0.99 0.99 Frt 0 .923 0.850 0.850 0.991
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1 787 1694 0 1736 1827 1553 1752 3505 1568 1752 3465 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1 770 1694 0 1694 1827 1516 1737 3505 1517 1741 3465 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 3 3 116 173 4
Link Speed (mph) 25 40 40 30
Link Distance (ft) 9 58 1056 1318 533
Travel Time (s) 26.1 18.0 22.5 12.1
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 1 9 19 5 4 3 3 4
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4 2 2 2
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% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Adj. Flow (vph) 4 3 122 127 186 72 116 46 320 173 119 513 32 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 249 0 186 72 116 46 320 173 119 545 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 1 2 1 1 2
Detector Template L eft Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 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 6 20 20 6 20 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
1 : Norwood Avenue & Bell Avenue 12/20/2024
Existing AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 2 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 Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8
Detector Phase 1 6 5 2 2 3 8 8 7 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 1 1.0 9.0 11.0 9.0 9.0 10.0 9.0 9.0 11.0 8.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.8 31.6 14.8 27.6 27.6 13.6 27.6 27.6 14.9 21.6 Total Split (s) 3 0.0 50.0 30.0 50.0 50.0 30.0 50.0 50.0 30.0 50.0 Total Split (%) 18.8% 31.3% 18.8% 31.3% 31.3% 18.8% 31.3% 31.3% 18.8% 31.3% Maximum Green (s) 26.2 45.4 2 6.2 45.4 45.4 26.4 45.4 45.4 26.1 45.4 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4.3 3.5 4.3 4.3 3.5 4.3 4.3 3.5 4.3 All-Red Time (s) 0 .3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3 .8 4.6 3.8 4.6 4.6 3.6 4.6 4.6 3.9 4.6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Y es Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Recall Mode N one None None None 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) 2 0.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 10.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 2 2 2 2 2 2
Act Effct Green (s) 1 8.5 16.3 14.8 20.3 20.3 10.5 15.1 15.1 12.7 24.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.21 0.19 0.26 0.26 0.14 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.32 v/c Ratio 0 .09 0.64 0.55 0.14 0.23 0.19 0.46 0.39 0.41 0.48 Control Delay (s/veh) 25.6 33.5 37.7 31.7 8.5 38.5 30.9 8.2 38.2 26.0 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) 25.6 33.5 37.7 31.7 8.5 38.5 30.9 8.2 38.2 26.0

LOS C C D C A D C A D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 32.4 27.5 24.3 28.2
Approach LOS C C C C
Q
ueue Length 50th (ft) 15 90 79 31 0 19 66 0 50 117
Queue Length 95th (ft) 51 208 1 83 80 46 66 141 54 132 220 Internal Link Dist (ft) 878 976 1238 453
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 1 95 200 70 200 90
Base Capacity (vph) 642 1065 622 1135 985 632 2177 1007 625 2154 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.23 0.30 0.06 0.12 0.07 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.25 Intersection Summary
Area Type: O ther
Cycle Length: 160
A
ctuated Cycle Length: 76.7
Natural Cycle: 90
C
ontrol Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.65
I
ntersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 27.6 Intersection LOS: C Lanes, Volumes, Timings
1 : Norwood Avenue & Bell Avenue 12/20/2024
Existing AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 3 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Norwood Avenue & Bell Avenue

Queues
1 : Norwood Avenue & Bell Avenue 12/20/2024
Existing AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 4 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 249 186 72 116 46 320 173 119 545 v/c Ratio 0 .09 0.64 0.55 0.14 0.23 0.19 0.46 0.39 0.41 0.48 Control Delay (s/veh) 25.6 33.5 37.7 31.7 8.5 38.5 30.9 8.2 38.2 26.0 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) 25.6 33.5 37.7 31.7 8.5 38.5 30.9 8.2 38.2 26.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 90 79 31 0 19 66 0 50 117
Q
ueue Length 95th (ft) 51 208 183 80 46 66 141 54 132 220 Internal Link Dist (ft) 8 78 976 1238 453
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 195 200 70 200 90
Base Capacity (vph) 642 1065 622 1135 985 632 2177 1007 625 2154 S
tarvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S
torage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0 .07 0.23 0.30 0.06 0.12 0.07 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.25 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1 : Norwood Avenue & Bell Avenue 12/20/2024
Existing AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 5 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 43 122 127 186 72 116 46 320 173 119 513 32 F
uture Volume (veh/h) 43 122 127 186 72 116 46 320 173 119 513 32 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 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 A
dj Flow Rate, veh/h 43 122 127 186 72 116 46 320 173 119 513 32 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 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 3 73 183 191 305 328 265 157 579 249 278 798 50 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.23 0.23 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 1 795 813 847 1753 1841 1489 1767 3526 1515 1767 3363 209 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 43 0 249 186 72 116 46 320 173 119 268 277 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 0 1660 1753 1841 1489 1767 1763 1515 1767 1763 1810 Q
Serve(g_s), s 1.2 0.0 8.3 5.9 2.0 3.1 1.5 5.0 3.7 3.7 8.3 8.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.2 0.0 8.3 5.9 2.0 3.1 1.5 5.0 3.7 3.7 8.3 8.3 P
rop In Lane 1.00 0.51 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 373 0 374 305 328 265 157 579 249 278 418 430 V
/C Ratio(X) 0.12 0.00 0.67 0.61 0.22 0.44 0.29 0.55 0.70 0.43 0.64 0.64 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 778 0 1246 759 1382 1117 771 2646 1137 763 1323 1358 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.4 0.0 21.3 23.1 21.3 11.7 25.8 23.2 7.7 23.0 20.8 20.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.3 1.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 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 0.5 0.0 3.1 2.3 0.8 1.3 0.6 1.9 2.0 1.5 3.2 3.3 U
nsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 19.5 0.0 22.1 23.8 21.4 12.1 26.2 23.5 9.0 23.4 21.4 21.4 L
nGrp LOS B C C C B C C A C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 2 92 374 539 664
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.7 19.7 19.1 21.7
Approach LOS C B B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.2 15.4 9.0 19.0 14.3 18.2 13.4 14.5 C
hange 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 M
ax Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 5.1 3.5 10.3 7.9 10.3 5.7 7.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.2 0.2 1.2 0.1 1.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 2 0.6
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
1 : Norwood Avenue & Bell Avenue 12/20/2024
Existing AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 6 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 43 122 127 186 72 116 46 320 173 119 513 32 F
uture Volume (veh/h) 43 122 127 186 72 116 46 320 173 119 513 32 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 .93 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 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 1885 1885 1885 1841 1841 1841 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 43 122 127 186 72 116 46 320 173 119 513 32 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 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3
C
ap, veh/h 373 183 191 305 328 265 157 579 249 278 798 50 Arrive On Green 0 .21 0.23 0.23 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 813 847 1753 1841 1489 1767 3526 1515 1767 3363 209 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 43 0 249 186 72 116 46 320 173 119 268 277 G
rp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 0 1660 1753 1841 1489 1767 1763 1515 1767 1763 1810 Q Serve(g_s), s 1 .2 0.0 8.3 5.9 2.0 3.1 1.5 5.0 3.7 3.7 8.3 8.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.2 0.0 8.3 5.9 2.0 3.1 1.5 5.0 3.7 3.7 8.3 8.3 Prop In Lane 1 .00 0.51 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 373 0 374 305 328 265 157 579 249 278 418 430 V/C Ratio(X) 0 .12 0.00 0.67 0.61 0.22 0.44 0.29 0.55 0.70 0.43 0.64 0.64 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 778 0 1246 759 1382 1117 771 2646 1137 763 1323 1358 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.4 0.0 21.3 23.1 21.3 11.7 25.8 23.2 7.7 23.0 20.8 20.8 I
ncr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.3 1.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %
ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 0.0 3.1 2.3 0.8 1.3 0.6 1.9 2.0 1.5 3.2 3.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
L
nGrp Delay(d), s/veh 19.5 0.0 22.1 23.8 21.4 12.1 26.2 23.5 9.0 23.4 21.4 21.4 LnGrp LOS B C C C B C C A C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 2 92 374 539 664
Approach Delay, s/veh 2 1.7 19.7 19.1 21.7
Approach LOS C B B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.2 15.4 9.0 19.0 14.3 18.2 13.4 14.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.6 * 4.6 3.6 * 4.6 3.8 * 4.6 3.9 * 4.6 M
ax Green Setting (Gmax), s * 26 * 45 26.4 * 45 26.2 * 45 26.1 * 45 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 5.1 3.5 10.3 7.9 10.3 5.7 7.0 G
reen Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.2 0.2 1.2 0.1 1.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 2 0.6
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
2 : Norwood Avenue & Jessie Avenue 12/20/2024
Existing AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 7 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 3 6 95 215 194 68 41 137 463 100 51 779 44 Future Volume (vph) 36 95 215 194 68 41 137 463 100 51 779 44 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1 900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 100 0 0 100 0 120 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 65 75
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 .850 0.982 0.973 0.992
Flt Protected 0.986 0.969 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1837 1583 0 1742 0 1752 3377 0 1752 3471 0 Flt Permitted 0.986 0.969 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1822 1583 0 1742 0 1746 3377 0 1724 3471 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 2 15 5 16 4
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 40 30
Link Distance (ft) 8 38 627 712 1318
Travel Time (s) 19.0 14.3 12.1 30.0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 3 23 2 7 7 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 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 (%) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Adj. Flow (vph) 3 6 95 215 194 68 41 137 463 100 51 779 44 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 131 215 0 303 0 137 563 0 51 823 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 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 1 2 1 2 1 2
Detector Template L eft Thru Right Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 20 100 20 100 20 100
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 2 0 6 20 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 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 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 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
2 : Norwood Avenue & Jessie Avenue 12/20/2024
Existing AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 8 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 Perm Split NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 6 6 2 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6
Detector Phase 6 6 6 2 2 3 8 7 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 1 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.0 7.0 9.0 6.0 Minimum Split (s) 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 12.5 20.6 13.5 19.6 Total Split (s) 4 0.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 30.0 50.0 30.0 50.0 Total Split (%) 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 18.8% 31.3% 18.8% 31.3% Maximum Green (s) 36.5 36.5 36.5 36.5 36.5 2 6.5 45.4 26.5 45.4 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 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 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3 .5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.6 3.5 4.6
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Y es Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Recall Mode N one None None None None None Min None Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 17.0 17.0 17.0 18.0 18.0 9 .0 8.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Act Effct Green (s) 1 4.2 14.2 23.6 14.0 38.6 10.2 31.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.24 0.14 0.39 0.10 0.31
v/c Ratio 0 .49 0.52 0.72 0.55 0.42 0.28 0.75
Control Delay (s/veh) 51.1 11.4 47.5 54.1 24.7 54.8 37.0 Queue Delay 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 51.1 11.4 47.5 54.1 24.7 54.8 37.0

LOS D B D D C D D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 26.5 47.5 30.5 38.1
Approach LOS C D C D
Q
ueue Length 50th (ft) 75 0 166 79 129 29 230
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 78 73 357 192 249 90 435
Internal Link Dist (ft) 758 547 632 1238
Turn Bay Length (ft) 1 00 100 120
Base Capacity (vph) 725 755 691 502 1710 502 1708
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 0.18 0.28 0.44 0.27 0.33 0.10 0.48
Intersection Summary
Area Type: O ther
Cycle Length: 160
A
ctuated Cycle Length: 99.1
Natural Cycle: 95
C
ontrol Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.76
I
ntersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 35.2 Intersection LOS: D Lanes, Volumes, Timings
2 : Norwood Avenue & Jessie Avenue 12/20/2024
Existing AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 9 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 2: Norwood Avenue & Jessie Avenue

Queues
2 : Norwood Avenue & Jessie Avenue 12/20/2024
Existing AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 10 ends

Lane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 131 215 303 137 563 51 823
v/c Ratio 0 .49 0.52 0.72 0.55 0.42 0.28 0.75
Control Delay (s/veh) 51.1 11.4 47.5 54.1 24.7 54.8 37.0 Queue Delay 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 51.1 11.4 47.5 54.1 24.7 54.8 37.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 75 0 166 79 129 29 230
Q
ueue Length 95th (ft) 178 73 357 192 249 90 435
Internal Link Dist (ft) 758 5 47 632 1238
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100 120
Base Capacity (vph) 725 755 691 502 1710 502 1708
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 .18 0.28 0.44 0.27 0.33 0.10 0.48
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2 : Norwood Avenue & Jessie Avenue 12/20/2024
Existing AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 11 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 36 95 215 194 68 41 137 463 100 51 779 44 F
uture Volume (veh/h) 36 95 215 194 68 41 137 463 100 51 779 44 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 A
dj Flow Rate, veh/h 36 95 215 194 68 41 137 463 100 51 779 44 Peak Hour Factor 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 1 00 263 301 253 89 54 188 899 193 134 960 54 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.11 0.31 0.31 0.08 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 5 07 1338 1530 1119 392 237 1767 2869 615 1767 3390 191 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 131 0 215 303 0 0 137 283 280 51 405 418 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1845 0 1530 1748 0 0 1767 1763 1721 1767 1763 1818 Q
Serve(g_s), s 5.0 0.0 10.6 13.1 0.0 0.0 6.1 10.6 10.8 2.2 17.3 17.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.0 0.0 10.6 13.1 0.0 0.0 6.1 10.6 10.8 2.2 17.3 17.3 P
rop In Lane 0.27 1.00 0.64 0.14 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.11
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 363 0 301 396 0 0 188 553 539 134 499 515 V
/C Ratio(X) 0.36 0.00 0.71 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.51 0.52 0.38 0.81 0.81 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 835 0 692 791 0 0 581 992 968 581 992 1023 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.0 0.0 30.3 29.2 0.0 0.0 34.9 22.6 22.7 35.5 26.9 26.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.3 0.3 0.7 1.2 1.2 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 2.2 0.0 3.8 5.4 0.0 0.0 2.6 4.1 4.1 1.0 7.1 7.3 U
nsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 28.2 0.0 31.5 30.4 0.0 0.0 36.9 22.9 23.0 36.1 28.1 28.1 L
nGrp LOS C C C D C C D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 3 46 303 700 874
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.2 30.4 25.7 28.6
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 2 1.8 12.1 27.4 19.4 9.6 29.9
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 3 6.5 26.5 * 45 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.1 8.1 19.3 12.6 4.2 12.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1 .2 0.1 3.6 0.9 0.0 2.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 2 8.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
2 : Norwood Avenue & Jessie Avenue 12/20/2024
Existing AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 12 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 36 95 215 194 68 41 137 463 100 51 779 44 F
uture Volume (veh/h) 36 95 215 194 68 41 137 463 100 51 779 44 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 .96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach N o 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 36 95 215 194 68 41 137 463 100 51 779 44 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, % 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
C
ap, veh/h 100 263 301 253 89 54 188 899 193 134 960 54
Arrive On Green 0 .20 0.20 0.20 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.11 0.31 0.31 0.08 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 507 1338 1530 1119 392 237 1767 2869 615 1767 3390 191 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 131 0 215 303 0 0 137 283 280 51 405 418 G
rp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1845 0 1530 1748 0 0 1767 1763 1721 1767 1763 1818 Q Serve(g_s), s 5 .0 0.0 10.6 13.1 0.0 0.0 6.1 10.6 10.8 2.2 17.3 17.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.0 0.0 10.6 13.1 0.0 0.0 6.1 10.6 10.8 2.2 17.3 17.3 Prop In Lane 0 .27 1.00 0.64 0.14 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.11
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 363 0 301 396 0 0 188 553 539 134 499 515 V/C Ratio(X) 0 .36 0.00 0.71 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.51 0.52 0.38 0.81 0.81 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 835 0 692 791 0 0 581 992 968 581 992 1023 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.0 0.0 30.3 29.2 0.0 0.0 34.9 22.6 22.7 35.5 26.9 26.9 I
ncr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.3 0.3 0.7 1.2 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 2.2 0.0 3.8 5.4 0.0 0.0 2.6 4.1 4.1 1.0 7.1 7.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
L
nGrp Delay(d), s/veh 28.2 0.0 31.5 30.4 0.0 0.0 36.9 22.9 23.0 36.1 28.1 28.1 LnGrp LOS C C C D C C D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 3 46 303 700 874
Approach Delay, s/veh 3 0.2 30.4 25.7 28.6
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 2 1.8 12.1 27.4 19.4 9.6 29.9
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 15.1 8.1 19.3 1 2.6 4.2 12.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.2 0.1 3.6 0.9 0.0 2.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 2 8.2
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3 : Norwood Avenue & WB 80 On-Ramp/WB 80 Off-Ramp 12/20/2024 Existing AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 13 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 291 1 220 258 586 0 0 678 560 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 291 1 220 258 586 0 0 678 560 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1 900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 50 200 0 0 75
Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 35 25
Lane Util. Factor 1 .00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.98 0.99 0.97
Frt 0 .850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.953 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 0 0 1649 1654 1553 1736 3471 0 0 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.953 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 0 0 1649 1654 1532 1733 3471 0 0 3539 1541 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 2 18 302
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 40 30
Link Distance (ft) 1 264 954 526 712
Travel Time (s) 28.7 21.7 9.0 16.2
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 1 4 4 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2
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 (%) 0% 0% 0% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2%
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 291 1 220 258 586 0 0 678 560
Shared Lane Traffic (%) 50%
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 145 147 220 258 586 0 0 678 560 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
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 1 2 2 1
Detector Template L eft Thru Right Left Thru Thru Right Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 20 100 100 20
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 20 6 6 20
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
3 : Norwood Avenue & WB 80 On-Ramp/WB 80 Off-Ramp 12/20/2024 Existing AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 14 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 Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 1 6 2
Permitted Phases 4 2
Detector Phase 4 4 4 1 6 2 2
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 8 .0 8.0 8.0 8.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Minimum Split (s) 29.0 29.0 29.0 11.5 18.8 17.8 17.8
Total Split (s) 4 0.0 40.0 40.0 30.0 40.0 40.0 40.0
Total Split (%) 36.4% 36.4% 36.4% 27.3% 36.4% 36.4% 36.4% Maximum Green (s) 3 6.0 36.0 36.0 26.5 35.2 35.2 35.2
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.3 4.3 4.3
All-Red Time (s) 0 .5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 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 3.5 4.8 4.8 4.8
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Y es Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Recall Mode N one None None None Min Min Min
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 1 8.0 18.0 18.0 7.0 6.0 6.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 2 2 2 2 2 2
Act Effct Green (s) 1 2.9 12.9 12.9 15.7 43.9 24.4 24.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.24 0.66 0.37 0.37
v/c Ratio 0 .45 0.45 0.46 0.62 0.25 0.52 0.74
Control Delay (s/veh) 31.9 32.0 8.1 33.0 5.1 19.2 16.0
Queue Delay 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 31.9 32.0 8.1 33.0 5.1 19.2 16.0

LOS C C A C A B B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 21.8 13.7 17.8
Approach LOS C B B
Q
ueue Length 50th (ft) 52 53 1 87 35 100 72
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 37 138 57 222 96 230 283
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1184 874 446 632
Turn Bay Length (ft) 5 0 200 75
Base Capacity (vph) 976 979 996 756 3116 2049 1019
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 0.15 0.15 0.22 0.34 0.19 0.33 0.55
Intersection Summary
Area Type: O ther
Cycle Length: 110
A
ctuated Cycle Length: 66.5
Natural Cycle: 65
C
ontrol Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.74
I
ntersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 17.2 Intersection LOS: B Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3 : Norwood Avenue & WB 80 On-Ramp/WB 80 Off-Ramp 12/20/2024 Existing AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 15 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: Norwood Avenue & WB 80 On-Ramp/WB 80 Off-Ramp

Queues
3 : Norwood Avenue & WB 80 On-Ramp/WB 80 Off-Ramp 12/20/2024 Existing AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 16 ends

Lane Group WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 145 147 220 258 586 678 560
v/c Ratio 0 .45 0.45 0.46 0.62 0.25 0.52 0.74
Control Delay (s/veh) 31.9 32.0 8.1 33.0 5.1 19.2 16.0
Queue Delay 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 31.9 32.0 8.1 33.0 5.1 19.2 16.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 52 53 1 87 35 100 72
Q
ueue Length 95th (ft) 137 138 57 222 96 230 283
Internal Link Dist (ft) 8 74 446 632
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 200 75
Base Capacity (vph) 976 979 996 756 3116 2049 1019
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 .15 0.15 0.22 0.34 0.19 0.33 0.55
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3 : Norwood Avenue & WB 80 On-Ramp/WB 80 Off-Ramp 12/20/2024 Existing AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 17 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 291 1 220 258 586 0 0 678 560 F
uture Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 291 1 220 258 586 0 0 678 560 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 1 841 1841 1841 1841 1841 0 0 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 292 0 0 258 586 0 0 678 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, % 4 4 4 4 4 0 0 2 2
Cap, veh/h 6 75 0 333 2064 0 0 1115
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3 506 0 1560 1753 3589 0 0 3647 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2 92 0 0 258 586 0 0 678 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1 753 0 1560 1753 1749 0 0 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 3.3 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3 .0 0.0 0.0 5.7 3.3 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 6 75 0 333 2064 0 0 1115
V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.00 0.77 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.61
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3 115 0 1147 3039 0 0 3088
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 14.4 0.0 0.0 15.6 4.1 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0 .2 0.0 0.0 2.9 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 .0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 1 4.6 0.0 0.0 18.5 4.1 0.0 0.0 12.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS B B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 2 92 844 678
Approach Delay, s/veh 14.6 8.5 12.2
Approach LOS B A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.2 17.5 1 1.8 28.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.8 4.0 4.8
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.5 35.2 3 6.0 35.2
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.7 8.6 5.0 5.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 4.2 0 .5 3.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 1 0.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

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

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
3 : Norwood Avenue & WB 80 On-Ramp/WB 80 Off-Ramp 12/20/2024 Existing AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 18 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 291 1 220 258 586 0 0 678 560 F
uture Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 291 1 220 258 586 0 0 678 560 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 1841 1841 1841 1841 1841 0 0 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2 92 0 0 258 586 0 0 678 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, % 4 4 4 4 4 0 0 2 2
Cap, veh/h 675 0 333 2064 0 0 1115
Arrive On Green 0 .19 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.59 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 2 92 0 0 258 586 0 0 678 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1753 0 1560 1753 1749 0 0 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 3 .0 0.0 0.0 5.7 3.3 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 3.3 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1 .00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 675 0 333 2064 0 0 1115
V/C Ratio(X) 0 .43 0.00 0.77 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.61
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3115 0 1147 3039 0 0 3088
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 4.4 0.0 0.0 15.6 4.1 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.9 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 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
L
nGrp Delay(d), s/veh 14.6 0.0 0.0 18.5 4.1 0.0 0.0 12.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS B B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 2 92 844 678
Approach Delay, s/veh 1 4.6 8.5 12.2
Approach LOS B A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.2 17.5 1 1.8 28.7
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 7.7 8.6 5 .0 5.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 4.2 0.5 3.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 1 0.9
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 AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM 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) 274 1 376 0 0 0 0 570 289 367 602 0 F
uture Volume (vph) 274 1 376 0 0 0 0 570 289 367 602 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 0.953 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1 633 1638 1538 0 0 0 0 3471 1553 1736 3471 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.953 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1 633 1638 1518 0 0 0 0 3471 1517 1728 3471 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 2 82 289
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 7 4 4 7
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 3
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 (%) 5% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Adj. Flow (vph) 2 74 1 376 0 0 0 0 570 289 367 602 0
Shared Lane Traffic (%) 50%
Lane Group Flow (vph) 137 138 376 0 0 0 0 570 289 367 602 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 AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM 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 Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 8 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 8 6
Detector Phase 8 8 8 6 6 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 17.8 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 Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Y es Yes 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 6.0 7.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 2 2 2 2 2 2
Act Effct Green (s) 1 3.3 13.3 13.3 17.6 17.6 20.4 41.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.27 0.27 0.32 0.65
v/c Ratio 0 .40 0.40 0.70 0.60 0.46 0.66 0.26
Control Delay (s/veh) 28.3 28.4 15.2 24.4 5.8 28.2 5.5
Queue Delay 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 28.3 28.4 15.2 24.4 5.8 28.2 5.5

LOS C C B C A C A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 20.8 18.2 14.1
Approach LOS C B B
Q
ueue Length 50th (ft) 48 49 31 95 0 114 37
Queue Length 95th (ft) 118 120 132 1 96 57 #295 100
Internal Link Dist (ft) 679 966 657 446
Turn Bay Length (ft) 5 0 220 180
Base Capacity (vph) 968 971 1014 2012 1001 757 3211
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 0.14 0.14 0.37 0.28 0.29 0.48 0.19
Intersection Summary
Area Type: O ther
Cycle Length: 110
A
ctuated Cycle Length: 64.4
Natural Cycle: 70
C
ontrol Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.70
I
ntersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 17.3 Intersection LOS: B Lanes, Volumes, Timings
4 : Norwood Avenue & EB 80 Off-Ramp/EB 80 On-Ramp 12/20/2024 Existing AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 21 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

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 AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 22 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 137 138 376 570 289 367 602
v/c Ratio 0 .40 0.40 0.70 0.60 0.46 0.66 0.26
Control Delay (s/veh) 28.3 28.4 15.2 24.4 5.8 28.2 5.5
Queue Delay 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 28.3 28.4 15.2 24.4 5.8 28.2 5.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 48 49 31 95 0 114 37
Q
ueue Length 95th (ft) 118 120 132 196 57 #295 100
Internal Link Dist (ft) 6 79 657 446
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 220 180
Base Capacity (vph) 968 971 1014 2012 1001 757 3211
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 .14 0.14 0.37 0.28 0.29 0.48 0.19
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4 : Norwood Avenue & EB 80 Off-Ramp/EB 80 On-Ramp 12/20/2024 Existing AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM 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) 274 1 376 0 0 0 0 570 289 367 602 0 F
uture Volume (veh/h) 274 1 376 0 0 0 0 570 289 367 602 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 1826 1826 1826 0 1841 1841 1841 1841 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 275 0 0 0 570 0 367 602 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, % 5 5 5 0 4 4 4 4 0
Cap, veh/h 6 98 0 0 915 450 2092 0
Arrive On Green 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.26 0.60 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3 478 0 1547 0 3589 1560 1753 3589 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 275 0 0 0 570 0 367 602 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1739 0 1547 0 1749 1560 1753 1749 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 8.6 3.7 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 6.3 0.0 8.6 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 698 0 0 915 450 2092 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.82 0.29 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2862 0 0 2814 1062 2814 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 15.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 15.3 4.3 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.5 0.0 2.7 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 1.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 2.0 0.0 3.2 0.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 15.3 0.0 0.0 0 .0 14.8 0.0 18.0 4.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS B B B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 2 75 570 969
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.3 14.8 9.5
Approach LOS B B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 3 1.0 14.7 16.2 12.8
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 5.7 10.6 8.3 5.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3 .7 0.7 3.1 0.5
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 AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM 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) 274 1 376 0 0 0 0 570 289 367 602 0 F
uture Volume (veh/h) 274 1 376 0 0 0 0 570 289 367 602 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 1826 1826 1826 0 1841 1841 1841 1841 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 275 0 0 0 570 0 367 602 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, % 5 5 5 0 4 4 4 4 0
Cap, veh/h 698 0 0 915 450 2092 0
Arrive On Green 0 .20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.26 0.60 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3478 0 1547 0 3589 1560 1753 3589 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 275 0 0 0 570 0 367 602 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1739 0 1547 0 1749 1560 1753 1749 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 8.6 3.7 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 8.6 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 698 0 0 915 450 2092 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0 .39 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.82 0.29 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2862 0 0 2814 1062 2814 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 15.2 0.0 0.0 0 .0 14.3 0.0 15.3 4.3 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.7 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 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.2 0.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
L
nGrp Delay(d), s/veh 15.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.8 0.0 18.0 4.3 0.0 LnGrp LOS B B B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 2 75 570 969
Approach Delay, s/veh 1 5.3 14.8 9.5
Approach LOS B B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 3 1.0 14.7 16.2 12.8
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 1 0.6 8.3 5.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.7 0.7 3.1 0.5
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 AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM 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) 122 13 31 9 26 87 44 665 11 56 623 305 F
uture Volume (vph) 122 13 31 9 26 87 44 665 11 56 623 305 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 0.99 0.99 0.99
Frt 0 .850 0.850 0.998 0.951
Flt Protected 0.957 0.987 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1609 1429 0 1786 1538 1770 3531 0 1736 3272 0 Flt Permitted 0.957 0.987 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1609 1398 0 1782 1518 1768 3531 0 1736 3272 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 3 7 87 1 48
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 1 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 2 2
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 (%) 13% 13% 13% 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4% Adj. Flow (vph) 1 22 13 31 9 26 87 44 665 11 56 623 305 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 135 31 0 35 87 44 676 0 56 928 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 AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM 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 3.7 24.2 11.5 11.5 10.4 37.4 9.5 36.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.30 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.47 0.12 0.46 v/c Ratio 0 .49 0.06 0.13 0.29 0.19 0.40 0.27 0.60
Control Delay (s/veh) 38.7 5.9 36.8 12.0 38.5 18.1 40.6 20.6 Queue Delay 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 38.7 5.9 36.8 12.0 38.5 18.1 40.6 20.6

LOS D A D B D B D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 32.6 19.2 19.4 21.8
Approach LOS C B B C
Q
ueue Length 50th (ft) 67 0 16 0 21 124 27 186
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 20 15 50 44 60 224 71 324
Internal Link Dist (ft) 655 515 251 657
Turn Bay Length (ft) 1 40 85 110
Base Capacity (vph) 761 931 840 760 839 1650 823 1531
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 0.18 0.03 0.04 0.11 0.05 0.41 0.07 0.61 Intersection Summary
Area Type: O ther
Cycle Length: 160
A
ctuated Cycle Length: 80.1
Natural Cycle: 85
C
ontrol Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.61
I
ntersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 21.7 Intersection LOS: C Lanes, Volumes, Timings
5 : Norwood Avenue & Harris Avenue 12/20/2024
Existing AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 27 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.0% 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 AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 28 ends

Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 135 31 35 87 44 676 56 928
v/c Ratio 0 .49 0.06 0.13 0.29 0.19 0.40 0.27 0.60
Control Delay (s/veh) 38.7 5.9 36.8 12.0 38.5 18.1 40.6 20.6 Queue Delay 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 38.7 5.9 36.8 12.0 38.5 18.1 40.6 20.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 67 0 16 0 21 124 27 186
Q
ueue Length 95th (ft) 120 15 50 44 60 224 71 324
Internal Link Dist (ft) 655 5 15 251 657
Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 85 110
Base Capacity (vph) 761 931 840 760 839 1650 823 1531
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 .18 0.03 0.04 0.11 0.05 0.41 0.07 0.61 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5 : Norwood Avenue & Harris Avenue 12/20/2024
Existing AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM 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) 122 13 31 9 26 87 44 665 11 56 623 305 F
uture Volume (veh/h) 122 13 31 9 26 87 44 665 11 56 623 305 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 0.98 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 A
dj Flow Rate, veh/h 122 13 31 9 26 87 44 665 11 56 623 305 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, % 13 13 13 5 5 5 2 2 2 4 4 4
Cap, veh/h 2 36 25 350 71 205 229 152 1261 21 156 804 394 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.09 0.35 0.35 0.09 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 1 476 157 1414 464 1339 1491 1781 3576 59 1753 2255 1104 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 135 0 31 35 0 87 44 330 346 56 483 445 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1634 0 1414 1803 0 1491 1781 1777 1858 1753 1749 1611 Q
Serve(g_s), s 4.8 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 3.3 1.5 9.4 9.4 1.9 15.5 15.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.8 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 3.3 1.5 9.4 9.4 1.9 15.5 15.6 P
rop In Lane 0.90 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.69
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 262 0 350 277 0 229 152 627 655 156 624 574 V
/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.00 0.09 0.13 0.00 0.38 0.29 0.53 0.53 0.36 0.77 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 939 0 936 1030 0 852 1027 993 1039 1010 977 900 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 24.3 0.0 18.4 23.1 0.0 24.1 27.2 16.3 16.3 27.1 18.1 18.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.6 1.7 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 1.8 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 1.1 0.6 3.3 3.5 0.8 5.9 5.5 U
nsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 24.9 0.0 18.5 23.2 0.0 24.5 27.6 16.8 16.8 27.7 19.7 19.8 L
nGrp LOS C B C C C B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1 66 122 720 984
Approach Delay, s/veh 23.7 24.1 17.5 20.2
Approach LOS C C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 1 3.5 8.9 27.2 13.7 9.1 26.9
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 5.3 3.5 17.6 6.8 3.9 11.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0 .3 0.0 5.0 0.6 0.1 3.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 1 9.7
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 AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM 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) 122 13 31 9 26 87 44 665 11 56 623 305 F
uture Volume (veh/h) 122 13 31 9 26 87 44 665 11 56 623 305 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 0.98 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 N o 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 122 13 31 9 26 87 44 665 11 56 623 305 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, % 13 13 13 5 5 5 2 2 2 4 4 4
C
ap, veh/h 236 25 350 71 205 229 152 1261 21 156 804 394 Arrive On Green 0 .16 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.09 0.35 0.35 0.09 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 1476 157 1414 464 1339 1491 1781 3576 59 1753 2255 1104 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 135 0 31 35 0 87 44 330 346 56 483 445 G
rp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1634 0 1414 1803 0 1491 1781 1777 1858 1753 1749 1611 Q Serve(g_s), s 4 .8 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 3.3 1.5 9.4 9.4 1.9 15.5 15.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.8 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 3.3 1.5 9.4 9.4 1.9 15.5 15.6 Prop In Lane 0 .90 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.69
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 262 0 350 277 0 229 152 627 655 156 624 574 V/C Ratio(X) 0 .52 0.00 0.09 0.13 0.00 0.38 0.29 0.53 0.53 0.36 0.77 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 939 0 936 1030 0 852 1027 993 1039 1010 977 900 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 24.3 0.0 18.4 23.1 0.0 24.1 27.2 16.3 16.3 27.1 18.1 18.1 I
ncr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.6 1.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %
ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 1.1 0.6 3.3 3.5 0.8 5.9 5.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
L
nGrp Delay(d), s/veh 24.9 0.0 18.5 23.2 0.0 24.5 27.6 16.8 16.8 27.7 19.7 19.8 LnGrp LOS C B C C C B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1 66 122 720 984
Approach Delay, s/veh 2 3.7 24.1 17.5 20.2
Approach LOS C C B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 1 3.5 8.9 27.2 13.7 9.1 26.9
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 5.3 3.5 17.6 6 .8 3.9 11.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.0 5.0 0.6 0.1 3.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 1 9.7
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 AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM 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) 203 74 93 22 84 39 107 547 16 23 465 186 F
uture Volume (vph) 203 74 93 22 84 39 107 547 16 23 465 186 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 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Frt 0 .916 0.952 0.996 0.957
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1 719 1641 0 1752 1746 0 1770 3522 0 1752 3324 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1 712 1641 0 1748 1746 0 1764 3522 0 1741 3324 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 4 4 16 2 45
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) 3 2 2 3 3 4 4 3
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 2 2
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 (%) 5% 5% 5% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3%
Adj. Flow (vph) 2 03 74 93 22 84 39 107 547 16 23 465 186 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 203 167 0 22 123 0 107 563 0 23 651 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 AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM 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 5.1 27.3 11.0 13.1 11.3 27.2 9.9 20.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.38 0.15 0.18 0.16 0.38 0.14 0.28 v/c Ratio 0 .56 0.25 0.08 0.37 0.38 0.42 0.09 0.67
Control Delay (s/veh) 36.5 17.6 37.7 31.1 38.2 19.5 38.7 27.1 Queue Delay 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 36.5 17.6 37.7 31.1 38.2 19.5 38.7 27.1

LOS D B D C D B D C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 28.0 32.2 22.5 27.6
Approach LOS C C C C
Q
ueue Length 50th (ft) 75 31 8 40 41 71 8 114
Queue Length 95th (ft) 208 119 4 1 120 128 213 43 264
Internal Link Dist (ft) 710 228 480 903
Turn Bay Length (ft) 105 9 0 50
Base Capacity (vph) 695 715 708 715 715 1930 708 1816
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 0.29 0.23 0.03 0.17 0.15 0.29 0.03 0.36 Intersection Summary
Area Type: O ther
Cycle Length: 130
A
ctuated Cycle Length: 72.1
Natural Cycle: 85
C
ontrol Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.68
I
ntersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 26.2 Intersection LOS: C Lanes, Volumes, Timings
6 : Norwood Avenue & Silver Eagle Road 12/20/2024
Existing AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 33 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.9% 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 AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM S ynchro 12 Report

Page 34 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 203 167 22 123 107 563 23 651
v/c Ratio 0 .56 0.25 0.08 0.37 0.38 0.42 0.09 0.67
Control Delay (s/veh) 36.5 17.6 37.7 31.1 38.2 19.5 38.7 27.1 Queue Delay 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 36.5 17.6 37.7 31.1 38.2 19.5 38.7 27.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 75 31 8 40 41 71 8 114
Q
ueue Length 95th (ft) 208 119 41 120 128 213 43 264
Internal Link Dist (ft) 7 10 228 480 903
Turn Bay Length (ft) 105 90 50
Base Capacity (vph) 695 715 708 715 715 1930 708 1816
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 .29 0.23 0.03 0.17 0.15 0.29 0.03 0.36 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
6 : Norwood Avenue & Silver Eagle Road 12/20/2024
Existing AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM 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) 203 74 93 22 84 39 107 547 16 23 465 186 F
uture Volume (veh/h) 203 74 93 22 84 39 107 547 16 23 465 186 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 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 A
dj Flow Rate, veh/h 203 74 93 22 84 39 107 547 16 23 465 186 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, % 5 5 5 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 2 97 200 252 91 188 87 232 1221 36 85 646 256 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.28 0.28 0.05 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.35 0.35 0.05 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 1 739 723 909 1767 1185 550 1781 3525 103 1767 2441 968 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 203 0 167 22 0 123 107 275 288 23 335 316 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1739 0 1632 1767 0 1735 1781 1777 1851 1767 1763 1646 Q
Serve(g_s), s 6.2 0.0 4.6 0.7 0.0 3.6 3.1 6.7 6.7 0.7 9.7 9.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.2 0.0 4.6 0.7 0.0 3.6 3.1 6.7 6.7 0.7 9.7 9.8 P
rop In Lane 1.00 0.56 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.59
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 297 0 452 91 0 275 232 616 641 85 467 436 V
/C Ratio(X) 0.68 0.00 0.37 0.24 0.00 0.45 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.27 0.72 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 821 0 758 834 0 819 841 1120 1167 834 1112 1038 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 21.9 0.0 16.3 25.6 0.0 21.4 22.6 14.2 14.2 25.8 18.7 18.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.9 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 2.4 0.0 1.6 0.3 0.0 1.4 1.2 2.3 2.4 0.3 3.6 3.5 U
nsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 22.9 0.0 16.5 26.1 0.0 21.8 23.1 14.4 14.4 26.4 19.5 19.7 L
nGrp LOS C B C C C B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 3 70 145 670 674
Approach Delay, s/veh 20.0 22.5 15.8 19.8
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.1 12.8 10.8 19.5 6.4 19.5 6.2 24.1 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 8.2 5.6 5.1 11.8 2.7 6.6 2.7 8.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.4 0.1 2.8 0.0 0.6 0.0 2.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 1 8.6
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 AM Norwood Avenue Complete Streets Transportation Plan 3:51 pm 08/30/2024 Existing AM 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) 203 74 93 22 84 39 107 547 16 23 465 186 F
uture Volume (veh/h) 203 74 93 22 84 39 107 547 16 23 465 186 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 .97 1.00 0.97 1.00 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 N o 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 203 74 93 22 84 39 107 547 16 23 465 186 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, % 5 5 5 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3
C
ap, veh/h 297 200 252 91 188 87 232 1221 36 85 646 256
Arrive On Green 0 .17 0.28 0.28 0.05 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.35 0.35 0.05 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 1739 723 909 1767 1185 550 1781 3525 103 1767 2441 968 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 203 0 167 22 0 123 107 275 288 23 335 316 G
rp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1739 0 1632 1767 0 1735 1781 1777 1851 1767 1763 1646 Q Serve(g_s), s 6 .2 0.0 4.6 0.7 0.0 3.6 3.1 6.7 6.7 0.7 9.7 9.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.2 0.0 4.6 0.7 0.0 3.6 3.1 6.7 6.7 0.7 9.7 9.8 Prop In Lane 1 .00 0.56 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.59
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 297 0 452 91 0 275 232 616 641 85 467 436 V/C Ratio(X) 0 .68 0.00 0.37 0.24 0.00 0.45 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.27 0.72 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 821 0 758 834 0 819 841 1120 1167 834 1112 1038 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 21.9 0.0 16.3 25.6 0.0 21.4 22.6 14.2 14.2 25.8 18.7 18.8 I
ncr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.8 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 2.4 0.0 1.6 0.3 0.0 1.4 1.2 2.3 2.4 0.3 3.6 3.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
L
nGrp Delay(d), s/veh 22.9 0.0 16.5 26.1 0.0 21.8 23.1 14.4 14.4 26.4 19.5 19.7 LnGrp LOS C B C C C B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 3 70 145 670 674
Approach Delay, s/veh 2 0.0 22.5 15.8 19.8
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.1 12.8 10.8 19.5 6.4 19.5 6.2 24.1 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 8.2 5.6 5.1 11.8 2.7 6.6 2.7 8.7 G
reen Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.4 0.1 2.8 0.0 0.6 0.0 2.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 1 8.6
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
1 : Norwood Avenue & Bell 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 1 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1 1 51 79 134 60 69 110 382 205 73 395 15 Future Volume (vph) 11 51 79 134 60 69 110 382 205 73 395 15 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1 900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 195 200 70 200 90 0
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 35 50 70 45
Lane Util. Factor 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.97 0.99
Frt 0 .909 0.850 0.850 0.995
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 1 787 1687 0 1770 1863 1583 1787 3574 1599 1787 3552 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 1 777 1687 0 1756 1863 1548 1778 3574 1561 1787 3552 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 4 9 69 205 2
Link Speed (mph) 25 40 40 30
Link Distance (ft) 9 58 1056 1318 533
Travel Time (s) 26.1 18.0 22.5 12.1
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 5 5 3 2 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 5 3 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 (%) 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Adj. Flow (vph) 1 1 51 79 134 60 69 110 382 205 73 395 15 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 130 0 134 60 69 110 382 205 73 410 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 1 2 1 1 2
Detector Template L eft Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 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 6 20 20 6 20 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
1 : Norwood Avenue & Bell 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 2 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 Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8
Detector Phase 1 6 5 2 2 3 8 8 7 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 1 1.0 9.0 11.0 9.0 9.0 10.0 9.0 9.0 11.0 8.0 Minimum Split (s) 14.8 31.6 14.8 27.6 27.6 13.6 27.6 27.6 14.9 21.6 Total Split (s) 3 0.0 50.0 30.0 50.0 50.0 30.0 50.0 50.0 30.0 50.0 Total Split (%) 18.8% 31.3% 18.8% 31.3% 31.3% 18.8% 31.3% 31.3% 18.8% 31.3% Maximum Green (s) 26.2 45.4 2 6.2 45.4 45.4 26.4 45.4 45.4 26.1 45.4 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 4.3 3.5 4.3 4.3 3.5 4.3 4.3 3.5 4.3 All-Red Time (s) 0 .3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 3 .8 4.6 3.8 4.6 4.6 3.6 4.6 4.6 3.9 4.6 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Y es Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Recall Mode N one None None None 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) 2 0.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 10.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 2 2 2 2 2 2
Act Effct Green (s) 1 3.0 12.2 12.6 21.2 21.2 11.4 13.2 13.2 11.9 13.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.19 0.20 0.33 0.33 0.18 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.21 v/c Ratio 0 .03 0.35 0.38 0.09 0.12 0.34 0.51 0.42 0.21 0.53 Control Delay (s/veh) 25.8 19.5 30.6 18.8 7.1 31.2 26.6 7.3 29.9 26.8 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) 25.8 19.5 30.6 18.8 7.1 31.2 26.6 7.3 29.9 26.8

LOS C B C B A C C A C C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 20.0 21.8 21.7 27.4
Approach LOS C C C C
Q
ueue Length 50th (ft) 3 26 42 13 0 35 65 0 22 68
Queue Length 95th (ft) 20 83 1 31 61 33 112 147 54 84 163 Internal Link Dist (ft) 878 976 1238 453
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 1 95 200 70 200 90
Base Capacity (vph) 790 1278 782 1398 1178 796 2681 1222 787 2666 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.01 0.10 0.17 0.04 0.06 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.09 0.15 Intersection Summary
Area Type: O ther
Cycle Length: 160
A
ctuated Cycle Length: 63.4
Natural Cycle: 90
C
ontrol Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.54
I
ntersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 23.3 Intersection LOS: C Lanes, Volumes, Timings
1 : Norwood Avenue & Bell 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 3 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Norwood Avenue & Bell Avenue

Queues
1 : Norwood Avenue & Bell 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 4 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 130 134 60 69 110 382 205 73 410 v/c Ratio 0 .03 0.35 0.38 0.09 0.12 0.34 0.51 0.42 0.21 0.53 Control Delay (s/veh) 25.8 19.5 30.6 18.8 7.1 31.2 26.6 7.3 29.9 26.8 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) 25.8 19.5 30.6 18.8 7.1 31.2 26.6 7.3 29.9 26.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 3 26 42 13 0 35 65 0 22 68
Q
ueue Length 95th (ft) 20 83 131 61 33 112 147 54 84 163 Internal Link Dist (ft) 8 78 976 1238 453
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 195 200 70 200 90
Base Capacity (vph) 790 1278 782 1398 1178 796 2681 1222 787 2666 S
tarvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S
torage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0 .01 0.10 0.17 0.04 0.06 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.09 0.15 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1 : Norwood Avenue & Bell 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 5 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 11 51 79 134 60 69 110 382 205 73 395 15 F
uture Volume (veh/h) 11 51 79 134 60 69 110 382 205 73 395 15 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 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 A
dj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 51 79 134 60 69 110 382 205 73 395 15 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 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 3 05 105 162 325 296 244 277 676 292 249 629 24 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.19 0.19 0.14 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1 795 650 1007 1781 1870 1543 1795 3582 1548 1795 3515 133 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 11 0 130 134 60 69 110 382 205 73 201 209 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 0 1657 1781 1870 1543 1795 1791 1548 1795 1791 1857 Q
Serve(g_s), s 0.3 0.0 3.7 3.4 1.4 1.3 2.8 5.0 3.6 1.9 5.3 5.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 0.0 3.7 3.4 1.4 1.3 2.8 5.0 3.6 1.9 5.3 5.4 P
rop In Lane 1.00 0.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 305 0 267 325 296 244 277 676 292 249 321 333 V
/C Ratio(X) 0.04 0.00 0.49 0.41 0.20 0.28 0.40 0.56 0.70 0.29 0.63 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 915 0 1464 908 1653 1363 922 3165 1368 912 1582 1641 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.8 0.0 19.6 18.6 18.8 7.5 19.6 18.9 6.3 19.9 19.5 19.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 1.2 0.2 0.8 0.7 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 0.1 0.0 1.3 1.2 0.5 0.6 1.0 1.8 1.9 0.7 2.1 2.1 U
nsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 17.8 0.0 20.1 18.9 18.9 7.7 19.9 19.2 7.5 20.1 20.2 20.2 L
nGrp LOS B C B B A B B A C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1 41 263 697 483
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.9 16.0 15.9 20.2
Approach LOS B B B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.3 12.7 11.5 13.8 13.2 12.9 11.0 14.3 C
hange 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 M
ax Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.3 3.4 4.8 7.4 5.4 5.7 3.9 7.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.3 0.1 1.6 0.2 0.6 0.1 1.9 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 1 7.6
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
1 : Norwood Avenue & Bell 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 6 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 11 51 79 134 60 69 110 382 205 73 395 15 F
uture Volume (veh/h) 11 51 79 134 60 69 110 382 205 73 395 15 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 .96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 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 N o 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 11 51 79 134 60 69 110 382 205 73 395 15 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 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
C
ap, veh/h 305 105 162 325 296 244 277 676 292 249 629 24 Arrive On Green 0 .17 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.19 0.19 0.14 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 650 1007 1781 1870 1543 1795 3582 1548 1795 3515 133 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 11 0 130 134 60 69 110 382 205 73 201 209 G
rp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 0 1657 1781 1870 1543 1795 1791 1548 1795 1791 1857 Q Serve(g_s), s 0 .3 0.0 3.7 3.4 1.4 1.3 2.8 5.0 3.6 1.9 5.3 5.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 0.0 3.7 3.4 1.4 1.3 2.8 5.0 3.6 1.9 5.3 5.4 Prop In Lane 1 .00 0.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 305 0 267 325 296 244 277 676 292 249 321 333 V/C Ratio(X) 0 .04 0.00 0.49 0.41 0.20 0.28 0.40 0.56 0.70 0.29 0.63 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 915 0 1464 908 1653 1363 922 3165 1368 912 1582 1641 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.8 0.0 19.6 18.6 18.8 7.5 19.6 18.9 6.3 19.9 19.5 19.5 I
ncr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 1.2 0.2 0.8 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %
ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 1.3 1.2 0.5 0.6 1.0 1.8 1.9 0.7 2.1 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
L
nGrp Delay(d), s/veh 17.8 0.0 20.1 18.9 18.9 7.7 19.9 19.2 7.5 20.1 20.2 20.2 LnGrp LOS B C B B A B B A C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1 41 263 697 483
Approach Delay, s/veh 1 9.9 16.0 15.9 20.2
Approach LOS B B B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.3 12.7 11.5 13.8 13.2 12.9 11.0 14.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.6 * 4.6 3.6 * 4.6 3.8 * 4.6 3.9 * 4.6 M
ax Green Setting (Gmax), s * 26 * 45 26.4 * 45 26.2 * 45 26.1 * 45 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.3 3.4 4.8 7.4 5.4 5.7 3.9 7.0 G
reen Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.3 0.1 1.6 0.2 0.6 0.1 1.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 1 7.6
HCM 7th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
2 : Norwood Avenue & Jessie 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 7 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 3 2 52 163 179 72 35 208 674 140 61 540 17 Future Volume (vph) 32 52 163 179 72 35 208 674 140 61 540 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1 900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 100 0 0 100 0 120 0
Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 65 75
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 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Frt 0 .850 0.983 0.974 0.995
Flt Protected 0.981 0.970 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1845 1599 0 1787 0 1787 3461 0 1787 3552 0 Flt Permitted 0.981 0.970 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1837 1563 0 1777 0 1774 3461 0 1781 3552 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 1 63 4 15 2
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 40 30
Link Distance (ft) 8 38 627 712 1318
Travel Time (s) 19.0 14.3 12.1 30.0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 9 5 5 9 3 2 2 3
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 2 3 2
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% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Adj. Flow (vph) 3 2 52 163 179 72 35 208 674 140 61 540 17 Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 84 163 0 286 0 208 814 0 61 557 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 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 1 2 1 2 1 2
Detector Template L eft Thru Right Left Thru Left Thru Left Thru Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 20 100 20 100 20 100
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 2 0 6 20 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 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 Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 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
2 : Norwood Avenue & Jessie 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 8 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 Perm Split NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 6 6 2 2 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 6
Detector Phase 6 6 6 2 2 3 8 7 4
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 1 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.0 7.0 9.0 6.0 Minimum Split (s) 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 12.5 20.6 13.5 19.6 Total Split (s) 4 0.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 30.0 50.0 30.0 50.0 Total Split (%) 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 18.8% 31.3% 18.8% 31.3% Maximum Green (s) 36.5 36.5 36.5 36.5 36.5 2 6.5 45.4 26.5 45.4 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 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 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3 .5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.6 3.5 4.6
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Y es Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Recall Mode N one None None None None None Min None Min Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 17.0 17.0 17.0 18.0 18.0 9 .0 8.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Act Effct Green (s) 1 2.8 12.8 20.0 16.2 30.4 10.2 20.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.23 0.19 0.35 0.12 0.24
v/c Ratio 0 .30 0.43 0.68 0.61 0.65 0.28 0.65
Control Delay (s/veh) 41.3 10.9 41.1 43.8 28.0 46.4 35.3 Queue Delay 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 41.3 10.9 41.1 43.8 28.0 46.4 35.3

LOS D B D D C D D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 21.3 41.2 31.3 36.4
Approach LOS C D C D
Q
ueue Length 50th (ft) 38 0 125 94 180 28 128
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 11 61 311 242 371 96 285
Internal Link Dist (ft) 758 547 632 1238
Turn Bay Length (ft) 1 00 100 120
Base Capacity (vph) 841 801 816 591 1968 591 2014
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 0.10 0.20 0.35 0.35 0.41 0.10 0.28
Intersection Summary
Area Type: O ther
Cycle Length: 160
A
ctuated Cycle Length: 86
Natural Cycle: 95
C
ontrol Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.68
I
ntersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 32.9 Intersection LOS: C Lanes, Volumes, Timings
2 : Norwood Avenue & Jessie 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 9 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 2: Norwood Avenue & Jessie Avenue

Queues
2 : Norwood Avenue & Jessie 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 10 ends

Lane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 84 163 286 208 814 61 557
v/c Ratio 0 .30 0.43 0.68 0.61 0.65 0.28 0.65
Control Delay (s/veh) 41.3 10.9 41.1 43.8 28.0 46.4 35.3 Queue Delay 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 41.3 10.9 41.1 43.8 28.0 46.4 35.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 38 0 125 94 180 28 128
Q
ueue Length 95th (ft) 111 61 311 242 371 96 285
Internal Link Dist (ft) 758 5 47 632 1238
Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 100 120
Base Capacity (vph) 841 801 816 591 1968 591 2014
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 .10 0.20 0.35 0.35 0.41 0.10 0.28
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2 : Norwood Avenue & Jessie 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 11 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 32 52 163 179 72 35 208 674 140 61 540 17 F
uture Volume (veh/h) 32 52 163 179 72 35 208 674 140 61 540 17 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 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 A
dj Flow Rate, veh/h 32 52 163 179 72 35 208 674 140 61 540 17 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 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 1 20 195 264 237 95 46 257 856 178 166 853 27 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.29 0.29 0.09 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 7 05 1145 1552 1116 449 218 1795 2936 609 1795 3541 111 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 84 0 163 286 0 0 208 411 403 61 273 284 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1850 0 1552 1783 0 0 1795 1791 1754 1795 1791 1861 Q
Serve(g_s), s 2.6 0.0 6.3 9.7 0.0 0.0 7.3 13.7 13.7 2.1 8.8 8.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.6 0.0 6.3 9.7 0.0 0.0 7.3 13.7 13.7 2.1 8.8 8.9 P
rop In Lane 0.38 1.00 0.63 0.12 1.00 0.35 1.00 0.06
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 314 0 264 379 0 0 257 522 512 166 431 448 V
/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.00 0.62 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.79 0.79 0.37 0.63 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1043 0 875 1005 0 0 735 1256 1230 735 1256 1305 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.4 0.0 24.9 23.9 0.0 0.0 26.9 21.1 21.1 27.6 22.0 22.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.9 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.6 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 1.1 0.0 2.2 4.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.1 5.1 0.9 3.5 3.7 U
nsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 23.5 0.0 25.8 25.1 0.0 0.0 29.2 22.1 22.1 28.1 22.6 22.6 L
nGrp LOS C C C C C C C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 2 47 286 1022 618
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.0 25.1 23.5 23.1
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 1 7.3 12.8 20.2 14.5 9.5 23.5
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 * 45 3 6.5 26.5 * 45 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.7 9.3 10.9 8.3 4.1 15.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1 .1 0.2 2.3 0.6 0.1 3.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 2 3.8
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
2 : Norwood Avenue & Jessie 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 12 ends

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 32 52 163 179 72 35 208 674 140 61 540 17 F
uture Volume (veh/h) 32 52 163 179 72 35 208 674 140 61 540 17 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0 .97 1.00 0.97 1.00 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 N o 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 32 52 163 179 72 35 208 674 140 61 540 17 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 1 1 1 1 1 1
C
ap, veh/h 120 195 264 237 95 46 257 856 178 166 853 27
Arrive On Green 0 .17 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.29 0.29 0.09 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 705 1145 1552 1116 449 218 1795 2936 609 1795 3541 111 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 84 0 163 286 0 0 208 411 403 61 273 284 G
rp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1850 0 1552 1783 0 0 1795 1791 1754 1795 1791 1861 Q Serve(g_s), s 2 .6 0.0 6.3 9.7 0.0 0.0 7.3 13.7 13.7 2.1 8.8 8.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.6 0.0 6.3 9.7 0.0 0.0 7.3 13.7 13.7 2.1 8.8 8.9 Prop In Lane 0 .38 1.00 0.63 0.12 1.00 0.35 1.00 0.06
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 314 0 264 379 0 0 257 522 512 166 431 448 V/C Ratio(X) 0 .27 0.00 0.62 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.79 0.79 0.37 0.63 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1043 0 875 1005 0 0 735 1256 1230 735 1256 1305 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.4 0.0 24.9 23.9 0.0 0.0 26.9 21.1 21.1 27.6 22.0 22.0 I
ncr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.9 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %
ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0 2.2 4.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.1 5.1 0.9 3.5 3.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
L
nGrp Delay(d), s/veh 23.5 0.0 25.8 25.1 0.0 0.0 29.2 22.1 22.1 28.1 22.6 22.6 LnGrp LOS C C C C C C C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 2 47 286 1022 618
Approach Delay, s/veh 2 5.0 25.1 23.5 23.1
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 1 7.3 12.8 20.2 14.5 9.5 23.5
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 * 45 36.5 26.5 * 45 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.7 9.3 10.9 8 .3 4.1 15.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 0.2 2.3 0.6 0.1 3.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 2 3.8
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 7th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3 : Norwood Avenue & WB 80 On-Ramp/WB 80 Off-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 13 ends

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 251 0 309 324 812 0 0 547 391 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 251 0 309 324 812 0 0 547 391 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1 900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 50 200 0 0 75
Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1
Taper Length (ft) 25 25 35 25
Lane Util. Factor 1 .00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.98 0.98 0.95
Frt 0 .850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 0 0 0 1698 1698 1599 1787 3574 0 0 3574 1599 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 0 0 0 1698 1698 1574 1766 3574 0 0 3574 1524 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 1 74 261
Link Speed (mph) 30 30 40 30
Link Distance (ft) 1 264 954 526 712
Travel Time (s) 28.7 21.7 9.0 16.2
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 3 6 9 9 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4 2
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 (%) 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 251 0 309 324 812 0 0 547 391
Shared Lane Traffic (%) 50%
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 125 126 309 324 812 0 0 547 391 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
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 1 2 2 1
Detector Template L eft Thru Right Left Thru Thru Right Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 20 100 100 20
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 20 6 6 20
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
3 : Norwood Avenue & WB 80 On-Ramp/WB 80 Off-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 14 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 Prot NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 1 6 2
Permitted Phases 4 2
Detector Phase 4 4 4 1 6 2 2
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 8 .0 8.0 8.0 8.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Minimum Split (s) 29.0 29.0 29.0 11.5 18.8 17.8 17.8
Total Split (s) 4 0.0 40.0 40.0 30.0 40.0 40.0 40.0
Total Split (%) 36.4% 36.4% 36.4% 27.3% 36.4% 36.4% 36.4% Maximum Green (s) 3 6.0 36.0 36.0 26.5 35.2 35.2 35.2
Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.3 4.3 4.3
All-Red Time (s) 0 .5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 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 3.5 4.8 4.8 4.8
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Y es Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Recall Mode N one None None None Min Min Min
Walk Time (s) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Flash Dont Walk (s) 1 8.0 18.0 18.0 7.0 6.0 6.0
Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 2 2 2 2 2 2
Act Effct Green (s) 1 3.0 13.0 13.0 17.1 39.1 18.1 18.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.28 0.63 0.29 0.29
v/c Ratio 0 .35 0.35 0.66 0.65 0.35 0.51 0.61
Control Delay (s/veh) 26.4 26.4 18.8 28.9 6.1 21.4 12.4 Queue Delay 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 26.4 26.4 18.8 28.9 6.1 21.4 12.4

LOS C C B C A C B
Approach Delay (s/veh) 22.3 12.6 17.7
Approach LOS C B B
Q
ueue Length 50th (ft) 40 40 41 95 53 79 33
Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 11 112 149 259 140 186 152
Internal Link Dist (ft) 1184 874 446 632
Turn Bay Length (ft) 5 0 200 75
Base Capacity (vph) 1079 1079 1064 836 3359 2222 1046
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 0.12 0.12 0.29 0.39 0.24 0.25 0.37
Intersection Summary
Area Type: O ther
Cycle Length: 110
A
ctuated Cycle Length: 61.6
Natural Cycle: 65
C
ontrol Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.66
I
ntersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 16.5 Intersection LOS: B Lanes, Volumes, Timings
3 : Norwood Avenue & WB 80 On-Ramp/WB 80 Off-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 15 ends

Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 3: Norwood Avenue & WB 80 On-Ramp/WB 80 Off-Ramp

Queues
3 : Norwood Avenue & WB 80 On-Ramp/WB 80 Off-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 16 ends

Lane Group WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 125 126 309 324 812 547 391
v/c Ratio 0 .35 0.35 0.66 0.65 0.35 0.51 0.61
Control Delay (s/veh) 26.4 26.4 18.8 28.9 6.1 21.4 12.4 Queue Delay 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 26.4 26.4 18.8 28.9 6.1 21.4 12.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 40 40 41 95 53 79 33
Q
ueue Length 95th (ft) 111 112 149 259 140 186 152
Internal Link Dist (ft) 8 74 446 632
Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 200 75
Base Capacity (vph) 1079 1079 1064 836 3359 2222 1046
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 .12 0.12 0.29 0.39 0.24 0.25 0.37
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3 : Norwood Avenue & WB 80 On-Ramp/WB 80 Off-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 17 ends

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
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 1 885 1885 1885 1885 1885 0 0 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 251 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 7 02 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 3 591 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 1 795 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 7 02 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 3 238 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 13.9 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
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 1 4.0 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 14.0 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 3 6.0 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 6th Ctrl Delay, s/veh 1 0.3
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

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

HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary
3 : Norwood Avenue & WB 80 On-Ramp/WB 80 Off-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 18 ends

Sacramento City CouncilFebruary 24, 2026

Sacramento City Council
February 24, 2026