Santa Rosa City Council
July 26, 2022

August 12, 2021
Prepared for the City of Santa Rosa
Submitted by
W-Trans
Stony Point Road Corridor Study for
Active Transportation Modes
Exhibit B

i

Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction and Setting ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 Planning Context ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Existing Transportation Conditions .................................................................................................................................... 8 Best Practices and Potential Improvement Measures ............................................................................................... 15 Community Engagement .................................................................................................................................................... 18 Development and Refinement of Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 21 Recommended Plan .............................................................................................................................................................. 25 Cost Estimate of Recommended Plan ............................................................................................................................. 31 Implementation and Funding ............................................................................................................................................ 32 Study Participants and References ................................................................................................................................... 34 Figures

1. Study Area .................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

2. Recommended Plan ................................................................................................................................................................ 26 Tables

1. Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities ........................................................................................................................... 10

2. Summary of Intersection Collision Analysis (2015-2020) ........................................................................................... 11

3. Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria ............................................................................................................ 13

4. Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ......................................................................................................... 13

5. Community Meeting and Survey Notifications .............................................................................................................. 19

6. Summary of Recommended Pedestrian Crossing Improvements .......................................................................... 21

7. Summary of Online Survey #2 Results ............................................................................................................................... 23

8. Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service with Recommended Modifications .................................................... 30

9. Summary of Construction Cost Estimates ....................................................................................................................... 31 Appendices
A. Collison Data
B. Intersection Delay and Level of Service
C. Outreach
D. Caltrans Comments
E. Cost Estimates

1 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Executive Summary
Stony Point Road is a major north-south travel route connecting numerous neighborhoods and commercial areas within Santa Rosa. Carrying high volumes of traffic, conditions on Stony Point Road can be intimidating for many pedestrians and bicyclists. Due to the high number of collisions involving these vulnerable users, the Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update 2018 identified the Stony Point Road corridor for further study which the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board (BPAB) identified as the highest priority.

The recommendations herein grew out of an analysis of transportation facilities in the study area, existing traffic conditions, and identification of key issues by local residents. Caltrans was consulted during the process to provide input on the bicycle and pedestrian concept plans as they are ultimately responsible for implementing and maintaining facilities on the state highway system.

Study Area
The study area includes Stony Point Road from West Third Street to Sebastopol Road in west Santa Rosa, a distance of just under one-half mile. Abutting land uses are primarily commercial, although there are numerous residential neighborhoods nearby. State Route (SR) 12 is a limited access highway that runs east-west through the center of the study area and connects Santa Rosa with Sebastopol. Stony Point Road and SR 12 are connected by a grade- separated interchange.

Existing Conditions
Stony Point Road has four travel lanes and a raised median or left-turn lanes throughout most of the study area.

There are five signalized intersections along the corridor as well as freeway access ramps at the SR 12 interchange.

Bike lanes and sidewalks are present along both sides for the entire length of the corridor, while on-street parking is prohibited.

Traffic volumes along Stony Point Road are approximately 26,000 vehicles per day, and there is a speed limit of 35 mph. Speed surveys indicate that the 85th percentile speeds are approximately 37 mph, slightly above the speed limit. All study intersections are currently operating at LOS D or better.

Collisions
Due to the high rate of collisions and injuries, the study corridor was identified in the Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update 2018 as part of the High Injury Network for both bicyclists and pedestrians.

Community Engagement
Throughout the project, several strategies were used to consult with members of the community about local needs and to obtain comments on the proposed improvements. These included:
• Community Meetings: Two virtual community meetings were held, attracting 60 participants total. • Online Surveys: Two online surveys were developed to solicit input on key issues for pedestrians and bicyclists in the study area and to weigh in on the draft concept plans. Nearly 600 responses were submitted to the two surveys.
2 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
• Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Board (BPAB) Meetings: The BPAB received three presentations on the draft concept plans and were asked to provide input to staff and the consultant team. Members of the public also attended meetings and provided comments.

Key Issues
Through the analysis of existing conditions along the study corridor and input from the community, several issues to be addressed were identified:

Bicycle Safety – Bicyclists don’t feel comfortable riding along Stony Point Road.

Pedestrian Crossings – Crossings along the corridor are wide due to the number of travel lanes, including turn lanes at the intersections. Vehicle speeds were perceived as high as they entered on- ramps to SR 12 and made right turns across crosswalks.

Joe Rodota Trail Crossing – The Joe Rodota Trail runs east -west and crosses Stony Point Road at the SR 12 East amps. Concerns were expressed about conflicts between vehicle t raffic and high number of trail users, which include children traveling to school.

Recommendations
Recommendations include the following:
• Provide increased protection for bicyclists with the addition of Class IV separated bikeways along Stony Point Road throughout the study segment including vertical separators. • Facilitate pedestrian crossings at the intersections of Stony Point Road wit h West Third Street, SR 12 West Ramps-Occidental Road, SR 12 Eastbound Ramps, and Sebastopol Road by constructing curb extensions to reduce the speed of turning vehicles and shorten pedestrian crossing distances. • Install raised crosswalks or Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at the entrance to the SR 12 West on- ramps to reduce the speed of vehicles and raise awareness of drivers to the presence of pedestrians. • Realign the pedestrian crossing at the SR 12 Eastbound Ramps, where the Joe Rodota Trail crosses Stony Point Road. Improvements include : the removal of the existing island and free right -turn movement for northbound traffic entering the ramp, add a second left-turn lane at the SR 12 East on-ramp for southbound traffic on Stony Point Road, allowing for additional green time for trail users at the crossing , no right on red, install bike cross, and remove one of the two eastbound left-turn lanes. • Provide enhanced bike lane striping to establish a clear path of travel for bicyclists through intersections and increase awareness of drivers to the presence of bicyclists. • Investigate the potential to construct a multi-use path along the west side of Stony Point Road between the Joe Rodota Trail and Sebastopol Road to provide a low stress connection for bicyclists between the trail and Cesar Chavez Language Academy on Sebastopol Road.
• Change westbound ramp approach from R, TR, L, L to R, T, L, L. 3 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Implementation
The estimated cost to design and construct the recommended project is approximately $2.75 million. Potential funding sources for the proposed improvements include the S tate’s Active Transportation Program, which is California’s largest source of funding for pedestrian and bicycle projects. The Highway Safety Improvement Program could potentially provide funding for safety-related improvements, especially at locations where a high number of injury collisions have occurred.
4 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Introduction and Setting
Purpose
Stony Point Road between West Third Street and Sebastopol Road w as identified for further study in the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update 2018 due to the high rate of collisions involving bicyc lists and pedestrians. The BPAB identified this corridor as the highest priority in the City.

Key challenges along the study corridor for bicyclists and pedestrians are the lack of separation between the existing bike lanes and vehicular traffic, the large volumes of traffic turning into and out of heavily used shopping areas, and crossings at the ramps at the SR 12/Stony Point Road interchange and the Joe Rodota Trail.

The purpose of this study was to develop a focused local roadway safety plan by evaluating the traffic conditions and collision history and develop recommendations to enhance safety and to create a more comfortable place for people to bike and walk , while maintaining adequate vehicle circulation and safety. The conceptual plans developed t hrough this study are intended to provide the basis for grant funding applications to secure the resources needed to implement the proposed projects.

Study Area
The study area consists of a half-mile segment of Stony Point Road extending from West Third Street to Sebastopol Road, as presented in Figure 1. Stony Point Road is classified as a Regional Street in the City’s General Plan and connects West College Avenue in Santa Rosa to Petaluma Boulevard North in Petaluma. In the project area, t he land uses with frontage along Stony Point Road are primarily commercial, with shopping centers on the east and west sides of the street between SR 12 and Sebastopol Road and another shopping center on the west side of the street between Occidental Road and West Third Street. On the east side of the street between Occidental Road and West Third Street there are residential uses and a church.

Stony Point Road consists of four through travel lanes with turn lanes and medians. There are traffic signals at the intersections at West Third Street, SR 12 West off-ramp-Occidental Road, the SR 12 Eastbound Ramps, Shopping Center Plaza (entrances to shopping centers on both sides of the street), and Sebastopol Road. Where Stony Point Road crosses over SR 12 there is a grade-separated interchange.

Facilities for non- vehicle transportation include s idewalks and bike lanes along both sides of the entire study corridor. There is an intermittent landscape strip providing a buffer between the sidewalk and roadway. Marked crosswalks are present only at signalized intersections. The Joe Rodota Trail runs parallel to SR12 and intersects the corridor at the intersection with the SR12 Eastbound Ramps intersection. Transit service is avail able along Stony Point Road.

Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes 12 Figure 1 – Study Area
6 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Planning Context
This study builds on policies and previous analys es that were undertaken in several planning efforts, both at the City and regional level. Relevant highlights of these plans are summarized below.

General Plan 2035
The General Plan includes several policies that lay the foundation for the Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes, as follows.
• Provide attractive and safe streets for pedestrians and bicyclists. • Develop a citywide system of designated bikew ays that serves both experienced and casual bicyclists, and which maximizes bicycle use for commuting, recreation, and local transport. • Develop a safe, convenient, and continuous network of pedestrian sidewalks and p athways that link neighborhoods with schools, parks, shopping areas, and employment centers.

The General Plan also identifies functional classifications of the City’s street network. The segment of Stony Point Road under study is classified as a six-lane regional/arterial street.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update (2018)
Through the 2018 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update (BPMP) , Santa Rosa undertook a comprehensive assessment of existing facilities and analysis of options for enhancing facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians. The projects and priorities in the BPMP were the product of analysis as well as an extensive public engagement process which included three public open houses, a survey, an online interactive map, stakeholder interviews, and a series of pop-up outreach events.

Safety was an emphasis of this effort, as the BPMP identified a High Injury Network as a basis for establishing priorities for infrastructure projects. High Injury N etwork corridors were selected based on conc entrations of collisions involving fatalities or severe injuries for bicyclists and pedestrians. The highest priority segment on the High Injury Network was the section of Stony Point Road from Sebastopol Road to Glenbrook Drive.

The current study supports the following BPMP policies and actions:
• Policy 3: Design a Low Stress Bikeway Network suitable for the “Interested but Concerned,” to include people of all ages and ability levels riding bicycles.
• Action 3.1: Design a network of continuous Low Stress Bikeways as identified in this Plan Update 2018.

Projects that improve comfort at intersections and along corridors with high stress should be prioritized. • Policy 4: Design a connected, convenient, and comfortable pedestrian network to serve people of all ages and abilities.

Stony Point Road between Sebastopol Road and Guerneville Road was identified in the BPMP as a corridor for future study. The Plan also identified five priority locations for c rossing enhancements in the study area at the intersections of Stony Point Road with Third Street, SR 12 West Ramps-Occidental Road, SR 12 Eastbound Ramps, Joe Rodota Trail, and Sebastopol Road.

In addition to the facilities in the study area, there are several bicycle facilities that are of citywide or regional significance, illustrating the importance of the study corridor to the larger bicycle network. These facilities include 7 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
the Santa Rosa Creek Trail and bike lanes along Sebastopol Road (a portion of which have been identified for a potential upgrade to Class IV facilities.

Roseland Area-Sebastopol Road Specific Plan (2016)
• GOAL PBN-2: Ensure pedestrian and bicycle facilities are designed with safety and comfort in mind. • Policy PBN-2.3: Install high-visibility crosswalk markings and signage in areas with high pedestrian activity • Policy PBN-2.4: Enhance safety at the Joe Rodota Trail crossing of Stony Point Road by eliminating the free- flow right-turn island at the SR 12 East ramps intersection, using curb extensions to reduce crossing distances where possible, and implementing pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly signal timing strategies. • Policy PBN-2.5: Ensure that pedestrian and bicyclist safety and convenience are maintained where paths and trails cross streets through a variety of measures such as signing, special pavement markings or colors, raised crosswalks, and/or warning lights alerting motorists to the presence of bicyclists and pedestrians at major crossings.

In addition to the recommended facilities focusing on the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists, the plan recommends the addition of a second southbound left -turn lane at the i ntersection of Stony Point Road/SR 12 Eastbound Ramps-Joe Rodota Trail to enhance vehicle circulation.

California State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and Caltrans District 4 Active Transportation Plans
Toward an Active California (2017), the state bicycle and pedestrian plan, established a policy framework for bicycling and walking throughout the state, featuring the following goals:
• Safety: Reduce the number, rate, and severity of bicycle and pedestrian involved collisions • Mobility: Increase walking and bicycling in California • Preservation: Maintain a high-quality active transportation system • Social Equity: Invest resources in communities that are most dependent on active transportation and transit The Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area (2018) built on these overarching goals by identifying several emphasis areas to guide improvements to bicycle facilities in the Bay Area, particularly along or across the state highway system. Two of these emphasis areas are especially relevant to the Stony Point Road corridor project since enhancements to the ramps at the SR 12 interchange are a key focus of the study: 1) design safer and more intuitive highway crossi ngs and interchanges , and 2) p rioritize safety and comfort in creating complete bicycle networks.

In 2021, Caltrans completed the District 4 Pedestrian Plan for the Bay Area. Similar to the District 4 bike plan, the emphasis was on facilities for walking along or across the state highway system. In particular, the plan identified six characteristics of projects that represent the greatest need , three of which describe the Stony Point Road corridor: sidewalks along higher- speed roadways (defined as having a posted speed limit of 35 mph or higher), stressful pedestrian crossings, and freeway interchange needs.

8 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Existing Transportation Conditions
General Conditions
Stony Point Road is a six-lane regional/local arterial street as identified in the Santa Rosa General Plan and serves as a truck route. The roadway is divided by a concrete median and on-street parking is prohibited throughout the study area. The posted speed is 35 mph. There are five traffic-signal controlled intersections – West Third Street, SR 12 West off-ramp -Occidental Road, SR 12 Eastbound Ramps, Stony Point Plaza (shopping center entrances ), and Sebastopol Road. Sidewalks and bike lanes are present along both sides of Stony Point Road throughout the corridor.

Land uses along Stony Point Road are primarily commercial. Between West Third Street and Occidental Road there is a shopping center on the west side of the street, with three unsignalized access driveways. On the east side of the street at this location are a residential development that backs onto Stony Point Road and a church that takes access from West 3rd Street. Between SR 12 and Sebastopol Road, shopping centers are present on both sides of the street.

The curb-to-curb width along the corridor varies, ranging from approximately 75 to 105 feet. Plates 1 through 7 illustrate existing conditions at key locations in the study area.

Plate 1 Northbound approaching W. Third St. Plate 2 Southbound at Occidental Rd.

9 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021

Plate 3 Southbound at SR 12 West on-ramp Plate 4 Northbound at SR 12 West on-ramp

Plate 5 Northbound at SR 12 East on-ramp Plate 6 Southbound approaching Stony Point Plaza

Plate 7 Southbound traffic approaching Sebastopol Rd.

10 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Pedestrian Facilities
Sidewalks are present along both sides of the street throughout the study area and are generally five to six feet wide. A landscape buffer is present along both sides of the street between West Third Street and Occidental Road.

While there is no buffer along the section on the SR 12 overpass and it is intermittent between the ea stbound ramps and Sebastopol Road, the bike lanes provide separation from travel lanes. Marked crosswalks are provided at all five signalized intersections along the corridor but are present on all legs only at the West Third Street and Sebastopol Road intersections.

Bicycle Network
The Highway Design Manual, Caltrans, 2017, classifies bikeways into four categories:
• Class I Multi-Use Path – a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross flows of motorized traffic minimized.
• Class II Bike Lane – a striped and signed lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway. • Class III Bike Route – signing only for shared use with motor vehicles within the same travel lane on a street or highway.
• Class IV Bikeway – also known as a separated bikeway, is a bikeway for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation between the bikeway and the motor vehicle traffic lane. The separation (or, “buffer”) may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible phys ical barriers, or on- street parking. (Note: Caltrans Design Information Bulletin Number 89, Class IV Bikeway Guidance , December 2015, provides detailed guidance on Class IV Bikeways.)
Existing and proposed bicycle facilities in the study corridor are summarized in Table 1.

Level of Traffic Stress
The BPMP conducted a citywide Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) analysis, which evaluated the comfort level for typical bicyclists based on roadway c haracteristics, including traffic conditions and the presence of bicycle facilities. Variables that have been identified as contributing to increased stress for bicyclists include heavy traffic volumes, high vehicle speeds, narrow travel lanes , and minimal or no separation from vehicle traffic. Roadway segments throughout the City were analyzed and assigned a rating, ranging from LTS 1 for the lowest traffic stress roadways to LTS scores for the highest stress routes. These scores generally correspond to the categories of bicyclists that they best serve: All Ages and Abilities (LTS 1), Average Adult (LTS 2), Confident Adult ( LTS 3), and Fearless Adult (LTS 4). While Stony Point Road includes designated bike lanes throughout the study area, it was Table 1 – Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
Street Project Limits Facility Type
Existing
Joe Rodota Trail SMART Trail to Petaluma Ave (Sebastopol) Class I Stony Point Rd W College Ave to Petaluma Blvd N (Petaluma) Class II Occidental Rd Fulton Rd to Stony Point Rd Class II
Proposed
Third St Stony Point Rd to Brittain Ln Class IIB
Stony Point Rd Guerneville Rd to Sebastopol Rd Study
Source: Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update 2018, City of Santa Rosa, 2018 11 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
rated LTS 3 due to the physical characteristics of the roadway and traffic. Major roadways intersecting with Stony Point Road in t he study area were also rated relatively high for traffic stress, as Sebastopol Road and Occidental Road were classified as LTS 3 and West Third Street as LTS 4.

Transit Operations
CityBus
Stony Point Road is served by CityBus Route 15. The route serves Stony Point Road between West College Avenue and Bellevue Avenue, and provides connections at the Coddingtown Mall transit hub. The route operates seven days a week with 60-minute headways, with service hours from 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. weekdays, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, a nd 10:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sundays. Within t he study area th ere are northbound and southbound stop s north of Sebastopol Road, which include turnouts where buses can load and unload passengers. There is a northbound stop between Occidental Road and Wes t Third Street with no turnout or shoulder, so the bus must straddle the bike lane and vehicle lane to stop for passengers.

Paratransit
The City of Santa Rosa offers next-day ADA Paratransit transportation service seven days a week to those who are unable (temporarily or permanently) to independently use Santa Rosa CityBus due to a disability or health related condition. This service is provided within three- quarters of a mile from existing CityBus routes as part of the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Collision History
The collision history for the study area was reviewed to determine collision rates using collision records from the California Highway Patrol as published in their Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITR S) reports. The typical analysis period for collisions is five years, and the analysis period selected for this analysis was March 1, 2015 to February 29, 2020, as this predates the reduced traffic volumes associated with activity restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Collision rates were then compared to average rates for highway facilities statewide, as published by Caltrans in the 2016 Collision Data on California State Highways. The results of the collision rate analysis are shown in Table 2 and the collision data is included in Appendix A.

Table 2 – Summary of Intersection Collision Analysis (2015-2020) Intersection MVE1 SWITRS
Collisions
Actual
Rate2
State Avg
Rate

1. Stony Point Rd/W Third St 12.74 19 0.30 0.43

2. Stony Point Rd/SR 12 WB Off-Ramp-Occidental Rd 15.15 49 0.65 0.43

3. Stony Point Rd/SR12 EB Ramps 15.37 16 0.21 0.43

4. Stony Point Rd/Stony Point Plaza 13.61 29 0.43 0.43

5. Stony Point Rd/Sebastopol Rd 14.97 81 1.08 0.43
TOTAL 194
Notes: 1MVE = Million Vehicle Entering. Daily traffic entering intersections was calculated using the average of the AM and PM turnin g movement count volume multiplied by 10; 2Collision rates are in units of collisions per mil lion vehicle s entering ; Bold text indicates rates substantially higher than the Statewide average Based on SWITRS data, collision rates substantially exceeded the statewide average at the locations of Stony Point Road/SR 12 Westbound Off -Ramp-Occidental Road and Stony Point Road/Sebastopol Road. The data also 12 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
revealed that nearly 30 percent of the col lisions recorded at Stony Point Road/Sebastopol Road were attributed to unsafe speeds and 37 percent were rear-end crashes. There were no distinct patterns for collisions recorded at Stony Point Road/SR 12 West Ramps-Occidental Road.

Based on the consultant team’s experience conducting safety studies, five years is generally not an adequate time frame for pedestrian and bicycle collision analysis as there are significantly fewer collisions involving these modes.

To obtain a larger sample size that could provide a more meaningful collision pattern, a ten-year analysis period was used for these modes, from March 1, 2010 through February 29, 2020. During this analysis period there were five collisions involving bicyclists and one collision involving pedestrians at the intersection of Stony Point Road/West Third Street. Five bicycle and six pedestrian collisions occurred at the Stony Point Road/ SR 12 West Ramps-Occidental Road intersection; three out of five bicycle collisions were between northbound through bicyclists on Stony Point Road and eastbound Occidental Road right-turning drivers due to bicyclists traveling on the wrong side of the road. At the intersection of Stony Point Road/SR 12 Eastbound Ramps there were three bicycle collisions, two due to auto right-of-way violations and one to unsafe speed; there was one pedestrian collision attributed to a pedestrian right-of-way violation. For the intersect ion of Stony Point Road/Sebast opol Road, there were 13 bicycle and three pedestrian collisions; however, no pattern was observed.

Intersection Operations
The study included a detailed evaluation of operation at the following intersections on the corridor:

1. Stony Point Road/West Third Street

2. Stony Point Road/SR 12 Westbound Off-Ramp-Occidental Road

3. Stony Point Road/SR 12 Eastbound Ramps-Joe Rodota Trail

4. Stony Point Road/Stony Point Plaza

5. Stony Point Road/Sebastopol Road

Following are descriptions of the study intersections.

Stony Point Road/West Third Street is a signalized four-legged intersection with left-turn pockets and protected left-turn phasing on all four approaches. There are medians on the west and south legs and right-turn pockets are provided on the eastbound and northbound approaches. The northbound bike lane striping stops at the right - turn pocket, but striping is provided through the turn pocket to provide bike lane connectivity through the intersection. Marked crosswalks are present on all four legs.

Stony Point Road/SR 12 West bound Off-Ramp-Occidental Road is a signalized four -legged intersection with right-turn lanes on the eastbound and westbound approaches. Left-turn pockets with protected left-turn phasing are provided on the northbound, westbound, and eastbound approaches. Marked crosswalks are present across all except the south leg. On -ramps to SR 12 westbound are located approximately 100 feet south of the intersection for northbound and southbou nd traffic along Stony Point Road as Occidental Road forms the west leg of the intersection across from the off-ramp.

Stony Point Road/SR 12 Eastbound Ramps is a signalized three- way, four-legged intersection, the east leg of which is an on-ramp to SR 12. There are right-turn lanes provided on the northbound and eastbound approaches and left-turn pockets on the eastbound and southbound approaches; protected left -turn phasing is provided on the southbound approach. The northbound right-turn lane is channelized and uncontrolled. Marked crosswalks are present on all except the north leg.

Stony Point Road/Stony Point Plaza is a signalized intersection with protected left -turn movements on the north-south Stony Point Road approaches and split, or exclusive, phasing on the east -west mo vements.

Crosswalks are provided on all approaches except across the northern leg, where si gns direct pedestrians to use marked crosswalks.
13 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Stony Point Road/Sebastopol Road is a signalized intersection with protected left -turn phasing on all four approaches as well as right -turn overlaps on the southbound and westbound approaches. Crosswalks and pedestrian phasing are provided on all approaches.

Intersection Levels of Service
Level of Service (LOS) is used to rank traffic operation on various types of fac ilities based on traffic volumes and roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from A to F. Generally, Level of Service A represents free flow conditions and Level of Service F represents forced flow or breakdown conditions. A unit of measure that indicates a level of delay generally accompanies the LOS designation.

The study intersections are controlled by traffic signal s and were evaluated using the signalized methodology from the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Transportation Research Board, 2018. This methodology is based on factors including traffic volumes, green time for each movement, phasing, whether the signals are coordinated or not, truck traffic, and pedestrian activity. Signal timing obtained from the City was used in the analysis. Average stopped delay per vehicle in seconds is used as the basis for evaluation in this LOS methodology.

The ranges of delay associated with the various levels of service are indicated in Table 3.

Table 3 – Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria LOS A Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase, so do not stop at all.

LOS B Delay of 10 to 20 seconds. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, but many drivers still do not have to stop.

LOS C Delay of 20 to 35 seconds. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many still pass through without stopping.

LOS D Delay of 35 to 55 seconds. The influence of congestion is noticeable, and most vehicles have to stop.

LOS E Delay of 55 to 80 seconds. Most, if not all, vehicles must stop and drivers consider the delay excessive.

LOS F Delay of more than 80 seconds. Vehicles may wait through more than one cycle to clear the intersection.

Reference: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2018.

Under existing conditions, all study intersections along the corridor were found to be operating at LOS D or better, which is considered acceptable based on City standards, except for the intersection of Stony Point R oad/SR 12 West Ramp-Occidental Road, which operates at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. A summary of the intersection Level of Service calculations is contained in the Table 4. The calculations are included in Appendix B.

Table 4 – Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Study Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS

1. Stony Point Rd/W Third St 35.5 D 52.4 D

2. Stony Point Rd/SR 12 WB Off-Ramp-Occidental Rd 43.3 D 59.3 E

3. Stony Point Rd/SR 12 EB Ramps 23.7 C 29.6 C

4. Stony Point Rd/Stony Point Plaza 10.2 B 20.4 C

5. Stony Point Rd/Sebastopol Rd 49.0 D 42.5 D
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics
14 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Summary of Key Issues
Based on analysis of conditions and a field review, several key issues to be addressed were identified.

Corridor Issues
• Provide increased comfort for bicyclists: While bike lanes are present along Stony Point Road throughout the study area, this segment was rated as LTS 3 in the City’s BPMP, which means it is suitable for a “confident adult” bicyclist. Additional protection from traffic could reduce traffic stress levels and enable more bicyclists to feel comfortable riding along the corridor.

Intersection Issues
• Reduce pedestrian crossing distances: Pedestrians are required to cross up to seven travel lanes at intersections, which may be challenging, especially for people with mobility impairments. • Reduce speed of turning vehicles at intersections and on -ramps: Large turning radii enable drivers to make right turns at high rates of speed, reducing their reaction time and posing a greater risk of injury to crossing pedestrians. Speed reduction is of particular concern at the uncontrolled crossings where vehicles access the SR 12 on-ramps.
• Reduce vehicle -pedestrian conflicts: While drivers are required to yield to pedestrians entering or in crosswalks, potential c onflicts can be minimized especially at the two ramps to SR 12 West where there is high-speed traffic crossing uncontrolled pedestrian crosswalks. • Reduce vehicle-bicycle conflicts: A common type of collision is the “right hook”, by which a right -turning vehicle collides with a bicyclist traveling straight through an intersection.

15 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Best Practices and Potential Improvement Measures
Based on the information collected, analysis of corridor conditions, and deficiencies noted, a “toolbox” of potential improvement measures representing best practices was identified for consideration in developing the recommendations for this plan. Commun ity input regarding these treatments was solicited through the community engagement process, including the first community workshop, meetings of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, and online surveys.

Best Practices Toolbox
Buffered Bike Lanes
• Provide greater shy distance between motor vehicles and bicyclists • Provide space for bicyclists to pass another bicyclist without encroaching into the vehicle travel lane
• Encourage bicycling by contributing to the perception of safety among users of the bicycle network
High Visibility Bike Lane Striping
• Used at high conflict zones, such as commercial driveways • Alerts drivers, helps them anti cipate bicyclists
• Designates space for bicycles, helps them maintain safe positioning in roadway

Narrow Lanes
• Reduce the likelihood/severity of crashes
• Promote slower driving speeds
• Need to use lane width appropriate for use of that street, such as buses and heavy trucks Raised Crosswalk
• Reduces vehicle speeds
• Increases visibility of pedestrians
• Benefits mobility impaired individuals by eliminating need for ramps

16 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Protected Intersection
• Allocates space for all roadway users
• Slows turning vehicles
• Curb extensions reduce crossing distances

Bikecross
• Alerts drivers and helps them anticipate bicyclists
• Designates space for bicycles and helps bicyclists maintain safe positioning in the roadway
• Provides traffic calming
Protected Bike Signal
• Separates bicycle and vehicle movements
• Reduces conflicts between bicycles and turning vehicles • Enhances bicyclist safety and comfort

Directional Curb Ramps
• Enhance safety for mobility-impaired individuals
• Create more direct transition from curb ramp to crosswalk • Align detectable warnings with crosswalk markings

Multi-use Path
• Separates pedestrians and bicyclists from vehicle traffic • Enhances comfort for users of varying ages and abilities • Appeals to recreational users

17 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Separated Bike Lanes (Cycle Track)
• Separate bicyclists from vehicle traffic
• Provide additional protection compared to standard bike lanes due to presence of buffer and vertical barrier
• Improve bicyclist perceived comfort and safety

Source: NACTO
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
• Increases driver awareness of pedestrians
• Requires pedestrian activation, minimizing impact on vehicle circulation
• Is effective near schools and other locations with high pedestrian volumes

Curb Extension
• Reduces crossing distance, allowing pedestrians to cross more safely • Provides additional visibility and protection for pedestrians, especially children
• Slows and calms traffic, particularly fast traffic turning from a major to a minor road

18 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Community Engagement
Overview
Due to the COVID -19 pandemic and the resulting restrictions on public gatherings, the planned outreach approach was modified and shifted to an online format. City staff and the consultant team used a combination of virtual meetings and online surveys to solicit input from residents of Santa Rosa, particularly the neighborhoods in the vicinity of the project. The City sought to develop an inclusive planning process, particularly since the area at the southern end of the study area – including the Roseland neighborhood – has been identified by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) as a Community of Concern (CoC). The CoC designation is based on characteristics including income level, minority population, senior population, and the number of zero-vehicle households. Seeking to involve disadvantaged residents in the development of the project, the City provided Spanish translation at the two community meetings and offered the online survey in both English and Spanish.

The community engagement process included two phases:

Phase I – Identify Community Concerns and Solicit Concept Plan Input • Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Meeting #1 (August 20, 2020) • Community Meeting #1 (November 18, 2020, online)
• Online Survey #1 (November 2020)
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Meeting #2 (January 21, 2021) Phase II – Refine Recommended Improvements
• Community Meeting #2 (March 3, 2021, online)
• Online Survey #2 (March 2021)
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Meeting #3 (March 18, 2021) Outreach Process
City staff notified area residents about public meetings and the survey through the distribution channels indicated in Table 5.
19 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Table 5 – Community Meeting and Survey Notifications
Media Description Date
Direct mail postcards (8,257 per meeting) Meeting notifications December 2020, March 2021 Email bulletins (9,100 subscribers) Community Meeting #1 November 2020 Community Meeting #2 February 2021
Survey #2 (2 mailings) March 2021 (twice)
City web site Project web page ongoing
news flash November 2020, February 2021
community calendar November 2020, March 2021
Facebook posts Community Meeting #1 November 2020
Survey #1 December 2020
Community Meeting #2 February 2021, March 2021
Facebook events Community Meeting #1 November 2020
Twitter Community Meeting #2 March 2021
Nextdoor Community Meeting #1 November 2020
Survey #2 March 2021
Community Engagement, Phase 1: Public Meetings and Survey Summary
Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Board Meeting #1 (August 20, 2020) Two design concepts for Stony Point Road were presented to the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Board (BPAB): 1) a bi-directional multi-use path along the west side of Stony Point Road plus a buffered bike lane along the east side of the roadway; and 2) one- way cycle tracks in both directions to provide a buffer and a vertical barrier between bicyclists and vehicle traffic. The BPAB expressed concerns with interactions between bicyclists and vehicles at intersections under the first option and supported the latter option.

Community Meeting #1 (November 18, 2020)
A virtual meeting was held to provide an overview of the study. The consultant team delivered a presentation to review existing conditions, including a summary of traffic conditions as well as key opportunities and constraints.

Potential design options were discussed, and a question and answer session followed the presentation. There were approximately 35 participants at the meeting. The following requests were made by attendees. • Improve the connection from Joe Rodota Trail to Cesar Chavez Language Academy on Sebastopol Road. • Reduce potential conflicts between Joe Rodota Trail users and vehicles turning right from the eastbound off- ramp onto Stony Point Road.
• Provide bicyclists with additional protection from right-turning drivers at intersections and driveways. • Install sturdy barriers in addition to the striped buffer to better protect bicycles from vehicle traffic. 20 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Online Survey #1
Following the workshop, a n online survey was made available through Survey Monkey to solicit additional feedback regarding the preliminary design concepts as well as input regarding the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists in the study area. The survey generated 237 responses, with over 50 percent of respondents expressing support for project elements included in the preliminary designs, including a protected intersection, buffered bike lanes, bike lane striping through intersecti ons, bikecross alongside crosswalks, and dashed green bike lane striping through conflict zones. Buffered bike lanes received the strongest support of any treatment, with 70 percent approval. A summary of the results is presented in Appendix C.

Community Engagement, Phase 2: Public Meetings and Survey The second phase of community engagement for the project included a community meeting, survey, and two presentations to the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Board. The input received through this process is presented later in this study as part of the evaluation of the proposed alternatives.

21 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Development and Refinement of Alternatives
Based on the recommendations developed through previous ly adopted plans , data analysis, information collected through field reviews, and input from the public, strategies were identified to best address the primary concerns in the corridor.

Preliminary Proposed Bikeway Improvements
For travel along Stony Point Road, a Class IV bikeway (also known as a separate bikeway or cycle track) was recommended to provide bicyclists with greater protection from vehicle traffic than the existing bike lane. Other bicycle facility improvements included striping bike lanes through intersections and providing dashed green bike lane markings at potential conflict points.

A multi-use path was considered along the east side of the bridge across SR 12, but was rejected after consultation with staff and the BPAB. One-way bicycle facilities were identified as the preferred design to provide consistency of the design along the entire corridor and avoid creating a bicycle circulation pattern that could confuse drivers.

Key considerations in the facility design included:
• It was assumed that the existing curb-to-curb width would remain the same for cost-effectiveness. • The City identified the need for an additional southbound left turn lane at the SR 12 East on-ramp due to delays under current conditions. While the goal was to maintain 11- foot travel lanes, the existing space on the bridge could not accommodate this width and the Class IV bikeway.

Preliminary Proposed Pedestrian Crossing Improvements
Recommended pedestrian crossing improvements were developed for each intersection along the study corridor.

Crosswalks are present at all signalize d intersections, and there was no identified need to introduce additional crossings based on adjacent land uses. Proposed pedestrian improvements are summarized in Table 6.

Table 6 – Summary of Recommended Pedestrian Crossing Improvements Location Description
W Third St Construct curb extension on southwest corner Occidental Rd-SR 12 WB Off-Ramp Construct curb extensions at northeast and southwest corners, restripe WB off ramp to a Right/Thru/Left/Left
SR 12 WB On-Ramp Add raised crosswalks or RRFBs at existing crosswalks SR 12 Eastbound Ramps-Joe Rodota Trail Remove pork chop island/eliminate free right turn Realign crosswalk and install bikecross
Add curb extensions on all four corners
Restrict eastbound right turn movement to protect trail users Remove one lane on off-ramp to reduce crossing distance Stony Point Plaza No proposed improvements
Sebastopol Rd Construct protected intersection
Add curb extension/wider sidewalk at southwest corner
22 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Stakeholder Input
The draft concept plan was presented to the public, the BPAB, City staff, and Caltrans. The outreach to the public included an online community meeting and an online survey.

Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Board Meeting #2 (January 21, 2021) The BPAB was presented with the alternatives from the first community meeting as well as public comments provided at the meeting and the results of the first survey. Recommendations provided by Board members included the following.
• Address potential conflicts between eastbound vehicles exiting SR 12 and turning right across the Joe Rodota Trail.
• Implement speed reduction measure due to hig h vehicle speeds at the northern end of the bridge over SR

12. • Remove one of the westbound right-turn lanes at the Occi dental Road intersection to reduce conflicts with crossing pedestrians.
• Close one of the three driveways into the shopping center between West Third Street and Occidental Road to reduce the number of conflict points for pedestrians and bicyclists. • Add a vertical barrier between the bicycle facility and adjacent travel lane, something more substantial than a delineator or other device that could easily be driven over.

Community Meeting #2 (March 3, 2021)
Incorporating comments from the public, the BPAB, and City staff, the consultant team revised the draft concept plans. A second virtual meeting was held to review the revised concept plan, w ith approximately 25 attendees.

Comments provided by attendees included the following.
• There appears to be a tight turning radius for eastbound vehicles on West Third Street making a right turn onto Stony Point Road.
• There appears to be a tight turning ra dius for southbound vehicles on Stony Point Road turning right onto Sebastopol Road, which may be p roblematic for trucks. Perhaps bollards near the intersection could be removed to address this.
• Perhaps both the raised crosswalk and flashing beacons (RRFB) could be used at the SR 12 on-ramps. • Could a speed hump be added in front of the raised crosswalk so drivers would slow down earlier? • Consider adding a bicycle/pedestrian bridge at the Joe Rodota Trail crossing. • The p lan should address needs of bicyclist s of all ages and abilities, especially by providing paths where possible.

Online Survey #2
The sec ond online survey focused on identifying support for or opposition to the proposed corridor improvements and generated 354 responses . The survey included a detailed presentation of the proposed improvements, including the proposed bike lane enhancements and pedestrian crossing recommendations at each intersection. The proposed enhancements to the Stony Point Road bike lanes and the improvements to the study intersections all received high levels of support. Respondent preferences for each proposal were assessed based on ratings of 1 through 5, with 1 representing strong support and 5 representing strong opposition.

Consolidating the responses of 1 and 2 to indicate support for each item, proposals were supported by at least 60 percent of respondents and as high as 90 percent. Survey results are summarized in Table 7. 23 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Table 7 – Summary of Online Survey #2 Results
Location Key Improvements Rating
(1 = Strongly Approve, 5 = Strongly Oppose)
1 2 3 4 5
Roadway
Stony Point Rd Bike lane buffer with bollards 64% 15% 7% 5% 9% Intersection
W Third St Curb extensions 44% 19% 14% 9% 13%
Occidental Rd Curb extensions 49% 19% 15% 6% 11%
SR 12 Westbound Ramps Raised crosswalks 59% 12% 14% 6% 9% RRFBs* 73% 13% 9% 2% 3%
High-visibility crosswalks 78% 12% 5% 1% 4%
SR 12 Eastbound Ramps Realign intersection/remove NB
free right turn
57% 16% 14% 3% 10%
Remove lane on off-ramp 51% 15% 15% 5% 14%
Cross-bike adjacent to crosswalk 57% 16% 13% 4% 10%
No right on red from off-ramp 46% 14% 14% 7% 19%
Sebastopol Rd Protected intersection 47% 17% 17% 6% 12% Notes: * Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon

Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Board Meeting # 3 (March 18, 2021) A third presentation was delivered to the BPAB of the results of the second online survey and to solicit comments on the revised concept plans. Comments from Board members included:
• The proposed design indicates that the bollards along the Class IV bikewa y be spaced 36 feet apart to allow drivers to pull over to permit emergency vehicles to pass more quickly along Stony Point Road. Sev eral members indicated that this spacing would provide inadequate protection for bicyclists and reduce the benefit of the proposed design.
• The curb extension at the southwest corner of the Stony Point Road/ SR 12 West Ramps -Occidental Road intersection should be expanded to channelize southbound vehicles entering the westbound on-ramp onto SR 12.
• A bike lane should be retained up to the intersection on the eastbound approach to the Stony Point Road/Sebastopol Road intersection. The existing turn pocket was retained to maintain acceptable flow for eastbound through traffic, but the proposed curb extension would reduce the roadway width; the proposed design includes a shared space for the turn pocket and bike lane.

The following additional comments were provided by members of the public. • Are there any opportunities to implement elements of the recommended design as a “quick build” project? • If the “no right on red” at the SR 12 East off-ramp requires activation by pedestrians, drivers will not expect it and compliance will be problematic.
24 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Emergency Services Staff
Staff from the City’s Fire and Police departments were consulted on the draft designs to ensure that they provided adequate access for emergency vehicles throughout the study area . The primary concern was the impact of the bollards for the separated bikeway to impact emergency vehicle ac cess along Stony Point Road between West Third Street and Occidental Road. Under the roadway’s existing configuration, with wider travel lanes and a striped bike lane, vehicle traffic can more easily move toward the curb to provide space for emergency vehicles.

To address this concern, the recommended plan provides for bollards spaced 36 feet apart along the west side of the street to enable vehicles to pull into the bike lane to make way for emergency vehicles. Another consideration was the impact of cu rb extensions on the curb radii at study area intersections; development of the concept designs included a turning template analysis to determine the needs for trucks, so this was determined not to be problematic.

Caltrans Comments
Upon review of the draft concept plan, Caltrans District 4 staff identified several concerns, including:
• Lane width: The proposed cross-section of Stony Point Road on the overpass over SR 12 included travel lanes that were 10 feet wide. Staff indicated that a minimum lane width of 11 feet would be required within Caltrans right-of-way based on the Caltrans Highway Design Manual standards for multi-lane roadways. Deviation from the standards would require a Design Standard Decision Document (DSDD) to provide a justification for the non-standard design, including a safety assessment.
• Potential traffic operation impacts: Adjacent intersections north and south of the ramp terminals may need to be included in the study to evaluate operational impacts. • Turning radii: Adequate turning radii should be maintained for truck traffic. • Signal timing: Modifications of the overcrossing may require signal timing changes.

Caltrans has released guidance regarding the selection of appropriate bicycle facilities, which cite an intention of serving the needs of users of “all ages and abilities” . In 2019, the “Caltrans Contextual Guidance for Preferred Bicycle Facilities” was issued, providing recommended facilities based on the posted speed limit, traffic volume, and land use context. Stony Point Road, with a speed limit of 35 mph, average daily traffic of 26,000 vehicles per day, and urban location, meets the criteria for a Class IV facility. In 2020, a memorandum was issued by the Caltrans Division of Design regarding bicycle facility selection guidance. Similarly, the Stony Point Road corridor met the criteria for Class IV facilities based on traffic characteristics and context. Both of these documents note that these recommendations were developed to supplement previously existing guidelines and are generally provided at the Project Initiation Development (PID) and Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) phases.

The complete comments from Caltrans, the relevant guidance documents, and responses from City staff and the consultant team are presented in Appendix D.

25 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Recommended Plan
In response to comments from the public, Caltrans, and emergency responders, the draf t plan was modified and the final recommended plan developed. The following treatments are included in the plan:
• Class IV bikeways to increase protection over existing Class II bike lanes • Dashed green bike lane striping through intersections and at conflict points ( e.g., where vehi cle traffic is required to cross bike lanes to make right turns)
• Inclusion of protected bike lane signals for north- south bicycle movements on the Stony Point Road traffic signals.
• Curb extensions to reduce crossing distances at intersections and reduce speed of right-turning vehicles • Raised crosswalks or RRFBs to reduce speeds and highlight presence of pedestrians at uncontrolled crossings • Multiple enhancements at the crossing of the Joe Rodota Trail to enhance trail user safety • Addition of a second southbound left-turn lane on Stony Point Road approaching SR 12 Eastbound Ramps to reduce vehicle queuing and allow for more pedestrian crossing time.

It should be noted that the resulting design includes approxi mately 210 feet on the SR 12 overpass where travel lanes are less than 11 feet, but at least 10 feet wide. Caltrans has indicated that use of lanes less than 11 feet will require the City to pursue a design exception in order to implement this plan. Thro ugh the design process the plan was modified as much as possible to include 11-foot lanes without sacrificing a minimum 2-foot buffer space for the bike lanes. If 11- foot lanes were used in the plan, it would not be possible to include buffer space for the bicycle lanes on this section off the SR 12 overpass. It is recommended that the City pursue the design exception.

Also referenced is a suggestion to consolidate the Oliver’s Shopping Center driveways. The City will investigate this further.

The complete list of improvements is described in greater detail below.

Intersection Modifications
Recommended improvements at the study area intersections are illustrated in the close-ups of the concept plan in Plates 8 through 17. The plan indicates striping modifications, lane widths, and proposed hardscape improvements (shown in blue). The full concept plan is presented as Figure 2. It should be noted that the yellow highlighted pavement on the plan indicates where the lanes on the SR 12 overpass would be less than 11 feet wide.

Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes Figure 2 – Recommended Plan

27 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
West Third Street
• Add a curb extension at the southwest corner to reduce the crossing distance.

Plate 8 W. Third St. – Existing Plate 9 W. Third St. – Proposed SR 12 Westbound Off-Ramp-Occidental Road
• Add a curb extension at the southwest corner. This will shorten the crossing distance across Occidental Road and channelize southbound traffic entering the westbound on-ramp, reducing vehicle speed, and narrowing the bicycle-vehicle conflict zone.
• Add a curb extension at the northeast corner.
• Install a raised crosswalk or RRFB at the SR 12 on-ramps. • Modify lane striping to reduce the size of the intersection, encouraging reduced speeds. • Modify the lane configuration for the westbound off-ramp approach, converting the through/right-turn lane to through only. As a result, only one lane would turn right across the crosswalk. • Provide a new pedestrian connection between Stony Point Road and the housing development at the northeast corner of Stony Point Road/SR12 WB Off-Ramp.

28 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021

Plate 10 Occidental Rd. – Existing Plate 11 Occidental Rd. – Proposed SR 12 Eastbound Ramps-Joe Rodota Trail
• Remove the pork chop island/free right turn to reduce speed of northbound right-turning vehicles. • Realign the crosswalk to create a more direct path for trail users. • Add curb extensions on all four corners.
• Provide a second southbound left-turn lane onto the SR 12 East on-ramp; this would reduce delay and allow for additional crossing time for Joe Rodota Trail users. • Remove one of the eastbound left-turn lanes from the off-ramp. • Install bikecross markings adjacent to the crosswalk to identify the path of travel for bicyclists. • Install dashed bike lane striping along Stony Point Road through the intersection. • Include either “No Right Turn on Red” signage for the northbound right -turn and eastbound left-turn lanes, “No Right Turn” blank-out sign, or separated signal phasing that gives a red right arrow while trail users have a green.

Plate 13 SR 12 Eastbound Ramps-Joe Rodota Trail
– Existing
Plate 12 SR 12 Eastbound Ramps-Joe Rodota Trail
– Proposed

29 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Stony Point Plaza
• Provide a bike lane buffer with bollards to help channelize vehicle traffic and provide protection for bicyclists from turning vehicles.
• Consider p otential for installing a multi -use path along the west side of Stony Point Road as a long -term improvement to enhance the connection between Joe Rodota Trail and Sebastopol Road.

Plate 14 Stony Point Plaza – Existing Plate 15 Stony Point Plaza – Proposed Sebastopol Road
• Add a c urb extension on the southwest corner and widen the sidewalk along the adjacent segment on Sebastopol Road.
• Install green dashed bike lane striping along Stony Point Road through the intersection. • Consider the potential for extending a multi-use path along the west side of Stony Point Road, including the segment along the north side of Sebastopol Road, to connect to Cesar Chavez Language Academy.

Plate 16 Sebastopol Rd. – Existing Plate 17 Sebastopol Rd. – Proposed

30 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Intersection Levels of Service
Intersection Levels of Service and delay were determined for the study intersections with implementation of the Recommended Plan using existing peak hour volumes. The resulting service levels under these conditions are shown in Table 8. The calculations are included in Appendix B.

Table 8 – Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service with Recommended Modifications Study Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS

1. Stony Point Rd/W Third St 35.5 D 54.0 D

2. Stony Point Rd/SR 12 WB Off-Ramp-Occidental Rd 44.3 D 56.6 E

3. Stony Point Rd/SR 12 EB Ramps 18.4 B 17.9 B

4. Stony Point Rd/Stony Point Plaza 10.2 B 20.4 C

5. Stony Point Rd/Sebastopol Rd 42.7 D 45.2 D
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service Following is a summary of the changes in delay at each of the study intersections:

Stony Point Road/West Third Street – The intersection would be expected to have virtually no change with only a 1.5 second increase in delay during the p.m. peak hour.

Stony Point Roa d/SR 12 West bound Off-Ramp-Occidental Road – With the Recommended Plan, which includes the removal of one of the SR 12 West off-ramp right turn lanes, the intersection would experience a 3- second decrease in delay during the p.m. peak hour.

Stony Point Road/SR 12 Eastbound Ramps – Primarily due to the addition of the second southbound left -turn lane, delay at the intersection would decrease 5 seconds during the a.m. peak hour and 12 seconds d uring the p.m. peak hour.

Stony Point Road/Stony Point Plaza – This intersection would experience no change in intersect ion delay or Level of Service with the plan.

Stony Point Road/Sebastopol Road – The Recommended Plan would result in a mix of results wi th changes ranging from approximately a 7-second decrease in delay during the a.m. peak hour to a 2-second increase during the p.m. peak hour.

31 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Cost Estimate of Recommended Plan
Table 9 is a summary of the construction cost estimates for the infra structure recommendations in each of the three segments. The total cost estimate for the project is $3,260,000.

Table 9 – Summary of Construction Cost Estimates
Location Description Estimate ($)
Segment 1 Pavement Rehab, Striping, Bollards, Signage, Bulbouts, curb ramps $1,236,000 Segment 2 Pavement Rehab, Striping, Bollards, Signage, Bulbouts, curb ramps, raised crosswalks, RRFBs
$1,259,000
Segment 3 Pavement Rehab, Striping, Bollards, Signage, Bulbouts, curb ramps, multi- use path
$765,000
Total $3,260,000
C
ost estimate details are included Appendix E.
32 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Implementation and Funding
The timing and access to project funding are unpredictable. While the recommendations from this study could potentially be funded with a single grant, the City may need to be opportunistic in pursuing selected project elements and assembling resources from multiple funding programs.

Next Steps with Caltrans
Design Exception
The City will need to pursue a design exception for the plan with Caltrans due the inclusion of the lanes on the SR 12 overpass which are less than 11 feet. In addition, a design exception would be needed if the City pursues the raised crosswalks on the two SR12 on ramps.

Intersection Control Evaluation
Modifications to Caltrans intersections require the completion of an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE). The ICE should identify the alternatives considered and the public input process which led to the proposed modifications.

Most of the information needed for an ICE is included in this document.

Potential Long-Term Recommendations
Through the development of this plan a need was identified for an enhanced connection between the Joe Rodota Trail and the Cesar Chavez Language academy on Sebastopol Road. While a detailed evaluation of this facility was beyond the scope of the current study, it is recommended that development of a Class I facility be investigated along the west side of Stony Point Road from the Joe Rodota Trail to Sebastopol Road.

There are numerous challenges with the development of a Class I path at this location, including coordination with the property owner, utilities, existing structures, and a bus stop, so such a facility would need to be planned in coordination with other facilities being developed in the area. For example, the BPMP recommend ed that a Class IV separated bikeway be constructed along Sebastopol Road from Corporate Center Parkway to the SMART path. The existing landscape strip along the west side of Stony Point Road is presented in Plates 18 and 19.

Plate 18 Stony Pt. Rd. south of Joe Rodota Trail Plate 19 Stony Pt. Rd. north of Sebastopol Rd.

33 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Potential Project Funding
Active Transportation Program
The Active Transportation Program (ATP) is the largest program in the state for project s designed to improve conditions for bicycling and walking, distributing over $200 million per year with cycles every two years . The program is highly competitive. The application scoring criteria prioritize funding to disadvantaged communities, and the location of the project would benefit a Community of Concern, which qualifies as disadvantaged under the ATP evaluation criteria. ATP is administered by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and Caltrans.

Information about the program is availa ble at the CTC web site ( https://catc.ca.gov/programs/active- transportation-program) and the Caltrans web site ( https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state- programs/active-transportation-program).

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
The HSIP program provides funding for safety improvements, including pedestrian and bicycle facilities. L arger projects are selected based on a benefit/cost analysis, which prioritizes locations where fatalities and/or severe injury collisions have been recorded. Smaller grants are available for pedestrian crossing improv ements that do not meet the benefit/cost threshold.

HSIP funding cycles are typically every two years. Funding levels vary; the amount awarded in 2021 for Cycle 10 was $228 million. Information about the program is available on the Caltrans web site (https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state-programs/highway-safety-improvement-program).

Quick Strike
MTC’s Safe and Seaml ess Mobility Quick -Strike program provided funding to local agencies for mobility- enhancing projects that could be implemented quickly to address changes in mobility patterns associated with COVID-19-related restrictions. While this was established as a one-time-only program, there has been a growing interest in such quick-build projects; if similar grants are made available in the future, such funds could potentially be used for the recommended Stony Point Road improvements.

34 Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Study Participants and Ref erences
Study Participants
City of Santa Rosa
Rob Sprinkle – Deputy Public Works Director
Nancy Adams – Transportation Planner
Bjorn Griepenburg – Active Transportation Planner
Jaime Smedes – Marketing and Outreach Coordinator
Consultant Team
W-Trans
Steve Weinberger, PE, PTOE – Managing Principal
Barry Bergman, AICP – Senior Planner
Cameron Nye – Associate Engineer
Alex Scrobonia – Editing/Formatting
Dalene J. Whitlock, PE, PTOE – Quality Control
References
2016 Collision Data on California State Highways, California Department of Transportation, 2018 Active Transportation Program, https://catc.ca.gov/programs/active-transportation-program Active Transportation Program, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state-programs/active- transportation-program
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update 2018, City of Santa Rosa, 2018 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD), California Department of Transportation, 2014 California Vehicle Code, State of California, 2018,
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codesTOCSelected.xhtml?tocCode=VEH&tocTitle=+Vehicle+Code+- +VEH
C
altrans Design Information Bulletin Number 89, Class IV Bikeway Guidance, California Department of Transportation, 2015
Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2018 Highway Design Manual, 6th Edition, California Department of Transportation, 2017 Highway Safety Manual, 1st Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2010 Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings (NCHRP 562), Transportation Research Board, 2006 NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2nd Edition, National Association of City Transportation Officials, 2012 Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), California Highway Patrol, 2015-2020 S
RO910-2

Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 2021 A
Appendix A
Collision Data

Date of Count:

Number of Collisions: 19
Number of Injuries: 12
Number of Fatalities: 1
Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 34900
Start Date:

End Date:

Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Multi-Legged
Control Type: Signals
Area: Suburban
19 x
34,900 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.30 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.43 c/mve
Notes
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2016 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans Date of Count:

Number of Collisions: 49
Number of Injuries: 18
Number of Fatalities: 2
Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 41500
Start Date:

End Date:

Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Four-Legged
Control Type: Signals
Area: Suburban
49 x
41,500 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.65 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.43 c/mve
Notes
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2016 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans

36.7%
Collision Rate Fatality Rate
Collision Rate = 365
2:

Number of Collisions x 1 Million

0.4%
Collision Rate = ADT x Days per Year x Number of Years

63.2%
1,000,000
Injury Rate
Fatality Rate

5.3%
ADT x Days per Year x Number of Years

4.1%
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection

0.4%
Collision Rate Injury Rate
Intersection Collision Rate Worksheet
March 1, 2015
February 29, 2020
Intersection # Stony Point Road & West 3rd Street
Collision Rate = 1,000,000
Stony Point Road & Occidental Road - SR-12 WB Off-
Ramp

36.1%
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection March 1, 2015
365
Intersection #
February 29, 2020
Number of Collisions x 1 MillionCollision Rate =
1:

Stony Point Road Corridor Study
Saturday, January 0, 1900
Saturday, January 0, 1900

36.1%
W-Trans
5/5/2021

Date of Count:

Number of Collisions: 16
Number of Injuries: 3
Number of Fatalities: 0
Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 42100
Start Date:

End Date:

Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Four-Legged
Control Type: Signals
Area: Suburban
16 x
42,100 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.21 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.43 c/mve
Notes
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2016 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans Date of Count:

Number of Collisions: 29
Number of Injuries: 14
Number of Fatalities: 0
Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 37300
Start Date:

End Date:

Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Four-Legged
Control Type: Signals
Area: Suburban
29 x
37,300 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.43 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.43 c/mve
Notes
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2016 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans

36.1%
Stony Point Road Corridor Study
March 1, 2015

36.1%
Fatality Rate Injury Rate
March 1, 2015
Collision Rate =
Intersection #

0.0%
February 29, 2020
Collision Rate =
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection Intersection Collision Rate Worksheet
Intersection #
Fatality Rate
365
Collision Rate
3: Stony Point Road & SR-12 EB Ramps
Collision Rate = 1,000,000
Number of Collisions x 1 Million
ADT x Days per Year x Number of Years
Injury Rate
February 29, 2020
Stony Point Road & Stony Point Plaza
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection

0.4%
Saturday, January 0, 1900

18.8%
4:

Number of Collisions x 1 Million

0.4%

0.0% 48.3%
1,000,000
365
ADT x Days per Year x Number of Years
Saturday, January 0, 1900
Collision Rate =
Collision Rate
W-Trans
5/5/2021

Date of Count:

Number of Collisions: 81
Number of Injuries: 35
Number of Fatalities: 0
Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 41000
Start Date:

End Date:

Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Four-Legged
Control Type: Signals
Area: Suburban
81 x
41,000 x x 5
Study Intersection 1.08 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.43 c/mve
Notes
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2016 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans Date of Count:

Number of Collisions: 0
Number of Injuries: 0
Number of Fatalities: 0
Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 0
Start Date:

End Date:

Number of Years: 0
Intersection Type: 0
Control Type: 0
Area: 0
0x
0x x0
Study Intersection 0.00 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.22 c/mve
Notes
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2016 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans March 1, 2015
February 29, 2020
Collision Rate =
Intersection Collision Rate Worksheet
Stony Point Road Corridor Study
January 0, 1900
January 0, 1900

0.0%
Collision Rate = Number of Collisions x 1 Million

0.0%
ADT x Days per Year x Number of Years

1.0% 34.6%
Collision Rate = 1,000,000
365
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection Collision Rate Fatality Rate Injury Rate
Saturday, January 0, 1900
Intersection # 5:

Saturday, January 0, 1900
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection

0.0%
Injury Rate

43.2%
ADT x Days per Year x Number of Years
Collision Rate = 1,000,000
365
Collision Rate Fatality Rate

36.1%
Intersection # 6: &

0.4%
Stony Point Road & Sebastopol Road
Number of Collisions x 1 Million
W-Trans
5/5/2021

B

Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Appendix B
Intersection Delay and Levels of Service

+&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\

6WRQ\3RLQW5G :UG6W 03/01/2021
AM Existing Stony Point Road Corridor Study 5:00 pm 09/11/2020 Synchro 11 Report W-Trans Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 177 260 259 114 106 35 152 1011 95 55 726 68 Future Volume (veh/h) 177 260 259 114 106 35 152 1011 95 55 726 68 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 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 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 190 280 278 123 114 38 163 1087 102 59 781 73 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 283 327 443 148 138 46 190 1904 831 76 1548 145 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.54 0.54 0.04 0.47 0.47 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1564 1781 1342 447 1781 3554 1550 1781 3281 307 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 190 280 278 123 0 152 163 1087 102 59 423 431 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1564 1781 0 1790 1781 1777 1550 1781 1777 1810 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.1 18.9 14.4 8.8 0.0 10.8 11.7 26.6 2.7 4.3 21.4 21.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.1 18.9 14.4 8.8 0.0 10.8 11.7 26.6 2.7 4.3 21.4 21.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 283 327 443 148 0 184 190 1904 831 76 838 854 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.86 0.63 0.83 0.00 0.83 0.86 0.57 0.12 0.78 0.50 0.50 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 311 442 538 227 0 344 270 1904 831 119 838 854 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.5 52.0 22.0 58.7 0.0 57.2 57.1 20.2 6.2 61.6 23.8 23.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.9 11.7 1.6 13.9 0.0 9.0 17.2 1.2 0.3 15.5 2.2 2.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.2 9.9 5.4 4.5 0.0 5.3 6.1 11.0 1.5 2.2 9.4 9.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.4 63.7 23.6 72.5 0.0 66.1 74.3 21.4 6.5 77.2 26.0 25.9 L n G r p L O S EECEAEECAECC
Approach Vol, veh/h 748 275 1352 913
Approach Delay, s/veh 47.0 69.0 26.7 29.2
Approach LOS D E C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.1 28.1 19.2 66.6 25.9 18.3 10.8 75.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.9 5.3 5.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.6 30.7 19.7 41.8 22.7 25.0 8.7 52.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.8 20.9 13.7 23.5 15.1 12.8 6.3 28.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.9 0.2 5.1 0.3 0.5 0.0 8.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.5
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved changes to right turn type.
+&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\

6WRQ\3RLQW5G 2FFLGHQWDO5G65:%2II5DPS 03/01/2021 AM Existing Stony Point Road Corridor Study 5:00 pm 09/11/2020 Synchro 11 Report W-Trans Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 62 0 233 713 71 406 44 550 72 0 789 41 Future Volume (veh/h) 62 0 233 713 71 406 44 550 72 0 789 41 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 73 0 274 839 178 147 52 647 0 0 928 48 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 222222222022
Cap, veh/h 155 0 499 931 489 413 33 1882 0 1978 102
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.09 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 2742 3563 1870 1581 356 3647 0 0 5131 256 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 73 0 274 839 178 147 52 647 0 0 636 340 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1371 1781 1870 1581 356 1777 0 0 1702 1814 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.1 0.0 11.3 29.6 10.1 9.8 12.1 13.6 0.0 0.0 18.0 18.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.1 0.0 11.3 29.6 10.1 9.8 12.1 13.6 0.0 0.0 18.0 18.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 155 0 499 931 489 413 33 1882 0 1357 723 V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.00 0.55 0.90 0.36 0.36 1.56 0.34 0.00 0.47 0.47 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 155 0 499 1006 528 446 85 1882 0 1357 723 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.5 0.0 48.5 46.4 39.2 39.1 58.9 17.6 0.0 0.0 28.9 28.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 0.0 1.3 10.6 0.5 0.5 289.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 2.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.4 0.0 4.1 14.4 4.7 3.9 3.8 5.6 0.0 0.0 7.5 8.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.7 0.0 49.8 57.0 39.7 39.6 347.9 17.9 0.0 0.0 30.1 31.1 LnGrp LOS E A D E D D F B A C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 347 1164 699 A 976
Approach Delay, s/veh 51.7 52.1 42.5 30.4
A p p r o a c h L O S DDDC
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.0 17.0 56.8 39.3 73.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.7 4.9 4.9 5.3 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.3 31.1 30.1 36.7 66.1
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.3 14.1 20.0 31.6 15.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.1 4.4 2.4 5.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 43.3
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. +&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\

6WRQ\3RLQW5G 65(%2II5DPS65(%2Q5DPS 03/01/2021 AM Existing Stony Point Road Corridor Study 5:00 pm 09/11/2020 Synchro 11 Report W-Trans Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 50 0 72 0000 6 6 5 6 3 0 4 6 2 1222 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 50 0 72 0000 6 6 5 6 3 0 4 6 2 1222 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.95 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 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 59 0 85 0 782 0 544 1438 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 222 022220
Cap, veh/h 285 0 121 0 1389 736 2996 0
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.41 0.84 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 1510 0 3647 1585 1781 3647 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 59 0 85 0 782 0 544 1438 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1510 0 1777 1585 1781 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 26.9 0.0 33.6 13.9 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 26.9 0.0 33.6 13.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 285 0 121 0 1389 736 2996 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.21 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.56 0.74 0.48 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 740 0 314 0 1389 736 2996 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.9 0.0 58.3 0.0 46.2 0.0 32.3 2.7 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.7 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 0.9 0.0 3.0 0.0 12.9 0.0 14.9 3.5 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.3 0.0 65.5 0.0 46.7 0.0 35.0 3.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS E A E A D C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 144 782 A 1982
Approach Delay, s/veh 61.7 46.7 11.8
Approach LOS E D B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.3 114.7 58.8 55.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.9 5.1 5.1 * 5.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.0 93.0 48.0 * 41
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.1 15.9 35.6 28.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 18.2 1.5 4.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.7
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. +&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\

6WRQ\3RLQW5G 6WRQ\3RLQW3OD]D 03/01/2021
AM Existing Stony Point Road Corridor Study 5:00 pm 09/11/2020 Synchro 11 Report W-Trans Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 64 10 10 41 4 161 25 1252 70 119 1262 114 Future Volume (veh/h) 64 10 10 41 4 161 25 1252 70 119 1262 114 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 46 44 11 44 4 173 27 1346 75 128 1357 123 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 120 97 24 207 19 196 218 2884 161 153 2793 849 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.24 1.00 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1436 359 1639 149 1552 1781 4942 275 1781 5106 1552 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 46 0 55 48 0 173 27 927 494 128 1357 123 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1795 1788 0 1552 1781 1702 1814 1781 1702 1552 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 0.0 3.8 3.1 0.0 14.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 0.0 3.8 3.1 0.0 14.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.20 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 120 0 121 226 0 196 218 1986 1058 153 2793 849 V/C Ratio(X) 0.38 0.00 0.45 0.21 0.00 0.88 0.12 0.47 0.47 0.84 0.49 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 206 0 207 261 0 227 218 1986 1058 289 2793 849 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 58.0 0.0 58.3 51.0 0.0 55.8 43.7 0.0 0.0 53.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.0 0.0 2.6 0.5 0.0 27.9 0.3 0.8 1.5 9.9 0.5 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 0.0 1.8 1.5 0.0 7.1 0.7 0.2 0.4 4.1 0.1 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 60.0 0.0 61.0 51.4 0.0 83.7 44.0 0.8 1.5 62.9 0.5 0.3 L n G r p L O S EAEDAFDAAEAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 101 221 1448 1608
Approach Delay, s/veh 60.5 76.7 1.8 5.5
A p p r o a c h L O S EEAA
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.8 20.8 76.0 20.5 16.0 80.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 7.1 71.1 19.0 21.1 57.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.8 3.5 2.0 16.2 11.0 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.0 15.2 0.2 0.2 13.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. +&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\

6WRQ\3RLQW5G 6HEDVWRSRO5G 03/01/2021
AM Existing Stony Point Road Corridor Study 5:00 pm 09/11/2020 Synchro 11 Report W-Trans Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 384 202 100 88 228 240 80 871 76 190 778 678 Future Volume (veh/h) 384 202 100 88 228 240 80 871 76 190 778 678 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 431 227 112 99 256 270 80 979 85 213 874 762 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 1.00 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 496 291 241 288 325 602 306 1052 91 369 1257 773 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.32 0.32 0.35 0.59 0.59 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 1870 1545 1781 1870 1577 1781 3303 287 1781 3554 1541 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 431 227 112 99 256 270 80 527 537 213 874 762 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1870 1545 1781 1870 1577 1781 1777 1812 1781 1777 1541 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.9 15.2 8.6 6.4 17.0 0.0 5.1 37.3 37.3 12.7 22.2 40.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.9 15.2 8.6 6.4 17.0 0.0 5.1 37.3 37.3 12.7 22.2 40.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 496 291 241 288 325 602 306 566 577 369 1257 773 V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.78 0.47 0.34 0.79 0.45 0.26 0.93 0.93 0.58 0.70 0.99 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 630 531 439 288 403 668 306 566 577 369 1257 773 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.67 1.67 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.5 52.7 49.9 48.4 51.4 30.0 46.7 42.9 42.9 37.9 21.7 16.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.3 4.5 1.4 0.7 8.1 0.5 0.4 24.1 23.8 2.2 3.2 29.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.5 7.4 3.4 2.9 8.7 6.4 2.3 19.9 20.2 5.2 7.6 16.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.7 57.2 51.3 49.1 59.5 30.5 47.1 67.0 66.7 40.1 24.9 45.7 LnGrp LOS E E D D E C D E E D C D
Approach Vol, veh/h 770 625 1144 1849
Approach Delay, s/veh 60.6 45.4 65.5 35.2
Approach LOS E D E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.3 25.6 27.2 50.9 24.0 27.9 31.8 46.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 5.3 4.9 4.9 5.3 5.3 4.9 4.9 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.8 36.9 11.9 46.0 23.7 28.0 16.5 41.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.4 17.2 7.1 42.7 17.9 19.0 14.7 39.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.5 0.1 2.5 0.8 1.7 0.1 1.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 49.0
HCM 6th LOS D
+&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\

6WRQ\3RLQW5G :UG6W 03/01/2021
PM Existing Stony Point Corridor Study 5:00 pm 09/11/2020 Synchro 11 Report W-Trans Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 176 214 202 138 201 57 255 1040 130 66 1045 105 Future Volume (veh/h) 176 214 202 138 201 57 255 1040 130 66 1045 105 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 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 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 189 230 217 148 216 61 274 1118 140 71 1124 113 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 212 270 486 255 235 66 296 1652 722 171 1286 129 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.47 0.47 0.10 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1542 1781 1393 394 1781 3554 1552 1781 3257 327 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 189 230 217 148 0 277 274 1118 140 71 613 624 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1542 1781 0 1787 1781 1777 1552 1781 1777 1807 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.6 16.8 9.9 10.9 0.0 21.4 21.2 34.4 7.4 5.3 44.6 44.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.6 16.8 9.9 10.9 0.0 21.4 21.2 34.4 7.4 5.3 44.6 44.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 212 270 486 255 0 301 296 1652 722 171 702 713 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.85 0.45 0.58 0.00 0.92 0.93 0.68 0.19 0.42 0.87 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 214 375 573 255 0 320 302 1652 722 171 702 713 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 60.8 58.4 17.9 56.1 0.0 57.3 57.5 29.2 22.0 59.6 39.1 39.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 34.0 12.6 0.6 3.3 0.0 29.5 32.8 2.2 0.6 1.6 14.1 14.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.6 8.9 3.5 5.1 0.0 12.0 12.2 14.9 2.8 2.4 21.9 22.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 94.8 71.1 18.6 59.3 0.0 86.8 90.3 31.5 22.6 61.2 53.3 53.3 L n G r p L O S FEBEAFFCCEDD
Approach Vol, veh/h 636 425 1532 1308
Approach Delay, s/veh 60.2 77.2 41.2 53.7
Approach LOS E E D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.3 25.5 28.6 60.6 21.9 28.9 18.7 70.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 * 5.3 5.3 5.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.4 28.1 23.7 53.6 16.8 * 25 12.2 65.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.9 18.8 23.2 46.7 16.6 23.4 7.3 36.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.4 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 9.9 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 52.4
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

User approved changes to right turn type.
+&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\

6WRQ\3RLQW5G 2FFLGHQWDO5G65:%2II5DPS 03/01/2021 PM Existing Stony Point Corridor Study 5:00 pm 09/11/2020 Synchro 11 Report W-Trans Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 85 0 244 606 200 536 127 928 71 0 1313 113 Future Volume (veh/h) 85 0 244 606 200 536 127 928 71 0 1313 113 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 86 0 191 612 246 231 128 937 0 0 1326 114 Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 222222222022
Cap, veh/h 80 0 1044 678 356 296 117 2314 0 1367 118
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.33 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 2790 3563 1870 1557 356 3647 0 0 4937 410 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 86 0 191 612 246 231 128 937 0 0 946 494 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1395 1781 1870 1557 356 1777 0 0 1702 1775 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.3 0.0 6.3 23.5 17.2 19.7 46.1 17.5 0.0 0.0 38.5 38.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 0.0 6.3 23.5 17.2 19.7 46.1 17.5 0.0 0.0 38.5 38.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.23
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 80 0 1044 678 356 296 117 2314 0 976 509 V/C Ratio(X) 1.07 0.00 0.18 0.90 0.69 0.78 1.09 0.41 0.00 0.97 0.97 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 80 0 1044 705 370 308 117 2314 0 976 509 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 66.9 0.0 29.4 55.4 52.8 53.9 47.0 11.6 0.0 0.0 49.3 49.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 121.8 0.0 0.1 14.6 5.2 11.7 77.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 22.4 33.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.6 0.0 0.0 11.9 8.6 8.7 6.5 6.7 0.0 0.0 19.2 21.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 188.7 0.0 29.5 70.0 58.0 65.5 124.1 11.8 0.0 0.0 71.7 82.4 LnGrp LOS F A C E E E F B A E F
Approach Vol, veh/h 277 1089 1065 A 1440
Approach Delay, s/veh 78.9 66.3 25.3 75.3
Approach LOS E E C E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.0 51.0 45.0 32.0 96.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.7 4.9 4.9 5.3 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.3 46.1 39.1 27.7 90.1
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.3 48.1 40.5 25.5 19.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 8.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 59.3
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. +&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\

6WRQ\3RLQW5G 65(%2II5DPS65(%2Q5DPS 03/01/2021 PM Existing Stony Point Corridor Study 5:00 pm 09/11/2020 Synchro 11 Report W-Trans Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 70 0 165 0000 1 0 7 4 7 8 5 5 4 2 1575 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 70 0 165 0000 1 0 7 4 7 8 5 5 4 2 1575 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 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 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 72 0 170 0 1107 0 559 1624 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 222 022220
Cap, veh/h 469 0 200 0 1381 663 2832 0
Arrive On Green 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.37 0.80 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 1518 0 3647 1585 1781 3647 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 72 0 170 0 1107 0 559 1624 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1518 0 1777 1585 1781 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 0.0 15.3 0.0 40.8 0.0 40.2 23.9 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 0.0 15.3 0.0 40.8 0.0 40.2 23.9 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 469 0 200 0 1381 663 2832 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.15 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.80 0.84 0.57 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 687 0 293 0 1381 663 2832 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.9 0.0 59.5 0.0 46.7 0.0 40.2 5.3 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 14.5 0.0 2.6 0.0 3.2 0.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0 6.7 0.0 19.3 0.0 18.1 7.6 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.0 0.0 74.0 0.0 49.4 0.0 43.4 5.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A E A D D A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 242 1107 A 2183
Approach Delay, s/veh 68.0 49.4 15.3
Approach LOS E D B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.3 116.7 57.2 59.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.9 5.1 5.1 * 5.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.0 103.0 50.0 * 49
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.3 25.9 42.2 42.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 23.4 1.3 3.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.6
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. +&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\

6WRQ\3RLQW5G 6WRQ\3RLQW3OD]D 03/01/2021
PM Existing Stony Point Corridor Study 5:00 pm 09/11/2020 Synchro 11 Report W-Trans Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 198 38 46 68 14 234 57 1428 89 184 1312 201 Future Volume (veh/h) 198 38 46 68 14 234 57 1428 89 184 1312 201 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 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 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 145 122 47 70 14 241 59 1472 92 190 1353 207 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 201 144 56 214 43 223 200 2440 152 213 2579 783 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.22 1.00 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1280 493 1496 299 1564 1781 4903 306 1781 5106 1550 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 145 0 169 84 0 241 59 1022 542 190 1353 207 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1773 1796 0 1564 1781 1702 1806 1781 1702 1550 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.0 0.0 13.1 5.9 0.0 20.0 3.9 0.5 0.5 14.4 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.0 0.0 13.1 5.9 0.0 20.0 3.9 0.5 0.5 14.4 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.28 0.83 1.00 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 201 0 200 257 0 223 200 1694 898 213 2579 783 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.00 0.84 0.33 0.00 1.08 0.30 0.60 0.60 0.89 0.52 0.26 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 267 0 266 257 0 223 200 1694 898 319 2579 783 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.78 0.78 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 60.0 0.0 60.9 54.0 0.0 60.0 49.7 0.2 0.2 52.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.2 0.0 16.8 0.7 0.0 82.8 0.8 1.6 3.0 15.1 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 5.4 0.0 6.9 2.8 0.0 13.0 1.7 0.5 0.8 6.5 0.1 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 66.2 0.0 77.7 54.7 0.0 142.8 50.5 1.8 3.2 67.5 0.6 0.6 L n G r p L O S EAEDAFDAAEAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 314 325 1623 1750
Approach Delay, s/veh 72.4 120.0 4.0 7.9
Approach LOS E F A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.8 20.6 75.6 24.0 21.6 74.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 21.0 10.5 70.7 20.0 25.1 56.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.1 5.9 2.0 22.0 16.4 2.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 0.0 15.8 0.0 0.3 16.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. +&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\

6WRQ\3RLQW5G 6HEDVWRSRO5G 03/01/2021
PM Existing Stony Point Corridor Study 5:00 pm 09/11/2020 Synchro 11 Report W-Trans Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 507 276 88 143 215 332 96 736 97 253 943 414 Future Volume (veh/h) 507 276 88 143 215 332 96 736 97 253 943 414 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 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 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 523 285 91 147 222 342 99 759 100 261 972 427 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 577 454 370 172 323 621 249 901 119 407 1333 843 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.29 0.29 0.46 0.75 0.75 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 1870 1521 1781 1870 1502 1781 3145 414 1781 3554 1542 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 523 285 91 147 222 342 99 429 430 261 972 427 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1870 1521 1781 1870 1502 1781 1777 1783 1781 1777 1542 Q Serve(g_s), s 20.8 19.1 4.9 11.4 15.6 0.0 7.1 31.8 31.8 15.8 21.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 20.8 19.1 4.9 11.4 15.6 0.0 7.1 31.8 31.8 15.8 21.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.23 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 577 454 370 172 323 621 249 509 511 407 1333 843 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.63 0.25 0.85 0.69 0.55 0.40 0.84 0.84 0.64 0.73 0.51 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 627 454 370 261 374 662 249 509 511 407 1333 843 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.3 47.3 22.1 62.3 54.4 32.0 54.9 47.0 47.0 33.6 13.6 6.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 16.2 2.7 0.3 15.6 4.3 0.9 1.0 15.5 15.5 3.4 3.5 2.2 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 10.3 9.1 2.5 5.9 7.8 9.0 3.3 16.1 16.2 5.9 5.3 3.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73.5 50.1 22.4 77.9 58.7 32.9 55.9 62.5 62.5 37.1 17.1 8.8 LnGrp LOS E D C E E C E E E D B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 899 711 958 1660
Approach Delay, s/veh 60.9 50.2 61.8 18.1
Approach LOS E D E B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.8 39.3 24.5 57.4 28.7 29.5 36.9 45.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 5.3 4.9 4.9 5.3 5.3 4.9 4.9 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.5 32.9 13.7 52.5 25.4 28.0 26.1 40.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.4 21.1 9.1 23.1 22.8 17.6 17.8 33.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 1.4 0.1 10.0 0.6 2.0 0.5 2.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.5
HCM 6th LOS D
+&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\

6WRQ\3RLQW5G :UG6W 03/01/2021
AM Existing Stony Point Road Corridor Study 5:00 pm 09/11/2020 Project Conditions Synchro 11 Report W-Trans Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 177 260 259 114 106 35 152 1011 95 55 726 68 Future Volume (veh/h) 177 260 259 114 106 35 152 1011 95 55 726 68 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 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 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 190 280 278 123 114 38 163 1087 102 59 781 73 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 283 327 443 148 138 46 190 1904 831 76 1548 145 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.54 0.54 0.04 0.47 0.47 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1564 1781 1342 447 1781 3554 1550 1781 3281 307 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 190 280 278 123 0 152 163 1087 102 59 423 431 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1564 1781 0 1790 1781 1777 1550 1781 1777 1810 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.1 18.9 14.4 8.8 0.0 10.8 11.7 26.6 2.7 4.3 21.4 21.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.1 18.9 14.4 8.8 0.0 10.8 11.7 26.6 2.7 4.3 21.4 21.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 283 327 443 148 0 184 190 1904 831 76 838 854 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.86 0.63 0.83 0.00 0.83 0.86 0.57 0.12 0.78 0.50 0.50 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 311 442 538 227 0 344 270 1904 831 119 838 854 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.5 52.0 22.0 58.7 0.0 57.2 57.1 20.2 6.2 61.6 23.8 23.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.9 11.7 1.6 13.9 0.0 9.0 17.2 1.2 0.3 15.5 2.2 2.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.2 9.9 5.4 4.5 0.0 5.3 6.1 11.0 1.5 2.2 9.4 9.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.4 63.7 23.6 72.5 0.0 66.1 74.3 21.4 6.5 77.2 26.0 25.9 L n G r p L O S EECEAEECAECC
Approach Vol, veh/h 748 275 1352 913
Approach Delay, s/veh 47.0 69.0 26.7 29.2
Approach LOS D E C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.1 28.1 19.2 66.6 25.9 18.3 10.8 75.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.9 5.3 5.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.6 30.7 19.7 41.8 22.7 25.0 8.7 52.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.8 20.9 13.7 23.5 15.1 12.8 6.3 28.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.9 0.2 5.1 0.3 0.5 0.0 8.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.5
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved changes to right turn type.
+&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\

6WRQ\3RLQW5G 2FFLGHQWDO5G65:%2II5DPS 03/01/2021 AM Existing Stony Point Road Corridor Study 5:00 pm 09/11/2020 Project Conditions Synchro 11 Report W-Trans Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 62 0 233 713 71 406 44 550 72 0 789 41 Future Volume (veh/h) 62 0 233 713 71 406 44 550 72 0 789 41 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 73 0 274 839 84 210 52 647 0 0 928 48 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 222222222022
Cap, veh/h 155 0 498 917 497 420 33 1867 0 1957 101
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 2742 3456 1870 1581 356 3647 0 0 5131 256 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 73 0 274 839 84 210 52 647 0 0 636 340 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1371 1728 1870 1581 356 1777 0 0 1702 1814 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.1 0.0 11.3 30.6 4.5 14.6 12.1 13.7 0.0 0.0 18.1 18.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.1 0.0 11.3 30.6 4.5 14.6 12.1 13.7 0.0 0.0 18.1 18.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 155 0 498 917 497 420 33 1867 0 1343 716 V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.00 0.55 0.91 0.17 0.50 1.57 0.35 0.00 0.47 0.48 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 155 0 498 976 528 446 82 1867 0 1343 716 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.5 0.0 48.6 46.3 36.7 40.4 58.9 17.9 0.0 0.0 29.3 29.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 0.0 1.3 12.4 0.2 0.9 302.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 2.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.4 0.0 4.1 14.7 2.1 5.8 3.9 5.7 0.0 0.0 7.6 8.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.7 0.0 49.8 58.7 36.9 41.4 361.7 18.4 0.0 0.0 30.5 31.6 LnGrp LOS E A D E D D F B A C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 347 1133 699 A 976
Approach Delay, s/veh 51.7 53.9 43.9 30.9
A p p r o a c h L O S DDDC
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.0 17.0 56.2 39.8 73.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.7 4.9 4.9 5.3 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.3 30.1 31.1 36.7 66.1
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.3 14.1 20.2 32.6 15.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.1 4.6 1.9 5.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 44.3
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. +&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\

6WRQ\3RLQW5G 65(%2II5DPS65(%2Q5DPS 03/01/2021 AM Existing Stony Point Road Corridor Study 5:00 pm 09/11/2020 Project Conditions Synchro 11 Report W-Trans Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 50 0 72 0000 6 6 5 6 3 0 4 6 2 1222 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 50 0 72 0000 6 6 5 6 3 0 4 6 2 1222 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 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 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 59 0 85 0 782 741 544 1438 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 222 022220
Cap, veh/h 144 0 122 0 1773 774 998 2938 0
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.19 0.55 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 1510 0 3647 1552 3456 3647 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 59 0 85 0 782 741 544 1438 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1510 0 1777 1552 1728 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.1 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.1 3.0 18.5 32.2 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.1 3.0 18.5 32.2 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 144 0 122 0 1773 774 998 2938 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.44 0.96 0.55 0.49 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 370 0 314 0 1773 774 998 2938 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.67 0.67 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.88 0.88 0.68 0.68 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.8 0.0 58.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 44.7 12.2 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.9 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.2 20.6 0.4 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 1.9 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.1 4.5 8.3 14.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.7 0.0 65.1 0.0 0.2 20.6 45.2 12.6 0.0 L n G r p L O S EAE AACDBA
Approach Vol, veh/h 144 1523 1982
Approach Delay, s/veh 62.5 10.2 21.5
Approach LOS E B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.4 112.6 42.6 70.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.9 5.1 5.1 * 5.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.0 91.0 23.0 * 64
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.1 34.2 20.5 5.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 17.3 0.6 12.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.4
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. +&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\

6WRQ\3RLQW5G 6WRQ\3RLQW3OD]D 03/01/2021
AM Existing Stony Point Road Corridor Study 5:00 pm 09/11/2020 Project Conditions Synchro 11 Report W-Trans Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 64 10 10 41 4 161 25 1252 70 119 1262 114 Future Volume (veh/h) 64 10 10 41 4 161 25 1252 70 119 1262 114 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 46 44 11 44 4 173 27 1346 75 128 1357 123 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 120 97 24 207 19 196 218 2884 161 153 2793 849 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.24 1.00 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1436 359 1639 149 1552 1781 4942 275 1781 5106 1552 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 46 0 55 48 0 173 27 927 494 128 1357 123 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1795 1788 0 1552 1781 1702 1814 1781 1702 1552 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 0.0 3.8 3.1 0.0 14.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 0.0 3.8 3.1 0.0 14.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.20 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 120 0 121 226 0 196 218 1986 1058 153 2793 849 V/C Ratio(X) 0.38 0.00 0.45 0.21 0.00 0.88 0.12 0.47 0.47 0.84 0.49 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 206 0 207 261 0 227 218 1986 1058 289 2793 849 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 0.84 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 58.0 0.0 58.3 51.0 0.0 55.8 43.7 0.0 0.0 53.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.0 0.0 2.6 0.5 0.0 27.9 0.3 0.8 1.5 9.8 0.5 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 0.0 1.8 1.5 0.0 7.1 0.7 0.2 0.4 4.1 0.1 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 60.0 0.0 61.0 51.4 0.0 83.7 44.0 0.8 1.5 62.8 0.5 0.3 L n G r p L O S EAEDAFDAAEAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 101 221 1448 1608
Approach Delay, s/veh 60.5 76.7 1.8 5.5
A p p r o a c h L O S EEAA
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.8 20.8 76.0 20.5 16.0 80.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 7.1 71.1 19.0 21.1 57.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.8 3.5 2.0 16.2 11.0 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.0 15.2 0.2 0.2 13.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. +&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\

6WRQ\3RLQW5G 6HEDVWRSRO5G 03/01/2021
AM Existing Stony Point Road Corridor Study 5:00 pm 09/11/2020 Project Conditions Synchro 11 Report W-Trans Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 384 202 100 88 228 240 80 871 76 190 778 678 Future Volume (veh/h) 384 202 100 88 228 240 80 871 76 190 778 678 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 431 227 112 99 256 270 80 979 85 213 874 762 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 1.00 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 481 251 124 177 325 580 194 1113 97 344 1498 872 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.21 0.21 0.10 0.17 0.17 0.11 0.34 0.34 0.32 0.70 0.70 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 1174 579 1781 1870 1577 1781 3303 287 1781 3554 1545 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 431 0 339 99 256 270 80 527 537 213 874 762 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 0 1753 1781 1870 1577 1781 1777 1813 1781 1777 1545 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.9 0.0 24.5 6.9 17.0 0.0 5.4 36.3 36.3 13.2 16.1 2.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.9 0.0 24.5 6.9 17.0 0.0 5.4 36.3 36.3 13.2 16.1 2.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 481 0 375 177 325 580 194 599 611 344 1498 872 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.00 0.90 0.56 0.79 0.47 0.41 0.88 0.88 0.62 0.58 0.87 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 497 0 483 177 403 646 194 599 611 344 1498 872 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.67 1.67 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 55.0 0.0 49.8 55.9 51.4 31.4 54.1 40.6 40.6 40.0 13.5 8.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.4 0.0 17.3 4.0 8.1 0.6 1.4 16.8 16.5 3.3 1.7 11.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.1 0.0 12.3 3.3 8.7 6.5 2.5 18.4 18.7 5.5 4.9 9.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73.4 0.0 67.1 59.8 59.5 32.0 55.5 57.4 57.2 43.3 15.2 20.4 L n G r p L O S EAEEECEEEDBC
Approach Vol, veh/h 770 625 1144 1849
Approach Delay, s/veh 70.6 47.7 57.2 20.6
Approach LOS E D E C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.2 33.1 19.0 59.7 23.4 27.9 30.0 48.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 5.3 4.9 4.9 5.3 5.3 4.9 4.9 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.9 35.8 8.1 54.8 18.7 28.0 19.1 43.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.9 26.5 7.4 18.1 17.9 19.0 15.2 38.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.3 0.0 12.4 0.1 1.7 0.2 3.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.7
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved changes to right turn type.
+&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\

6WRQ\3RLQW5G :UG6W 03/01/2021
PM Existing Stony Point Corridor Study 5:00 pm 09/11/2020 Project Conditions Synchro 11 Report W-Trans Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 176 214 202 138 201 57 255 1040 130 66 1045 105 Future Volume (veh/h) 176 214 202 138 201 57 255 1040 130 66 1045 105 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 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 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 189 230 217 148 216 61 274 1118 140 71 1124 113 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 212 270 505 255 235 66 317 1652 722 171 1247 125 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.47 0.47 0.10 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1542 1781 1393 394 1781 3554 1552 1781 3256 327 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 189 230 217 148 0 277 274 1118 140 71 613 624 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1542 1781 0 1787 1781 1777 1552 1781 1777 1807 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.6 16.8 0.0 10.9 0.0 21.4 20.9 34.4 7.4 5.3 45.5 45.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.6 16.8 0.0 10.9 0.0 21.4 20.9 34.4 7.4 5.3 45.5 45.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 212 270 505 255 0 301 317 1652 722 171 680 692 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.85 0.43 0.58 0.00 0.92 0.86 0.68 0.19 0.42 0.90 0.90 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 214 375 592 255 0 320 317 1652 722 171 680 692 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 60.8 58.4 37.2 56.1 0.0 57.3 55.9 29.2 22.0 59.6 40.7 40.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 34.0 12.6 0.6 3.3 0.0 29.5 21.0 2.2 0.6 1.6 17.3 17.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.6 8.9 5.9 5.1 0.0 12.0 11.2 14.9 2.8 2.4 22.8 23.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 94.8 71.1 37.8 59.3 0.0 86.8 76.8 31.5 22.6 61.2 58.0 58.1 LnGrp LOS F E D E A F E C C E E E
Approach Vol, veh/h 636 425 1532 1308
Approach Delay, s/veh 66.8 77.2 38.8 58.2
Approach LOS E E D E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.3 25.5 30.2 58.9 21.9 28.9 18.7 70.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 * 5.3 5.3 5.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.4 28.1 23.7 53.6 16.8 * 25 12.2 65.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.9 18.8 22.9 47.6 16.6 23.4 7.3 36.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.4 0.1 3.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 9.9 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 54.0
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

User approved changes to right turn type.
+&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\

6WRQ\3RLQW5G 2FFLGHQWDO5G65:%2II5DPS 03/01/2021 PM Existing Stony Point Corridor Study 5:00 pm 09/11/2020 Project Conditions Synchro 11 Report W-Trans Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 85 0 244 606 200 536 127 928 71 0 1313 113 Future Volume (veh/h) 85 0 244 606 200 536 127 928 71 0 1313 113 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 86 0 191 612 202 260 128 937 0 0 1326 114 Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 222222222022
Cap, veh/h 80 0 964 707 383 319 107 2263 0 1436 123
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 2790 3456 1870 1557 356 3647 0 0 4938 410 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 86 0 191 612 202 260 128 937 0 0 946 494 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1395 1728 1870 1557 356 1777 0 0 1702 1776 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.3 0.0 6.3 24.0 13.5 22.3 42.1 18.2 0.0 0.0 37.7 37.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 0.0 6.3 24.0 13.5 22.3 42.1 18.2 0.0 0.0 37.7 37.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.23
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 80 0 964 707 383 319 107 2263 0 1025 535 V/C Ratio(X) 1.07 0.00 0.20 0.87 0.53 0.82 1.19 0.41 0.00 0.92 0.92 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 80 0 964 807 437 364 107 2263 0 1025 535 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.77 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 66.9 0.0 32.2 53.8 49.6 53.2 49.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 47.4 47.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 121.8 0.0 0.1 8.9 1.1 12.1 138.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 14.8 23.9 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 5.6 0.0 2.3 11.3 6.5 9.8 7.8 7.2 0.0 0.0 17.9 20.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 188.7 0.0 32.3 62.7 50.8 65.2 187.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 62.1 71.3 LnGrp LOS F A C E D E F B A E E
Approach Vol, veh/h 277 1074 1065 A 1440
Approach Delay, s/veh 80.8 61.1 33.9 65.3
Approach LOS F E C E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.0 47.0 47.1 33.9 94.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.7 4.9 4.9 5.3 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.3 42.1 38.1 32.7 85.1
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.3 44.1 39.7 26.0 20.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 8.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 56.6
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. +&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\

6WRQ\3RLQW5G 65(%2II5DPS65(%2Q5DPS 03/01/2021 PM Existing Stony Point Corridor Study 5:00 pm 09/11/2020 Project Conditions Synchro 11 Report W-Trans Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 70 0 165 0000 1 0 7 4 7 8 5 5 4 2 1575 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 70 0 165 0000 1 0 7 4 7 8 5 5 4 2 1575 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 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 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 72 0 170 0 1107 809 559 1624 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 222 022220
Cap, veh/h 235 0 201 0 1846 809 782 2780 0
Arrive On Green 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.23 0.78 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 1519 0 3647 1558 3456 3647 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 72 0 170 0 1107 809 559 1624 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1519 0 1777 1558 1728 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.1 0.0 15.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.9 25.7 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.1 0.0 15.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.9 25.7 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 235 0 201 0 1846 809 782 2780 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.31 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.60 1.00 0.71 0.58 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 344 0 293 0 1853 813 782 2780 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.34 0.34 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.0 0.0 59.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 6.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 14.2 0.0 0.4 27.2 1.1 0.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.4 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.1 6.1 9.2 8.5 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.7 0.0 73.5 0.0 0.4 27.2 51.0 6.4 0.0 L n G r p L O S EAE AACDAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 242 1916 2183
Approach Delay, s/veh 68.2 11.7 17.9
Approach LOS E B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.4 114.6 36.8 77.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.9 5.1 5.1 * 5.1
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 27.0 101.0 24.0 * 73
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.3 27.7 22.9 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 23.1 0.3 20.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. +&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\

6WRQ\3RLQW5G 6WRQ\3RLQW3OD]D 03/01/2021
PM Existing Stony Point Corridor Study 5:00 pm 09/11/2020 Project Conditions Synchro 11 Report W-Trans Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 198 38 46 68 14 234 57 1428 89 184 1312 201 Future Volume (veh/h) 198 38 46 68 14 234 57 1428 89 184 1312 201 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 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 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 145 122 47 70 14 241 59 1472 92 190 1353 207 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 201 144 56 214 43 223 200 2440 152 213 2579 783 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.22 1.00 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1280 493 1496 299 1564 1781 4903 306 1781 5106 1550 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 145 0 169 84 0 241 59 1022 542 190 1353 207 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1773 1796 0 1564 1781 1702 1806 1781 1702 1550 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.0 0.0 13.1 5.9 0.0 20.0 3.9 0.5 0.5 14.4 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.0 0.0 13.1 5.9 0.0 20.0 3.9 0.5 0.5 14.4 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.28 0.83 1.00 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 201 0 200 257 0 223 200 1694 898 213 2579 783 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.00 0.84 0.33 0.00 1.08 0.30 0.60 0.60 0.89 0.52 0.26 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 267 0 266 257 0 223 200 1694 898 319 2579 783 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 60.0 0.0 60.9 54.0 0.0 60.0 49.7 0.2 0.2 52.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.2 0.0 16.8 0.7 0.0 82.8 0.8 1.6 3.0 14.6 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 5.4 0.0 6.9 2.8 0.0 13.0 1.7 0.5 0.8 6.5 0.1 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 66.2 0.0 77.7 54.7 0.0 142.8 50.5 1.8 3.2 67.0 0.6 0.6 L n G r p L O S EAEDAFDAAEAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 314 325 1623 1750
Approach Delay, s/veh 72.4 120.0 4.0 7.8
Approach LOS E F A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.8 20.6 75.6 24.0 21.6 74.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 21.0 10.5 70.7 20.0 25.1 56.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.1 5.9 2.0 22.0 16.4 2.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 0.0 15.8 0.0 0.3 16.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.

User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. +&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\

6WRQ\3RLQW5G 6HEDVWRSRO5G 03/01/2021
PM Existing Stony Point Corridor Study 5:00 pm 09/11/2020 Project Conditions Synchro 11 Report W-Trans Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 507 276 88 143 215 332 96 736 97 253 943 414 Future Volume (veh/h) 507 276 88 143 215 332 96 736 97 253 943 414 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 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 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 523 285 91 147 222 342 99 759 100 261 972 427 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 P e r c e n t H e a v y V e h , % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 577 309 99 195 323 621 249 901 119 407 1333 843 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.23 0.23 0.11 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.29 0.29 0.46 0.75 0.75 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 1342 429 1781 1870 1502 1781 3145 414 1781 3554 1542 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 523 0 376 147 222 342 99 429 430 261 972 427 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 0 1771 1781 1870 1502 1781 1777 1783 1781 1777 1542 Q Serve(g_s), s 20.8 0.0 29.1 11.2 15.6 0.0 7.1 31.8 31.8 15.8 21.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 20.8 0.0 29.1 11.2 15.6 0.0 7.1 31.8 31.8 15.8 21.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.23 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 577 0 407 195 323 621 249 509 511 407 1333 843 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.00 0.92 0.75 0.69 0.55 0.40 0.84 0.84 0.64 0.73 0.51 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 627 0 474 202 374 662 249 509 511 407 1333 843 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 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 57.3 0.0 52.7 60.5 54.4 32.0 54.9 47.0 47.0 33.6 13.6 6.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 16.2 0.0 21.9 14.2 4.3 0.9 1.0 15.5 15.5 3.4 3.5 2.2 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 10.3 0.0 15.2 5.9 7.8 9.0 3.3 16.1 16.2 5.9 5.3 3.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73.5 0.0 74.6 74.7 58.7 32.9 55.9 62.5 62.5 37.1 17.1 8.8 L n G r p L O S EAEEECEEEDBA
Approach Vol, veh/h 899 711 958 1660
Approach Delay, s/veh 74.0 49.6 61.8 18.1
Approach LOS E D E B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.6 37.5 24.5 57.4 28.7 29.5 36.9 45.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 5.3 4.9 4.9 5.3 5.3 4.9 4.9 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.9 37.5 13.7 52.5 25.4 28.0 26.1 40.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.2 31.1 9.1 23.1 22.8 17.6 17.8 33.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.1 0.1 10.0 0.6 2.0 0.5 2.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.2
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved changes to right turn type.

Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 2021 C
Appendix C
Outreach

Stony Point Road Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements –
SURVEY #1

Stony Point Road between West 3rd Street and Sebastopol Road has been identified as a high priority for improvements in the Santa Rosa Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update. The City is now working to redesign this corridor to make it a safer and more comfortable place to walk or bike. This survey describes the different design options that have been proposed for locations throughout the study area, and your input is important to help make sure this project meets the needs of the community. Thank you for taking the time to provide your comments!

1. How do you currently travel along Stony Point Rd between W. 3rd Street and Sebastopol Road? (check all that apply)
Walk
Bike
Drive
Other (please specify)

2. If you walk along Stony Point Road, how often?
More than 5 times a week
1 to 5 times a week
1 time a month
A few times a year
I don't walk along Stony Point Road.

3. If you bike along Stony Point Road, how often?
More than 5 times a week
1 to 5 times a week

1 time a month
A few times a year
I don't bike along Stony Point Road

4. For what purpose do you walk or bike along Stony Point Road? (check all that apply) travel to or from work
travel to or from school
travel to or from shopping
for recreation
Other (please specify)

5. Stony Point Road bike lanes: The picture below shows bike facilities that are similar to what is proposed along Stony Point Road. Rate this proposal on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = strongly support, 5 = strongly oppose):

6. West 3rd Street intersection: Curb extensions have been recommended to shorten crossing distance and reduce vehicle speeds. Rate this proposal on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = strongly support, 5 = strongly oppose)

7. Occidental Road intersection: Curb extensions are proposed to shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians and reduce the speeds at the corners and ramp entrance. Rate this proposal on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = strongly support, 5 = strongly oppose)

8. Highway 12 westbound on-ramps: Raised crosswalks or flashing beacons have been proposed for to improve pedestrian crossings at the on-ramp entrances. Rate each of these options on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = strongly support, 5 = strongly oppose) o raised crosswalks o o o o o
o Rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) o o o o o o high visibility crosswalk striping o o o o o

9. Eastbound Highway 12 ramps-Joe Rodota Trail crossing: Rate each of the proposed improvements on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = strongly support, 5 = strongly oppose) o Remove island to straighten crosswalk and reduce vehicle conflicts o o o o o o Remove lane on off-ramp, add curb extensions to reduce crossing distance o o o o o o Add "crossbike" for bicyclists next to pedestrian crosswalk o o o o o o No right turn on red onto Stony Point Road o o o o o

10. Stony Point Road/Sebastopol Road intersection: Rate the proposed "protected intersection" on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = strongly support, 5 = strongly oppose).

11. Would you choose to walk or bike more along Stony Point Rd if bicycle and pedestrian facilities were improved?
Yes
No
I don't know

12. Information about you - age (optional)
18 or under
19-30
31-45
46-60
61-75
over 75

13. Information about you - Gender (optional)
Male
Female
Other/prefer not to state

14. What is your zip code?
95401
95402
95403
95404
95405
95406
95407
95409
Other (please specify)

Powered by
Stony Point Road Pedestrian
and Bicycle Improvements–
SURVEY #1
Monday, December 14, 2020
Q1: How do you currently travel along Stony Point Rd between W. 3rd Street and Sebastopol Road? (check all that apply)
Answered: 234 Skipped: 0

Q2: If you walk along Stony Point Road, how often?
Answered: 215 Skipped: 19

Q3: If you bike along Stony Point Road, how often?
Answered: 228 Skipped: 6

Q4: For what purpose do you walk or bike along Stony Point Road? (check all that apply)
Answered: 194 Skipped: 40

Q5: On the map above, how comfortable are you walking across the street at the locations shown on the map (Rate on a scale of 1 to 5, 1=most comfortable, 5= least comfortable)?
Answered: 206 Skipped: 28

Q6: As a pedestrian in the corridor, which statements do you agree with? (check all that apply)
Answered: 213 Skipped: 21

Q7: As a pedestrian, which do you think would make you feel more comfortable crossing intersections on Stony Point Road (see photos below)? (Rate on a scale of 1 to 5, 1=most comfortable, 5= least comfortable)?
Answered: 200 Skipped: 34

Q9: How comfortable are you biking on Stony Point Road at the locations shown on the map above (Rate on a scale of 1 to 5, 1=most comfortable, 5= least comfortable)? Answered: 203 Skipped: 31

Q10: How comfortable do you feel using the bike lanes along Stony Point Rd? (Rate on a scale of 1 to 5, 1=very comfortable, 5= I do not feel safe) Answered: 178 Skipped: 56

Q11: As a bicyclist on Stony Point Road, which statements do you agree with? (check all that apply)
Answered: 199 Skipped: 35

Q12: What do you think would make you feel more comfortable at these locations (see images below)? (Rate on a scale of 1 to 5, 1=most comfortable, 5= least comfortable)? Answered: 202 Skipped: 32

Q13: Would you choose to walk or bike more along Stony Point Rd if bicycle and pedestrian facilities were improved?
Answered: 226 Skipped: 8

Q14: Information about you - age (optional)
Answered: 220 Skipped: 14

Q15: Information about you - Gender (optional)
Answered: 218 Skipped: 16

Q16: What is your zip code?
Answered: 227 Skipped: 7

Stony Point Road Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements –
SURVEY #2

1. How do you currently travel along Stony Point Rd between W. 3rd Street and Sebastopol Road? (check all that apply)
Walk
Bike
Drive
Other (please specify)

2. If you walk along Stony Point Road, how often?
More than 5 times a week
1 to 5 times a week
1 time a month
A few times a year
I don't walk along Stony Point Road.

3. If you bike along Stony Point Road, how often?
More than 5 times a week
1 to 5 times a week
1 time a month
A few times a year
I don't bike along Stony Point Road

4. For what purpose do you walk or bike along Stony Point Road? (check all that apply) travel to or from work
travel to or from school
travel to or from shopping
for recreation
Other (please specify)

Stony Point Road Corridor Study Area

5. On the map above, how comfortable are you walking across the street at the locations shown on the map (Rate on a scale of 1 to 5, 1=most comfortable, 5= least comfortable)? Location 1 – Intersection of Stony Point Road/West Third Street Location 2 – Intersection of Stony Point Road/Occidental Road-SR12 Offramp Location 3 – Entrance to SR12 On-Ramps
Location 4 – Intersection of Stony Point Road/SR12 EB Ramps Location 5 – Crossing Stony Pt Rd while using the Joe Rodota Trail Location 6 – Intersection of Stony Point Road/Stony Point Plaza entrance Location 7 – Intersection of Stony Point Road/Sebastopol Road

6. As a pedestrian in the corridor, which statements do you agree with? (check all that apply)
Turning vehicles often don’t yield to pedestrians
It takes a long time to make it all the way across Stony Point Road I don’t feel safe because of the heavy traffic
I feel safe as a pedestrian on this corridor.

I don’t walk on Stony Point Road

7. As a pedestrian, which do you think would make you feel more comfortable crossing intersections on Stony Point Road (see photos below)? (Rate on a scale of 1 to 5, 1=most comfortable, 5= least comfortable)?
Curb Extension

Pedestrian Refuge Island

Protected Intersection

8. Are there any locations where you would like to be able to cross Stony Point Road where there are currently no crosswalks? Please list locations.

9. How comfortable are you biking on Stony Point Road at the locations shown on the map above (Rate on a scale of 1 to 5, 1=most comfortable, 5= least comfortable)? Location 1 – Intersection of Stony Point Road/West Third Street Location 2 – Intersection of Stony Point Road/Occidental Road-SR12 Offramp Location 3 – Entrance to SR12 On-Ramps
Location 4 – Intersection of Stony Point Road/SR12 EB Ramps Location 5 – Crossing Stony Pt Rd while using the Joe Rodota Trail Location 6 – Intersection of Stony Point Road/Stony Point Plaza entrance Location 7 – Intersection of Stony Point Road/Sebastopol Road

10. How comfortable do you feel using the bike lanes along Stony Point Rd? (Rate on a scale of 1 to 5, 1=very comfortable, 5= I do not feel safe)

11. As a bicyclist on Stony Point Road, which statements do you agree with? (check all that apply)
Bike lanes are too close to vehicle traffic
Heavy traffic volumes make bike riding difficult
Speeding vehicles make bike riding difficult
It is difficult to deal with turning vehicles at intersections I feel safe as a bicyclist on this corridor.

12. What do you think would make you feel more comfortable at these locations (see images below)? (Rate on a scale of 1 to 5, 1=most comfortable, 5= least comfortable)? Green dashed bike lanes

Buffered Bike Lane

Cross-bike

Protected Intersection

13. Would you choose to walk or bike more along Stony Point Rd if bicycle and pedestrian facilities were improved?
Yes
No
I don't know

14. Information about you - age (optional)
18 or under
19-30
31-45
46-60
61-75
over 75

15. Information about you - Gender (optional)
Male
Female
Other/prefer not to state

16. What is your zip code?
95401
95402
95403
95404
95405
95406
95407
95409
Other (please specify)

NEW QUESTION
Saving changes...

Powered by
Stony Point Road Pedestrian
and Bicycle Improvements–
SURVEY #2
Tuesday, March 16, 2021
Powered by
Q1: How do you currently travel along Stony Point Rd between W. 3rd Street and Sebastopol Road? (check all that apply)
Answered: 353 Skipped: 1

Powered by
Q2: If you walk along Stony Point Road, how often?
Answered: 306 Skipped: 48

Powered by
Q3: If you bike along Stony Point Road, how often?
Answered: 342 Skipped: 12

Powered by
Q4: For what purpose do you walk or bike along Stony Point Road? (check all that apply)
Answered: 276 Skipped: 78

Powered by
Q5: Stony Point Road bike lanes: The picture below shows bike facilities that are similar to what is proposed along Stony Point Road. Rate this proposal on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = strongly support, 5 = strongly oppose):

Answered: 349 Skipped: 5

Powered by
Q6: West 3rd Street intersection: Curb extensions have been recommended to shorten crossing distance and reduce vehicle speeds. Rate this proposal on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = strongly support, 5 = strongly oppose) Answered: 352 Skipped: 2

Powered by
Q7: Occidental Road intersection: Curb extensions are proposed to shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians and reduce the speeds at the corners and ramp entrance. Rate this proposal on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = strongly support, 5 = strongly oppose) Answered: 346 Skipped: 8

Powered by
Q8: Highway 12 westbound on-ramps: Raised crosswalks or flashing beacons have been proposed for to improve pedestrian crossings at the on-ramp entrances. Rate each of these options on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = strongly support, 5 = strongly oppose) Answered: 351 Skipped: 3

Powered by
Q9: Eastbound Highway 12 ramps-Joe Rodota Trail crossing: Rate each of the proposed improvements on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = strongly support, 5 = strongly oppose) Answered: 352 Skipped: 2

Powered by
Q10: Stony Point Road/Sebastopol Road intersection: Rate the proposed "protected intersection" on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = strongly support, 5 = strongly oppose).

Answered: 315 Skipped: 39

Powered by
Q11: Would you choose to walk or bike more along Stony Point Rd if bicycle and pedestrian facilities were improved?
Answered: 354 Skipped: 0

Powered by
Q12: Information about you - age (optional)
Answered: 343 Skipped: 11

Powered by
Q13: Information about you - Gender (optional)
Answered: 337 Skipped: 17

Powered by
Q14: What is your zip code?
Answered: 350 Skipped: 4

D

Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 12, 2021
Appendix D
Caltrans Comments

Highway Operations3/11/21:

1. Were traffic turning movements at the both WB/EB SR 12 available? If so, please provide for our review.

2. Modifications to the lane assignments/configuration at the EB SR 12 ramp terminal may trigger an ICE evaluation, besides adding a left‐turn lane from SB Stony Point Road, what other alternatives were considered?

3. Modifications on the overcrossing may require signal timing changes, this should be coordinated with the Office of Signal Operations

4. Was a traffic study prepared that was used for the basis of the proposed restriping?  How about a safety analysis?

5. Although our main concern are the ramp terminals, adjacent intersections north and south of the terminals may have to be included in the study for synchronization and to avoid operational conflicts with the ramp terminals.

6. Need to check truck turning radius at the intersections.

Traffic Safety:
 No objection to RRFB installation, if the raised crosswalk is not approved at on ramp crosswalks.

Bike/Ped Office:
 Please see the attached plan sheets for comments

Other comments:
 10’ lanes are not allowed in State R/W‐ 11’ may be acceptable  More signage and delineation may be needed

Stony Point Road Corridor Study for Active Transportation Modes August 2021 E
Appendix E
Cost Estimates

STONY POINT ROAD CORRIDOR STUDY FOR ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MODES Planning Level Construction Cost Estimate
DATE: 8/17/2021

COST ITEM
Segment 1 - West 3rd
Street to North of
Occidental Road
Segment 2 -
Occidental Road to
SR 12 East Ramps
Segment 3 - South of
SR 12 East Ramps to
Sebastopol Road
Units Quantity Quantity Quantity Totals Unit Cost Total Cost Pavement Rehabilitation $ 850,000 200,000 200,000 1,250,000.00 $ 1,250,000.00 $ Pavement Rehabilitation - Overlay LF 220 220 250.00 $ 55,000.00$ Striping LF 8,140 10,530 15,820 34,490 4.00 $ 137,960.00$ Pavement Legends EA 18 28 46 92 200.00 $ 18,400.00$ K-71 Bollards EA 42 77 73 192 250.00 $ 48,000.00$ Dashed Green Conflict Crossings EA 7 3 10 20 1,000.00 $ 20,000.00$ Signage LS 1 8 3 12 2,500.00 $ 30,000.00$
Sidewalk Connection to Apartments LS 1 1 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ Bulbouts/Curb Extensions SF 150 2,695 895 3,740 70.00 $ 261,800.00$ Curb Ramps EA 2 13 2 17 5,000.00 $ 85,000.00$
Raised Pedestrian Crossing SF 1,105 1,105 50.00 $ 55,250.00$ Single-Sided RRFB Assembly EA 4 4 12,500.00 $ 50,000.00 $ Widen Roadway 3' SF 180 180 200.00 $ 36,000.00$ Reconstruct Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk LF 60 60 150.00 $ 9,000.00$ Signal Modification at SR 12 East Ramps LS 1 1 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 $ Widen Sidewalk 2-4' to Create Multi-Use Path LF 1,000 1,000 80.00 $ 80,000.00$ # Retaining Wall for Multi-Use Path LF 615 615 120.00 $ 73,800.00$ Subtotal per Segment 946,660 $ 1,203,870 $ 579,680 $ Traffic Control & Mobilization per Segment 94,666 $ 120,387 $ 57,968 $ Contingency per Segment 208,265 $ 264,851 $ 127,530 $ Total per Segment 1,249,591 $ 1,589,108 $ 765,178 $ 3,603,877$ Sub-Total: 2,730,000$
# = may require ROW which was not included. Traffic Control & Mobilization (10%): 273,000$ Contingency (20%): 601,000$
TOTAL: 3,604,000$