Agenda, regular meeting, first session — Selma City Council, December 16, 2025 (part 2 of 3)

The proposed Project consists of the annexation of 75.3 acres into the City of Selma. A horizontal mixed-use residential and commercial development project is proposed on the northern 39.1 acres of the annexation area (see Figure 2-2). The annexation is required for the proposed Project to utilize City utilities. No development is proposed for the remaining 36.2 acres, which is currently identified as Medium Density Residential within the City’s General Plan. A total of 600 apartment units are planned for the Project and approximately 40,000 square feet of retail and food service uses, and a 100-key hotel are anticipated in the commercial area. 297
Casitas Selma Project | Final EIR
CITY OF SELMA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 62 Initial Study – Environmental Checklist

Page 33 ends

Less than Significant Impact. The Project area and immediate vicinity consist of land developed with commercial businesses and agriculture. Existing development has altered the natural landscape by introducing non-native plant species and removing potentially suitable natural habitat for sensitive plant or animal species within the Project area. The vegetation found within and along the Project area consists of nonnative species that provide little or no biological importance and value.

The City of Selma General Plan, Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element was examined to determine if any species were listed or identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species located in or near the Proposed Project Area. One of the Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element’s goals is to protect any rare or endangered plant or animal species found in the Selma area. No species are listed. Due to the highly disturbed nature of the Project site, no sensitive or special status species are expected to be found in the Project vicinity and the impact would be less than significant.

Swainson’s hawk (SWHA) have been documented to occur near the proposed Project site and are known to travel up to 18 miles to forage and are also attracted to ground disturbing activities such as disking because these activities make prey vulnerable by reducing cover. The habitat types present at and surrounding the Project site all provide suitable foraging habitat for SWHA and any power poles or trees in the Project vicinity may be utilized for perching and/or nesting.

Implementation of Mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 would reduce potential impacts to SWHA to less than significant.

The Project is within the known geographic range of western burrowing owl (BUOW), and, based on aerial imagery, suitable BUOW habitat may be present on-site. Implementation of Mitigation measures BIO-5 through BIO-7 would reduce potential impacts to BUOW to less than significant.

Lastly, the proposed Project site is within the range of Crotch’s bumble bee (CBB). CBB are known to inhabit areas of grasslands and scrub that contain requisite habitat elements for nesting, such as small mammal burrows and bunch/thatched grasses, and these habitat elements may be present within the Project site. As such, implementation of Mitigation measures BIO-8 through BIO-11 would reduce potential impacts to CBB to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.
298
Casitas Selma Project | Final EIR
CITY OF SELMA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 63 BIO-1 A qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for nesting SWHA following the survey methodology developed by the SWHA Technical Advisory Committee (SWHA TAC 2000) immediately prior to construction.

BIO-2 If Project-specific ground disturbance activities will take place during the SWHA nesting season (i.e., March 1 through September 15), and active SWHA nests are present, a minimum ½-mile no-disturbance buffer shall be delineated and maintained around each nest, regardless of whether it was detected by surveys or observed incidentally. These buffers shall remain in place until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival, to prevent nest abandonment and other take of SWHA as a result of Project activities.

BIO-3 In the event an active SWHA nest is detected, and a ½-mile no-disturbance buffer is not feasible, consultation with CDFW shall occur to discuss how to implement the Project and avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization through the acquisition of an ITP, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) shall be obtained to comply with the California Endangered Species Act.

BIO-4 Compensation for the loss of SWHA foraging habitat as described in CDFW’s “Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson's Hawks” (CDFG 1994) shall be implemented. The Staff Report recommends that mitigation for habitat loss occur within a minimum distance of 10 miles from known nest sites.

For projects within 1 mile of an active nest tree, a minimum of 1 acre of habitat management (HM) land for each acre of development shall be provided. For projects within 5 miles of an active nest but greater than 1 mile, a minimum of ¾ acre of HM land for each acre of development shall be provided. For projects within 10 miles of an active nest tree but greater than 5 miles from an active nest tree, a minimum of ½ acre of HM land for each acre of development shall be provided.

BIO-5 Focused pre-construction surveys, following the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 Staff Report) (CDFG 2012), shall be conducted immediately prior to construction. Please note that the 2012 Staff Report necessitates multiple surveys prior to the initiation of construction.
299
Casitas Selma Project | Final EIR
CITY OF SELMA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 64 BIO-6 Should a BUOW or known BUOW den (active or inactive) be detected, either during preconstruction surveys or construction activities, a no-disturbance buffers, as outlined in the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012), shall be implemented prior to and during any ground-disturbing activities.

These buffers shall be implemented for both wintering and breeding BUOW.

BIO-7 If a BUOW or known BUOW den (active or inactive) is detected, and the nodisturbance buffers outlined in the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Mitigation are not feasible, consultation with CDFW shall occur to discuss how to implement the Project and avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization through the acquisition of an ITP, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) shall be obtained to comply with the California Endangered Species Act.

BIO-8 A qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment to determine if the Project site and the immediate surrounding vicinity contain habitat suitable to support CBB. Potential nesting sites, which include all small mammal burrows, perennial bunch grasses, thatched annual grasses, brush piles, old bird nests, dead trees, and hollow logs shall be documented as part of the assessment.

BIO-9 If potentially suitable habitat is identified, a qualified biologist shall conduct focused surveys for CBB, and their requisite habitat features following the methodology outlined in the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023).

BIO-10 If CBB is detected, then all small mammal burrows and thatched/bunch grasses shall be avoided by a minimum of 50 feet to avoid take. If ground-disturbing activities will occur during the overwintering period (October through February), consultation with CDFW shall occur to discuss how to implement Project activities and avoid take. Any detection of CBB prior to or during Project implementation warrants consultation with CDFW to discuss how to avoid take.

BIO-11 If take cannot be avoided, a ITP pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2081(b), shall be obtained prior to initiating ground-disturbing activities.

BIO-112 To the extent practicable, construction shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season, which extends from February 1st through August September 15th. If it is not possible to schedule construction between September and January, prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, a preconstruction survey for nesting birds 300
Casitas Selma Project | Final EIR
CITY OF SELMA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 65 including western burrowing owl, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no active nests will be disturbed during Project implementation. A preconstruction survey shall be conducted no more than 14 10 days prior to the initiation of construction activities. If construction is phased, a survey of phase of the Project shall be surveyed. A survey shall be required prior to the start of construction of each phase of the Project.

During this survey, the qualified biologist shall inspect all potential nest substrates in and immediately adjacent to the impact area for nests. If an active nest is found close enough to the construction area to be disturbed by these activities, the qualified biologist shall establish a 250-foot buffer around active nests of nonlisted bird species and a 500-foot no-disturbance buffer around active nests of nonlisted raptors. determine the extent of a construction-free buffer to be established around the nest. If work cannot proceed without disturbing the nesting birds, work may need to be halted or redirected to other areas until nesting and fledging are completed or the nest has otherwise failed for non-construction related reasons.

Chapter 2.2 – Project Description

Page 2 ends

The proposed Project consists of the annexation of 75.3 acres into the City of Selma. A horizontal mixed-use residential and commercial development project is proposed on the northern 39.1 acres of the annexation area (see Figure 2-2). No development is proposed for the remaining 36.2 acres, which is currently identified as Medium Density Residential within the City’s General Plan. and any development that does occur will be subject to environmental review in accordance with CEQA. A total of 600 apartment units are planned for the Project and approximately 40,000 square feet of retail and food service uses, and a 100-key hotel are anticipated in the commercial area. 301
Casitas Selma Project | Final EIR
CITY OF SELMA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 66 Appendix B – Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Technical Memorandum Table 6
Emission
Source Type Relevant Assumptions
On-site Truck
Traffic and Onsite Truck Idling
● Configuration: Four (4) line volume sources
● Release height: 10.2 feet (3.1 meters)
● Vehicle Speed for On-site Travel: 5 mph
● Vehicle types: light-heavy duty 1 (LHD1), light-heavy duty 2 (LHD2), medium-heavy duty, and heavy-heavy duty (HHD)
trucks
● Emission factors: EMFAC2021
● Daily Heavy Trucks per day: 557 610.5 average daily trips ● Daily Diesel Truck Trips per day: 383.9 416.2 average daily trips
● Number of diesel truck idling instances per day: 383.9 416.2 (based on one occurrence of idling per truck trip and idling emissions calculated for diesel truck trucks only)
Off-site Truck
Traffic
● Configuration: Five (5) line volume sources
● The travel routes were used to represent off-site emissions in the immediate project vicinity (truck travel paths within approximately 1,000 feet of the project boundary until the freeway is reached)
● Vehicle speeds: aggregated emission factors for 5 MPH to 25 MPH speed bins
● Vehicle type: light-heavy duty 1 (LHD1), light-heavy duty 2 (LHD2), medium-heavy duty, and heavy-heavy duty (HHD)
trucks
● Emission factors: EMFAC2021
Facility
Operations
● 365 days per year, 24 hours per day
Source: Attachment B.

Chapter 3.7 – Transportation/Traffic

Page 3 ends

o Alternative 2 – Roundabout
 Install a roundabout with two lanes on the east and west legs and a single lane on the south leg.
 As queuing from the intersection of Walmart Main Driveway at Floral Avenue is projected to back into this intersection, a roundabout west of the Walmart entrance will not function properly at this location. Therefore, this alternative has been 302
Casitas Selma Project | Final EIR
CITY OF SELMA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 67 determined to not be viable and has been omitted from the LOS table and conclusion as a result.

Page 3 ends

Future North-South Road / Floral Avenue
o Alternative 1 – Traffic Signal
 Modify the eastbound through-right lane to a through lane;  Add an eastbound through lane with a receiving lane east of Future North-South Road;
 Add an eastbound right-turn lane; and
 Add a westbound through with a receiving lane west of Future North-South Road.  Signalize the intersection with permissive phasing in the east-west directin and protected left-turn phasing in the north-south direction. o Alternative 2 – Roundabout
 Install a roundabout with two lanes on the east and west legs and a single lane on the south.

Page 3 ends

Additionally, it is recommended that the City consider left-turn and right-turn lane storage lengths as indicated in the Queuing Analysis. Lastly, the Project will contribute its equitable fair share as listed in Table 3.7-9 for the future improvements necessary to maintain an acceptable LOS. Based on the list and recommendations listed above, mitigation measure TRA-1 shall be implemented to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Compliance with Active Transportation Plan
The Selma Active Transportation Plan (ATP), approved in April 2018, outlines the City’s vision for active transportation in which a complete, safe and comfortable network of trails, sidewalks and bikeways serve all who live and work in Selma. The ATP aims to a) create a network that connects residents to key destinations, b) create user-friendly facilities to promote walking and bicycling and c) increase safety by improving crosswalks and sidewalks in Selma.

Bikeways
The Selma ATP classifies bicycle facilities into the following types:
• Class I Bikeway (Bike Path) – Provides a completely separated right-of-way for exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflow minimized. • Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane) – Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway.
• Class III Bikeway (Bike Route) – Provides a shared use with pedestrians or motor vehicle traffic, typically on lower volume roadways.
• Class IV Bikeways (Separated Bikeways) – Provides a protected lane for one-way bike travel (one-way cycle track) and protected lanes for two-way bike travel (twoway cycle track) on a street or highway.

Currently, Class II Bikeways currently exist adjacent to and in the vicinity of the Project site.

Adjacent to the Project site, Class II Bikeways exist along Floral Avenue. In the vicinity of the Project site, Class II Bikeways exist along portions of Floral Avenue and Highland Avenue.

Currently, bicycle travel through the State Route 99 at Floral Avenue interchange and along State Route 43 have been categorized as high stress.

The Selma ATP recommends that Class II Bikeways be implemented adjacent to and in the vicinity of the Project site. Adjacent to the Project site, Class II Bikeways are planned along Floral Avenue.

In the vicinity of the Project site, Class II Bikeways are planned along remaining portions of Floral Avenue, Highland Avenue and Golden State Boulevard. In the vicinity of the Project site, Class I Bikeways are planned along portions of Golden State Boulevard. In the vicinity of the Project site, Class III Bikeways are planned along portions of Rose Avenue. Therefore, it is recommended that the Project retain the Class II Bikeway along its frontage to Floral Avenue, consistent with the Selma ATP, and that a Class II Bikeway be implemented along the Project’s frontage to the Future North-South Road. Furthermore, it is recommended that the City of Selma and Caltrans collaborate on a future analysis of bicycle facilities through the State Route 99 at Floral Avenue interchange and seek funding sources for the reconstruction of this interchange to promote alternate modes of transportation.
304
Casitas Selma Project | Final EIR
CITY OF SELMA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 69 Walkways
The Selma ATP classifies pedestrian facilities as either sidewalk or Class I Bike Paths, which allow for exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians. Currently, pedestrian sidewalks exist in the vicinity of the Project site. In the vicinity of the Project, pedestrian sidewalks exist along portions of Floral Avenue, Highland Avenue, Stillman Street and Rose Avenue. Currently, sidewalks provide a direct connection to three (3) bus routes that have stops within 0.5 miles of the Project.

These stops and routes are described in further detail in the Transit section of this Report.

The Selma ATP recommends that pedestrian sidewalks and Class I Bike Paths be implemented adjacent to and in the vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, it is recommended that the project construct ADA compliant pedestrian sidewalks along all internal streets connecting all uses to external sidewalks and along the Project’s frontage to Floral Avenue, Future North-South Road and Stillman Street. These sidewalks have been incorporated into the Site plan and Project design (see Figure 2-3). Furthermore, it is recommended that the City of Selma and Caltrans collaborate on a future analysis of pedestrian facilities through the State Route 99 at Floral Avenue interchange and seek funding sources for the reconstruction of this interchange to promote alternate modes of transportation.

Transit
The Selma Transit Division operates under MV Transportation, Monday through Friday from 7:00 AM to 5:30 PM. The Selma Transit Division operates five (5) compressed natural gas vehicles.

The natural gas vans operate on an “on call basis” and will pick up and drop off at the requested destination within the City’s SOI. One (1) vehicle operates on Saturdays from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.

Southeast Transit runs in the vicinity of the proposed Project via Whitson Street. This Route provides a direct connection to the cities of Kingsburg, Selma, Fowler and Fresno. The closest stop is located approximately 0.5 miles east of the proposed Project near the Selma Plaza Shopping Center.
305
Casitas Selma Project | Final EIR
CITY OF SELMA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 70 Kings Area Rural Transit (KART) is the transit operator in the County of Kings. KART Route 17 runs in the vicinity of the proposed Project via Highland Avenue. The closest stop is located near Selma Kaiser Hospital, approximately 0.2 miles east of the proposed Project. This Route provides a direct connection to Valley Children’s Hospital, Fresno Kaiser Hospital, Fresno Veterans Hospital, Community Regional Center, Fresno Fulton Mall and Selma Kaiser Hospital.

Retention of the existing and expansion of future transit routes is dependent on transit ridership demand and available funding.

Safe Routes To School
Kindergarten through 12th grade students from the Project will be served by the Selma Unified School District (SUSD). The SUSD provides transportation for students who live in excess of an established radius zone. The zone is a radius of 1.0 mile for Kindergarten through 6th grade and

2.5 miles for 7th through 12th grade.

0.65 and 0.95 from the nearest and farthest residential unit on the Project, respectively. Therefore, it is anticipated that elementary school students will need to walk, bike or be driven between the Project and school.

The most direct path from the Project to the Eric White Elementary School campus can begin at the northwest quadrant of Highland Avenue at Stillman Street. Students would proceed to travel east on the north side of Stillman Street until reaching the northwest corner of Highland Avenue at Stillman Street.

This intersection is controlled by a traffic signal that contains marked crosswalks on all legs.

Students would cross the north and east legs or the west and south legs to reach the southeast corner of Highland Avenue at Stillman Street. Students would proceed to travel south on the east side of Highland Avenue until reaching the intersection of Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue.

This intersection is controlled by a two-way stop on Rose Avenue that contains no marked crosswalks. Students would cross the east leg to reach the southeast corner of Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue. Students would proceed east on the south side of Rose Avenue until reaching the intersection of Mitchell Avenue at Rose Avenue. This intersection is controlled by a one-way stop on Mitchell Avenue that contains a marked crosswalk on the east leg. Students would proceed to travel south of the west side of Mitchell Avenue until reaching the northwest corner 306
Casitas Selma Project | Final EIR
CITY OF SELMA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 71 of Mitchell Avenue at Fig Street. This intersection is controlled by a one-way stop on Fig Street that contains a marked crosswalk on the west and north legs. Students would cross the west leg to reach the southwest corner of Mitchell Avenue at Fig Street. Students would proceed to travel west on the south side of Fig Street until reaching an entrance to the school campus.

Based on attendance boundaries at the time of the preparation of this EIR, middle school students would attend Abraham Lincoln Middle School located on the northeast quadrant of Orange Avenue at Floral Avenue. Abraham Lincoln Middle School is located 1.80 and 2.10 from the nearest and farthest residential unit on the Project, respectively. Therefore, it is anticipated that middle school students will need to walk, bike or be driven between the Project and school.

Students would proceed east on the south side of Floral Avenue until reaching the intersection of McCall Avenue at Floral Avenue. This intersection is controlled by a traffic signal that contains marked crosswalks on all legs. Students would cross the south legs to reach the southeast corner of McCall Avenue at Floral Avenue. Students would proceed to travel east on the south side of Floral Avenue until reaching the intersection of Orange Avenue at Floral Avenue. This 307
Casitas Selma Project | Final EIR
CITY OF SELMA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 72 intersection is controlled by an all-way stop that contains marked crosswalks on all legs. Students would cross the west and north or the south and east legs to reach the northeast corner of Orange Avenue at Floral Avenue. Students would proceed to travel north on the east side of Orange Avenue until reaching an entrance to the school campus.

Based on attendance boundaries at the time of the preparation of this EIR, high school students would attend Selma High School is located 0.90 and 1.20 from the nearest and farthest residential unit on the Project, respectively. Therefore, it is anticipated that high school students will need to walk, bike or be driven between the Project and school.

The most direct path from the Project to the Selma High School campus can begin at the southwest quadrant of the State Route 99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Floral Avenue. Students would proceed east on the south side of Floral Avenue until reaching the southwest corner of the State Route 99 Southbound Off- Ramp at Floral Avenue. This intersection is controlled by a traffic signal that contains marked crosswalks on the east, west and north legs. Students would cross the west and north legs to reach the northeast corner of the State Route 99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Floral Avenue. Students would proceed to travel east on the north side of Floral Avenue until reaching the intersection of Highland Avenue at Floral Avenue. This intersection is controlled by a traffic signal that contains marked crosswalks on the east and south legs. Students would cross the north leg to reach the northeast corner of Highland Avenue at Floral Avenue. Students would proceed to travel east on the north side of Floral Avenue until reaching the intersection of Whitson Street at Floral Avenue. This intersection is controlled by a traffic signal that contains marked crosswalks on all legs. Students would cross the north leg to reach the northeast corner of Whitson Street at Floral Avenue. Students would proceed to travel east on the north side of Floral Avenue crossing the Union Pacific Railroad until reaching the intersection of Thompson Avenue at Floral Avenue. This intersection is controlled by a traffic signal that contains marked crosswalks on the east, west and north legs. Students would proceed to travel north of the west side of Thompson Avenue until reaching the intersection of Highland Avenue at Lewis Street. This intersection is controlled by a one-way stop on Lewis Street that contains marked crosswalks on the west and south legs. Students would cross the south leg to reach the southeast corner of Thompson Avenue at Lewis Street. Students would proceed to travel north on the east side of Thompson Avenue until reaching an entrance to the school campus.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-2, TRA-3 and TRA-4 will ensure that the proposed Project will be compliant with the City’s Active Transportation Plan and reduce impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

TRA-1 The Project shall be responsible for paying its fair share cost percentages and/or constructing the recommended improvements identified in the mitigation measures discussion, subject to reimbursement for the costs that are in excess of the Project’s equitable responsibility as determined by the City. This shall be itemized and enforced through conditions of approval or a development agreement, at the discretion of the City, prior to Project implementation.

TRA-2 The Project shall implement all VMT mitigation measures identified in Table 3.17- 5 which have already been included in the Project design. These improvements shall be itemized and enforced through conditions of approval or a development agreement, at the discretion of the City, prior to Project implementation.

TRA-3 The Project shall implement ADA compliant pedestrian sidewalks along all internal streets connecting all uses to external sidewalks and along the Project’s frontage to Floral Avenue, Future North-South Road and Stillman Street.

TRA-4 The Project shall retain the Class II Bikeway along its frontage to Floral Avenue, consistent with the Selma ATP. A Class II Bikeway shall also be implemented along the Project’s remaining frontage roads.
309
Casitas Selma Project | Final EIR
CITY OF SELMA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. Page | 74 CHAPTER FOUR – Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
State law requires that a public agency adopt a monitoring program for mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the approved project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the environment. The purpose of the monitoring program is to ensure compliance with environmental mitigation during project implementation and operation. Since there are potentially significant impacts requiring mitigation associated with the project, a Mitigation Monitoring Program is included herein on the following pages. 310
Casitas Selma Project EIR | MMRP
CITY OF SELMA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-1
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible
for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
Aesthetics
AES-1
The Project Applicant shall incorporate site-specific
consideration of the orientation of the building, use of landscaping materials, lighting design, and choice of
primary façade materials to minimize potential off-site spillover of lighting and glare from new development.

As part of this measure and prior to project approval,
the City shall require the incorporation of site- and
project-specific design considerations (to be included
in the lighting plans) to minimize light and glare,
including, but not limited to, the following:
• New outdoor lighting adjacent to
residential or other sensitive uses
shall utilize directional lighting
methods with full cutoff type light
fixtures (and shielding as applicable)
to minimize glare and light spillover.
• All elevated light fixtures such as in
parking lots and street lighting shall
be shielded to reduce glare.
• All lighting shall be consistent with
the Illuminating Engineering Society
of North America (IESNA) Lighting
Handbook.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Selma
311
Casitas Selma Project EIR | MMRP
CITY OF SELMA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-2
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible
for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
• City staff shall review all exterior
lighting designs for conformance
with applicable standards.

Verification of inclusion in project design shall be
provided at the time of design review and lighting plans shall be reviewed and approved prior to projectspecific design and construction document approval.

Air Quality
AIR-1:

Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project
applicant shall prepare and submit building plans to
the City of Selma that demonstrate that all new
structures have outdoor electrical outlets that are
accessible to maintenance workers and landscapers
to allow the use of electric-powered equipment.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits
City of
Selma
AIR-2:

The use of zero-VOC shall be encouraged in prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each
building associated with the proposed Project, the
Project applicant shall provide the Ci ty of Selma with documentation listing the consumer products to be
used during operation of the proposed Project. The
Project
Applicant
During
construction
and
operation
City of
Selma
312
Casitas Selma Project EIR | MMRP
CITY OF SELMA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-3
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible
for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
consumer products purchased by the building
occupant(s) or by the cleaning business contracted by
the building occupant(s) for on-site use and listed in the documentation provided to the City shall consist of
water-based or “zero-[volatile organic compound
[VOC]” consumer. “Consumer products,” as referred to
in this mitigation measure, shall include detergents,
cleaning compounds, polishes, and floor finishes.
“Consumer products,” as referred to in this mitigation
measure, shall not include parking lot degreasers,
architectural coatings, pesticides, or fertilizers.

To monitor and ensure that the use of zero-VOC
consumer products are being encouraged to be used
on-site, the building operator(s) shall maintain records for the duration of Project operation of all efforts to comply with this mitigation measure. These records shall be made available to the City of Selma upon request.

Alternatively, the City may require periodic reporting
and provision of written records by operators and
conduct regular inspections of the records to the
maximum extent feasible and practicable.

AIR-3:

Tenants and building owners for the non-residential
components of the Project shall be encouraged to use
low-volatile organic compound (VOC) Architectural
Project
Applicant
During
operation
City of
Selma
313
Casitas Selma Project EIR | MMRP
CITY OF SELMA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-4
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible
for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
Coatings with an average VOC content of 10 grams
per liter (g/l) or less for repainting buildings during the operational period. The Project applicant shall provide information on paints with low VOC content to all
tenants and building owners within the first year of
Project occupancy.

AIR-4:

Prior to issuance of a building permit for the first nonresidential building associated with the Project, the applicant shall retain a qualified transportation
consultant to prepare and submit a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program to the City of
Selma for review and approval. The TDM program shall
identify measures to reduce daily gasoline-powered
and diesel-powered vehicle trips to the Project site, with a minimum 5 percent reduction in gasoline-fueled and
diesel-fueled trips. The approved TDM program shall be
implemented in conjunction with the start of operations of the Project. Examples of trip reduction measures may include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Post transit information (maps, schedules,
fares, etc.) in public areas of the Project
that is accessible to employees, patrons,
and other Project occupants;
Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of a
building
permit for
the first nonresidential
building
City of
Selma
314
Casitas Selma Project EIR | MMRP
CITY OF SELMA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-5
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible
for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
 Provide employer-subsidized transit passes;
 Sponsor an employee ride sharing
program;
 Provide employee lockers for personal
items;
 In non-residential uses, provide employees
with an employee only restroom with a
shower;
 Provide secure indoor bicycle parking
(racks or lockers) for employees and/or
residents;
 Provide customer or visitor bicycle parking
(racks) in safe and convenient locations;
 For non-residential components of the
Project, allow flex scheduling or
compressed scheduling practices;
 Provide preferential parking spaces for
clean air vehicles;
315
Casitas Selma Project EIR | MMRP
CITY OF SELMA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-6
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible
for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
 Provide charging stations for electric
vehicles; and
 If home delivery services are provided by
any of the non-residential components of
the Project, the home delivery services shall
be performed using low-emission or
alternative-fueled (electric, natural gas,
hydrogen, etc.) vehicles.

Biological Resources
BIO-1: Protect Swainson’s hawk
A qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for
nesting SWHA following the survey methodology
developed by the SWHA Technical Advisory
Committee (SWHA TAC 2000) immediately prior to
construction.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
construction
activities
City of
Selma and
CDFW
BIO-2: Protect Swainson’s hawk
If Project-specific ground disturbance activities
will take place during the SWHA nesting season
Project
Applicant
Prior to
construction
activities
City of
Selma and
CDFW
316
Casitas Selma Project EIR | MMRP
CITY OF SELMA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-7
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible
for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
(i.e., March 1 through September 15), and active
SWHA nests are present, a minimum ½-mile nodisturbance buffer shall be delineated and maintained around each nest, regardless of
whether it was detected by surveys or observed
incidentally. These buffers shall remain in place
until the breeding season has ended or until a
qualified biologist has determined that the birds
have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the
nest or parental care for survival, to prevent nest
abandonment and other take of SWHA as a result
of Project activities.

BIO-3: Protect Swainson’s hawk
In the event an active SWHA nest is detected, and
a ½-mile no-disturbance buffer is not feasible,
consultation with CDFW shall occur to discuss how
to implement the Project and avoid take. If take
cannot be avoided, take authorization through
the acquisition of an ITP, pursuant to Fish and
Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) shall be
obtained to comply with the California
Endangered Species Act.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
construction
activities
City of
Selma and
CDFW
317
Casitas Selma Project EIR | MMRP
CITY OF SELMA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-8
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible
for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
BIO-4: Protect Swainson’s hawk
Compensation for the loss of SWHA foraging
habitat as described in CDFW’s “Staff Report
Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson's
Hawks” (CDFG 1994) shall be implemented. The
Staff Report recommends that mitigation for
habitat loss occur within a minimum distance of
10 miles from known nest sites. For projects within
1 mile of an active nest tree, a minimum of 1 acre
of habitat management (HM) land for each acre
of development shall be provided. For projects
within 5 miles of an active nest but greater than 1
mile, a minimum of ¾ acre of HM land for each
acre of development shall be provided. For
projects within 10 miles of an active nest tree but
greater than 5 miles from an active nest tree, a
minimum of ½ acre of HM land for each acre of
development shall be provided.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
construction
activities
City of
Selma and
CDFW
BIO-5: Protect Burrowing Owl
Focused pre-construction surveys, following the
2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation
(2012 Staff Report) (CDFG 2012), shall be
conducted immediately prior to construction.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
construction
activities
City of
Selma and
CDFW
318
Casitas Selma Project EIR | MMRP
CITY OF SELMA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-9
Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible
for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
Please note that the 2012 Staff Report necessitates
multiple surveys prior to the initiation of
construction.

BIO-6 Protect Burrowing Owl
Should a BUOW or known BUOW den (active or
inactive) be detected, either during
preconstruction surveys or construction activities,
a no-disturbance buffers, as outlined in the 2012
Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG
2012), shall be implemented prior to and during
any ground-disturbing activities. These buffers shall
be implemented for both wintering and breeding
BUOW.

Project
Applicant
Prior to and
during
construction
activities
City of
Selma and
CDFW
BIO-7 Protect Burrowing Owl
If a BUOW or known BUOW den (active or inactive)
is detected, and the no-disturbance buffers
outlined in the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing
Mitigation are not feasible, consultation with
CDFW shall occur to discuss how to implement the
Project and avoid take. If take cannot be
avoided, take authorization through the
Project
Applicant
Prior to
construction
activities
City of
Selma and
CDFW
319
Casitas Selma Project EIR | MMRP
CITY OF SELMA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-10 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible
for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
acquisition of an ITP, pursuant to Fish and Game
Code section 2081 subdivision (b) shall be
obtained to comply with the California
Endangered Species Act.

BIO-8 Protect Crotch’s bumble bee
A qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat
assessment to determine if the Project site and the
immediate surrounding vicinity contain habitat
suitable to support CBB. Potential nesting sites,
which include all small mammal burrows,
perennial bunch grasses, thatched annual
grasses, brush piles, old bird nests, dead trees, and
hollow logs shall be documented as part of the
assessment.

Project
Applicant
Prior to and
during
construction
City of
Selma
BIO 9 Protect Crotch’s bumble bee
If potentially suitable habitat is identified, a
qualified biologist shall conduct focused surveys
for CBB, and their requisite habitat features
following the methodology outlined in the Survey
Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
any grading
permit and
ongoing
during
construction
City of
Selma
320
Casitas Selma Project EIR | MMRP
CITY OF SELMA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-11 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible
for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
Considerations for California Endangered Species
Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023).

BIO 10 Protect Crotch’s bumble bee
If CBB is detected, then all small mammal burrows
and thatched/bunch grasses shall be avoided by
a minimum of 50 feet to avoid take. If grounddisturbing activities will occur during the overwintering period (October through February),
consultation with CDFW shall occur to discuss how
to implement Project activities and avoid take.

Any detection of CBB prior to or during Project
implementation warrants consultation with CDFW
to discuss how to avoid take.

BIO 11 Protect Crotch’s bumble bee
If take cannot be avoided, an ITP pursuant to Fish
and Game Code Section 2081(b), shall be
obtained prior to initiating ground-disturbing
activities.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
grounddisturbing
activities
City of
Selma
321
Casitas Selma Project EIR | MMRP
CITY OF SELMA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-12 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible
for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
BIO 12 Protect Nesting Birds
To the extent practicable, construction shall be
scheduled to avoid the nesting season, which
extends from February 1st through September
15th. If it is not possible to schedule construction
between September and January, prior to the
issuance of grading or building permits, a
preconstruction survey for nesting birds including
western burrowing owl, shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist to ensure that no active nests
will be disturbed during Project implementation. A
preconstruction survey shall be conducted no
more than 10 days prior to the initiation of
construction activities. If construction is phased, a
survey of phase of the Project shall be surveyed. A
survey shall be required prior to the start of
construction of each phase of the Project.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
construction
activities
City of
Selma and
CDFW
322
Casitas Selma Project EIR | MMRP
CITY OF SELMA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-13 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible
for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
determine the extent of a construction-free buffer
to be established around the nest. If work cannot
proceed without disturbing the nesting birds, work
may need to be halted or redirected to other
areas until nesting and fledging are completed or
the nest has otherwise failed for non-construction
related reasons.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1
Soil sampling, per California Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC) Interim Guidance for
Sampling Agricultural properties (August 7, 2008)1
shall be conducted to identify the amounts of
OCPs in the soil. If present, OCPs requiring further
analysis, per DTSC consultation, are dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane, toxaphene, and dieldrin. Should these OCPs be present, soil
remediation shall be conducted until levels are
reduced per DTSC guidelines prior to issuance of
grading permits. Additionally, if any level of
arsenic is present, further analysis and sampling
Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
grading or
building
permits
City of
Selma
1 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (Third Revision). August 7, 2008. chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2018/09/Ag-Guidance-Rev-3-August-7-2008-2.pdf. Accessed August 2024. 323
Casitas Selma Project EIR | MMRP
CITY OF SELMA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-14 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible
for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
shall meet Human Health Risk Assessment NOTE
NUMBER 3, DTSC-SLs approved thresholds. 2 If
arsenic levels do not meet the approved
thresholds, remedial action shall take place to
reduce levels below thresholds prior to issuance of
grading permits.

Noise
NOI - 1:

A 10-foot sound wall shall be constructed along the
Project site’s eastern property line, adjacent to the
existing truck access route and loading docks at the rear of the existing retail/commercial land uses, as detailed in Figure 5 of the Initial Study.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
residential
permit of
occupancy
City of
Selma
NOI - 2:

Any truck movements occurring between 10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. shall occur at setback distances of 200 feet or greater from any outdoor activity area of proposed
residential land uses.

Project
Applicant
During
project
operations
City of
Selma
2 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Human and Ecological Risk Office. June 2020, revised May 2022. chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2022/02/HHRA-Note-3-June2020-Revised-May2022A.pdf. Accessed August 2024. 324
Casitas Selma Project EIR | MMRP
CITY OF SELMA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-15 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible
for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
Transportation
TRA-1:

The Project shall be responsible for paying its fair share cost percentages and/or constructing the
recommended improvements identified in the mitigation
measures discussion, subject to reimbursement for the
costs that are in excess of the Project’s equitable
responsibility as determined by the City. This shall be itemized and enforced through conditions of approval or a development agreement, at the discretion of the City, prior to Project implementation.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits
City of
Selma
TRA-2:

The Project shall implement all VMT mitigation measures identified in Table 3.17-5 which have already been
included in the Project design. These improvements shall be itemized and enforced through conditions of
approval or a development agreement, at the discretion
of the City, prior to Project implementation.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
residential
permit of
occupancy
City of
Selma
325
Casitas Selma Project EIR | MMRP
CITY OF SELMA | Crawford & Bowen Planning, Inc. MMRP-16 Mitigation Measure
Party
responsible
for
Implementing
Mitigation
Timing
Party
responsible
for
Monitoring
Verification
(name/
date)
TRA-3:

The Project shall implement ADA compliant pedestrian
sidewalks along all internal streets connecting all uses to external sidewalks and along the Project’s frontage to
Floral Avenue, Future North-South Road and Stillman
Street.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
residential
permit of
occupancy
City of
Selma
TRA-4:

The Project shall retain the Class II Bikeway along its frontage to Floral Avenue, consistent with the Selma ATP.

A Class II Bikeway shall also be implemented along the
Project’s remaining frontage roads.

Project
Applicant
Prior to
issuance of
residential
permit of
occupancy
City of
Selma
326

Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
Casitas Selma
Located on the Southwest Quadrant of
Highland Avenue and Floral Avenue
In the City of Selma, California
Prepared for
Lance-Kashian & Company
265 East River Park Circle
Fresno, CA 93720
Project No. 001-009
Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93710
Phone: (559) 570-8991
327
www.JLBtraffic.com
Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
Phone: (559) 570-8991
www.JLBtraffic.com
Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning, & Parking Solutions Z:\01 Projects\001 Selma\001-009 Selma Development TIA-VMT\Report\Final\R20240125 Casitas Selma TIA Report.docx Traffic Impact Analysis Report
For the Casitas Selma located on the Southwest Quadrant of Highland Avenue and Floral Avenue
In the City of Selma, California
January 25, 2024
This Traffic Impact Analysis Report has been prepared under the direction of a licensed Traffic Engineer. The licensed Traffic Engineer attests to the technical information contained therein and has judged the qualifications of any technical specialists providing engineering data from which recommendations, conclusions and decisions are based.

Prepared by:
_________________________________
Jose Luis Benavides, PE, TE
President

328
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | iii
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024

Table of Contents
Introduction and Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Existing Traffic Conditions........................................................................................................................ 1 Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions.................................................................................................... 1 Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions............................................................................................... 2 Cumulative Year 2046 No Project Traffic Conditions............................................................................... 2 Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project Traffic Conditions............................................................................. 3 Project’s Equitable Fair Share .................................................................................................................. 3 Scope of Work ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Study Facilities ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Study Intersections .................................................................................................................................. 4 Project Only Trips to State Facilities ........................................................................................................ 5 Study Scenarios............................................................................................................................................ 5 Existing Traffic Conditions........................................................................................................................ 5 Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions.................................................................................................... 5 Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions............................................................................................... 5 Cumulative Year 2046 No Project Traffic Conditions............................................................................... 5 Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project Traffic Conditions............................................................................. 5 LOS Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 6 LOS Thresholds ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Operational Analysis Assumptions and Defaults ..................................................................................... 7 Existing Traffic Conditions....................................................................................................................... 8 Roadway Network........................................................................................................................................ 8 Traffic Signal Warrants................................................................................................................................. 9 Results of Existing Level of Service Analysis............................................................................................... 10 Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions.................................................................................................. 13 Project Description..................................................................................................................................... 13 Project Access ............................................................................................................................................ 13 Trip Generation.......................................................................................................................................... 13 Trip Distribution ......................................................................................................................................... 17 Active Transportation Plan......................................................................................................................... 17 329
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | iv
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
Bikeways..................................................................................................................................................... 18 Walkways................................................................................................................................................... 18 Transit ........................................................................................................................................................ 19 Safe Routes to School ................................................................................................................................ 19 Roadway Network...................................................................................................................................... 22 Traffic Signal Warrants............................................................................................................................... 22 Results of Existing plus Project Level of Service Analysis........................................................................... 22 Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions............................................................................................... 27 Description of Near Term Projects............................................................................................................. 27 Roadway Network...................................................................................................................................... 27 Traffic Signal Warrants............................................................................................................................... 28 Results of Near Term plus Project Level of Service Analysis...................................................................... 28 Cumulative Year 2046 No Project Traffic Conditions.............................................................................. 32 Roadway Network...................................................................................................................................... 32 Traffic Signal Warrants............................................................................................................................... 32 Results of Cumulative Year 2046 No Project Level of Service Analysis ..................................................... 32 Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project Traffic Conditions............................................................................ 37 Roadway Network...................................................................................................................................... 37 Traffic Signal Warrants............................................................................................................................... 37 Results of Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project Level of Service Analysis ................................................... 37 Project Only Trip Assignment to State Facilities........................................................................................ 39 Queuing Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 43 Project’s Equitable Fair Share................................................................................................................ 49 Conclusions and Recommendations...................................................................................................... 50 Existing Traffic Conditions...................................................................................................................... 50 Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions.................................................................................................. 50 Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions............................................................................................. 51 Cumulative Year 2046 No Project Traffic Conditions............................................................................. 52 Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project Traffic Conditions........................................................................... 53 Queuing Analysis.................................................................................................................................... 54 Project’s Equitable Fair Share ................................................................................................................ 54 Study Participants................................................................................................................................. 55 References............................................................................................................................................ 56 330
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | v
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024

List of Figures Figure 1: Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2: Existing - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls............................................................................... 12 Figure 3: Project Site Plan..................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 4: Project Only Trips .................................................................................................................................. 25 Figure 5: Existing plus Project - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls............................................................ 26 Figure 6: Near Term Projects' Trip Assignment...................................................................................................... 30 Figure 7: Near Term plus Project - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls........................................................ 31 Figure 8: 2046 Near Term Projects’ Trip Assignment (No Project).......................................................................... 35 Figure 9: Cumulative Year 2046 No Project - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls ........................................ 36 Figure 10: 2046 Near Term Trip Projects’ Trip Assignment .................................................................................... 40 Figure 11: Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls..................................... 41 Figure 12: State Route 99 at Floral Avenue and Highland Avenue – Project Only Trips........................................... 42 List of Tables Table I: Existing Intersection LOS Results.............................................................................................................. 10 Table II: Project Trip Generation........................................................................................................................... 14 Table III: Internal Capture Trip Generation ........................................................................................................... 14 Table IV: External Project Trip Generation............................................................................................................ 15 Table V: Analyzed Project Trip Generation............................................................................................................ 15 Table VI: Analyzed Project Internal Capture Trip Generation................................................................................. 16 Table VII: Analyzed Project External Trip Generation ............................................................................................ 16 Table VIII: Difference in Trip Generation............................................................................................................... 17 Table IX: Existing Plus Project Intersection LOS Results......................................................................................... 23 Table X: Near Term Projects’ Trip Generation ....................................................................................................... 27 Table XI: Near Term Plus Project Intersection LOS Results..................................................................................... 29 Table XII: Cumulative Year 2046 No Project Intersection LOS Results.................................................................... 34 Table XIII: Cumulative Year 2046 Plus Project Intersection LOS Results................................................................. 39 Table XIV: Queuing Analysis................................................................................................................................. 44 Table XV: Project’s Equitable Fair Share................................................................................................................ 49 List of Appendices Appendix A: Scope of Work
Appendix B: Traffic Counts
Appendix C: Traffic Modeling
Appendix D: Methodology
Appendix E: Existing Traffic Conditions
Appendix F: Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions
Appendix G: Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions
Appendix H: Cumulative Year 2046 No Project Traffic Conditions Appendix I: Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project Traffic Conditions Appendix J: Traffic Signal Warrants
331
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 1
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024

Introduction and Summary
Introduction
This Report describes a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. (JLB) for the Casitas Selma (Project) located in the City of Selma. Specifically, the Project proposes to develop approximately 36.5 net acres with a mix of residential, commercial and park space. Based on information provided to JLB, the Project is consistent with the City of Selma General Plan Update 2035. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed Project site relative to the surrounding roadway network.

The purpose of the TIA is to evaluate the potential on-site and off-site traffic impacts, identify short-term and long-term roadway and circulation needs, determine potential roadway improvement measures and identify any critical traffic issues that should be addressed in the on-going planning process. The TIA primarily focused on evaluating traffic conditions at study intersections that may potentially be impacted by the proposed Project and a separate Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis. The Scope of Work was prepared via consultation with City of Selma, Fresno County and Caltrans staff.

Summary
The potential traffic impacts of the proposed Project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the Level of Service (LOS) policies of the City of Selma, Fresno County and Caltrans and the City of Selma policy on VMT.

Existing Traffic Conditions
• At present, the intersection of Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue exceeds its LOS threshold during the PM peak period. All other study intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods. It is recommended that the addition of lanes and modification of traffic control mechanisms be implemented to improve the LOS at this intersection. Additional details as to the recommended improvements for these intersections are presented later in this Report.

Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions
• At buildout and before any internal capture is considered, the Project is estimated to generate 10,786 daily trips, 784 AM peak hour trips and 889 PM peak hour trips at build-out. • Due to the mix of land uses within the Project, it is anticipated that 1,555 daily trips, 98 AM peak hour trips and 322 PM peak hours trips will stay within the confines of the Project. • At buildout and after internal capture, the Project is estimated to generate 9,231 daily trips, 686 AM peak hour trips and 567 PM peak hour trips.
• Compared to the analyzed project site plan, the Project is estimated to generate 77 less daily trips, 65 less AM peak hour trips and 7 more PM peak hour trips. Given that the PM peak is the only peak that is estimated to generate more traffic and that it only generates 7 more peak hour trips than originally analyzed. This miniscule increase in traffic during the PM peak is not projected to result in changes to the LOS, queuing or recommendations presented within this report. As such, it is JLB’s opinion that this analysis effectively analyzes the latest Project site plan. 332
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 2
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
• JLB analyzed the location of the existing and proposed roadways and access points. After initial comments were addressed to internal circulation and driveway location, all access points are located at points that minimize traffic operational impacts to existing and future roadway networks in the latest site plan.
• It is recommended that the Project implement ADA compliant pedestrian sidewalks along all internal streets connecting all uses to external sidewalks and along the Project’s frontage to Floral Avenue, Future North-South Road and Stillman Street.
• It is recommended that the Project retain the Class II Bikeway along its frontage to Floral Avenue, consistent with the Selma ATP. It is further recommended that a Class II Bikeway be implemented along the Project’s frontage to the Future North-South Road. • Under this scenario, the intersection of Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue is projected to exceed its LOS threshold during one or both peak periods. All other study intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods. It is recommended that the addition of lanes and modification of traffic control mechanisms be implemented to improve the LOS at this intersection.

Additional details as to the recommended improvements for these intersections are presented later in this Report.

Cumulative Year 2046 No Project Traffic Conditions
• Under this scenario, the intersections of Highland Avenue at Golden State Boulevard, DeWolf Avenue at Floral Avenue, SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Floral Avenue, Highland Avenue at Floral Avenue and Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue are projected to exceed their LOS threshold during one or both peak periods. All other study intersections are projected to continue operating at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods. It is recommended that the addition of lanes and modification of traffic control mechanisms be implemented to improve the LOS at these intersections. Improvements are also recommended to the intersections of Walmart Main Driveway at Floral Avenue and SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp at Floral Avenue in order to address queuing issues at these intersections. Additional details as to the recommended improvements for these intersections are presented later in this Report.

333
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 3
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project Traffic Conditions
• Under this scenario, the intersections of Highland Avenue at Golden State Boulevard, DeWolf Avenue at Floral Avenue, Future North-South Road at Floral Avenue, Walmart Main Driveway at Floral Avenue and Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue are projected to exceed their LOS threshold during one or both peak periods. All other study intersections are projected to continue operating at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods. It is recommended that the addition of lanes and modification of traffic control mechanisms be implemented to improve the LOS at these intersections. Improvements are also recommended to the intersection of SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Floral Avenue in order to address queuing issues at this intersection. Additional details as to the recommended improvements for these intersections are presented later in this Report.

Project’s Equitable Fair Share
• It is recommended that the Project contribute its equitable fair share as listed in Table XV for the future improvements necessary to maintain an acceptable LOS.

334
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 4
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024

Scope of Work
The TIA focuses on evaluating traffic conditions at study intersections and segments that may potentially be impacted by the proposed Project. On October 25, 2022, a Draft Scope of Work for the preparation of a TIA and VMT analysis for this Project was provided to City of Selma, Fresno County and Caltrans staff for their review and comment. The Draft Scope of Work was based on the Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines of lead and responsible agencies.

On November 16, 2022, the County of Fresno replied to the Draft Scope of Work stating that they concur and have no comments. On November 21, 2022, the City of Selma replied to the Draft Scope of Work that they only request that a vicinity map be included to clarify the location of intersection 9. On December 19, 2022, the City of Selma followed up with additional comments on the near terms projects where they removed the Graham Commercial and Stillman Cinema Apartments while adding two mixed use projects.

These mixed-use projects are located on the northeast and southwest corners of Highland Avenue and Nebraska Avenue. On December 2, 2022, Caltrans staff responded to the Draft Scope of Work stating that they had no comments.

Based on the comments received, this Report includes the near term mixed-use projects on the northeast and southwest corners of Highland Avenue and Nebraska Avenue. The Graham Commercial and Stillman Cinema Apartments have also been removed. The Draft Scope of Work and the comments received from the lead agency and responsible agencies are included in Appendix A.

Study Facilities
The existing intersection peak hour turning movement and segment volume counts were conducted at the study intersections in September and November of 2022, while schools in the vicinity of the Project site were in session. The intersection turning movement counts included pedestrian and bicycle volumes. The traffic counts for the existing study intersections are contained in Appendix B. The existing intersection turning movement volumes, intersection geometrics and traffic controls are illustrated in Figure 2.

Study Intersections

1. Golden State Boulevard / Highland Avenue

2. DeWolf Avenue / Floral Avenue

3. Future North-South Road / Floral Avenue (Future)

4. Walmart Main Driveway / Floral Avenue

5. Eastern Driveway / Floral Avenue

6. State Route 99 Southbound Off Ramp / Floral Avenue

7. Highland Avenue (State Route 43) / Floral Avenue

8. State Route 99 Northbound Off Ramp / Floral Avenue

9. Whitson Street / Floral Avenue

10. Highland Avenue (State Route 43) / State Route 99 Southbound Ramps

11. Southern Main Access / Stillman Street (Future)

12. Highland Avenue (State Route 43) / Stillman Street

13. Highland Avenue (State Route 43) / Rose Avenue
335
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 5
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
Project Only Trips to State Facilities

1. State Route 99 / Floral Avenue-Highland Avenue Interchange Study Scenarios
Existing Traffic Conditions
This scenario evaluates the Existing Traffic Conditions based on existing traffic volumes and roadway conditions from traffic counts and field surveys conducted in September and November 2022.

Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions
This scenario evaluates total traffic volumes and roadway conditions based on the Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions. The Existing plus Project traffic volumes were obtained by adjusting the Existing Traffic Conditions traffic volumes to account for the additional roads constructed with the Project and adding the Project Only Trips. The Project will construct a north-south road on its western boundary between Floral Avenue and Stillman Street as well as an internal north-south road between Floral Avenue and Stillman Street. The modifications to Existing Traffic Conditions traffic volumes were developed based on the Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG), engineering judgment, existing residential densities and the City of Selma General Plan Update 2035 Circulation Element in the vicinity of the Project site. The Project Only Trips to the study facilities were developed based on existing travel patterns, the Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) Project Select Zones, the existing roadway network, data provided by the developer, knowledge of the study area, engineering judgment, existing residential densities and the City of Selma General Plan Update 2035 Circulation Element in the vicinity of the Project site.

Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions
This scenario evaluates total traffic volumes and roadway conditions based on the Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions. The Near Term plus Project traffic volumes were obtained by adding the Near Term related trips to the Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario.

Cumulative Year 2046 No Project Traffic Conditions
This scenario evaluates total traffic volumes and roadway conditions based on the Cumulative Year 2046 No Project Traffic Conditions. The Cumulative Year 2046 No Project traffic volumes were obtained by subtracting the Project Only Trips from the Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario.

Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project Traffic Conditions
This scenario evaluates total traffic volumes and roadway conditions based on the Cumulative Year 2046 Plus Project Traffic Conditions. The Cumulative Year 2046 Plus Project traffic volumes were obtained by using a combination of the Fresno COG activity-based model (ABM) (Base Year 2019 and Cumulative Year 2046) and existing traffic counts. Under this scenario, the increment method, as recommended by the Model Steering Committee was utilized to determine the Cumulative Year 2046 traffic volumes. The Fresno COG ABM results were provided by Kittelson & Associates and plots are contained in Appendix C. 336
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 6
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024

LOS Methodology
LOS is a qualitative index of the performance of an element of the transportation system. LOS is a rating scale running from “A” to “F”, with “A” indicating no congestion of any kind and “F” indicating unacceptable congestion and delays. LOS in this study describes the operating conditions for signalized and unsignalized intersections.

The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition is the standard reference published by the Transportation Research Board and contains the specific criteria and methods to be used in assessing LOS.

U-turn movements were analyzed using HCM 2000 methodologies and would yield more accurate results for the reason that HCM 6th Edition methodologies do not allow the analysis of U-turns. Lane configurations not reflective of existing conditions are a result of software limitations and thus represent a worst-case scenario. Synchro software was used to define LOS in this study. Details regarding these calculations are included in Appendix D.

While LOS is no longer the criteria of significance for traffic impacts in the state of California, the City of Selma continues to apply congestion-related conditions or requirements for land development projects through planning approval processes outside of CEQA guidelines in order to continue the implementation of Selma General Plan policies.

LOS Thresholds
The City of Selma General Plan Update 2035 has established LOS D as the acceptable level of traffic congestion on intersections and road segments for minor collectors, major collectors, minor arterials, major arterials and highways within the City of Selma. Where other jurisdictions control and manage roadways, their respective level of service standards shall prevail on applicable segments. In order to avoid using local streets for excessive through traffic, the LOS B threshold was established for local streets.

Therefore, the City of Selma LOS D threshold is used to evaluate the potential significance of LOS impacts to study facilities within the City of Selma SOI.

The Fresno County General Plan has established LOS C as the acceptable level of traffic congestion on all county roads and streets that fall entirely outside the Sphere of Influence (SOI) of Selma. (Fresno County, 2000). For those areas that fall within the SOI of a City, the LOS threshold of the city is used in this Report.

LOS C is used to evaluate the potential LOS impacts to Fresno County intersections and segments that fall outside the City of Selma SOI. In this case, all study facilities fall within the City of Selma SOI, therefore, the City of Selma LOS is utilized.

Caltrans no longer considers delay as a significant impact to the environment, for land use projects and plans. According to the Caltrans document VMT Focused Transportation Impact Study Guidelines dated May 2020, Caltrans review of land use projects and plans is focused on a VMT metric consistent with CEQA. In this TIA, however, study intersections that fall within Caltrans SOI utilize the LOS threshold described in their respective Transportation Concept Reports. 337
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 7
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024

Operational Analysis Assumptions and Defaults
The following operational analysis values, assumptions and defaults were used in this study to ensure a consistent analysis of LOS among the various scenarios. • The Caltrans timing plan for State Routes (SR) were utilized in setting the timing for the following intersections: SR 99 Southbound Off Ramp at Floral Avenue, Highland Avenue at Floral Avenue, SR 99 Northbound Off Ramp at Floral Avenue, Highland Avenue at SR 99 Southbound Ramp and Highland Avenue at Stillman Street.
• For all other signalized intersections, the following settings were utilized in setting the timing:
o Yellow time consistent with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) based on approach speeds (Caltrans 2020).
o Yellow time of 3.2 seconds for left-turn phases.
o All-red clearance intervals of 1.0 second for all phases. o Walk intervals of 7.0 seconds.
• The number of observed pedestrians at existing intersections was utilized under all study scenarios. • A 3 percent Heavy Vehicle Factor (HVF), or the existing HVF if higher, was utilized under all study scenarios.
• An average of 10 pedestrian calls per hour at signalized study intersections. • At existing intersections, the observed Peak Hour Factor (PHF) is utilized in the Existing, Existing plus Project and Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions scenarios. • For the Cumulative Year 2046 scenarios, the following PHF’s were utilized to reflect school traffic operations and an increase in future traffic volumes. As roadways start to reach their saturated flow rates, PHF’s tend to increase to 0.90 or higher in urban settings. A PHF of 0.92 is utilized during both peak periods at all study intersections.

338
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 8
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024

Existing Traffic Conditions
Roadway Network
The Project site and surrounding study area are illustrated in Figure 1. Important roadways serving the Project are discussed below.

Golden State Boulevard is an existing northwest-southeast (diagonal) four-lane divided arterial in the vicinity of the proposed Project. In this area, Golden State Boulevard extends northwest of Highland Avenue and southeast of Park Street. Golden State Boulevard turns into Whitson Street southeast of Highland Avenue and northwest of Park Street. The City of Selma General Plan Update 2035 designates Golden State Boulevard in its entirety as an arterial.

Whitson Street is an existing northwest-southeast (diagonal) four-lane divided arterial in the vicinity of the proposed Project. In this area, Whitson Street extends southeast of Highland Avenue and northwest of Park Street. Whitson Street turns into Golden State Boulevard northwest of Highland Avenue and southeast of Park Street. The City of Selma General Plan Update 2035 designates Whitson Street in its entirety as an arterial.

State Route (SR) 99 is an existing six-lane freeway in the vicinity of the proposed Project. SR 99 traverses the County of Fresno and through the City of Selma in a northwest-southeast direction and serves as the principal connection to various metropolitan areas within the Central San Joaquin Valley.

Highland Avenue is an existing north-south two-lane collector in the vicinity of the proposed Project.

Highland Avenue extends between Dinuba Avenue and Floral Avenue. South of Floral Avenue, State Route 43 is also known as Highland Avenue. The City of Selma General Plan Update 2035 designates Highland Avenue as an arterial between Manning Avenue and Mountain View. The Caltrans Transportation Concept Report for SR 43 classifies SR 43 between Floral Avenue and Nebraska Avenue as a principal arterial.

Future North-South Road is a future north-south two-lane collector planned to be constructed adjacent to the proposed Project. Future North-South Road is planned to be constructed as a two-lane collector with a two-way left turn lane on center between Floral Avenue and Stillman Street.

DeWolf Avenue is an existing north-south roadway in the vicinity of the proposed Project. DeWolf Avenue is a two-lane undivided roadway throughout the City of Selma SOI. The City of Selma General Plan Update 2035 does not have any stated plans for DeWolf Avenue.

Floral Avenue is an existing east-west roadway adjacent to the proposed Project. Floral Avenue is a twolane undivided roadway west of Leonard Avenue, a four-lane divided roadway between Leonard Avenue and Whitson Street, a four-lane undivided collector between Whitson Street and Wright Street and a twolane undivided collector east of Wright Street. The City of Selma General Plan Update 2035 states Floral Avenue shall be widened to four lanes and designates Floral Avenue as an arterial between Whitson Street and DeWolf Avenue.
339
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 9
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
Stillman Street is an existing east-west roadway in the vicinity of the proposed Project and will be constructed further west along the southern boundary of the Project. Stillman Street is a two-lane undivided roadway throughout the City of Selma SOI. The City of Selma General Plan Update 2035 does not have any stated plans for Stillman Street.

Rose Avenue is an existing east-west roadway in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Rose Avenue is a two-lane undivided roadway west of Thompson Avenue, a four-lane undivided roadway between McCall Avenue and Country Club Lane and a two-lane undivided roadway east of County Rose Lane. The City of Selma General Plan Update 2035 does not have any stated plans for Rose Avenue.

Traffic Signal Warrants
The CA MUTCD indicates that an engineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics and physical features of an intersection shall be conducted to determine whether installation of traffic signal controls is justified. The CA MUTCD provides a total of nine (9) warrants to evaluate the need for traffic signal controls. These warrants include 1) Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume, 2) Four-Hour Vehicular Volume, 3) Peak Hour, 4) Pedestrian Volume, 5) School Crossing, 6) Coordinated Signal System, 7) Crash Experience, 8) Roadway Network and 9) Intersection Near a Grade Crossing. Signalization of an intersection may be appropriate if one or more of the signal warrants are satisfied. However, the CA MUTCD also states that “The satisfaction of a signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal” (Caltrans 2020).

If traffic signal warrants are satisfied when a LOS threshold impact is identified at an unsignalized intersection, then installation of a traffic signal control may serve as an improvement measure. For instances where traffic signal warrants are satisfied, a traffic signal control is not considered to be the default improvement measure. Prior to assuming that an intersection will be signalized, an attempt is made to improve the intersection approach lane geometrics in order to improve its LOS while maintaining the existing intersection controls. If the additional lanes did not result in acceptable LOS at the intersection, then in those cases implementation of a traffic signal control would be considered.

Warrant 3 was prepared for the unsignalized intersections under the Existing Traffic Conditions scenario.

These warrants are contained in Appendix J. Under this scenario, only the intersection of Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue satisfies Warrant 3. Based on the traffic signal warrants, operational analysis and engineering judgement, it is recommended that the intersection of Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue be signalized.

340
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 10
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
Results of Existing Level of Service Analysis
Figure 2 illustrates the Existing Traffic Conditions turning movement volumes, intersection geometrics and traffic controls. LOS worksheets for the Existing Traffic Conditions scenario are provided in Appendix E.

Table I presents a summary of the Existing peak hour LOS at the study intersections.

At present, the intersection of Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue exceeds the LOS threshold during the PM peak period. All other study intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods. The following improvements are recommended to improve the LOS at this intersection. • Highland Avenue / Rose Avenue
o Add an eastbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the eastbound left-through lane to a through-right lane; o Remove the eastbound right-turn lane;
o Add a westbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; and o Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing in all directions.

Table I: Existing Intersection LOS Results
ID Intersection Intersection Control
AM (7 - 9) Peak Hour PM (4 - 6) Peak Hour
Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Average Delay(sec/veh) LOS
1 Highland Avenue / Golden State Boulevard Traffic Signal 22.4 C 23.6 C 2 DeWolf Avenue / Floral Avenue Two-Way Stop 10.1 B 11.5 B 3 Future North-South Road / Floral Avenue One-Way Stop 9.9 A 11.5 B 4 Walmart Main Driveway / Floral Avenue Traffic Signal 11.8 B 17.8 B 5 Eastern Driveway / Floral Avenue Does Not Exist - - - - 6 SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp / Floral Avenue Traffic Signal 14.7 B 20.8 C 7 Highland Avenue / Floral Avenue Traffic Signal 26.0 C 35.6 D 8 SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp / Floral Avenue Traffic Signal 8.4 A 6.7 A 9 Whitson Street / Floral Avenue Traffic Signal 20.3 C 21.6 C 10 Highland Avenue / SR 99 Southbound Ramps Traffic Signal 10.2 B 10.7 B 11 Southern Driveway / Stillman Street Does Not Exist - - - - 12 Highland Avenue / Stillman Street Traffic Signal 16.3 B 26.4 C 13 Highland Avenue / Rose Avenue
Two-Way Stop 19.4 C 46.2 E
Improved (Traffic Signal) 14.7 B 15.5 B
Note: LOS = Level of Service based on average delay on signalized intersections and All-Way STOP Controls LOS for two-way and one-way STOP controlled intersections are based on the worst approach/movement of the minor street. 341
342
001-009 - 05/25/23 - CT/AB
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Casitas Selma - City of Selma
Vicinity Map
Figure 1
N
Not To Scale
LEGEND
UPRR

FLORAL AVE

STILLMAN ST

ROSE AVE DEWOLF AVE

WHITSON ST FRONT ST HIGHLAND AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD
= STUDY INTERSECTION
= FUTURE ROADWAY
#

DINUBA AVE LEONARD AVE

PROJECT SITE

NELSON BLVD
1 2
6 7
8 9
10 12
13 3 4 5 FUTURE N-S RD
343
344
001-009 - 06/23/23 - CT/AB
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Casitas Selma - City of Selma
Existing - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls
Figure 2
N
Not To Scale
LEGEND
UPRR

FLORAL AVE

STILLMAN ST

ROSE AVE DEWOLF AVE

WHITSON ST FRONT ST HIGHLAND AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD
= STUDY INTERSECTION
= FUTURE ROADWAY
= STOP SIGN
= TRAFFIC SIGNAL
= AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
= PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
#
1 2
6 7
8 9
10 12
13 4
11 PROJECT SITE

NELSON BLVD

1. Highland Ave &
Golden State Blvd
5(24)
124(239)
126(199)
13(9)
149(137)
31(66)
102(119)120(299)
13(18)
14(8)210(231)41(49)
Highland Ave Golden State Blvd

2. DeWolf Ave &
Floral Ave
0(0)
89(124)
2(9)
7(16)
62(175)
6(16)
0(7)4(5)
7(16)
0(2)5(4)11(8) DeWolf Ave
Floral Ave

4. Walmart Main Drwy &
Floral Ave
12(22)
108(198)
114(169)
236(397)
6(22)180(415)
Walmart Drwy
Floral Ave

6. SR 99 SB Off-Ramp &
Floral Ave
324(693)
49(117)
53(109)
422(623) 50(134)
61(110)23(41)164(233)
SR 99 SB Off-Ramp
Floral Ave

7. Highland Ave &
Floral Ave
158(218)
419(673)
96(188)
121(103)
531(573)
79(107) 69(105) 108(220) 61(97)
170(233)194(243)30(64)
Highland Ave
Floral Ave

8. SR 99 NB Off-Ramp &
Floral Ave
417(681)
521(592)
172(157)
37(41)
Floral Ave
SR 99 NB Off-Ramp

9. Whitson St &
Floral Ave
10(35)
264(512)
94(186)
78(55)
390(370)
9(11) 115(223) 104(134)
17(35)
10(23)129(213)67(92) Whitson St
Floral Ave

10. Highland Ave &
SR 99 SB Ramps
341(355)
610(699)
26(50)
231(272)175(265)
Highland Ave
SR 99 SB Ramps

11. Southern Drwy &
Stillman St
Stillman Ave Main Access Rd

12. Highland Ave &
Stillman St
19(176)
7(9)
32(205)
9(29)
3(6)
43(90)
39(94)
584(499)
33(30)
61(65)457(527)55(60)
Highland Ave
Stillman St

13. Highland Ave &
Rose Ave
2(5)
4(11)
4(6)
23(26)
1(7)
110(102)
2(5)
529(594)
24(33)
2(9)382(663)68(149)
Highland Ave
Rose Ave
0(1)
2(3) 143(117)
4(16)
4(19)
4(2)

DOES NOT EXIST
XX
(XX)

3. Future N-S Rd &
Floral Ave
3(3)
107(178)
82(165)
38(26)
2(2)13(42) Future N-S Rd
Floral Ave

5. Eastern Drwy &
Floral Ave
X
X
X
X
X
XXX
XXX
X
X
X
X
3 5

DOES NOT EXIST FUTURE N-S RD
345
346
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 13
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024

Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions
Project Description
The Project proposes to develop approximately 36.5 net acres with a mix of residential, commercial and park space. Based on data provided to JLB, the Project is consistent with the City of Selma General Plan Update 2035. Figure 3 illustrates the latest Project Site Plan.

Project Access
Based on the latest Project Site Plan, access to and from the Project site will predominantly be from six (6) access points. The Project will also construct the Future N-S Street between Floral Avenue and Stillman Avenue along the western boundary of the Project. Two (2) access points will be located on the south side of Floral Avenue approximately 730 feet and 230 feet west of the State Route 99 Southbound Off Ramp.

The westernmost access point is proposed as full access and the eastern driveway is proposed as right-in right-out access. One (1) access point will be located on the eastern side of the Future North-South Road approximately 850 feet south of Floral Avenue. This access point is proposed as full access. Three (3) access points will be located on the north side of Stillman Street approximately 1,560 feet, 1,350 feet and 1,050 feet west of Highland Avenue. All of these driveways are proposed as full access.

JLB analyzed the location of the existing and proposed roadways and access points relative to those in the vicinity of the Project site. After initial review, comments regarding the onsite circulation, creating internal north-south road to function as a public street and driveway locations were implemented into the latest site plan. In addition to the onsite circulation and driveway locations, the recommendation to add a north south road on the western limit of the Project was also implemented. This road was recommended to alleviate queuing issues along Floral Avenue. It is projected that this road will provide an alternative route for homes and businesses that are located west of State Route 99 and south of Floral Avenue to the Selma Grove Development and the existing Walmart. A review of the existing and proposed roadways and access points indicates that they are located at points that minimize traffic operational impacts to existing and future roadway networks. A Project Site Plan can be found in Figure 3.

Trip Generation
The trip generation rates for the proposed Project were obtained from the 11th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table II presents the trip generation for the proposed Project with trip generation rates for Automated Car Wash, Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop, Fast Causal Restaurant, Strip Retail Plaza, Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window, Hotel, Multifamily Housing, Affordable Senior Adult Housing, Affordable Housing and Public Park. At buildout and before taking into account internal capture trip reductions, the Project is estimated to generate 10,786 daily, 784 AM peak hour and 889 PM peak hour trips. 347
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 14
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
Table II: Project Trip Generation
Land Use (ITE Code) Size Unit
Daily AM (7-9) Peak Hour PM (4-6) Peak Hour
Rate Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total
% %
Automated Car Wash (948) 1 Tunnel 775.00 775 42.89 50 50 22 21 43 77.50 50 50 39 39 78 Quick Lubrication Vehicle
Shop (941) 3 Service Position 40.00 120 3.00 67 33 6 3 9 4.85 56 44 8 7 15 Fast Casual Restaurant
(930) 7.200 k.s.f. 97.14 699 1.43 50 50 5 5 10 12.55 55 45 50 40 90 Strip Retail Plaza (<40k)
(822) 7.200 k.s.f. 54.45 392 2.36 60 40 10 7 17 6.59 50 50 24 23 47 Fast-Food Restaurant with
Drive-Thru Window (934) 10.099 k.s.f. 467.48 4,721 44.60 51 49 230 220 450 33.03 52 48 174 160 334 Hotel (310) 100 Rooms 7.99 799 0.46 56 44 26 20 46 0.59 51 49 30 29 59 Multifamily Housing (low
Rise) (220) 300 d.u. 6.74 2,022 0.40 24 76 29 91 120 0.51 63 37 96 57 153 Senior Adult Housing –
Multifamily (252) 120 d.u. 3.24 389 0.20 34 66 8 16 24 0.25 56 44 17 13 30 Affordable Housing –
Income Limits (223) 180 d.u. 4.81 866 0.36 29 71 19 46 65 0.46 59 41 49 34 83 Public Park (411) 3.600 Acres 0.78 3 0.02 59 41 0 0 0 0.11 55 45 0 0 0 Total Project Trips 10,786 355 429 784 487 402 889
Note: d.u. = Dwelling Unit
k.s.f. = Thousand Square Feet
Automated Car Wash (948) Daily Rate = 10 times the PM Peak Hour Rate Automated Car Wash (948) AM Rate calculated based on time of day distributions provided by ITE It is projected that this Project will benefit from internally captured trips. Due to the amount of dense residential units and the proximity of retail land uses, it is safe to assume that these internal capture trips will stay within the confines of the Project. Internal capture rates were obtained from the 3rd Edition of the Trip Generation Handbook by ITE. These rates were implemented into the NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool Developed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute. As can be seen in Table III, there are 1,555 Daily, 98 AM peak hour and 322 PM peak hour trips that would be internally captured.

Table III: Internal Capture Trip Generation
Land Use (ITE Code)
Daily AM (7-9) Peak Hour PM (4-6) Peak Hour
Total In Out Total In Out Total
Retail -329 -8 -5 -12 -44 -41 -85
Restaurant -544 -37 -7 -44 -53 -76 -129
Residential -584 -4 -33 -37 -44 -32 -76
Hotel -98 -1 -4 -5 -20 -12 -32
Total Internally Captured Project Trips -1,555 -49 -49 -98 -161 -161 -322 348
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 15
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
The Project Trip Generation was subtracted by the Internal Capture Trip Generation to produce the External Project Trip Generation. The internal capture worksheet can be found in Appendix F. As can be seen in Table IV, the proposed Project is estimated to generate 9,231 daily, 686 AM peak hour and 567 PM peak hour external trips.

Table IV: External Project Trip Generation
Land Use (ITE Code)
Daily AM (7-9) Peak Hour PM (4-6) Peak Hour
Total In Out Total In Out Total
Project Trip Generation 10,786 355 429 784 487 402 889
Internal Capture -1,555 -49 -49 -98 -161 -161 -322
Total External Project Trips 9,231 306 380 686 326 241 567 The trip generation that was analyzed within this TIA was derived from the original site plan provided to JLB. As time has gone by, the site plan has been slightly modified. JLB compared the analyzed trip generation to that of the latest Project site plan. Table V presents the analyzed trip generation with trip generation rates for Strip Retail Plaza, Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window, Hotel, Multifamily Housing, Affordable Senior Adult Housing, Affordable Housing and Public Park. At buildout and before taking into account internal capture trip reductions, the analyzed Project Site plan was estimated to generate 10,829 daily, 841 AM peak hour and 852 PM peak hour trips.

Table V: Analyzed Project Trip Generation
Land Use (ITE Code) Size Unit
Daily AM (7-9) Peak Hour PM (4-6) Peak Hour
Rate Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total
% %
Strip Retail Plaza (<40k)
(822) 18.000 k.s.f. 54.45 980 2.36 60 40 25 17 42 6.59 50 50 60 59 119 Fast-Food Restaurant with
Drive-Thru Window (934) 12.000 k.s.f. 467.48 5,610 44.60 51 49 273 262 535 33.03 52 48 206 190 396 Hotel (310) 120 Rooms 7.99 959 0.46 56 44 31 24 55 0.59 51 49 36 35 71 Multifamily Housing (low
Rise) (220) 300 d.u. 6.74 2,022 0.40 24 76 29 91 120 0.51 63 37 96 57 153 Senior Adult Housing –
Multifamily (252) 120 d.u. 3.24 389 0.20 34 66 8 16 24 0.25 56 44 17 13 30 Affordable Housing –
Income Limits (223) 180 d.u. 4.81 866 0.36 29 71 19 46 65 0.46 59 41 49 34 83 Public Park (411) 3.600 Acres 0.78 3 0.02 59 41 0 0 0 0.11 55 45 0 0 0 Total Project Trips 10,829 385 456 841 464 388 852
349
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 16
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
It is projected that the analyzed Project site plan would benefit from internally captured trips. Due to the amount of dense residential units and the proximity of retail land uses, it is safe to assume that these internal capture trips will stay within the confines of the analyzed Project. These rates were implemented into the NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool Developed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute. As can be seen in Table VI, there are 1,521 Daily, 90 AM peak hour and 292 PM peak hour trips that would be internally captured.

Table VI: Analyzed Project Internal Capture Trip Generation Land Use (ITE Code)
Daily AM (7-9) Peak Hour PM (4-6) Peak Hour
Total In Out Total In Out Total
Retail -251 -5 -3 -8 -37 -35 -72
Restaurant -564 -35 -6 -41 -49 -69 -118
Residential -588 -4 -33 -37 -41 -31 -72
Hotel -118 -1 -3 -4 -19 -11 -30
Total Internally Captured Project Trips -1,521 -45 -45 -90 -146 -146 -292 The Analyzed Trip Generation was subtracted by the Analyzed Internal Capture Trip Generation to produce the Analyzed External Project Trip Generation. As can be seen in Table VII, the proposed Project is estimated to generate 9,308 daily, 751 AM peak hour and 560 PM peak hour external trips.

Table VII: Analyzed Project External Trip Generation
Land Use (ITE Code)
Daily AM (7-9) Peak Hour PM (4-6) Peak Hour
Total In Out Total In Out Total
Analyzed Trip Generation 10,829 385 456 841 464 388 852 Internal Capture -1,521 -45 -45 -90 -146 -146 -292
Total External Project Trips 9,308 340 411 751 318 242 560 The comparison between the Project Trip Generation and the Analyzed Project Trip Generation results in the latest Project site plan decreasing the daily trips and the AM peak hour trips while increasing the PM peak hour trips. As can be seen on Table VIII, the Latest Project Site Plan results in a decrease of 77 daily trips, a decrease of 65 AM peak hour trips and an increase of 7 PM peak hour trips. Due to the increase being miniscule, it is in the opinion of JLB that the findings of this analysis would not be affected by an increase of 7 trips in the PM peak period. Given that the PM peak is the only peak that is estimated to generate more traffic and that it only generates 7 more peak hour trips than originally analyzed. This miniscule increase in traffic during the PM peak is not projected to result in changes to the LOS, queuing or recommendations presented within this report. As such, it is JLB’s opinion that this analysis effectively analyzes the latest Project site plan.
350
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 17
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
Table VIII: Difference in Trip Generation
Land Use (ITE Code)
Daily AM (7-9) Peak Hour PM (4-6) Peak Hour
Total In Out Total In Out Total
Project Trip Generation 9,231 306 380 686 326 241 567
Analyzed Trip Generation 9,308 340 411 751 318 242 560
Difference in Trip Generation -77 -34 -31 -65 8 -1 7
Trip Distribution
The trip distribution assumptions were developed based on existing travel patterns, the Fresno COG Project Select Zone, the existing roadway network, engineering judgment, data provided by the developer, knowledge of the study area, existing residential and commercial densities and the City of Selma General Plan Update 2035 Circulation Element in the vicinity of the Project site. The Project’s trip generation data was provided to Fresno COG in order to conduct a Project‐specific Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) analysis using the Fresno COG ABM (Cumulative Year 2046). The Fresno COG Project Select Zone results provided by Kittelson & Associates are contained in Appendix C. Figure 4 illustrates the Project Only Trips at the study intersections.

Active Transportation Plan
The Selma Active Transportation Plan (ATP), approved in April 2018, outlines the City’s vision for active transportation in which a complete, safe and comfortable network of trails, sidewalks and bikeways serve all who live and work in Selma. The ATP aims to a) create a network that connects residents to key destinations, b) create user-friendly facilities to promote walking and bicycling and c) increase safety by improving crosswalks and sidewalks in Selma.

In order to achieve these goals for active transportation, the ATP proposes a comprehensive network of citywide bikeways, trails and sidewalks. The recommended network would add 5.3 miles of Class I Bike Paths, 39.8 miles of Class II Bike Lanes, 8.9 miles of Class III Bike Routes, 0.9 miles of Class IV Separated Bikeways and 6.1 miles of sidewalks. This ATP also makes recommendations for cross sections of a proposed trail along the east side of the City, roadway crossing improvements and bicycle parking. This network will be constructed in conjunction with adjacent land developments, roadway maintenance, capacity enhancement and active transportation infrastructure projects using funds from different local, state and federal sources.
351
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 18
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
Bikeways
The Selma ATP classifies bicycle facilities into the following types:
• Class I Bikeway (Bike Path) – Provides a completely separated right-of-way for exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflow minimized.
• Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane) – Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway. • Class III Bikeway (Bike Route) – Provides a shared use with pedestrians or motor vehicle traffic, typically on lower volume roadways.
• Class IV Bikeways (Separated Bikeways) – Provides a protected lane for one-way bike travel (one-way cycle track) and protected lanes for two-way bike travel (two-way cycle track) on a street or highway.

Currently, Class II Bikeways currently exist adjacent to and in the vicinity of the Project site. Adjacent to the Project site, Class II Bikeways exist along Floral Avenue. In the vicinity of the Project site, Class II Bikeways exist along portions of Floral Avenue and Highland Avenue. Currently, bicycle travel through the State Route 99 at Floral Avenue interchange and along State Route 43 have been categorized as high stress.

The Selma ATP recommends that Class II Bikeways be implemented adjacent to and in the vicinity of the Project site (City of Selma 2018). Adjacent to the Project site, Class II Bikeways are planned along Floral Avenue. In the vicinity of the Project site, Class II Bikeways are planned along remaining portions of Floral Avenue, Highland Avenue and Golden State Boulevard. In the vicinity of the Project site, Class I Bikeways are planned along portions of Golden State Boulevard. In the vicinity of the Project site, Class III Bikeways are planned along portions of Rose Avenue. Therefore, it is recommended that the Project retain the Class II Bikeway along its frontage to Floral Avenue, consistent with the Selma ATP, and that a Class II Bikeway be implemented along the Project’s frontage to the Future North-South Road. Furthermore, it is recommended that the City of Selma and Caltrans collaborate on a future analysis of bicycle facilities through the State Route 99 at Floral Avenue interchange and seek funding sources for the reconstruction of this interchange to promote alternate modes of transportation.

Walkways
The Selma ATP classifies pedestrian facilities as either sidewalk or Class I Bike Paths, which allow for exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians. Currently, pedestrian sidewalks exist in the vicinity of the Project site. In the vicinity of the Project, pedestrian sidewalks exist along portions of Floral Avenue, Highland Avenue, Stillman Street and Rose Avenue. Currently, sidewalks provide a direct connection to three (3) bus routes that have stops within 0.5 miles of the Project. These stops and routes are described in further detail in the Transit section of this Report. 352
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 19
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
The Selma ATP recommends that pedestrian sidewalks and Class I Bike Paths be implemented adjacent to and in the vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, it is recommended that the project construct ADA compliant pedestrian sidewalks along all internal streets connecting all uses to external sidewalks and along the Project’s frontage to Floral Avenue, Future North-South Road and Stillman Street. Furthermore, it is recommended that the City of Selma and Caltrans collaborate on a future analysis of pedestrian facilities through the State Route 99 at Floral Avenue interchange and seek funding sources for the reconstruction of this interchange to promote alternate modes of transportation.

Transit
The Selma Transit Division operates under MV Transportation, Monday through Friday from 7:00 AM to 5:30 PM. The Selma Transit Division operates five (5) compressed natural gas vehicles. The natural gas vans operate on an “on call basis” and will pick up and drop off at the requested destination within the City’s SOI. One (1) vehicle operates on Saturdays from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.

Fresno County Rural Transit Agency (FCRTA) is the transit operator in the County of Fresno. At present, there are two (2) Transit Routes that serve the City of Selma. These include Kingsburg-Reedley Inter-City Transit and Southeast Inter-City Transit. Kingsburg-Reedley Transit runs in the vicinity of the proposed Project via Whitson Street. This route provides a direct connection to the cities of Kingsburg, Selma, Fowler, Parlier and Reedley. The closest stop is located approximately 0.5 miles east of the proposed Project near the Selma Plaza Shopping Center. Southeast Transit runs in the vicinity of the proposed Project via Whitson Street. This Route provides a direct connection to the cities of Kingsburg, Selma, Fowler and Fresno. The closest stop is located approximately 0.5 miles east of the proposed Project near the Selma Plaza Shopping Center.

Kings Area Rural Transit (KART) is the transit operator in the County of Kings. KART Route 17 runs in the vicinity of the proposed Project via Highland Avenue. The closest stop is located near Selma Kaiser Hospital, approximately 0.2 miles east of the proposed Project. This Route provides a direct connection to Valley Children’s Hospital, Fresno Kaiser Hospital, Fresno Veterans Hospital, Community Regional Center, Fresno Fulton Mall and Selma Kaiser Hospital.

Retention of the existing and expansion of future transit routes is dependent on transit ridership demand and available funding.

Safe Routes to School
Kindergarten through 12th grade students from the Project will be served by the Selma Unified School District (SUSD). The SUSD provides transportation for students who live in excess of an established radius zone. The zone is a radius of 1.0 mile for Kindergarten through 6th grade and 2.5 miles for 7th through 12th grade.

Based on attendance boundaries at the time of the preparation of this TIA, elementary school students would attend Eric White Elementary School located on the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Highland Avenue at Nebraska Avenue. Eric White Elementary School is located 0.65 and 0.95 from the nearest and farthest residential unit on the Project, respectively. Therefore, it is anticipated that elementary school students will need to walk, bike or be driven between the Project and school. 353
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 20
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
The most direct path from the Project to the Eric White Elementary School campus can begin at the northwest quadrant of Highland Avenue at Stillman Street. Students would proceed to travel east on the north side of Stillman Street until reaching the northwest corner of Highland Avenue at Stillman Street.

This intersection is controlled by a traffic signal that contains marked crosswalks on all legs. Students would cross the north and east legs or the west and south legs to reach the southeast corner of Highland Avenue at Stillman Street. Students would proceed to travel south on the east side of Highland Avenue until reaching the intersection of Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue. This intersection is controlled by a two-way stop on Rose Avenue that contains no marked crosswalks. Students would cross the east leg to reach the southeast corner of Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue. Students would proceed east on the south side of Rose Avenue until reaching the intersection of Mitchell Avenue at Rose Avenue. This intersection is controlled by a one-way stop on Mitchell Avenue that contains a marked crosswalk on the east leg. Students would proceed to travel south of the west side of Mitchell Avenue until reaching the northwest corner of Mitchell Avenue at Fig Street. This intersection is controlled by a one-way stop on Fig Street that contains a marked crosswalk on the west and north legs. Students would cross the west leg to reach the southwest corner of Mitchell Avenue at Fig Street. Students would proceed to travel west on the south side of Fig Street until reaching an entrance to the school campus.

Based on attendance boundaries at the time of the preparation of this TIA, middle school students would attend Abraham Lincoln Middle School located on the northeast quadrant of Orange Avenue at Floral Avenue. Abraham Lincoln Middle School is located 1.80 and 2.10 from the nearest and farthest residential unit on the Project, respectively. Therefore, it is anticipated that middle school students will need to walk, bike or be driven between the Project and school.

The most direct path from the Project to the Abraham Lincoln Middle School campus can begin at the southwest quadrant of the State Route 99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Floral Avenue. Students would proceed east on the south side of Floral Avenue until reaching the southwest corner of the State Route 99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Floral Avenue. This intersection is controlled by a traffic signal that contains marked crosswalks on the east, west and north legs. Students would cross the west and north legs to reach the northeast corner of the State Route 99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Floral Avenue. Students would proceed to travel east on the north side of Floral Avenue until reaching the intersection of Highland Avenue at Floral Avenue. This intersection is controlled by a traffic signal that contains marked crosswalks on the east and south legs. Students would cross the north leg to reach the northeast corner of Highland Avenue at Floral Avenue. Students would proceed to travel east on the north side of Floral Avenue until reaching the intersection of Whitson Street at Floral Avenue. This intersection is controlled by a traffic signal that contains marked crosswalks on all legs. Students would cross the north leg to reach the northeast corner of Whitson Street at Floral Avenue. Students would proceed to travel east on the north side of Floral Avenue crossing the Union Pacific Railroad until reaching the intersection of Thompson Avenue at Floral Avenue. This intersection is controlled by a traffic signal that contains marked crosswalks on the east, west and north legs. Students would cross the west and south legs to reach the southeast corner of Thompson Avenue at Floral Avenue. Students would proceed to travel east on the south side of Floral Avenue until reaching the intersection of Wright Street at Floral Avenue. This intersection is controlled by a traffic signal that contains marked crosswalks on all legs. Students would cross the south 354
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 21
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
leg to reach the southeast corner of Wright Street at Floral Avenue. Students would proceed east on the south side of Floral Avenue until reaching the intersection of McCall Avenue at Floral Avenue. This intersection is controlled by a traffic signal that contains marked crosswalks on all legs. Students would cross the south legs to reach the southeast corner of McCall Avenue at Floral Avenue. Students would proceed to travel east on the south side of Floral Avenue until reaching the intersection of Orange Avenue at Floral Avenue. This intersection is controlled by an all-way stop that contains marked crosswalks on all legs. Students would cross the west and north or the south and east legs to reach the northeast corner of Orange Avenue at Floral Avenue. Students would proceed to travel north on the east side of Orange Avenue until reaching an entrance to the school campus.

Based on attendance boundaries at the time of the preparation of this TIA, high school students would attend Selma High School is located 0.90 and 1.20 from the nearest and farthest residential unit on the Project, respectively. Therefore, it is anticipated that high school students will need to walk, bike or be driven between the Project and school.

The most direct path from the Project to the Selma High School campus can begin at the southwest quadrant of the State Route 99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Floral Avenue. Students would proceed east on the south side of Floral Avenue until reaching the southwest corner of the State Route 99 Southbound OffRamp at Floral Avenue. This intersection is controlled by a traffic signal that contains marked crosswalks on the east, west and north legs. Students would cross the west and north legs to reach the northeast corner of the State Route 99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Floral Avenue. Students would proceed to travel east on the north side of Floral Avenue until reaching the intersection of Highland Avenue at Floral Avenue. This intersection is controlled by a traffic signal that contains marked crosswalks on the east and south legs. Students would cross the north leg to reach the northeast corner of Highland Avenue at Floral Avenue. Students would proceed to travel east on the north side of Floral Avenue until reaching the intersection of Whitson Street at Floral Avenue. This intersection is controlled by a traffic signal that contains marked crosswalks on all legs. Students would cross the north leg to reach the northeast corner of Whitson Street at Floral Avenue. Students would proceed to travel east on the north side of Floral Avenue crossing the Union Pacific Railroad until reaching the intersection of Thompson Avenue at Floral Avenue. This intersection is controlled by a traffic signal that contains marked crosswalks on the east, west and north legs. Students would proceed to travel north of the west side of Thompson Avenue until reaching the intersection of Highland Avenue at Lewis Street. This intersection is controlled by a one-way stop on Lewis Street that contains marked crosswalks on the west and south legs. Students would cross the south leg to reach the southeast corner of Thompson Avenue at Lewis Street. Students would proceed to travel north on the east die of Thompson Avenue until reaching an entrance to the school campus.

Stretches of Floral Avenue, Highland Avenue and Thompson Avenue that will be utilized by students to reach school campuses do not contain sidewalks. Also, the intersections of Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue and various intersections along Floral Avenue do not contain marked crosswalks. It is recommended that the Project and Selma Unified School district look into funding sources to enhance the walkways for elementary, middle and high school students to and from school campuses. 355
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 22
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
Roadway Network
The Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario assumes that the existing roadways geometrics and traffic controls will remain in place with the following exceptions. The addition of the Project with its access points, modifications to the intersection of Walmart Main Driveway at Floral Avenue to a four legged intersection with protected left-turn phasing, the extension of Stillman Street west and the construction of the Future North-South Road along the western boundary of the Project between Floral Avenue and Stillman Street. The intersection of the Future North-South Road at Floral Avenue should be constructed with a single left-through-right lane on the east, west and north legs and a left-turn lane and a through-right lane on the south leg. This intersection will be initially controlled by a two-way stop on the north and south legs. Furthermore, it is recommended that the westbound left-turn lane storage length at the intersection of Walmart Main Driveway at Floral Avenue be extended as far east as possible (between 340 and 480 feet) while taking design constraints into consideration. In order to extend this westbound left-turn lane, the eastbound left-turn lane to the east of it will need to be removed. Figure 5 illustrates the assumed intersection geometrics and traffic controls for these intersections under this scenario.

Traffic Signal Warrants
Warrant 3 was prepared for the unsignalized intersections under the Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario. These warrants are found in Appendix J. Under this scenario, only the intersection of Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue satisfies Warrant 3. Based on the traffic signal warrants, operational analysis and engineering judgement, it is recommended that the intersection of Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue be signalized.

Results of Existing plus Project Level of Service Analysis Figure 5 illustrates the Existing plus Project turning movement volumes, intersection geometrics and traffic controls. LOS worksheets for the Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario are provided in Appendix F. Table IX presents a summary of the Existing plus Project peak hour LOS at the study intersections.

Under this scenario, the intersection of Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue is projected to exceed its LOS threshold during the PM peak period. All other study intersections are projected to continue operating at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods. The following improvements are recommended to improve the LOS at this intersection.
• Highland Avenue / Rose Avenue
o Add an eastbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the eastbound left-through lane to a through-right lane; o Remove the eastbound right-turn lane;
o Add a westbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; and o Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing in all directions. 356
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 23
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
Table IX: Existing Plus Project Intersection LOS Results ID Intersection Intersection Control
AM (7 - 9) Peak Hour PM (4 - 6) Peak Hour
Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Average Delay(sec/veh) LOS
1 Highland Avenue / Golden State Boulevard Traffic Signal 22.2 C 24.2 C 2 DeWolf Avenue / Floral Avenue Two-Way Stop 10.8 B 12.1 B 3 Future North-South Road / Floral Avenue Two-Way Stop 10.9 B 12.4 B 4 Walmart Main Driveway / Floral Avenue Traffic Signal 29.9 C 34.2 C 5 Eastern Driveway / Floral Avenue One-Way Stop 11.1 B 12.6 B 6 SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp / Floral Avenue Traffic Signal 19.7 B 26.3 C 7 Highland Avenue / Floral Avenue Traffic Signal 27.1 C 30.8 C 8 SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp / Floral Avenue Traffic Signal 9.9 A 9.1 A 9 Whitson Street / Floral Avenue Traffic Signal 21.1 C 22.5 C 10 Highland Avenue / SR 99 Southbound Ramps Traffic Signal 11.4 B 14.3 B 11 Southern Driveway / Stillman Street One-Way Stop 9.5 A 9.7 A 12 Highland Avenue / Stillman Street Traffic Signal 20.8 C 33.1 C 13 Highland Avenue / Rose Avenue
Two-Way Stop 20.7 C 50.1 F
Improved (Traffic Signal) 14.2 B 16.5 B
Note: LOS = Level of Service based on average delay on signalized intersections and All-Way STOP Controls LOS for two-way and one-way STOP controlled intersections are based on the worst approach/movement of the minor street. 357
358
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Casitas Selma - City of Selma
Site Plan
Figure 3
N
SUBJECT PARCEL NET AREA = 36.3 ACRES ±
APN: 385-260-33 EXISTING ZONING: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL PROPOSED ZONING: MIXED USE

29.4' 27' 27'
27' 27'
27'
27'
55' 30'
27' 27'
24'
24'
24'
27' 27' 47.77
L=76.17' R=930.00'
L=76.17' R=930.00' L=38.07' R=930.00' 270.54' 80.16' 480.80' 265.03' L=16.51' R=2319.06' L=63.50' R=2319.06'
L=18.00' R=2319.06' 80.00' 264.52'
590.58' 406.37' 54.00'
L=10.76' R=40.00' L=17.96' R=60.00' 58.55' 36.06' 272.37' 111.36' L=17.10' R=40.00'
L=25.65' R=60.00'

90.36'
L=98.85' R=12.00'
L=186.52' R=253.0'
156.54' 283.25' 566.54'

77.07' 481.35'
627.87'
1319.47' 1096.84'
284.31' 61.59'
351.38'

55.00'
PARCEL 3
5,951 SQ FT

0.14 ACRES 91.83' 64.80' 91.85'

64.80'
102.01' 119.50'
468.92' 497.49'
336.49' 70.93' 401.04'
499.78'
556.16' 333.05' 405.10'
508.03'

76.04' 1042.31'
1273.45'
366.42'
359.39'
426.21'
405.37'

55.00' 561.32'
36' 30'
36'
36'
40' 24' 24' 24' 24'

OUTLOT C
119,209 SQ FT

2.74 ACRES 47.65
LANDS OF NAJAFI APN: 385-260-03 ZONING: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL 46' 46' 32' 32' 42' 42' 30' 54'
263.28' 299.00' 345.00'
PARCEL 7
170,170 SQ FT

3.91 ACRES
PARCEL 8
164,789 SQ FT

3.78 ACRES

63.50' 46.00' 184.00' 255.91' 71.91'

74.95' 284.44'
L=326.62' R=261.0'
L=335.78' R=261.00' 76.20' 186.04' 262.23' 36' 73.28' 217.65' 144.37' L=364.89' R=253.00'
L=101.71' R=122.00' 18.57' 188.50' 207.33'

75.22'

20.5' 1371.75'
L=22.61' R=58.99' PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

CENTERLINE
(EX) 20' UTILITY EASEMENT

TO REMAIN
EX. STORM DRAIN MANHOLE
EX. STORM DRAIN MANHOLE
(EX) SECTION LINE

APPROXIMATE LOCATION
30' CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT AREA PER 58 PM 96/97

CENTERLINE
1319.47'

14.26'
2637.74'

CLUBHOUSE
POOL 24'
24' 24' 24' 24' 24' 24'

10.0'

10.0' 270.57'
161' 56'
210.00' 280.73'
10' 24' 10.0'
204.63'
L=15.06' R=38.76' 15.0'
PARCEL 3A
37,960 SQ FT

0.87 ACRES
PARCEL 4A
56,394 SQ FT

1.29 ACRES
PARCEL 1
70,182 SQ FT

1.61 ACRES
PARCEL 5
14,400 SQ FT

0.33 ACRES
PARCEL 10
155,324 SQ FT

3.57 ACRES

OUTLOT A
16,804 SQ FT

0.39 ACRES 24' 15'
PARCEL 6
166,772 SQ FT

3.83 ACRES
PARCEL 6A
72,273 SQ FT

1.66 ACRES

OUTLOT B
137,203 SQ FT

3.15 ACRES
PARCEL 7A
76,876 SQ FT

1.76 ACRES
PARCEL 9
211,161 SQ FT

4.85 ACRES
PARCEL 9A
93,930 SQ FT

2.16 ACRES
PARCEL 8A
70,981 SQ FT

1.63 ACRES
L=57.20' R=158.00'
L=529.15
'
R=217.00
'
L=60.94' R=158.00'
L=27.33' R=20.00'

8.67'
L=22.75' R=46.00' R=2 L=644.36' 25.00'
L=36.91' R=96.00' L=24.82' R=20.00'
649.77'
20' 25' 15' 15.0'
PARCEL 2
4,148 SQ FT

0.10 ACRES

80.56' 51.49' 80.57' 51.48'
356'
PARCEL 4
19,200 SQ FT

0.44 ACRES
PARCEL 2A
37,659 SQ FT

0.86 ACRES
180.00' 80.00'
240.00' 80.00'
180.00' 80.00'
240.00' 80.00' 32.8'

32.4'
1 2
2 001-009 - 10/05/23 - CT/AB
Not To Scale

FLORAL AVENUE

STILLMAN ST

FLORAL AVE FUTURE N-S RD
359
360
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
001-009 - 09/08/23 - AB/CT
Casitas Selma - City of Selma
Project Only Trips
Figure 4
N
Not To Scale
LEGEND

1. Highland Ave &
Golden State Blvd
17(19)
33(13)10(12)
20(9)
Highland Ave Golden State Blvd

2. DeWolf Ave &
Floral Ave
18(23)
8(6)
29(12)13(13) DeWolf Ave
Floral Ave

4. Walmart Main Drwy &
Floral Ave
4(3)
25(23)
242(157)
26(14)30(16)
114(67)
9(24)
Walmart Drwy
Floral Ave

6. SR 99 SB Off-Ramp &
Floral Ave
232(142) 45(49)
197(108)
SR 99 SB Off-Ramp
Floral Ave

7. Highland Ave &
Floral Ave
40(22)
171(105)
21(15)
21(22)
160(82) 1(2) 10(7) 15(10)
36(24)3(10)
Highland Ave
Floral Ave

8. SR 99 NB Off-Ramp &
Floral Ave
120(89)
158(76)
23(27) Floral Ave
SR 99 NB Off-Ramp

9. Whitson St &
Floral Ave
67(51)
42(27)
98(47) 52(20) Whitson St
Floral Ave

10. Highland Ave &
SR 99 SB Ramps
9(27)
54(33)
8(6)
26(33)19(14)
Highland Ave
SR 99 SB Ramps

11. Southern Drwy &
Stillman St
1(5)
32(20)
16(32)
39(63)
5(2)74(42)
Southern Drwy
Stillman St

12. Highland Ave &
Stillman St
61(37)
11(6)
36(20)
6(8)
17(28)
1(2)
33(59)2(1)
Highland Ave
Stillman St

13. Highland Ave &
Rose Ave
5(6) 9(14)
12(7)13(7)
Highland Ave
Rose Ave
#
XX
(XX)
= STUDY INTERSECTION
= FUTURE ROADWAY
= AM PROJECT ONLY TRIPS
= PM PROJECT ONLY TRIPS

3. Future N-S Rd &
Floral Ave
29(26)
2(10)
26(14)
11(4) Floral Ave Future N-S Rd

5. Eastern Drwy &
Floral Ave
160(97)
3(2)
242(157) 72(45)
Floral Ave Eastern Drwy
UPRR

FLORAL AVE

STILLMAN ST

ROSE AVE DEWOLF AVE

WHITSON ST FRONT ST HIGHLAND AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD
1 2
6 7
8 9
10 12
13 4
11 PROJECT SITE

NELSON BLVD
3 5 FUTURE N-S RD
361
001-009 - 09/08/23 - CT/AB
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Casitas Selma - City of Selma
Existing plus Project - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls Figure 5
N
Not To Scale
LEGEND
UPRR

FLORAL AVE

STILLMAN ST

ROSE AVE DEWOLF AVE

WHITSON ST FRONT ST HIGHLAND AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD
= STUDY INTERSECTION
= FUTURE ROADWAY
= STOP SIGN
= TRAFFIC SIGNAL
= AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
= PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
#
1 2
6 7
8 9
10 12
13 4
11 PROJECT SITE

NELSON BLVD

1. Highland Ave &
Golden State Blvd
5(24)
124(239)
143(218)
13(9)
149(137)
31(66)
135(132)130(311)
13(18)
14(8)230(240)41(49)
Highland Ave Golden State Blvd

2. DeWolf Ave &
Floral Ave
0(0)
107(147)
2(9)
15(22)
91(187)
6(16)
0(7)4(5)
20(29)
0(2)5(4)11(8) DeWolf Ave
Floral Ave

4. Walmart Main Drwy &
Floral Ave
22(32)
97(172)
25(23)
242(157)
105(159)
222(377)
26(14)44(36)
114(67)
6(22)19(60)170(379)
Walmart Drwy
Floral Ave

6. SR 99 SB Off-Ramp &
Floral Ave
541(780)
49(117)
53(109)
596(701) 50(134)
106(159)23(41)164(233)
SR 99 SB Off-Ramp
Floral Ave

7. Highland Ave &
Floral Ave
198(240)
590(778)
102(148)
142(125)
691(655)
79(107) 47(77) 118(227) 76(107)
206(257)197(253)30(64)
Highland Ave
Floral Ave

8. SR 99 NB Off-Ramp &
Floral Ave
537(770)
679(668)
195(184)
37(41)
Floral Ave
SR 99 NB Off-Ramp

9. Whitson St &
Floral Ave
10(35)
331(563)
136(213)
78(55)
488(417)
9(11) 167(243) 104(134)
17(35)
10(23)129(213)67(92) Whitson St
Floral Ave

10. Highland Ave &
SR 99 SB Ramps
350(382)
641(702)
34(56)
242(250)194(279)
Highland Ave
SR 99 SB Ramps

12. Highland Ave &
Stillman St
78(210)
19(20)
81(270)
9(29)
11(17)
41(87)
75(146)
566(477)
33(30)
93(119)446(483)54(55)
Highland Ave
Stillman St

13. Highland Ave &
Rose Ave
2(5)
4(11)
4(6)
23(26)
1(7)
115(108)
2(5)
538(608)
24(33)
2(9)394(670)81(156)
Highland Ave
Rose Ave
0(1)
2(3) 143(117)
4(16)
4(19)
4(2)
XX
(XX)
3 5

11. Southern Drwy &
Stillman St
1(5)
37(39)
25(42)
53(83)
5(2)84(78)
Southern Drwy
Stillman St

3. Future N-S Rd &
Floral Ave
3(3)
131(185)
7(29)
0(0)
99(169)
38(26)
20(14)
0(0)0(0)
2(2)0(0)13(42)
Floral Ave Future N-S Rd

5. Eastern Drwy &
Floral Ave
518(852)
3(2)
702(860) 72(45)
Floral Ave Eastern Drwy FUTURE N-S RD
362
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 27
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024

Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions
Description of Near Term Projects
Near Term Projects are approved and/or known Projects that are either under construction, built but not fully occupied, are not built but have final site development review (SDR) approval or for which the lead agency or responsible agencies have knowledge of. The City of Selma staff were consulted throughout the preparation of this Report regarding approved and/or known projects that could potentially impact the study intersections and study segment. JLB staff conducted a reconnaissance of the surrounding area to confirm the Near Term Projects. Therefore, the Near Term Projects listed in Table X were approved, near approval, or in the pipeline within the proximity of the proposed Project.

The trip generation listed in Table X is that which is anticipated to be added to the roadway network by the Near Term Projects between the time of the preparation of this Report and five years after buildout of the proposed Project. As shown in Table X, the total trip generation for the Near Term Projects is 52,746 daily trips, 2,022 AM peak hour trips and 3,985 PM peak hour trips. Figure 6 illustrates the location of the Near Term Projects and their combined trip assignment to the study intersections under this scenario.

Table X: Near Term Projects’ Trip Generation
Near Term
Project ID
Near Term
Project Name
Daily
Trips
AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
A Amberwood (portion of)3 5,270 389 484
B Canales (portion of)3 4,318 118 407
C Selma Crossings (Portion of)3 9,595 362 879
D Selma Grove (portion of)2 11,519 316 1,066
E TT 61092 2,974 233 312
F V5 Commercial3 2,552 68 221
G NEQ Nebraska and Highland Development1 7,589 228 271
H SWQ Nebraska and Highland Development1 8,431 272 295
I Selma Auto Body 498 36 50
Total Near Term Project Trips 52,746 2,022 3,985
Note: 1 = Trip Generation prepared by JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. based on readily available information 2 = Trip Generation based on a JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis Report 5 = Trip Generation based on a Traffic Impact Analysis Report by another Traffic Engineering Firm Roadway Network
The Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario assumes that the Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions roadway geometrics and traffic controls will remain in place. Figure 7 illustrates the assumed intersection geometrics and traffic controls for these intersections under this scenario.

363
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 28
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
Traffic Signal Warrants
Warrant 3 was prepared for the unsignalized intersections under the Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario. These warrants are found in Appendix J. Under this scenario, only the intersection of Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue satisfies Warrant 3. Based on the traffic signal warrants, operational analysis and engineering judgement, it is recommended that the intersection of Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue be signalized.

Results of Near Term plus Project Level of Service Analysis Figure 7 illustrates the Near Term plus Project turning movement volumes, intersection geometrics and traffic controls. LOS worksheets for the Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario are provided in Appendix G. Table XI presents a summary of the Near Term plus Project peak hour LOS at the study intersections.

Under this scenario, the intersections of Future North-South Road at Floral Avenue, Highland Avenue at Floral Avenue and Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue are projected to exceed their LOS threshold during the PM peak period. All other study intersections are projected to continue operating at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods. The following improvements are recommended to improve the LOS at this intersection.
• Future North-South Road / Floral Avenue
o Modify the eastbound left-through-right lane to a left-through lane; o Add an eastbound through lane with a receiving lane east of Future North-South Road; o Add an eastbound right-turn lane;
o Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a left-through lane; and o Add a westbound through-right lane with a receiving lane west of Future North-South Road. • Highland Avenue / Floral Avenue
o Add a second eastbound left-turn lane; and
o Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the added lane. • Highland Avenue / Rose Avenue
o Add an eastbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the eastbound left-through lane to a through-right lane; o Remove the eastbound right-turn lane;
o Add a westbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; and o Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing in all directions. 364
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 29
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
Table XI: Near Term Plus Project Intersection LOS Results ID Intersection Intersection Control
AM (7 - 9) Peak Hour PM (4 - 6) Peak Hour
Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Average Delay(sec/veh) LOS
1 Highland Avenue / Golden State Boulevard Traffic Signal 25.3 C 33.3 C 2 DeWolf Avenue / Floral Avenue Two-Way Stop 11.2 B 19.1 C 3 Future North-South Road / Floral Avenue
Two-Way Stop 15.7 C 46.1 E
Improved (All-Way Stop) 10.1 B 22.2 C
4 Walmart Main Driveway / Floral Avenue Traffic Signal 31.9 C 42.6 D 5 Eastern Driveway / Floral Avenue Two-Way Stop 12.0 B 16.2 C 6 SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp / Floral Avenue Traffic Signal 19.4 B 29.7 C 7 Highland Avenue / Floral Avenue
Traffic Signal 29.2 C 64.1 E
Improved (Traffic Signal) 26.0 C 51.9 D
8 SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp / Floral Avenue Traffic Signal 11.0 B 10.5 B 9 Whitson Street / Floral Avenue Traffic Signal 19.8 B 23.5 C 10 Highland Avenue / SR 99 Southbound Ramps Traffic Signal 11.9 B 15.5 B 11 Southern Driveway / Stillman Street One-Way Stop 9.6 A 10.0 B 12 Highland Avenue / Stillman Street Traffic Signal 20.2 C 32.8 C 13 Highland Avenue / Rose Avenue
Two-Way Stop 27.9 D >120.0 F
Improved (Traffic Signal) 15.2 B 20.7 C
Note: LOS = Level of Service based on average delay on signalized intersections and All-Way STOP Controls LOS for two-way and one-way STOP controlled intersections are based on the worst approach/movement of the minor street. 365
366
001-009 - 05/25/23 - AB/CS/CT
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Casitas Selma - City of Selma
Near Term Projects' Trip Assignment
Figure 6
N
Not To Scale
LEGEND

1. Highland Ave &
Golden State Blvd
1(2)
34(95)
2(1)
4(9)
25(97)
46(127)
80(138)3(6)
Highland Ave Golden State Blvd

2. DeWolf Ave &
Floral Ave
15(43)
2(76)
21(39)
1(2) 3(103)
1(4) DeWolf Ave
Floral Ave

4. Walmart Main Drwy &
Floral Ave
108(354)
171(412)
16(23)
19(38)
Walmart Drwy
Floral Ave

6. SR 99 SB Off-Ramp &
Floral Ave
131(403)
1(2)
143(293) 1(2)
56(163)1(2)
SR 99 SB Off-Ramp
Floral Ave

7. Highland Ave &
Floral Ave
36(153)
60(211)
36(41)
27(44)
69(116)
3(9)
11(19)33(61)15(18)
67(160)46(70)1(1)
Highland Ave
Floral Ave

8. SR 99 NB Off-Ramp &
Floral Ave
44(114)
65(122)
32(43)
4(17)
Floral Ave
SR 99 NB Off-Ramp

9. Whitson St &
Floral Ave
32(86)
8(30)
49(84)
14(13) 10(25)
6(17) Whitson St
Floral Ave

10. Highland Ave &
SR 99 SB Ramps
36(48)
111(149)
70(121)39(34)
Highland Ave
SR 99 SB Ramps

11. Southern Drwy &
Stillman St
6(18)
10(18)
Southern Drwy
Stillman St

12. Highland Ave &
Stillman St
0(2)
12(31)
6(13)
0(2)
16(30)
111(145)
6(12)
1(0)104(168)1(0)
Highland Ave
Stillman St

13. Highland Ave &
Rose Ave
2(9)
15(22)
0(1)
2(4)
3(10)
67(130)
15(19)
81(128)17(13)
Highland Ave
Rose Ave
# = NEAR TERM PROJECT LOCATION
XX = AM NEAR TERM TRIPS
(XX) = PM NEAR TERM TRIPS
D
B C
A
E
F
H G
I
4(12)
UPRR

FLORAL AVE

STILLMAN ST

ROSE AVE DEWOLF AVE

WHITSON ST FRONT ST HIGHLAND AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD
1 2
6 7
8 9
10 12
13 4
11 PROJECT SITE

NELSON BLVD
3 5

3. Future N-S Rd &
Floral Ave
108(354)
6(18)
171(412)
10(18) Floral Ave Future N-S Rd

5. Eastern Drwy &
Floral Ave
131(403)
199(456)
Floral Ave Eastern Drwy
# = STUDY INTERSECTION
= FUTURE ROADWAY FUTURE N-S RD
367
001-009 - 09/08/23- AB/CS/CT
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Casitas Selma - City of Selma
Near Term plus Project - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls Figure 7
N
Not To Scale
LEGEND

1. Highland Ave &
Golden State Blvd
5(24)
125(241)
177(313)
13(9)
151(138)
35(75)
160(229)176(438)
13(18)
14(8)310(378)44(55)
Highland Ave Golden State Blvd

2. DeWolf Ave &
Floral Ave
0(0)
122(190)
2(9)
17(98)
112(226)
7(18)
0(7)4(5)
23(132)
0(2)5(4)12(12) DeWolf Ave
Floral Ave

4. Walmart Main Drwy &
Floral Ave
22(32)
205(526)
25(23)
242(157)
276(571)
238(400)
26(14)44(36)
114(67)
6(22)19(30)189(417)
Walmart Drwy
Floral Ave

6. SR 99 SB Off-Ramp &
Floral Ave
672(1183)
49(117)
54(111)
739(994) 51(136)
162(322)23(41)165(235)
SR 99 SB Off-Ramp
Floral Ave

7. Highland Ave &
Floral Ave
234(393)
650(989)
138(189)
169(169)
760(771)
82(116) 58(96) 151(288) 91(125)
273(417)243(323)31(65)
Highland Ave
Floral Ave

8. SR 99 NB Off-Ramp &
Floral Ave
581(884)
744(790)
227(227)
41(58)
Floral Ave
SR 99 NB Off-Ramp

9. Whitson St &
Floral Ave
10(35)
363(649)
144(243)
78(55)
537(501)
23(24) 177(268) 104(134) 17(35)
10(23)129(213)73(109) Whitson St
Floral Ave

10. Highland Ave &
SR 99 SB Ramps
386(430)
752(851)
34(56)
312(371)233(313)
Highland Ave
SR 99 SB Ramps

11. Southern Drwy &
Stillman St
1(5)
43(57)
35(60)
53(83)
5(2)84(78)
Southern Drwy
Stillman St

12. Highland Ave &
Stillman St
78(212)
19(20)
93(301)
15(42)
11(17)
41(89)
91(176)
677(622)
39(42)
94(119)550(651)55(55)
Highland Ave
Stillman St

13. Highland Ave &
Rose Ave
2(5)
4(11)
6(15)
38(48)
1(8)
117(112)
5(15)
605(738)
39(52)
2(9)475(798)98(169)
Highland Ave
Rose Ave
0(1)
2(3) 147(129)
4(16)
4(19)
4(2)
= STUDY INTERSECTION
= FUTURE ROADWAY
= STOP SIGN
= TRAFFIC SIGNAL
= AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
= PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
#
XX
(XX)
UPRR

FLORAL AVE

STILLMAN ST

ROSE AVE DEWOLF AVE

WHITSON ST FRONT ST HIGHLAND AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD
1 2
6 7
8 9
10 12
13 4
11 PROJECT SITE

NELSON BLVD
3 5

3. Future N-S Rd &
Floral Ave
6(7)
242(518)
13(47)
0(0)
252(593)
56(14)
30(32)
0(0)0(0)
1(5)0(0)10(63)
Floral Ave Future N-S Rd

5. Eastern Drwy &
Floral Ave
649(1255)
3(2)
901(1316) 72(45)
Floral Ave Eastern Drwy FUTURE N-S RD
368
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 32
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024

Cumulative Year 2046 No Project Traffic Conditions
Roadway Network
The Cumulative Year 2046 No Project Traffic Conditions scenario assumes that the Existing Traffic Conditions roadway geometrics and traffic controls will remain in place. Figure 8 illustrates the location of the Near Term Projects and their combined trip assignment to the study intersections under this scenario.

Figure 9 illustrates the assumed intersection geometrics and traffic controls for these intersections under this scenario.

Traffic Signal Warrants
Warrant 3 was prepared for the unsignalized intersections under the Cumulative Year 2046 No Project Traffic Conditions scenario. These warrants are contained in Appendix J. Under this scenario, the intersections of DeWolf Avenue at Floral Avenue and Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue are projected to satisfy Warrant 3 during one or both peak periods. Based on the traffic signal warrants, operational analysis and engineering judgement, it is recommended that the City only consider implementing traffic signal controls at the intersection of Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue.

Results of Cumulative Year 2046 No Project Level of Service Analysis Figure 9 illustrates the Cumulative Year 2046 No Project turning movement volumes, intersection geometrics and traffic controls. LOS worksheets for the Cumulative Year 2046 No Project Traffic Conditions scenario are provided in Appendix H. Table XII presents a summary of the Cumulative Year 2046 No Project peak hour LOS at the study intersections.

Under this scenario, the intersections of Highland Avenue at Golden State Boulevard, DeWolf Avenue at Floral Avenue, SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Floral Avenue, Highland Avenue at Floral Avenue and Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue are projected to exceed their LOS threshold during one or both peak periods. All other study intersections are projected to continue operating at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods. The following improvements are recommended to improve the LOS at this intersection. Additional improvements are recommended to the intersections of Walmart Main Driveway at Floral Avenue and SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp at Floral Avenue in order to address queuing issues at these intersections.
369
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 33
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
• Highland Avenue / Golden State Boulevard
o Add a southbound left-turn lane;
o Modify southbound left-through lane to a through-right lane; o Remove the southbound right-turn lane; and
o Modify the phasing scheme to protective left-turn phasing in all directions. • DeWolf Avenue / Floral Avenue
o Add a westbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; and o Modify the intersection control to an all-way stop.
• Walmart Main Driveway / Floral Avenue
o Restripe the southbound right-turn lane to a left-right lane. • SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp / Floral Avenue
o Restripe the southbound through lane to a through-right lane. • Highland Avenue / Floral Avenue
o Add a second eastbound left-turn lane;
o Add a westbound right-turn lane; and
o Modify the phasing scheme to include overlap phases for the southbound right-turn with the eastbound left turn and the eastbound right-turn with the northbound left turn. • SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp / Floral Avenue
o Remove the northbound right-turn lane; and
o Add a northbound left-right lane.
• Highland Avenue / Rose Avenue
o Add an eastbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the eastbound left-through lane to a through-right lane; o Remove the eastbound right-turn lane;
o Add a westbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; and o Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing in all directions. 370
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 34
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
Table XII: Cumulative Year 2046 No Project Intersection LOS Results ID Intersection Intersection Control
AM (7 - 9) Peak Hour PM (4 - 6) Peak Hour
Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Average Delay(sec/veh) LOS
1 Highland Avenue / Golden State Boulevard Traffic Signal 33.6 C 77.3 F Improved (Traffic Signal) 33.4 C 42.1 D
2 DeWolf Avenue / Floral Avenue
Two-Way Stop 12.0 B 85.4 F
Improved (All-Way Stop) 8.6 A 16.8 C
3 Future North-South Road / Floral Avenue Does Not Exist - - - - 4 Walmart Main Driveway / Floral Avenue Traffic Signal 11.4 B 33.6 C Improved (Traffic Signal) 9.7 A 22.4 C
5 Eastern Driveway / Floral Avenue Does Not Exist - - - - 6 SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp / Floral Avenue Traffic Signal 18.8 B 62.7 E Improved (Traffic Signal) 19.0 B 37.2 D
7 Highland Avenue / Floral Avenue
Traffic Signal 35.3 D >120.0 F
Improved (Traffic Signal) 29.6 C 51.9 D
8 SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp / Floral Avenue
Traffic Signal 15.5 B 16.3 B
Improved (Traffic Signal) 13.1 B 15.4 B
9 Whitson Street / Floral Avenue Traffic Signal 23.6 C 29.5 C 10 Highland Avenue / SR 99 Southbound Ramps Traffic Signal 15.4 B 20.0 B 11 Southern Driveway / Stillman Street Does Not Exist - - - - 12 Highland Avenue / Stillman Street Traffic Signal 13.7 B 26.7 C 13 Highland Avenue / Rose Avenue
Two-Way Stop 92.2 F >120.0 F
Improved (Traffic Signal) 17.1 B 25.6 C
Note: LOS = Level of Service based on average delay on signalized intersections and All-Way STOP Controls LOS for two-way and one-way STOP controlled intersections are based on the worst approach/movement of the minor street. 371
372
001-009 - 05/25/23 - CS/CT
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Casitas Selma - City of Selma
2046 Near Term Projects' Trip Assignment (No Project)
Figure 8
N
Not To Scale
LEGEND

1. Highland Ave &
Golden State Blvd
4(12)
73(208)
11(7)
4(9)
49(225)82(286)
159(290)3(6)
Highland Ave Golden State Blvd

2. DeWolf Ave &
Floral Ave
67(181)
6(193)
65(162)
4(10)9(260)
5(13) DeWolf Ave
Floral Ave

4. Walmart Main Drwy &
Floral Ave
322(1008)
499(1138)
16(23)
19(38)
Walmart Drwy
Floral Ave

6. SR 99 SB Off-Ramp &
Floral Ave
361(1097)
1(3)
388(803) 1(3)
139(408)6(9)
SR 99 SB Off-Ramp
Floral Ave

7. Highland Ave &
Floral Ave
72(330)
188(573)
108(205)
108(131)
215(341)
16(67)
57(125)43(114)
18(23)
134(346)89(140)9(12)
Highland Ave
Floral Ave

8. SR 99 NB Off-Ramp &
Floral Ave
133(322)
254(381)
83(154)40(164)
Floral Ave
SR 99 NB Off-Ramp

9. Whitson St &
Floral Ave
142(394)
10(37)
219(307)
69(65)
12(31)
32(84) Whitson St
Floral Ave

10. Highland Ave &
SR 99 SB Ramps
42(55)
169(312)
6(5)
125(285)180(191)
Highland Ave
SR 99 SB Ramps

11. Southern Drwy &
Stillman St
33(103)
42(95)
Southern Drwy
Stillman Ave

12. Highland Ave &
Stillman St
6(7)
5(15)
11(20)
0(2)
8(21)
169(308)
8(21)
1(0)165(340)1(0)
Highland Ave
Stillman St

13. Highland Ave &
Rose Ave
6(15)
21(32)
8(21)
3(14)
110(258)
19(33)
135(264)22(28)
Highland Ave
Rose Ave
# = NEAR TERM PROJECT LOCATION
# = STUDY INTERSECTION
XX = AM NEAR TERM TRIPS
= FUTURE ROADWAY
(XX) = PM NEAR TERM TRIPS
D
B C
A
E
F
H G
4(12)
I
UPRR

FLORAL AVE

STILLMAN ST

ROSE AVE DEWOLF AVE

WHITSON ST FRONT ST HIGHLAND AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD
1 2
6 7
8 9
10 12
13 4
11 PROJECT SITE

NELSON BLVD
3 5

3. Future N-S Rd &
Floral Ave
499(1138)
Floral Ave Future N-S Rd

5. Eastern Drwy &
Floral Ave
527(1211)
Floral Ave Eastern Drwy

DOES NOT EXIST

DOES NOT EXIST FUTURE N-S RD
373
374
001-009 - 05/25/23 - AB/CS/CT
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Casitas Selma - City of Selma
Cumulative Year 2046 No Project - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls Figure 9
N
Not To Scale
LEGEND

1. Highland Ave &
Golden State Blvd
6(33)
236(496)
332(438)
48(23)
478(297)
38(76)
294(344)202(585)
19(47)
30(8)369(521)49(55)
Highland Ave Golden State Blvd

2. DeWolf Ave &
Floral Ave
14(0)
156(305)
4(12)
13(209)
127(337)
14(26)
1(7)6(5)
16(276)
0(2)9(13)16(21) DeWolf Ave
Floral Ave

4. Walmart Main Drwy &
Floral Ave
12(22)
430(1206)
613(1307)
252(420)
6(22)199(453)
Walmart Drwy
Floral Ave

6. SR 99 SB Off-Ramp &
Floral Ave
685(1790)
49(117)
54(112)
810(1426) 51(137)
200(518)23(41)185(242)
SR 99 SB Off-Ramp
Floral Ave

7. Highland Ave &
Floral Ave
230(548)
607(1246)
204(393)
229(234)
746(914)
145(174) 158(230) 261(379) 92(120)
304(579)383(404)53(83)
Highland Ave
Floral Ave

8. SR 99 NB Off-Ramp &
Floral Ave
550(1003)
775(973)
373(311)
77(205)
Floral Ave
SR 99 NB Off-Ramp

9. Whitson St &
Floral Ave
25(48)
406(906)
104(223)
78(70)
609(677)
78(76) 127(266) 441(301) 25(39)
10(39)210(440)112(176) Whitson St
Floral Ave

10. Highland Ave &
SR 99 SB Ramps
423(459)
903(1011)
43(73)
416(557)355(456)
Highland Ave
SR 99 SB Ramps

11. Southern Drwy &
Stillman St
0(0)
39(27)
14(39)
93(117)
0(0)144(112)
Stillman Ave Main Access Rd

12. Highland Ave &
Stillman St
23(186)
9(14)
35(210)
20(50)
5(9)
45(114)
43(109)
891(813)
57(51)
74(62)698(904)68(68)
Highland Ave
Stillman St

13. Highland Ave &
Rose Ave
41(19)
10(12)
23(21)
44(58)
2(7)
125(123)
19(19)
771(852)
43(66)
35(57)562(927)90(177)
Highland Ave
Rose Ave
0(1)
2(3)
147(129)
4(16)
4(19)
4(2)
= STUDY INTERSECTION
= FUTURE ROADWAY
= STOP SIGN
= TRAFFIC SIGNAL
= AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
= PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
#
XX
(XX)

DOES NOT EXIST

3. Future N-S Rd &
Floral Ave
3(3)
107(178)
82(165)
38(26)
2(2)13(42) Future N-S Rd
Floral Ave

5. Eastern Drwy &
Floral Ave
X
X
X
X
X
XXX
XXX
X
X
X

X DOES NOT EXIST

DOES NOT EXIST
UPRR

FLORAL AVE

STILLMAN ST

ROSE AVE DEWOLF AVE

WHITSON ST FRONT ST HIGHLAND AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD
1 2
6 7
8 9
10 12
13 4
11 PROJECT SITE

NELSON BLVD
3 5 FUTURE N-S RD
375
376
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 37
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024

Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project Traffic Conditions
Roadway Network
The Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario assumes that the Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions roadway geometrics and traffic controls will remain in place with one exception.

It is anticipated that the existing driveway for Toyota of Selma will be shifted to the west as the Selma Grove development continues to be developed. Figure 10 illustrates the location of the Near Term Projects and their combined trip assignment to the study intersections and study segment under this scenario. Figure 11 illustrates the assumed intersection geometrics and traffic controls for these intersections under this scenario.

Traffic Signal Warrants
Warrant 3 was prepared for the unsignalized intersections under the Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario. These warrants are contained in Appendix J. Under this scenario, the intersections of DeWolf Avenue at Floral Avenue, Future North-South Road at Floral Avenue and Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue are projected to satisfy Warrant 3 during one or both peak periods. Based on the traffic signal warrants, operational analysis and engineering judgement, it is recommended that the City consider implementing traffic signal controls at the intersections of Future North-South Road at Floral Avenue and Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue.

Results of Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project Level of Service Analysis Figure 11 illustrates the Cumulative Year 2046 Plus Project turning movement volumes, intersection geometrics and traffic controls. LOS worksheets for the Cumulative Year 2046 Plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario are provided in Appendix I. Table XIII presents a summary of the Cumulative Year 2046 Plus Project peak hour LOS at the study intersections.

Under this scenario, the intersections of Highland Avenue at Golden State Boulevard, DeWolf Avenue at Floral Avenue, Future North-South Road at Floral Avenue, Walmart Main Driveway at Floral Avenue, SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Floral Avenue, Highland Avenue at Floral Avenue and Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue are projected to exceed their LOS threshold during one or both peak periods. All other study intersections are projected to continue operating at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods. The following improvements are recommended to improve the LOS at these intersections. Additional improvements are recommended to the intersection of SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp at Floral Avenue in order to address queuing issues at this intersection. Three different alternatives were provided for the improvement at the intersection of Future North-South Road at Floral Avenue for the City’s consideration. 377
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 38
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
• Highland Avenue / Golden State Boulevard
o Add a southbound left-turn lane;
o Modify southbound left-through lane to a through-right lane; o Remove the southbound right-turn lane; and
o Modify the phasing scheme to protective left-turn phasing in all directions. • DeWolf Avenue / Floral Avenue
o Add a westbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; and o Modify the intersection control to an all-way stop.
• Future North-South Road / Floral Avenue
o Alternative 1 – Traffic Signal
 Modify the eastbound through-right lane to a through lane;  Add an eastbound through lane with a receiving lane east of Future North-South Road;  Add an eastbound right-turn lane;
 Add a westbound through with a receiving lane west of Future North-South Road; and  Signalize the intersection with permissive phasing in the east-west direction and protected left-turn phasing in the north-south direction.
o Alternative 2 – Roundabout
 Install a roundabout with two lanes on the east and west legs and a single lane on the south leg.
 As queuing from the intersection of Walmart Main Driveway at Floral Avenue is projected to back into this intersection, a roundabout will not function properly at this location. Therefore, this alternative has been determined to not be viable and has been omitted from the LOS table and conclusion as a result.
o Alternative 3 – One-Way Stop
 Add an eastbound through lane with a receiving lane east of Future North-South Road;  Add an eastbound right-turn lane; and
 Add a westbound through lane with a receiving lane west of Future North-South Road.  As Alternative 3 did not perform within the LOS threshold during the PM peak period, this alternative was omitted from the LOS table and conclusion. • Walmart Main Driveway / Floral Avenue
o Restripe the southbound through-right lane to a left-through-right lane; and o Modify the phasing scheme to split phasing in the north and south directions and protective leftturn phasing in the east and west directions. • SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp / Floral Avenue
o Restripe the southbound through lane to a through-right lane. • Highland Avenue / Floral Avenue
o Add a second eastbound left-turn lane;
o Add a westbound right-turn lane; and
o Modify the phasing scheme to include overlap phases for the southbound right-turn with the eastbound left turn and the eastbound right-turn with the northbound left turn. 378
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 39
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
• SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp / Floral Avenue
o Remove the northbound right-turn lane; and
o Add a northbound left-right lane.
• Highland Avenue / Rose Avenue
o Add an eastbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the eastbound left-through lane to a through-right lane; o Remove the eastbound right-turn lane;
o Add a westbound left-turn lane;
o Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; and o Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing in all directions.

Table XIII: Cumulative Year 2046 Plus Project Intersection LOS Results ID Intersection Intersection Control
AM (7 - 9) Peak Hour PM (4 - 6) Peak Hour
Average Delay
(sec/veh) LOS Average Delay(sec/veh) LOS
1 Highland Avenue / Golden State Boulevard Traffic Signal 36.9 D 77.6 E Improved (Traffic Signal) 34.8 C 44.2 D
2 DeWolf Avenue / Floral Avenue
Two-Way Stop 13.0 B 110.8 F
Improved (All-Way Stop) 8.9 A 18.4 C
3 Future North-South Road / Floral Avenue
One-Way Stop 28.1 D >120.0 F
Improved (Traffic Signal) 5.0 A 5.1 A
4 Walmart Main Driveway / Floral Avenue Traffic Signal 30.0 C 79.2 E Improved (Traffic Signal) 24.1 C 40.8 D
5 Eastern Driveway / Floral Avenue Two-Way Stop 12.7 B 24.0 C 6 SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp / Floral Avenue Traffic Signal 20.6 C 71.4 E Improved (Traffic Signal) 20.8 C 35.8 D
7 Highland Avenue / Floral Avenue
Traffic Signal 37.2 D 106.9 F
Improved (Traffic Signal) 30.2 C 48.5 D
8 SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp / Floral Avenue
Traffic Signal 20.3 C 18.0 B
Improved (Traffic Signal) 18.1 B 17.6 B
9 Whitson Street / Floral Avenue Traffic Signal 24.8 C 33.7 C 10 Highland Avenue / SR 99 Southbound Ramps Traffic Signal 15.4 B 21.6 B 11 Southern Driveway / Stillman Street Two-Way Stop 10.0 B 11.5 B 12 Highland Avenue / Stillman Street Traffic Signal 21.5 C 49.8 D 13 Highland Avenue / Rose Avenue
Two-Way Stop 115.9 F >120.0 F
Improved (Traffic Signal) 18.4 B 28.0 C
Note: LOS = Level of Service based on average delay on signalized intersections and All-Way STOP Controls LOS for two-way and one-way STOP controlled intersections are based on the worst approach/movement of the minor street.

Project Only Trip Assignment to State Facilities
Figure 12 illustrates the Project Only Trips to State Route 99 at the Floral Avenue-Highland Avenue interchange.
379
380
001-009 - 05/25/23 - CS/CT
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Casitas Selma - City of Selma
2046 Near Term Projects' Trip Assignment
Figure 10
N
Not To Scale
LEGEND

1. Highland Ave &
Golden State Blvd
4(12)
73(208)
11(7)
4(9)
49(225)82(286)
159(290)3(6)
Highland Ave Golden State Blvd

2. DeWolf Ave &
Floral Ave
67(181)
6(193)
65(162)
4(10)9(260)
5(13) DeWolf Ave
Floral Ave

4. Walmart Main Drwy &
Floral Ave
289(905)
457(1043)
16(23)
19(38)
Walmart Drwy
Floral Ave

6. SR 99 SB Off-Ramp &
Floral Ave
328(994)
1(3)
346(708) 1(3)
139(408)6(9)
SR 99 SB Off-Ramp
Floral Ave

7. Highland Ave &
Floral Ave
72(330)
188(573)
75(102)
108(131)
215(341)
16(67)
15(30)
43(114)
18(23)
134(346)89(140)9(12)
Highland Ave
Floral Ave

8. SR 99 NB Off-Ramp &
Floral Ave
133(322)
254(381)
83(154)40(164)
Floral Ave
SR 99 NB Off-Ramp

9. Whitson St &
Floral Ave
142(394)
10(37)
219(307)
69(65)
12(31)
32(84) Whitson St
Floral Ave

10. Highland Ave &
SR 99 SB Ramps
42(55)
127(217)
6(5)
92(182)180(191)
Highland Ave
SR 99 SB Ramps

11. Southern Drwy &
Stillman St
33(103)
42(95)
Southern Drwy
Stillman St

12. Highland Ave &
Stillman St
6(7)
38(118)
11(20)
0(2)
50(116)
127(213)
8(21)
1(0)132(237)1(0)
Highland Ave
Stillman St

FLORAL AVE

STILLMAN ST

ROSE AVE DEWOLF AVE

WHITSON ST FRONT ST HIGHLAND AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD
1 2
6 7
8 9
10 12
13 4
11 PROJECT SITE

NELSON BLVD
3 5

3. Future N-S Rd &
Floral Ave
289(905)
33(103)
457(1043)
42(95) Floral Ave Future N-S Rd

5. Eastern Drwy &
Floral Ave
328(994)
485(1116)
Floral Ave Eastern Drwy FUTURE N-S RD
381
382
001-009 - 09/08/23 - AB/CS/CT
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Casitas Selma - City of Selma
Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project - Traffic Volumes, Geometrics and Controls Figure 11
N
Not To Scale
LEGEND

1. Highland Ave &
Golden State Blvd
6(33)
236(496)
349(457)
48(23)
478(297)
38(76)
327(357)212(597)
19(47)
30(8)389(530)49(55)
Highland Ave Golden State Blvd

2. DeWolf Ave &
Floral Ave
14(0)
174(328)
4(12)
21(215)
156(349)
14(26)
1(7)6(5)
29(289)
0(2)9(13)16(21) DeWolf Ave
Floral Ave

4. Walmart Main Drwy &
Floral Ave
22(32)
386(1077)
25(23)
242(157)
562(1202)
238(400)
26(14)44(36)
114(67)
6(22)19(60)189(417)
Walmart Drwy
Floral Ave

6. SR 99 SB Off-Ramp &
Floral Ave
869(1774)
49(117)
54(112)
942(1409) 51(137)
245(567)23(41)185(242)
SR 99 SB Off-Ramp
Floral Ave

7. Highland Ave &
Floral Ave
270(570)
778(1351)
177(250)
250(256)
906(996)
145(174) 94(107) 271(386) 107(130)
340(603)386(414)53(83)
Highland Ave
Floral Ave

8. SR 99 NB Off-Ramp &
Floral Ave
670(1092)
933(1049)
396(338)
77(205)
Floral Ave
SR 99 NB Off-Ramp

9. Whitson St &
Floral Ave
25(48)
473(957)
146(250)
78(70)
707(724)
78(76) 179(286) 441(301) 25(39)
10(39)210(440)112(176) Whitson St
Floral Ave

10. Highland Ave &
SR 99 SB Ramps
432(486)
892(919)
51(79)
394(432)374(470)
Highland Ave
SR 99 SB Ramps

11. Southern Drwy &
Stillman St
1(5)
70(142)
67(137)
53(83)
5(2)84(78)
Southern Drwy
Stillman St

12. Highland Ave &
Stillman St
84(223)
20(20)
119(388)
20(50)
11(17)
45(114)
125(262)827(690)
57(51)
107(121)652(747)68(68)
Highland Ave
Stillman St

13. Highland Ave &
Rose Ave
41(19)
10(12)
23(21)
44(58)
2(7)
130(129)
19(19)
780(866)
43(66)
35(57)574(934)103(184)
Highland Ave
Rose Ave
0(1)
2(3)
4(16)
4(19)
4(2)
= STUDY INTERSECTION
= FUTURE ROADWAY
= STOP SIGN
= TRAFFIC SIGNAL
= AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
= PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
#
XX
(XX)

3. Future N-S Rd &
Floral Ave
433(1132)
40(132)
0(0)
594(1238)
62(109)
0(0)
Floral Ave Future N-S Rd

5. Eastern Drwy &
Floral Ave
846(1846)
3(2)
1187(1976) 72(45)
Floral Ave Eastern Drwy
UPRR

FLORAL AVE

STILLMAN ST

ROSE AVE DEWOLF AVE

WHITSON ST FRONT ST HIGHLAND AVE

GOLDEN STATE BLVD
1 2
6 7
8 9
10 12
13 4
11 PROJECT SITE

NELSON BLVD
3 5
147(129) FUTURE N-S RD
383
384
001-009 - 05/25/23 - CT
PHONE:(559) 570-8991, EMAIL: [email protected], www.JLBtraffic.com 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103, Fresno, CA 93704
Casitas Selma - City of Selma
State Route 99 at Floral Avenue and Highland Avenue Interchanges - Project Only Trips
Figure 12
N
Not To Scale
LEGEND
UPRR

FLORAL AVE

STILLMAN ST

ROSE AVE

WHITSON ST

FRONT ST HIGHLAND AVE

PROJECT SITE
XX = AM PROJECT ONLY TRIPS
(XX) = PM PROJECT ONLY TRIPS HIGHLAND AVE
94(40) 54(76)
0(0)
94(40) 0(0)
45(49)
0(0)
0(0) 23(27)
27(20)
9(27)
23(27)
35(60)
62(39)
45(47)54(33)
39(34)
50(29)
242(157)
197(108) 232(142)
181(103) 186(115)
158(76)
120(89) 28(14) 94(40)
232(142)
197(108) 232(142) FUTURE N-S RD
385
386
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 43
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024

Queuing Analysis
Table XIV provides a queue length summary for left-turn and right-turn lanes at the study intersections under all study scenarios. The queuing analyses for the study intersections are contained in the LOS worksheets for the respective scenarios. Appendix D contains the methodologies used to evaluate these intersections. Queuing analyses were completed using SimTraffic output information. SimTraffic output information can change each time the simulation is ran. Synchro provides both 50th and 95th percentile maximum queue lengths (in feet). According to the Synchro manual, “the 50th percentile maximum queue is the maximum back of queue on a typical cycle and the 95th percentile queue is the maximum back of queue with 95th percentile volumes” (Synchro Studio 11 User Guide 2020). The queues shown on Table XIV are the 95th percentile queue lengths for the respective lane movements.

The California Highway Design Manual (CA HDM) provides guidance for determining deceleration lengths for the left-turn and right-turn lanes based on design speeds. According to the CA HDM, tapers for rightturn lanes are “usually unnecessary since main line traffic need not be shifted laterally to provide space for the right-turn lane. If, in rare instances, a lateral shift were needed, the approach taper would use the same formula as for a left-turn lane” (Caltrans 2019). Therefore, a bay taper length pursuant to the CA HDM would need to be added, as necessary, to the recommended storage lengths presented in Table XIV.

The storage capacity for the Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project Traffic Conditions shall be based on the SimTraffic output files and engineering judgement. The values in bold presented in Table XIV are the projected queue lengths that will likely need to be accommodated by the Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario. At the remaining approaches of the study intersections, the existing storage capacity will be sufficient to accommodate the maximum queue. It is recommended that the westbound left-turn lane storage length at the intersection of Walmart Main Driveway at Floral Avenue be extended as far east as possible (between 340 and 480 feet) while taking design constraints into consideration. In order to extend this westbound left-turn lane, the eastbound left-turn lane to the east of it will need to be removed.
387
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 44
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
Table XIV: Queuing Analysis
ID Intersection Existing Queue Storage Length (ft.) Existing Existing plus Project
Near Term
plus Project
Cumulative
Year 2046
No Project
Cumulative
Year 2046
plus Project

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 Highland Avenue
/
Golden State Boulevard
Eastbound Left 200 3 18 2 23 9 28 0 22 4 27
Eastbound Through >500 41 50 33 69 37 75 62 251 50 164
Eastbound Through >500 21 37 22 66 21 84 59 333 76 226
Eastbound Right 70 24 53 30 53 56 86 140 204 127 191
Westbound Left 75 2 3 4 0 11 6 28 27 29 7
Westbound Through >500 16 10 18 8 32 2 99 66 103 51
Westbound Through >500 21 28 22 12 24 16 92 70 114 67
Westbound Right 120 0 0 0 8 0 9 0 2 0 0
Northbound Left 250 62 63 99 92 131 201 294 399 346 356 Northbound Through >500 75 134 89 186 145 356 245 519 338 431 Northbound Right 80 0 0 0 38 0 83 64 46 33 104
Southbound Left * * * * * * * 217 269 146 241
Southbound Through-Left >500 233 203 203 204 221 383 * * * * Southbound Through-Right * * * * * * * 485 1467 388 795 Southbound Right 50 57 56 80 48 72 61 * * * *
2 DeWolf Avenue
/
Floral Avenue
Eastbound Left-Through-Right >500 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 77 59 98 Westbound Left-Through-Right >500 0 15 14 17 14 50 * * * * Westbound Left * * * * * * * 34 63 40 71
Westbound Through-Right * * * * * * * 60 72 52 72
Northbound Left-Through-Right >500 29 41 37 40 39 53 32 105 39 86 Southbound Left-Through-Right >500 32 28 31 27 33 30 31 41 32 50 3 Future North-South Road
/
Floral Avenue
Eastbound Left-Through >500 0 10 * * 46 82 * * * *
Eastbound Left-Through-Right * * * 25 10 * * * * * *
Eastbound Through * * * * * 63 67 * * 78 868
Eastbound Through * * * * * * * * * 65 894
Eastbound Right * * * * * 28 63 * * 35 483
Westbound Left-Through * * * * * 77 198 * * 119 437
Westbound Left-Though-Right * * * 0 0 * * * * * *
Westbound Through * * * * * * * * * 77 381
Westbound Through-Right >500 0 0 * * 59 157 * * * *
Northbound Left * * * 41 35 34 36 * * * 91
Northbound Through-Right * * * 0 0 0 0 * * 47 0
Southbound Left-Right >500 35 45 * * * * * * * *
Southbound Left-Through-Right * * * 39 46 39 45 * * * * Note: * = Does not exist or is not projected to exist
388
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 45
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
Table XIV: Queuing Analysis (Continued)
ID Intersection Existing Queue Storage Length (ft.) Existing Existing plus Project
Near Term
plus Project
Cumulative
Year 2046
No Project
Cumulative
Year 2046
plus Project

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
4 Walmart Main Driveway
/
Floral Avenue
Eastbound Left 100 32 51 51 53 48 94 31 154 54 184
Eastbound Through >500 49 72 61 126 121 207 115 877 156 816 Eastbound Through >500 45 81 59 97 109 210 103 886 144 800 Eastbound Right * * * 48 21 37 78 * * 46 151
Westbound Left 120 110 94 218 213 234 223 112 241 285 478 Westbound Through >500 55 123 245 314 398 389 174 737 211 565 Westbound Through-Right >500 85 147 127 252 247 327 131 773 261 540 Northbound Left * * * 54 40 47 35 * * 46 34
Northbound Through-Right * * * 69 85 127 103 * * 100 105 Southbound Left 100 92 169 148 215 197 236 63 236 84 225 Southbound Left-Through-Right * * * * * * * * * 140 312 Southbound Left-Right * * * * * * * 104 467 * *
Southbound Through-Right * * * 55 363 158 369 * * * *
Southbound Right >300 19 35 * * * * * * * *
5 Eastern Driveway
/
Floral Avenue
Eastbound Through * * * 0 278 0 228 * * 0 488
Eastbound Through-Right * * * 0 293 0 250 * * 10 491
Westbound Through * * * 0 22 40 47 * * 0 294
Westbound Through * * * 0 12 0 0 * * 0 268
Northbound Right * * * 57 82 65 55 * * 62 81
6 State Route 99
Southbound Off-Ramp
/
Floral Avenue
Eastbound Through >400 101 456 112 275 142 304 140 831 184 272 Eastbound Through >400 87 483 127 281 167 313 162 829 221 285 Eastbound Right 100 33 175 35 112 83 174 63 195 94 192
Westbound Left 200 68 120 76 173 87 180 78 302 79 303
Westbound Through >500 114 161 156 182 93 286 201 514 218 402 Westbound Through >500 101 170 126 135 91 283 178 453 211 311 Northbound Right >100 23 67 36 105 34 92 45 145 33 123
Southbound Dual Lefts 380 80 123 110 186 105 184 108 159 118 146 Southbound Through >500 26 41 51 76 34 79 * * * *
Southbound Through-Right * * * * * * * 96 232 114 330
Southbound Right 380 50 61 58 86 81 198 44 203 81 313
Note: * = Does not exist or is not projected to exist
389
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 46
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
Table XIV: Queuing Analysis (Continued)
ID Intersection Existing Queue Storage Length (ft.) Existing Existing plus Project
Near Term
plus Project
Cumulative
Year 2046
No Project
Cumulative
Year 2046
plus Project

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
7 Highland Avenue
(State Route 43)
/
Floral Avenue
Eastbound Left 100 168 176 170 173 * * * * * *
Eastbound Dual Lefts * * * * * 254 261 152 262 189 288
Eastbound Through >500 200 602 309 591 313 612 232 648 298 595 Eastbound Through >500 167 621 281 630 276 629 249 664 356 676 Eastbound Right 60 91 159 108 136 138 159 161 160 172 217 Westbound Dual Lefts 150 99 90 133 155 194 220 211 278 218 269 Westbound Through >500 181 185 235 322 335 444 277 565 425 618 Westbound Through * * * * * * * 238 524 391 625
Westbound Through-Right >500 188 203 248 342 346 439 * * * * Westbound Right * * * * * * * 62 421 230 465
Northbound Dual Lefts 170 70 96 65 126 59 136 177 306 101 145 Northbound Through >500 147 188 149 220 178 308 327 570 226 288 Northbound Through >500 0 69 74 181 83 277 256 517 207 234 Northbound Right 80 55 96 71 107 71 123 93 145 120 122
Southbound Left 100 64 97 73 153 83 145 157 181 96 142
Southbound Through >500 123 169 163 223 161 220 254 262 199 243 Southbound Through >500 80 95 101 118 136 131 200 197 201 155 Southbound Dual Right 200 62 70 82 81 99 116 97 216 108 157 8 State Route 99
Northbound Off-Ramp
/
Floral Avenue
Eastbound Through >500 71 113 86 137 122 200 139 208 85 218 Eastbound Through >500 94 153 105 157 153 219 167 230 109 229 Westbound Through >500 86 102 137 130 175 188 192 323 225 710 Westbound Through >500 82 94 107 128 151 159 132 291 191 702 Northbound Left >500 112 79 153 199 221 271 152 305 281 372 Northbound Left-Right * * * * * * * 182 389 312 477
Northbound Right 40 79 75 83 85 89 90 * * * *
Note: * = Does not exist or is not projected to exist
390
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 47
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
Table XIV: Queuing Analysis (Continued)
ID Intersection Existing Queue Storage Length (ft.) Existing Existing plus Project
Near Term
plus Project
Cumulative
Year 2046
No Project
Cumulative
Year 2046
plus Project

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
9 Whitson Street
/
Floral Avenue
Eastbound Left 80 6 93 20 81 11 53 63 185 16 136
Eastbound Through >500 56 174 98 286 154 313 129 463 142 507 Eastbound Through-Right >500 80 238 132 329 187 338 166 504 181 544 Westbound Left 100 56 65 67 70 116 55 118 154 170 165
Westbound Through >500 59 111 101 116 142 116 176 202 290 309 Westbound Through-Right >500 63 87 86 114 129 119 191 214 208 305 Northbound Dual Lefts 120 40 88 48 102 48 174 52 135 66 225 Northbound Through >500 42 54 34 52 46 130 146 122 163 320 Northbound Through >500 0 69 59 77 51 82 154 130 176 157 Northbound Right 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 43 81 65
Southbound Left 130 55 126 60 108 85 108 122 171 95 169 Southbound Through >500 36 90 52 89 58 91 89 214 89 177 Southbound Through >500 57 105 57 109 59 99 100 238 106 201 Southbound Right 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 0 118
10 Highland Avenue
(State Route43)
/
State Route 99
Southbound Ramps
Eastbound Dual Rights 175 98 93 143 172 147 114 142 120 143 284 Northbound Through >500 143 112 97 208 163 183 229 229 203 297 Northbound Through >500 154 104 106 151 157 184 229 214 199 274 Northbound Right 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Southbound Left 65 153 156 183 207 210 227 224 210 230 231 Southbound Through >500 94 102 93 213 182 321 339 425 280 269 Southbound Through >500 79 73 108 107 108 138 215 187 215 108 11 Southern Main Access Road
/
Stillman Street
Eastbound Left-Through * * * 0 0 0 10 * * 0 23
Westbound Through-Right * * * 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0
Southbound Left-Right * * * 51 51 60 54 * * 62 54
Note: * = Does not exist or is not projected to exist
391
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 48
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
Table XIV: Queuing Analysis (Continued)
ID Intersection Existing Queue Storage Length (ft.) Existing Existing plus Project
Near Term
plus Project
Cumulative
Year 2046
No Project
Cumulative
Year 2046
plus Project

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
12 Highland Avenue
(State Route 43)
/
Stillman Street
Eastbound Dual Lefts 75 20 94 83 125 92 135 21 131 71 140 Eastbound Through >500 6 43 33 150 42 273 19 235 44 279 Eastbound Right 100 28 61 45 145 51 221 27 202 75 249
Westbound Left 100 31 59 36 59 44 82 39 80 48 104
Westbound Through >500 18 20 53 47 51 45 25 32 49 56
Westbound Right >500 55 75 46 62 63 76 70 68 57 81
Northbound Dual Lefts 300 43 90 82 107 70 207 39 100 111 478 Northbound Through >500 178 170 185 191 248 272 316 287 344 824 Northbound Through-Right >500 189 189 209 228 276 295 334 309 379 528 Southbound Dual Lefts 320 42 56 60 49 56 57 66 61 72 66 Southbound Through >500 116 156 220 176 223 211 221 308 269 283 Southbound Through >500 127 161 234 177 283 236 247 307 294 274 Southbound Dual Rights 320 39 41 25 43 32 37 44 18 42 29 13 Highland Avenue
(State Route 43)
/
Rose Avenue
Eastbound Left * 11 16 12 18 8 16 66 42 68 55
Eastbound Left-Through >500 * * * * * * * * * *
Eastbound Through-Right * 21 26 21 27 34 33 55 48 67 47 Eastbound Right 25 * * * * * * * * * *
Westbound Left * 60 45 44 60 72 91 79 82 69 83
Westbound Left-Through-Right >500 * * * * * * * * * *
Westbound Through-Right * 82 67 74 71 79 78 79 73 101 86 Northbound Left 250 13 16 10 28 22 44 45 74 56 61
Northbound Through >500 142 149 166 188 153 185 156 217 233 239 Northbound Through-Right >500 142 134 164 185 170 187 169 214 240 219 Southbound Left 250 100 148 182 245 167 207 103 298 145 338 Southbound Through >500 105 190 131 196 106 189 136 276 206 341 Southbound Through-Right >500 124 201 175 183 128 204 170 284 260 298 Note: * = Does not exist or is not projected to exist

392
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 49
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024

Project’s Equitable Fair Share
The Project’s fair share percentage impact to study intersections projected to fall below their LOS threshold and which are not covered by an existing impact fee program is provided in Table XV. The Project’s fair share percentage impacts were calculated pursuant to the Caltrans Guide for the preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. The Project’s pro-rata fair shares were calculated utilizing the Existing volumes, Project Only Trips and Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project volumes. Figure 2 illustrates the Existing traffic volumes, Figure 4 illustrates the Project Only Trips and Figure 11 illustrates the Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project volumes. Since the critical peak period for the study facilities was determined to be during the PM peak, the PM peak volumes are utilized to determine the Project’s pro-rata fair share.

It is recommended that the Project contribute its equitable fair share as listed in Table XV for the future improvements necessary to maintain an acceptable LOS. However, fair share contributions should only be made for those facilities or portion thereof currently not funded by the responsible agencies roadway impact fee program(s) or grant funding, as appropriate. For those improvements not presently covered by local and regional roadway impact fee programs or grant funding, it is recommended that the Project contribute its equitable fair share. Payment of the Project’s equitable fair share in addition to the local and regional impact fee programs would satisfy the Project’s traffic improvement measures.

This study does not provide construction costs for the recommended improvement measures; therefore, if the recommended improvement measures are implemented, it is recommended that the developer work with the City of Selma to develop the construction cost estimate(s).

Table XV: Project’s Equitable Fair Share
ID Intersection
Existing
Traffic Volumes
(PM Peak)
Cumulative Year
2046 plus Project
Traffic Volumes
(PM Peak)
Project Only Trips
Traffic Volumes
(PM Peak)
Project’s Fair Share
(%)
1 Highland Avenue / Golden State Boulevard 1,402 2,980 53 3.36% 2 DeWolf Avenue / Floral Avenue 382 1,267 54 6.10%
3 Future North-South Road / Floral Avenue 416 2,611 54 2.46% 4 Walmart Main Driveway / Floral Avenue 1,340 3,636 304 13.24% 6 SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp / Floral Avenue 2,060 4,399 299 12.78% 7 Highland Avenue / Floral Avenue 2,824 5,320 299 11.98% 8 SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp / Floral Avenue 1,471 2,684 192 15.83% 13 Highland Avenue / Rose Avenue 1,610 2,372 34 4.46%
Note: Project Fair Share = ((Project Only Trips) / (Year 2046 plus Project Traffic Volumes – Existing Traffic Volumes)) * 100

393
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 50
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024

Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions and recommendations regarding the proposed Project are presented below.

Existing Traffic Conditions
• At present, the intersection of Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue exceeds its LOS threshold during the PM peak period. All other study intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods. The following improvements are recommended to improve the LOS at this intersection. o Highland Avenue / Rose Avenue
 Add an eastbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the eastbound left-through lane to a through-right lane;  Remove the eastbound right-turn lane;
 Add a westbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; and  Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing in all directions.

Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions
• At buildout and before any internal capture is considered, the Project is estimated to generate 10,786 daily trips, 784 AM peak hour trips and 889 PM peak hour trips. • Due to the mix of land uses within the Project, it is anticipated that 1,555 daily trips, 98 AM peak hour trips and 322 PM peak hours trips will stay within the confines of the Project. • At buildout and after internal capture, the Project is estimated to generate 9,231 daily trips, 686 AM peak hour trips and 567 PM peak hour trips.
• Compared to the analyzed project site plan, the Project is estimated to generate 77 less daily trips, 65 less AM peak hour trips and 7 more PM peak hour trips. Given that the PM peak is the only peak that is estimated to generate more traffic and that it only generates 7 more peak hour trips than originally analyzed. This miniscule increase in traffic during the PM peak is not projected to result in changes to the LOS, queuing or recommendations presented within this report. As such, it is JLB’s opinion that this analysis effectively analyzes the latest Project site plan. • JLB analyzed the location of the existing and proposed roadways and access points. After initial comments were addressed to internal circulation and driveway location, all access points are located at points that minimize traffic operational impacts to existing and future roadway networks in the latest site plan.
• The intersection of the Future North-South Road at Floral Avenue should be constructed with a single left-through-right lane on the east, west and north legs and a left-turn lane and a through-right lane on the south leg. This intersection will be controlled by a two-way stop on the north and south legs. • It is recommended that the Project implement ADA compliant pedestrian sidewalks along all internal streets connecting all uses to external sidewalks and along the Project’s frontage to Floral Avenue, Future North-South Road and Stillman Street.
• It is recommended that the Project retain the Class II Bikeway along its frontage to Floral Avenue, consistent with the Selma ATP. It is further recommended that a Class II Bikeway be implemented along the Project’s frontage to the Future North-South Road. 394
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 51
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
• The City of Selma and Caltrans should collaborate on a future analysis of pedestrian and bicycle facilities through the State Route 99 at Floral Avenue interchange and seek funding sources for the reconstruction of this interchange to promote alternate modes of transportation. • Under this scenario, the intersection of Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue is projected to exceed its LOS threshold during the PM peak periods. All other study intersections are projected to continue operating at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods. The following improvements are recommended to improve the LOS at this intersection.
o Highland Avenue / Rose Avenue
 Add an eastbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the eastbound left-through lane to a through-right lane;  Remove the eastbound right-turn lane;
 Add a westbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; and  Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing in all directions.

Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions
• The total trip generation for the Near Term Projects under this scenario is 52,746 daily trips, 2,022 AM peak hour trips and 3,985 PM peak hour trips.
• Under this scenario, the intersections of Future North-South Road at Floral Avenue, Highland Avenue at Floral Avenue and Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue are projected to exceed their LOS threshold during the PM peak period. All other study intersections are projected to continue operating at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods. The following improvements are recommended to improve the LOS at this intersection.
o Future North-South Road / Floral Avenue
 Modify the eastbound left-through-right lane to a left-through lane;  Add an eastbound through lane with a receiving lane east of Future North-South Road;  Add an eastbound right-turn lane;
 Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a left-through lane; and  Add a westbound through-right lane with a receiving lane west of Future North-South Road. o Highland Avenue / Floral Avenue
 Add a second eastbound left-turn lane; and
 Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the added lane. o Highland Avenue / Rose Avenue
 Add an eastbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the eastbound left-through lane to a through-right lane;  Remove the eastbound right-turn lane;
 Add a westbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; and  Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing in all directions.

395
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 52
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
Cumulative Year 2046 No Project Traffic Conditions
• Under this scenario, the intersections of Highland Avenue at Golden State Boulevard, DeWolf Avenue at Floral Avenue, SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Floral Avenue, Highland Avenue at Floral Avenue and Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue are projected to exceed their LOS threshold during one or both peak periods. All other study intersections are projected to continue operating at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods. The following improvements are recommended to improve the LOS at this intersection. Additional improvements are recommended to the intersections of Walmart Main Driveway at Floral Avenue and SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp at Floral Avenue in order to address queuing issues at these intersections.
o Highland Avenue / Golden State Boulevard
 Add a southbound left-turn lane;
 Modify southbound left-through lane to a through-right lane;  Remove the southbound right-turn lane; and
 Modify the phasing scheme to protective left-turn phasing in all directions. o DeWolf Avenue / Floral Avenue
 Add a westbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; and  Modify the intersection control to an all-way stop.
o Walmart Main Driveway / Floral Avenue
 Restripe the southbound right-turn lane to a left-right lane. o SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp / Floral Avenue
 Restripe the southbound through lane to a through-right lane. o Highland Avenue / Floral Avenue
 Add a second eastbound left-turn lane;
 Add a westbound right-turn lane; and
 Modify the phasing scheme to include overlap phases for the southbound right-turn with the eastbound left turn and the eastbound right-turn with the northbound left turn. o SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp / Floral Avenue
 Remove the northbound right-turn lane; and
 Add a northbound left-right lane.
o Highland Avenue / Rose Avenue
 Add an eastbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the eastbound left-through lane to a through-right lane;  Remove the eastbound right-turn lane;
 Add a westbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; and  Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing in all directions.

396
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 53
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project Traffic Conditions
• Under this scenario, the intersections of Highland Avenue at Golden State Boulevard, DeWolf Avenue at Floral Avenue, Future North-South Road at Floral Avenue, Walmart Main Driveway at Floral Avenue and Highland Avenue at Rose Avenue are projected to exceed their LOS threshold during one or both peak periods. All other study intersections are projected to continue operating at an acceptable LOS during both peak periods. The following improvements are recommended to improve the LOS at these intersections. Additional improvements are recommended to the intersection of SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Floral Avenue in order to address queuing issues at this intersection. o Highland Avenue / Golden State Boulevard
 Add a southbound left-turn lane;
 Modify southbound left-through lane to a through-right lane;  Remove the southbound right-turn lane; and
 Modify the phasing scheme to protective left-turn phasing in all directions. o DeWolf Avenue / Floral Avenue
 Add a westbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; and  Modify the intersection control to an all-way stop.
o Future North-South Road / Floral Avenue
 Modify the eastbound through-right lane to a through lane;  Add an eastbound through lane with a receiving lane east of Future North-South Road;  Add an eastbound right-turn lane; and
 Add a westbound through with a receiving lane west of Future North-South Road.  Signalize the intersection with permissive phasing in the east-west direction and protected left-turn phasing in the north-south direction.
o Walmart main Driveway / Floral Avenue
 Restripe the southbound through-right lane to a left-through-right lane; and  Modify the phasing scheme to split phasing in the north and south directions and protective left-turn phasing in the east and west directions.
o SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp / Floral Avenue
 Restripe the southbound through lane to a through-right lane. o Highland Avenue / Floral Avenue
 Add a second eastbound left-turn lane;
 Add a westbound right-turn lane; and
 Modify the phasing scheme to include overlap phases for the southbound right-turn with the eastbound left turn and the eastbound right-turn with the northbound left turn. 397
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 54
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024
o SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp / Floral Avenue
 Remove the northbound right-turn lane; and
 Add a northbound left-right lane.
o Highland Avenue / Rose Avenue
 Add an eastbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the eastbound left-through lane to a through-right lane;  Remove the eastbound right-turn lane;
 Add a westbound left-turn lane;
 Modify the westbound left-through-right lane to a through-right lane; and  Signalize the intersection with protective left-turn phasing in all directions.

Queuing Analysis
• It is recommended that the City consider left-turn and right-turn lane storage lengths as indicated in the Queuing Analysis.

Project’s Equitable Fair Share
• It is recommended that the Project contribute its equitable fair share as listed in Table XV for the future improvements necessary to maintain an acceptable LOS. 398
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 55
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024

Study Participants
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. Personnel:

Jose Luis Benavides, PE, TE Project Manager
Matthew Arndt, EIT Engineer I/II
Dennis Wynn Sr. Engineering Technician
Carlos Topete Engineering Aide
Adrian Benavides Engineering Aide
Persons Consulted:

Edward Kashian Lance-Kashian & Company
Adan Garcia Lance-Kashian & Company
Scott Beck, AIA Scott Beck Architect
Philip L. Romero City of Selma
Trevor Stearns City of Selma
Hector Luna Fresno County
David Padilla Caltrans
Edgar Hernandez Caltrans
Mike Aronson Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

399
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 56
(559) 570-8991
Casitas Selma – City of Selma
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
January 25, 2024

References
Caltrans. 2021. "California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices". Sacramento: State of California.

Caltrans. 2020. “Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide”. Sacramento: State of California.

Caltrans. 2019. "Highway Design Manual". Sacramento: State of California.

City of Selma. 2018. "City of Selma Active Transportation Plan". Selma: City of Selma.

City of Selma. 2008. "General Plan Update 2035". Selma: City of Selma.

County of Fresno. 2014. "Guidelines for The Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies Within the County of Fresno". Fresno: County of Fresno.

County of Fresno. 2000. "Fresno County General Plan". Fresno: Fresno County.

Cubic ITS, Inc. 2019. “Synchro Studio 11 User Guide”. Sugar Land: Trafficware, LLC.

Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2021. "Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition". Washington: Institute of Transportation Engineers.

Transportation Research Board. 2016. "Highway Capacity Manual". Washington: The National Academy of Sciences.
400
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 App | A
(559) 570-8991
Appendix A: Scope of Work
401
402
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 1
(559) 570-8991
October 25, 2022
Brandon Broussard
City of Selma, Engineering
1710 Tucker St
Selma, CA 93662
Via Email Only: [email protected]
Subject: Proposed Scope of Work for the Preparation of a Traffic Impact Analysis and Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis for the Selma Development in the City of Selma (JLB Project 001-009)
Dear Mr. Broussard,
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. (JLB) hereby submits this Draft Scope of Work for the preparation of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis (VMT) for the proposed Selma Development (Project) located on the southwest quadrant of Highland Avenue and Floral Avenue in the City of Selma. The Project proposes to develop approximately 37.4 new acres with a mix of residential, commercial and park space. An aerial of the Project vicinity is shown in Exhibit A. The latest Project Site Plan is presented in Exhibit B.

The purpose of the TIA and VMT is to evaluate the potential on-site and off-site traffic impacts, identify short-term roadway and circulation needs, determine potential mitigation measures and identify any critical traffic issues that should be addressed in the on-going planning process. To evaluate the on-site and off-site traffic impacts of the proposed Project, JLB proposes the following Scope of Work.

Scope of Work
• JLB will obtain recent or schedule and conduct new traffic counts at the study facility(ies) when schools in the vicinity are in session. These counts will include pedestrians and vehicles. • JLB will request a Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) traffic forecast model run for the Project (Select Zone Analysis) which will include the Project and the streets to be analyzed. The Fresno COG traffic forecasting model will be used to forecast traffic volumes for the Base Year 2022 and Cumulative Year 2042 scenarios.
• JLB will evaluate onsite circulation and provide recommendations. Particular attention will be paid to conflicting traffic movements, location of local roadways to the major streets and onsite vehicular ingress and egress routes.
• JLB will perform a site visit to observe existing traffic conditions, especially during the AM and PM peak hours. Existing roadway conditions including speed limits, lane geometrics, turn prohibitions and traffic controls will be verified.
• JLB will conduct a qualitative safe route to school evaluation from the Project site to the K-12 school(s) which would most likely serve the Project on opening day. 403
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 2
(559) 570-8991
Mr. Broussard – City of Selma
Selma Development - Draft Scope of Work
October 25, 2022
• JLB will conduct an evaluation of the existing and planned circulation network to include, the study intersections, roadway segments, and agreed upon facilities. • JLB will qualitatively analyze existing and planned transit routes in the vicinity of the Project. • JLB will qualitatively analyze existing and planned walkways in the vicinity of the Project. • JLB will qualitatively analyze existing and planned bikeways in the vicinity of the Project. • JLB will prepare CA MUTCD Warrant 3 “Peak Hour” for unsignalized study intersections under all study scenarios.
• JLB will forecast trip distribution based on turn count information and knowledge of the existing and planned circulation network in the vicinity of the Project. • JLB will evaluate existing and forecasted levels of service (LOS) at the study intersection(s). JLB will use HCM 6th Edition or HCM 2000 methodologies (as appropriate) within Synchro to perform this analysis for the AM and PM peak hours. JLB will identify the causes of poor LOS.

Study Scenarios

1. Existing Traffic Conditions with needed improvements (if any);

2. Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions with proposed improvement measures (if any);

3. Near Term plus Project, plus Approved and Pending Developments Traffic Conditions with proposed improvement measures (if any); and

4. Cumulative Year 2042 No Project Traffic Conditions with proposed improvement measurements (if any).

5. Cumulative Year 2042 plus Project Traffic Conditions with proposed improvement measurements (if any).

Weekday peak hours to be analyzed (Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday only)

1. 7 - 9 AM peak hour

2. 4 - 6 PM peak hour
Study Intersections

1. Golden State Boulevard / Highland Avenue

2. Floral Avenue / DeWolf Avenue

3. Floral Avenue / Walmart Main Driveway

4. Floral Avenue / State Route 99 Southbound Off Ramp

5. Floral Avenue / Highland Avenue (State Route 43)

6. Floral Avenue / State Route 99 Northbound Off Ramp

7. Floral Avenue / Whitson Street

8. State Route 99 Southbound Ramps / Highland Avenue (State Route 43)

9. Stillman Avenue / Southern Main Access Road (Future)

10. Stillman Avenue / Highland Avenue (State Route 43)

11. Rose Avenue / Highland Avenue (State Route 43)
Queuing analysis is included in the proposed Scope of Work for the study intersection(s) listed above under all study scenarios. This analysis will be utilized to recommend minimum storage lengths for leftturn and right-turn lanes at all study intersections. 404
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 3
(559) 570-8991
Mr. Broussard – City of Selma
Selma Development - Draft Scope of Work
October 25, 2022
Study Segments

1. None
Project Only Trip Assignment to State Facilities

1. State Route 99 at Floral Avenue and Highland Avenue Connections Project Trip Generation
The trip generation rates for the proposed Project were obtained from the 11th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table I presents the trip generation for the proposed Project with trip generation rates for Strip Retail Plaza, Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window, Hotel, Multifamily Housing, Senior Adult Housing, Affordable Housing and Public Park. At buildout, the proposed Project is estimated to generate a maximum of 11,650 daily, 909 AM peak hour and 923 PM peak hour trips.

Table I: Project Trip Generation
Land Use (ITE Code) Size Unit
Daily AM (7-9) Peak Hour PM (4-6) Peak Hour
Rate Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total
% %
Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) (822) 24.000 k.s.f. 54.45 1,307 2.36 60 40 34 23 57 6.59 50 50 79 79 158 Fast-Food Restaurant with DriveThrough Window (934) 13.500 k.s.f. 467.48 6,311 44.60 51 49 307 295 602 33.03 52 48 232 214 446 Hotel (310) 100 Rooms 7.99 799 0.46 56 44 26 20 46 0.59 51 49 30 29 59 Multifamily Housing (Low Rise)
Not Close to Transit (220) 300 d.u. 6.74 2,022 0.40 24 76 29 91 120 0.51 63 37 96 57 153 Senior Adult Housing -
Multifamily (252) 150 d.u. 3.24 486 0.20 34 66 10 20 30 0.25 56 44 21 17 38 Affordable Housing - Income
Limits (223) 150 d.u. 4.81 722 0.36 29 71 16 38 54 0.46 59 41 41 28 69 Public Park (411) 3.350 Acres 0.78 3 0.02 59 41 0 0 0 0.11 55 45 0 0 0 Total Project Trips 11,650 422 487 909 499 424 923
Note: k.s.f. = Thousand Square Feet
d.u. = Dwelling Units
Project Access
Access to and from the Project site at buildout will predominantly be from four (4) access points. Two access point will be on the south side of Floral Avenue approximately 200 feet and 675 feet west of the State Route 99 southbound off ramp and are proposed as right-in and right-out and full access, respectively. The other two (2) access point will be on the north side of Stillman Street approximately 1,275 feet and 1,875 feet west of Highland Avenue and are proposed as full access. Additional Project details can be found on Exhibit B.

Near Term Projects to be Included
Based on our local knowledge of the study area and consultation with City of Selma Planning Division staff, JLB proposes to include Near Term Projects in the vicinity of the proposed Project under the Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario. The Near-Term Projects proposed to be included in the Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions scenario include:
405
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 4
(559) 570-8991
Mr. Broussard – City of Selma
Selma Development - Draft Scope of Work
October 25, 2022
Project Name General Location

1. Canales SEC Highland Avenue and Nebraska Avenue

2. Graham Commercial NWC Highland Avenue and Rose Avenue

3. Amberwood East of Orange Avenue-Mill-Ditch Road at Nelson Avenue

4. Selma Crossings West of State Route 99 and Mountain View Avenue

5. V-5 Commercial NEC McCall Avenue and Dinuba Avenue

6. Stillman/Cinema Apartments NEC Cinema Way and Stillman Street

7. TT 5303 NEC Thompson Avenue and Saginaw Avenue

8. TT 6019 NEQ Highland Avenue and Dinuba Avenue

9. Selma Grove Commercial Development NWQ State Route 99 and Floral Avenue Other Near-Term Projects the City, County or Caltrans has knowledge and for which it is anticipated that said project(s) is/are projected to be whole or partially built by the Near-Term Project Year 2028, City, County and Caltrans, as appropriate, would provide JLB with project details such as a project description, location, proposed land uses with breakdowns and type of residential units and number of square footages for non-residential uses.

Vehicle Miles Traveled
On November 15, 2021, the City of Selma adopted the Fresno COG VMT Implementation Regional Guidelines and Technical Report, Fresno County SB 743 Implementation Regional Guidelines. The City’s adopted thresholds for development projects correspond to the regional averages modeled by Fresno COG's ABM. For residential and non-residential (except retail) development projects, the adopted threshold of significance is a 13% reduction. For retail projects, the adopted threshold is no net increase in Regional VMT when compared to the existing Regional VMT. Therefore, the VMT threshold for the Proposed Project is as follows:

1. Retail Plaza and Fast-Food Restaurant – Net zero (0) increase in regional VMT

2. Hotel – Net zero (0) increase in VMT per service population (Population/Users + Employment)

3. Multifamily Housing and Senior Adult Housing – 14.01 VMT per capita (16.10 X (1.00 – 0.13) = 14.01)

4. Affordable Housing – The Affordable Housing component is assumed to be screened out based on the adopted Fresno COG VMT Guidelines

5. Public Park – The Public Park component is assumed to be screened out based on the adopted Fresno COG VMT Guidelines
406
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 5
(559) 570-8991
Mr. Broussard – City of Selma
Selma Development - Draft Scope of Work
October 25, 2022
The Scope of Work is based on our understanding of this Project and our experience with similar Reports. We kindly ask that all responsible agencies submit any comments by November 16, 2022. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me by phone at (559) 869-4514, or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Carlos Ayala-Magana
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
cc: Hector Luna, County of Fresno
David Padilla, Caltrans
Jose Luis Benavides, JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Z:\01 Projects\001 Selma\001-009 Selma Development TIA-VMT\Draft Scope of Work\L10252022 Draft Scope of Work (001-009).docx 407
408
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 6
(559) 570-8991
Mr. Broussard – City of Selma
Selma Development - Draft Scope of Work
October 25, 2022
Exhibit A – Project Site Aerial
409
410
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 7
(559) 570-8991
Mr. Broussard – City of Selma
Selma Development - Draft Scope of Work
October 25, 2022
Exhibit B – Project Site Plan
411
412
1 Jose Benavides
From: Hernandez, Edgar@DOT <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 4:28 PM
To: Jose Benavides
Cc: Padilla, Dave@DOT
Subject: RE: Selma Development TIA
Good afternoon Jose,
Thank you for your patience. After further discussion, you may proceed with the submitted SOW for the traffic impact analysis.

Caltrans looks forward to reviewing the queuing analysis as part of the traffic analysis. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Respectfully,
Edgar Hernandez
District 6 Office of Planning
Associate Transportation Planner
Work Cell: (559) 981Ͳ7436
413
1 Carlos Ayala
From: Luna, Hector <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2022 4:39 PM
To: Carlos Ayala
Cc: Jose Benavides
Subject: RE: Selma Development Project DSOW
Good afternoon,
The Conty concurs with the proposed scope of work
Regards,
Hector E. Luna| Senior Planner
Department of Public Works and Planning |
Water and Natural Resources Division |
Transportation
2220 Tulare St. 6th Floor Fresno, CA 93721
Main Office: (559) 600‐4292 | Direct: (559) 600‐9672
Email: [email protected]
Your input matters! Customer Service Survey
From: Carlos Ayala <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2022 9:45 AM
To: Luna, Hector <[email protected]>
Cc: Jose Benavides <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Selma Development Project DSOW
CAUTION!!! ‐ EXTERNAL EMAIL ‐ THINK BEFORE YOU CLICK
Good morning Hector,
Have you had a chance to review the Draft Scope of Work for the Selma Development Project TIA? Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.

We kindly ask that you take a moment to review and comment on the proposed Scope of Work. In the absence of comments by November 16, 2022, it will be assumed that the proposed Scope of Work is acceptable to the agency(ies) that have not submitted any comments.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me by phone at (559) 869‐4514 or by e‐mail at [email protected]. We appreciate your time and attention to this matter and look forward to hearing from you soon.

Thank you,
Carlos Ayala‐Magana
Engineer I/II
Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning and Parking Solutions Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Small Business Enterprise (SBE) 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
Office: (559) 570‐8991
Direct: (559) 869‐4514
Fax: (559) 317‐6854
Email: [email protected]
www.JLBtraffic.com
415
1 Carlos Ayala
From: Engineering <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2022 12:03 PM
To: Carlos Ayala
Cc: Jose Benavides; Andrew Vongphachanh
Subject: RE: Selma Development Project DSOW
Carlos,
The city does not have more comments. Thanks
Philip L. Romero, PE
CITY OF SELMA
1710 Tucker Street, Selma, CA 93662
Office: 559.891.2200 | Fax: 559.896.5909
email: [email protected]
From: Carlos Ayala <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2022 11:13 AM
To: Engineering <[email protected]>
Cc: Jose Benavides <[email protected]>; Andrew Vongphachanh <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Selma Development Project DSOW
Hello Philip,
Study intersection #9 Stillman Ave / South Main Access Road (Future) references the Project’s southernmost middle access driveway. Attached you will find a Vicinity Map showing the proposed study intersections. Please confirm the City has no further comments on the DSOW.

Thank you,
Carlos Ayala‐Magana
Engineer I/II
Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning and Parking Solutions Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Small Business Enterprise (SBE) 516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
Office: (559) 570‐8991
Direct: (559) 869‐4514
Fax: (559) 317‐6854
Email: [email protected]
www.JLBtraffic.com
416
2 From: Engineering <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2022 9:25 AM
To: Carlos Ayala <[email protected]>
Cc: Jose Benavides <[email protected]>; Andrew Vongphachanh <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Selma Development Project DSOW
Carlos,
I had my team review the scoping and we do not have any major comments. If anything, perhaps you can include a study location map that is more clear because we were not sure if study intersection #9 Stillman Avenue/ South Main Access Road (Future) means the project’s southernmost middle access driveway or some other location. Thanks Philip L. Romero, PE
CITY OF SELMA
1710 Tucker Street, Selma, CA 93662
Office: 559.891.2200 | Fax: 559.896.5909
email: [email protected]
From: Carlos Ayala <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2022 9:46 AM
To: Brandon A Broussard ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Engineering <[email protected]>
Cc: Jose Benavides <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Selma Development Project DSOW
Good morning Brandon,
Have you had a chance to review the Draft Scope of Work for the Selma Development Project TIA? Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.

We kindly ask that you take a moment to review and comment on the proposed Scope of Work.

C I T Y O F S E L M A
1710 TUCKER STREET - SELMA CALIFORNIA 93662

FROM: City of Selma Community Development Department
TO: Carlos Ayala-Magana
JLB Traffic Engineering
516 W. Shaw Avenue, Suite 103
Fresno, CA 93722
Subject: Review of the Casitas Development Project (JLB 001-009) Traffic Study Scoping Document
The City of Selma has been requested to review the scope of the proposed traffic study analyzing potential impacts generated by the Casitas Development Project. The proposed project described and confirmed by staff’s understanding is for the development of the property (APN: 385-260-33).

The project proposes the approximately 37.4 acres with a mix of residential, commercial, and park space. The project site is located near the southwest corner of SR 99 and Floral Avenue.

In addition, the project proposes will require an annexation and prezone to Regional Commercial (C-R).

Below is a review of the scoping document and recommendations 1) On page 2, please add a figure to the scoping document and the ultimate Traffic Impact Study of the study intersections in relation to the project site. 2) On page 4, under the Near Term Projects to be included section, please give specifics on projects: Graham Commercial and Stillman/Cinema Apartments. The City does not have any active applications associated with those names.
3) On page 4, under the Near Term Projects to be included section, please include the Multi Family/Commercial project located at the NE corner of Nebraska and Highland. In addition, please include the Joan Mixed Use project located at the SW corner of Nebraska and Highland. 4) Please route and include any comments from Caltrans and Fresno County as necessary.

Please reach out if you have any further questions.

Trevor Stearns
Contract City Planner
Community Development Department
O: 559-891-2209
1711 Tucker St.

Selma, CA 93662
419
420
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 App | B
(559) 570-8991
Appendix B: Traffic Counts
421
422
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 516 W. Shaw Ave, Suite 103
www.metrotrafficdata.com Fresno, CA 93704

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0 28 17 2 4 0 8 63 2 1 0 1 28 14 2 1 2 23 5 2 7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0 19 14 2 1 0 8 60 5 0 0 2 18 22 3 0 3 33 9 3 7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0 32 25 2 2 0 11 55 4 0 0 0 15 15 3 1 2 49 5 6 7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0 29 33 3 3 0 13 53 2 0 0 2 32 28 4 0 4 53 10 2 8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0 32 30 3 3 0 7 51 5 1 0 0 32 21 4 0 2 35 8 2 8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0 20 26 5 1 0 14 55 2 1 0 3 24 36 7 2 7 34 4 1 8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0 21 31 2 2 0 7 51 5 1 0 0 36 41 10 0 0 27 9 1 8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0 15 25 5 1 0 13 57 7 2 0 0 23 39 4 1 4 22 3 0 TOTAL 0 196 201 24 17 0 81 445 32 6 0 8 208 216 37 5 24 276 53 17 Time U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 36 60 3 2 0 14 49 1 2 0 3 45 54 3 0 10 45 15 2 4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0 23 73 8 1 0 12 50 6 1 1 2 63 43 8 0 6 46 17 2 4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0 25 67 2 1 0 8 55 2 3 1 7 66 53 4 1 3 30 17 3 4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0 27 68 5 2 0 16 53 1 2 0 5 58 50 1 2 5 31 8 0 5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 28 77 4 0 0 12 56 4 0 1 9 65 58 3 1 3 39 22 0 5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0 31 81 4 2 0 11 59 2 0 0 6 59 46 1 0 1 30 19 2 5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0 33 73 5 2 0 10 63 1 0 0 4 57 45 2 0 0 37 17 2 5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0 19 70 4 1 0 14 57 1 0 0 4 45 29 1 2 2 30 11 0 TOTAL 0 222 569 35 11 0 97 442 18 8 3 40 458 378 23 6 30 288 126 11 PEAK HOUR U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 7:45 AM - 8:45 AM 0 102 120 13 9 0 41 210 14 3 0 5 124 126 25 2 13 149 31 6 4:45 PM - 5:45 PM 0 119 299 18 6 0 49 231 8 2 1 24 239 199 7 3 9 137 66 4 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.906 4.5% PM 8 231 49 0 0.973
PM 0.925 1.4% AM 14 210 41 0 0.933
PHF 0.87 0.828
AM PM
1 0 31 66
24 5 149 137
239 124 13 9
199 126 2 3
PM AM
PHF

0.728 0.827 PHF

0.904 0 102 120 13 AM

0.940 0 119 299 18 PM
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

Page 1 of 3 ends

Golden State Blvd
Northbound Westbound
Golden State Blvd
Highland Ave
Highland Ave
Turning Movement Report
Highland Ave @ Golden State Blvd
Fresno
Thursday, September 29, 2022 Clear

36.5815
-119.6286
423
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 516 W. Shaw Ave, Suite 103
www.metrotrafficdata.com Fresno, CA 93704

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
TOTAL 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0
PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:45 AM - 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM - 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Bikes Peds Peds <>
AM Peak Total 0 0 PM 0 0 0 0
PM Peak Total 1 1 AM 0 0 0 0 Peds <>
0 0
AM PM
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
PM AM
Peds <>
0 1
Peds <>
0 0 0 0 AM
0 0 0 0 PM
Turning Movement Report
Highland Ave @ Golden State Blvd 36.5815
Fresno -119.6286
Thursday, September 29, 2022 Clear
E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Highland Ave
Golden State Blvd Golden State Blvd
Highland Ave Page 2 of 3
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes
424
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 516 W. Shaw Ave, Suite 103
www.metrotrafficdata.com Fresno, CA 93704

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 15 2 0 0 4 14 1 2 7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 20 2 1 0 1 19 1 1 7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 19 1 0 7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 2 14 3 0 8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 18 1 0 0 2 13 1 0 8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0 0 1 3 1 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 24 1 0 0 3 16 1 1 8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 3 13 1 0 8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 4 13 1 0 TOTAL 0 2 5 13 1 0 16 8 2 1 0 1 160 6 1 0 19 121 10 4
Time U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 3 1 2 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 34 3 2 0 6 33 3 2 4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0 3 1 3 0 0 4 2 1 0 0 1 29 1 0 0 5 41 3 0 4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0 3 2 5 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 35 4 0 0 4 43 4 2 4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 2 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 23 1 0 0 5 42 4 1 5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 34 2 3 0 3 45 3 2 5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0 1 1 6 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 32 2 0 0 4 45 5 0 5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 1 27 1 0 0 2 44 0 0 5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 21 2 1 0 6 27 5 2 TOTAL 0 13 7 25 0 0 23 9 4 2 0 2 235 16 6 0 35 320 27 9 PEAK HOUR U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 7:30 AM - 8:30 AM 0 0 4 7 1 0 11 5 0 0 0 0 89 2 0 0 7 62 6 1 4:30 PM - 5:30 PM 0 7 5 16 0 0 8 4 2 1 0 0 124 9 3 0 16 175 16 5 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.877 1.0% PM 2 4 8 0 0.583
PM 0.901 2.4% AM 0 5 11 0 0.667
PHF 0.853 0.843
AM PM
0 0 6 16
0 0 62 175
124 89 7 16
9 2 0 0
PM AM
PHF

0.938 0.958 PHF

0.688 0 0 4 7 AM

0.700 0 7 5 16 PM
Turning Movement Report
Floral Ave @ De Wolf Ave
Fresno
Thursday, November 17, 2022 Clear

36.5763
-119.6466

Page 1 of 3 ends

Floral Ave
Northbound Westbound
Floral Ave
DeWolf Ave
DeWolf Ave
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
425
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 516 W. Shaw Ave, Suite 103
www.metrotrafficdata.com Fresno, CA 93704

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:30 AM - 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM - 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bikes Peds Peds <>
AM Peak Total 0 0 PM 0 0 0 0
PM Peak Total 0 0 AM 0 0 0 0 Peds <>
0 0
AM PM
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
PM AM
Peds <>
0 0
Peds <>
0 0 0 0 AM
0 0 0 0 PM
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
DeWolf Ave
Floral Ave Floral Ave
DeWolf Ave Page 2 of 3
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
Turning Movement Report
Floral Ave @ De Wolf Ave 36.5763
Fresno -119.6466
Thursday, November 17, 2022 Clear
426
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 516 W. Shaw Ave, Suite 103
www.metrotrafficdata.com Fresno, CA 93704

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 1 0 0 3 15 0 0 31 0 30 15 2 7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 2 0 0 2 25 0 1 36 0 20 20 2 7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 3 0 0 3 26 0 3 36 0 38 28 0 7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 2 0 0 3 30 0 1 31 0 38 43 0 8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 1 3 0 3 23 0 0 32 0 28 52 0 8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 1 0 0 2 40 0 1 36 0 30 54 2 8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 1 0 0 1 22 0 2 40 0 31 85 0 8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 3 2 0 6 23 0 1 35 0 25 45 1 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 284 0 14 5 0 23 204 0 9 277 0 240 342 7 Time U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 107 0 5 2 0 3 58 0 3 27 0 43 108 5 4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 106 0 4 0 0 7 41 0 0 32 0 39 81 0 4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 0 6 0 0 8 52 0 1 29 0 45 113 5 4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 0 7 1 0 4 47 0 0 29 0 42 95 1 5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 0 11 0 0 9 47 0 1 29 0 42 91 1 5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 0 6 1 0 8 48 0 1 27 0 45 75 1 5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 0 4 1 0 5 40 0 0 30 0 42 111 0 5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 0 5 0 0 7 40 0 2 32 0 37 69 2 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 847 0 48 5 0 51 373 0 8 235 0 335 743 15 PEAK HOUR U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 180 0 6 5 0 12 108 0 4 143 0 114 236 3 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 415 0 22 3 0 22 198 0 4 117 0 169 397 11 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.819 1.5% PM 22 0 415 0 0.942
PM 0.954 1.3% AM 6 0 180 0 0.715
PHF 0.902 0.714
AM PM
0 0 236 397
22 12 114 169
198 108 0 0
0 0 143 117
PM AM
PHF

0.79 0.913 PHF
##### 0 0 0 0 AM
##### 0 0 0 0 PM
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

Page 1 of 3 ends

Floral Ave
Northbound Westbound
Floral Ave
Walmart Driveway
Turning Movement Report
Floral Ave @ Walmart Driveway
Fresno
Thursday, November 17, 2022 Clear

36.5763
-119.6332
427
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 516 W. Shaw Ave, Suite 103
www.metrotrafficdata.com Fresno, CA 93704

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Bikes Peds Peds <>
AM Peak Total 0 1 PM 0 0 0 1
PM Peak Total 2 1 AM 0 0 0 1 Peds <>
0 0
AM PM
0 0 0 0
1 0 0 1
0 0 0 0
PM AM
Peds <>
0 0
Peds <>
0 0 0 0 AM
0 0 0 0 PM
Turning Movement Report
Floral Ave @ Walmart Driveway 36.5763
Fresno -119.6332
Thursday, November 17, 2022 Clear
E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Walmart Driveway
Floral Ave Floral Ave
0 Page 2 of 3
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes
428
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 516 W. Shaw Ave, Suite 103
www.metrotrafficdata.com Fresno, CA 93704

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0 0 0 8 1 0 27 2 18 7 0 0 61 4 7 0 5 50 0 3 7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0 0 0 10 0 0 43 5 19 8 0 0 46 10 7 0 4 49 0 2 7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0 0 0 13 0 0 67 3 25 3 0 0 68 5 6 0 5 57 0 1 7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0 0 0 8 0 0 64 4 18 11 0 0 65 4 2 0 4 85 0 0 8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0 0 0 7 0 0 51 5 9 9 0 0 59 7 2 0 13 98 0 1 8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0 0 0 11 0 0 47 7 14 7 0 0 84 13 7 0 13 117 0 1 8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0 0 0 13 0 0 39 5 24 4 0 0 92 16 3 0 11 108 0 0 8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0 0 0 19 0 0 27 6 14 3 0 0 89 13 3 0 16 99 0 1 TOTAL 0 0 0 89 1 0 365 37 141 52 0 0 564 72 37 0 71 663 0 9 Time U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 0 0 35 0 0 54 8 30 5 0 0 202 26 2 0 28 160 0 1 4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0 0 0 29 0 0 58 8 28 1 2 0 147 29 1 0 27 122 0 2 4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0 0 0 30 0 0 57 12 19 2 0 0 169 36 7 0 30 151 0 1 4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 0 40 0 0 64 13 33 3 0 0 175 26 2 0 24 190 0 2 5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 0 0 39 1 0 59 11 37 3 0 0 104 38 3 0 23 153 0 3 5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0 0 0 35 0 0 70 16 17 5 0 0 141 30 2 0 28 131 0 2 5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0 0 0 33 0 0 73 12 37 4 0 0 169 41 3 0 28 124 0 2 5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0 0 0 42 0 0 67 11 25 1 0 0 154 21 5 0 30 141 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 283 1 0 502 91 226 24 2 0 1261 247 25 0 218 1172 0 13 PEAK HOUR U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 0 0 0 50 0 0 164 23 61 23 0 0 324 49 15 0 53 422 0 3 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 0 134 0 0 233 41 110 11 2 0 693 117 12 0 109 623 0 6 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.930 3.6% PM 110 41 233 0 0.873
PM 0.912 1.4% AM 61 23 164 0 0.912
PHF 0.89 0.863
AM PM
2 0 0 0
0 0 422 623
693 324 53 109
117 49 0 0
PM AM
PHF

0.913 0.855 PHF

0.658 0 0 0 50 AM

0.838 0 0 0 134 PM
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

Page 1 of 3 ends

Floral Ave
Northbound Westbound
Floral Ave
SR 99 South Off-ramp
Shopping Center
Turning Movement Report
Floral Ave @ SR 99 SB Offramp / Shopping Center
Fresno
Wednesday, November 30, 2022 Clear

36.5764
-119.6308
429
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 516 W. Shaw Ave, Suite 103
www.metrotrafficdata.com Fresno, CA 93704

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
TOTAL 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Bikes Peds Peds <>
AM Peak Total 0 1 PM 0 0 0 2
PM Peak Total 0 3 AM 0 0 0 1 Peds <>
1 0
AM PM
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
PM AM
Peds <>
0 0
Peds <>
0 0 0 0 AM
0 0 0 0 PM
Turning Movement Report
Floral Ave @ SR 99 SB Offramp / Shopping Center 36.5764 Fresno -119.6308
Wednesday, November 30, 2022 Clear
E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
SR 99 South Off-ramp
Floral Ave Floral Ave
Shopping Center Page 2 of 3
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes
430
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 516 W. Shaw Ave, Suite 103
www.metrotrafficdata.com Fresno, CA 93704

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0 16 25 8 3 0 4 30 46 3 0 22 61 19 1 0 9 74 16 1 7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0 11 33 5 3 0 2 51 54 6 0 21 88 23 8 0 18 77 20 2 7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0 14 12 16 3 0 6 50 56 5 0 24 100 22 5 0 19 108 19 4 7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0 7 35 14 2 0 4 56 44 7 0 51 110 21 2 0 23 133 21 3 8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0 21 29 19 2 0 8 43 33 5 0 32 106 20 2 0 29 142 26 4 8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0 21 28 14 2 0 8 62 34 3 0 38 100 27 1 0 39 123 12 6 8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0 20 16 14 0 0 10 33 59 3 0 37 103 28 3 0 30 133 20 2 8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 1 24 14 7 1 0 7 57 40 6 0 36 95 21 4 0 30 88 25 4 TOTAL 1 134 192 97 16 0 49 382 366 38 0 261 763 181 26 0 197 878 159 26 Time U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 1 26 37 19 2 0 11 59 61 3 0 74 147 48 6 0 31 162 26 7 4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0 26 50 29 3 0 13 50 65 3 0 55 156 48 2 0 23 145 27 0 4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0 29 65 27 0 0 16 51 61 2 0 61 188 46 3 0 24 153 31 4 4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 1 28 51 21 2 0 13 53 58 2 0 51 174 42 1 0 32 120 27 5 5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 21 54 20 0 0 22 89 49 2 0 51 155 52 2 0 24 155 22 1 5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0 24 56 26 1 0 20 56 40 3 0 52 151 36 2 0 26 121 26 2 5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 1 35 43 27 1 0 11 47 36 3 0 51 188 35 5 0 22 142 26 2 5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0 14 47 22 0 0 13 47 28 3 0 48 141 52 1 0 20 102 21 2 TOTAL 3 203 403 191 9 0 119 452 398 21 0 443 1300 359 22 0 202 1100 206 23 PEAK HOUR U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 7:45 AM - 8:45 AM 0 69 108 61 6 0 30 194 170 18 0 158 419 96 8 0 121 531 79 15 4:15 PM - 5:15 PM 1 104 220 97 5 0 64 243 233 9 0 218 673 188 8 0 103 573 107 10 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.981 2.3% PM 233 243 64 0 0.844
PM 0.939 1.1% AM 170 194 30 0 0.947
PHF 0.914 0.924
AM PM
0 0 79 107
218 158 531 573
673 419 121 103
188 96 0 0
PM AM
PHF

0.928 0.941 PHF

0.862 0 69 108 61 AM

0.872 1 104 220 97 PM
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

Page 1 of 3 ends

Floral Ave
Northbound Westbound
Floral Ave
Highland Ave
Highland Ave
Turning Movement Report
Floral Ave @ Highland Ave
Fresno
Thursday, November 17, 2022 Clear

36.5768
-119.6287
431
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 516 W. Shaw Ave, Suite 103
www.metrotrafficdata.com Fresno, CA 93704

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0
PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:45 AM - 8:45 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM - 5:15 PM 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0
Bikes Peds Peds <>
AM Peak Total 0 3 PM 0 1 0 1
PM Peak Total 5 1 AM 0 0 0 1 Peds <>
0 0
AM PM
0 0 0 0
3 0 0 1
0 0 0 0
PM AM
Peds <>
2 0
Peds <>
0 0 0 0 AM
0 0 0 0 PM
Turning Movement Report
Floral Ave @ Highland Ave 36.5768
Fresno -119.6287
Thursday, November 17, 2022 Clear
E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Highland Ave
Floral Ave Floral Ave
Highland Ave Page 2 of 3
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes
432
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 516 W. Shaw Ave, Suite 103
www.metrotrafficdata.com Fresno, CA 93704

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0 27 0 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 1 0 0 72 0 1 7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0 30 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 0 7 0 0 88 0 1 7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0 39 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 0 5 0 0 121 0 3 7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0 61 0 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 0 1 0 0 126 0 3 8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0 38 0 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 0 2 0 0 130 0 2 8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0 34 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 0 0 0 0 144 0 2 8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0 47 0 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 0 2 0 0 96 0 1 8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0 33 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 0 0 93 0 1 TOTAL 0 309 0 73 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 716 0 18 0 0 870 0 14 Time U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 54 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122 0 3 0 0 148 0 4 4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0 36 0 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 156 0 1 0 0 156 0 2 4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0 48 0 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 176 0 3 0 0 149 0 1 4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0 40 0 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 180 0 0 0 0 132 0 2 5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 33 0 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 169 0 0 0 0 155 0 0 5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0 38 0 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 169 0 0 0 0 141 0 1 5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0 37 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 165 0 2 0 0 121 0 0 5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0 37 0 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 158 0 0 0 0 107 0 0 TOTAL 0 323 0 79 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1295 0 9 0 0 1109 0 10 PEAK HOUR U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 7:30 AM - 8:30 AM 0 172 0 37 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 417 0 8 0 0 521 0 10 4:15 PM - 5:15 PM 0 157 0 41 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 681 0 4 0 0 592 0 5 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.880 2.1% PM 0 0 0 0 #####
PM 0.960 1.2% AM 0 0 0 0 #####
PHF 0.946 0.834
AM PM
0 0 0 0
0 0 521 592
681 417 0 0
0 0 0 0
PM AM
PHF

0.905 0.949 PHF

0.697 0 172 0 37 AM

0.853 0 157 0 41 PM
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

Page 1 of 3 ends

Floral Ave
Northbound Westbound
Floral Ave
SR99 North Off-ramp
Turning Movement Report
Floral Ave @ SR 99 NB Offramp
Fresno
Thursday, November 17, 2022 Clear

36.5765
-119.6268
433
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 516 W. Shaw Ave, Suite 103
www.metrotrafficdata.com Fresno, CA 93704

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:30 AM - 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM - 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bikes Peds Peds <>
AM Peak Total 0 0 PM 0 0 0 0
PM Peak Total 0 0 AM 0 0 0 0 Peds <>
0 0
AM PM
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
PM AM
Peds <>
0 0
Peds <>
0 0 0 0 AM
0 0 0 0 PM
Turning Movement Report
Floral Ave @ SR 99 NB Offramp 36.5765
Fresno -119.6268
Thursday, November 17, 2022 Clear
E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
0 Floral Ave Floral Ave
SR99 North Off-ramp Page 2 of 3
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes
434
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 516 W. Shaw Ave, Suite 103
www.metrotrafficdata.com Fresno, CA 93704

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 1 15 10 5 1 0 11 25 2 2 1 3 36 9 3 0 2 68 0 0 7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0 15 28 4 6 3 12 19 1 0 1 3 47 11 3 0 8 73 4 2 7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0 19 36 3 6 0 9 18 1 0 1 3 67 26 4 0 8 79 1 0 7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 1 19 41 4 4 1 17 32 1 2 0 4 80 27 2 0 13 74 2 1 8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 2 33 24 3 2 0 13 33 3 4 1 3 65 24 2 0 23 123 3 1 8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0 32 21 4 1 1 20 28 5 6 1 1 68 21 4 0 28 112 2 1 8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 1 31 18 6 0 2 17 36 1 5 2 2 51 22 3 0 14 81 2 2 8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0 36 22 2 2 1 15 31 8 3 1 4 66 34 2 0 7 64 1 1 TOTAL 5 200 200 31 22 8 114 222 22 22 8 23 480 174 23 0 103 674 15 8 Time U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 55 35 15 1 3 20 38 2 1 4 9 110 40 9 0 11 106 2 1 4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 2 54 43 10 2 6 23 54 5 4 4 11 149 51 4 0 11 84 3 0 4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0 49 29 7 3 3 29 49 4 3 7 9 121 41 0 0 16 94 2 1 4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0 53 27 10 1 8 22 48 9 2 3 8 111 40 1 0 18 102 1 0 5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 67 35 8 2 2 18 62 5 1 2 7 131 54 1 0 10 90 5 0 5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 3 54 25 15 2 2 23 52 3 2 5 10 120 43 1 0 23 82 5 0 5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0 45 25 11 1 2 28 50 4 0 3 12 134 28 1 0 17 88 0 0 5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0 32 23 5 0 4 19 34 2 0 2 8 101 40 1 0 20 86 2 0 TOTAL 5 409 242 81 12 30 182 387 34 13 30 74 977 337 18 0 126 732 20 2 PEAK HOUR U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 7:45 AM - 8:45 AM 4 115 104 17 7 4 67 129 10 17 4 10 264 94 11 0 78 390 9 5 4:15 PM - 5:15 PM 2 223 134 35 8 19 92 213 23 10 16 35 512 186 6 0 55 370 11 1 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.920 3.1% PM 23 213 92 19 0.986
PM 0.944 1.3% AM 10 129 67 4 0.938
PHF 0.871 0.838
AM PM
16 4 9 11
35 10 390 370
512 264 78 55
186 94 0 0
PM AM
PHF

0.8 0.901 PHF

0.923 4 115 104 17 AM

0.895 2 223 134 35 PM
Turning Movement Report
Whitson St @ Floral Ave
Fresno
Thursday, September 29, 2022 Clear

36.5763
-119.6247

Page 1 of 3 ends

Floral Ave
Northbound Westbound
Floral Ave
Whitson St
Whitson St
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
435
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 516 W. Shaw Ave, Suite 103
www.metrotrafficdata.com Fresno, CA 93704

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0
5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 12 0 1 0 4 0 3 0 1 0 3 0 0
PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:45 AM - 8:45 AM 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4
4:15 PM - 5:15 PM 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 0
Bikes Peds Peds <>
AM Peak Total 1 8 PM 0 0 0 8
PM Peak Total 4 9 AM 0 0 0 4 Peds <>
0 4
AM PM
0 0 0 0
2 0 0 2
0 1 0 0
PM AM
Peds <>
0 1
Peds <>
0 0 0 0 AM
0 0 0 0 PM
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Whitson St
Floral Ave Floral Ave
Whitson St Page 2 of 3
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
Turning Movement Report
Whitson St @ Floral Ave 36.5763
Fresno -119.6247
Thursday, September 29, 2022 Clear
436
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 516 W. Shaw Ave, Suite 103
www.metrotrafficdata.com Fresno, CA 93704

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0 0 147 5 12 0 39 45 0 13 0 0 0 85 12 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0 0 165 7 12 0 44 43 0 12 0 0 0 104 17 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0 0 157 8 9 0 50 62 0 10 0 0 0 78 13 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0 0 148 9 13 0 35 65 0 7 0 0 0 86 13 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0 0 140 2 12 0 46 61 0 13 0 0 0 73 10 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0 0 133 5 11 0 43 79 0 7 0 0 0 70 15 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0 0 89 4 6 0 41 60 0 9 0 0 0 58 11 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0 0 112 8 12 0 35 45 0 7 0 0 0 62 14 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 1091 48 87 0 333 460 0 78 0 0 0 616 105 0 0 0 0 0 Time U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 0 153 11 8 0 79 60 0 6 0 0 0 72 8 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0 0 165 20 9 0 69 54 0 4 0 0 0 91 6 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0 0 171 12 9 0 75 85 0 8 0 0 0 91 2 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 187 7 4 0 61 78 0 3 0 0 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 0 176 11 3 0 60 55 0 4 0 0 0 85 9 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0 0 168 19 3 0 44 53 0 6 0 0 0 100 6 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0 0 191 12 6 0 67 56 0 2 0 0 0 77 4 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0 0 108 7 3 0 63 48 0 7 0 0 0 85 5 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 1319 99 45 0 518 489 0 40 0 0 0 689 40 0 0 0 0 0 PEAK HOUR U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 7:15 AM - 8:15 AM 0 0 610 26 46 0 175 231 0 42 0 0 0 341 53 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM - 5:15 PM 0 0 699 50 25 0 265 272 0 19 0 0 0 355 17 0 0 0 0 0 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.952 10.2% PM 0 272 265 0 0.839
PM 0.945 3.7% AM 0 231 175 0 0.906
PHF 0.975 0.82
AM PM
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
355 341 0 0
PM AM
PHF
##### ##### PHF

0.924 0 0 610 26 AM

0.965 0 0 699 50 PM
Turning Movement Report
Highland Ave @ SR 99 SB Ramps
Fresno
Wednesday, November 30, 2022 Clear

36.5749
-119.6287

Page 1 of 3 ends

SR99 South Ramps
Northbound Westbound
SR99 South Ramps
Highland Ave
Highland Ave
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
437
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 516 W. Shaw Ave, Suite 103
www.metrotrafficdata.com Fresno, CA 93704

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:15 AM - 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM - 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Bikes Peds Peds <>
AM Peak Total 0 0 PM 0 0 0 0
PM Peak Total 0 1 AM 0 0 0 0 Peds <>
0 0
AM PM
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
PM AM
Peds <>
0 1
Peds <>
0 0 0 0 AM
0 0 0 0 PM
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Highland Ave
SR99 South Ramps SR99 South Ramps
Highland Ave Page 2 of 3
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
Turning Movement Report
Highland Ave @ SR 99 SB Ramps 36.5749
Fresno -119.6287
Wednesday, November 30, 2022 Clear
438
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 516 W. Shaw Ave, Suite 103
www.metrotrafficdata.com Fresno, CA 93704

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0 7 138 5 8 0 10 112 7 13 0 7 0 5 2 0 3 1 10 1 7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0 3 158 4 8 0 9 134 5 19 0 5 3 8 0 0 1 1 11 1 7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0 8 151 9 9 0 17 114 13 16 0 2 1 8 1 0 1 0 12 1 7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0 13 142 9 12 0 15 113 21 14 0 2 0 6 2 0 2 0 17 1 8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0 15 133 11 11 0 14 96 22 14 0 10 3 10 1 0 5 2 3 0 8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0 26 113 7 13 0 9 108 33 16 0 9 0 9 0 0 6 0 14 0 8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0 14 82 14 9 0 10 88 24 15 0 11 1 8 0 0 4 0 7 1 8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0 25 87 17 13 0 24 72 19 16 0 13 0 16 0 0 1 1 19 0 TOTAL 0 111 1004 76 83 0 108 837 144 123 0 59 8 70 6 0 23 5 93 5 Time U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 33 108 9 7 0 17 106 18 10 0 39 1 43 0 0 9 1 15 0 4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0 23 113 15 11 0 12 108 17 5 0 41 6 43 1 0 11 1 31 0 4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0 28 131 6 8 0 17 146 20 6 0 37 3 51 0 0 8 0 20 0 4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0 25 136 10 6 0 19 138 13 6 0 43 1 56 0 0 7 2 20 1 5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 20 119 7 5 0 5 116 19 9 0 49 4 42 0 0 8 1 24 0 5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0 21 113 7 4 0 19 127 13 6 0 47 1 56 0 0 6 3 26 0 5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0 10 128 8 7 0 5 116 9 4 0 67 2 39 0 0 11 0 11 0 5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0 12 84 5 4 0 10 108 15 6 0 30 2 36 0 0 4 2 8 0 TOTAL 0 172 932 67 52 0 104 965 124 52 0 353 20 366 1 0 64 10 155 1 PEAK HOUR U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 7:15 AM - 8:15 AM 0 39 584 33 40 0 55 457 61 63 0 19 7 32 4 0 9 3 43 3 4:30 PM - 5:30 PM 0 94 499 30 23 0 60 527 65 27 0 176 9 205 0 0 29 6 90 1 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.981 8.2% PM 65 527 60 0 0.891
PM 0.952 2.8% AM 61 457 55 0 0.961
PHF 0.938 0.63
AM PM
0 0 43 90
176 19 3 6
9 7 9 29
205 32 0 0
PM AM
PHF

0.724 0.893 PHF

0.976 0 39 584 33 AM

0.911 0 94 499 30 PM
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound

Page 1 of 3 ends

Stillman St
Northbound Westbound
Stillman St
Highland Ave
Highland Ave
Turning Movement Report
Highland Ave @ Stillman St
Fresno
Wednesday, November 30, 2022 Clear

36.5726
-119.6288
439
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 516 W. Shaw Ave, Suite 103
www.metrotrafficdata.com Fresno, CA 93704

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:15 AM - 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM - 5:30 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bikes Peds Peds <>
AM Peak Total 1 0 PM 0 0 0 1
PM Peak Total 0 1 AM 0 1 0 0 Peds <>
0 0
AM PM
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
PM AM
Peds <>
0 0
Peds <>
0 0 0 0 AM
0 0 0 0 PM
Turning Movement Report
Highland Ave @ Stillman St 36.5726
Fresno -119.6288
Wednesday, November 30, 2022 Clear
E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Highland Ave
Stillman St Stillman St
Highland Ave Page 2 of 3
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes
440
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 516 W. Shaw Ave, Suite 103
www.metrotrafficdata.com Fresno, CA 93704

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0 1 120 3 3 0 19 114 0 18 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 12 0 7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0 1 142 4 9 0 11 109 2 17 0 2 0 1 1 0 5 0 25 0 7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0 0 130 5 7 0 20 85 3 6 0 1 3 0 0 0 7 2 29 1 7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0 1 121 11 12 0 22 89 0 13 0 0 2 1 0 0 5 0 33 0 8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0 0 134 7 12 0 19 79 1 11 0 0 1 2 0 0 6 0 26 0 8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0 0 141 3 16 0 18 85 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 1 26 0 8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0 1 133 3 11 0 9 129 1 23 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 25 0 8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0 2 117 5 13 0 11 88 1 9 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 2 21 0 TOTAL 0 6 1038 41 83 0 129 778 8 103 0 6 7 8 2 0 39 5 197 1 Time U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 0 145 10 13 0 27 133 3 6 0 3 4 1 1 0 4 4 32 0 4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0 0 164 5 8 0 33 138 6 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 17 0 4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0 4 131 12 6 0 37 153 3 4 0 1 3 4 0 0 7 1 26 0 4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0 1 158 10 4 0 42 162 2 7 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 3 27 0 5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 0 160 5 7 0 32 176 2 8 0 1 3 0 0 0 6 0 20 0 5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0 0 145 6 7 0 38 172 2 4 0 3 4 1 0 0 10 3 29 0 5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0 0 127 4 9 0 29 173 2 5 0 2 2 2 0 0 8 3 23 0 5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0 0 127 7 12 0 31 149 4 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 4 0 18 0 TOTAL 0 5 1157 59 66 0 269 1256 24 41 0 12 20 9 1 0 42 15 192 0 PEAK HOUR U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks U-Turn Left Thru Right Trucks 7:45 AM - 8:45 AM 0 2 529 24 51 0 68 382 2 53 0 2 4 4 1 0 23 1 110 0 4:30 PM - 5:30 PM 0 5 594 33 24 0 149 663 9 23 0 5 11 6 0 0 26 7 102 0 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.940 9.1% PM 9 663 149 0 0.968
PM 0.975 2.9% AM 2 382 68 0 0.813
PHF 0.688 0.833
AM PM
0 0 110 102
5 2 1 7
11 4 23 26
6 4 0 0
PM AM
PHF

0.882 0.804 PHF

0.964 0 2 529 24 AM

0.935 0 5 594 33 PM
Turning Movement Report
Highland Ave @ Rose Ave
Fresno
Thursday, September 29, 2022 Clear

36.5688
-119.6288

Page 1 of 3 ends

Rose Ave
Northbound Westbound
Rose Ave
Highland Ave
Highland Ave
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Eastbound Westbound
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
441
Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 516 W. Shaw Ave, Suite 103
www.metrotrafficdata.com Fresno, CA 93704

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 1
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:45 AM - 8:45 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
4:30 PM - 5:30 PM 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Bikes Peds Peds <>
AM Peak Total 2 2 PM 0 0 1 0
PM Peak Total 4 0 AM 0 0 0 1 Peds <>
0 1
AM PM
0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
PM AM
Peds <>
0 0
Peds <>
0 0 0 1 AM
0 0 2 0 PM
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Highland Ave
Rose Ave Rose Ave
Highland Ave Page 2 of 3
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
Turning Movement Report
Highland Ave @ Rose Ave 36.5688
Fresno -119.6288
Thursday, September 29, 2022 Clear
442
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 App | C
(559) 570-8991
Appendix C: Traffic Modeling
443
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 1
(559) 570-8991
April 10, 2023
Kai Han, TE
Fresno Council of Governments
2035 Tulare Street, Suite 201
Fresno, CA 93721
Via Email Only: [email protected]
Subject: Traffic Modeling Request for the Preparation of a Traffic Impact Analysis and Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis for the Selma Development in the City of Selma (JLB Project 001-009)
Dear Mr. Han,
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc. (JLB) hereby requests traffic modeling for the preparation of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis for the proposed Selma Development (Project) located on the southwest quadrant of Highland Avenue and Floral Avenue in the City of Selma.

The Project proposes to develop approximately 37.4 new acres with a mix of residential, commercial and park space. An aerial of the Project vicinity is shown in Exhibit A. The latest Project Site Plan is presented in Exhibit B.

The purpose of the TIA and VMT Analysis is to evaluate the potential on-site and off-site traffic impacts, identify short-term roadway and circulation needs, determine potential mitigation measures and identify any critical traffic issues that should be addressed in the on-going planning process.

Scenarios:

The following scenarios are requested:

1. Base Year 2019 (with Link and TAZ modifications)

2. Base Year 2019 with North-South Roads (with Link and TAZ modifications)

3. Base Year 2019 plus Project with North-South Roads (with Link and TAZ modifications)

4. Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project Select Zone (with Link and TAZ modifications)

5. Differences between model runs 4 and 3 above
Changes and/or additions to the Model Network or TAZ’s
JLB reviewed the Fresno COG model network for the Base Year 2019 and Cumulative Year 2046. Based on this review, JLB requests the following link and TAZ network modifications. Details on the requested Link and TAZ modifications for Base Year 2019 and Cumulative Year 2046 are illustrated in Exhibit C. 444
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 2
(559) 570-8991
Mr. Han - Fresno Council of Governments
Traffic Modeling Request (JLB Project No. 001-009)
April 10, 2023
LINK and TAZ MODIFICATIONS (Base Year 2019 Scenario Only):

1. Create Stillman Street approximately 1,375 feet north of Rose Avenue. (See Exhibit C for details). a. Between Node 32765 and Node 6844
i. Classification: Collector
ii. Lanes: Two lanes in the westbound direction and one lane in the eastbound direction iii. Speed: 35 MPH
b. Between Node 6844 and Node 32771
i. Classification: Collector
ii. Lanes: Two lanes in each direction
iii. Speed: 35 MPH
LINK and TAZ MODIFICATIONS (Base Year 2019 with north-south roads and Base Year 2019 plus Project with North-South roads):

1. Create Future Street approximately 1,350 feet west of the State Route 99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Floral Avenue. (See Exhibit C for details).
a. Classification: Collector
b. Lanes: One lane in each direction
c. Speed: 35 MPH

2. Create North-South Street approximately 700 feet west of the State Route 99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Floral Avenue. (See Exhibit C for details).
a. Classification: Collector
b. Lanes: One lane in each direction
c. Speed: 30 MPH

3. Create Stillman Street approximately 1,375 feet north of Rose Avenue. (See Exhibit C for details). a. Between Future Street and Node 6844
i. Classification: Collector
ii. Lanes: Two lanes in the westbound direction and one lane in the eastbound direction iii. Speed: 35 MPH
b. Between Node 6844 and Node 32771
i. Classification: Collector
ii. Lanes: Two lanes in each direction
iii. Speed: 35 MPH
LINK and TAZ MODIFICATIONS (All Scenarios):

1. Modify Floral Avenue as follows:
a. Between Node 32774 and Node 6855
i. Decrease the speed limit to 30 MPH in each direction. b. Between Node 42911 and Node 6851
iv. Increase the number of lanes to 2 lanes in each direction. c. Between Node 6855 and Node 6857
i. Increase the number of lanes to 2 lanes in the eastbound direction. 445
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 3
(559) 570-8991
Mr. Han - Fresno Council of Governments
Traffic Modeling Request (JLB Project No. 001-009)
April 10, 2023

2. Modify State Route 43 as follows:
a. Between Node 6858 and Node 6844
i. Increase the number of lanes to 2 lanes in each direction.

3. Modify Node 1964 as follows:
a. Remove existing TAZ connector to Node 28752
b. Add a TAZ connector to the end of Stillman Street at Node 32771.

LINK and Project MODIFICATIONS (Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project Select Zone Scenario Only):

1. Modify Floral Avenue as follows:
a. Between Node 32774 and Node 42911
i. Increase the number of lanes to 2 lanes in each direction.

2. Modify Stillman Avenue as follows:
a. Between Future Street and State Route 43
i. Increase the number of lanes to 2 lanes in each direction.

3. Create Future Street approximately 1,350 feet west of the State Route 99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Floral Avenue. (See Exhibit C for details).
a. Classification: Collector
b. Lanes: Two lanes in each direction
c. Speed: 35 MPH

4. Create North-South Street approximately 700 feet west of the State Route 99 Southbound Off-Ramp at Floral Avenue. (See Exhibit C for details).
a. Classification: Collector
b. Lanes: One lane in each direction
c. Speed: 30 MPH

5. Create TAZ A (Project) generally located on the southwest quadrant of Highland Avenue and Floral Avenue. TAZ A shall have TAZ connectors to Future Street and North-South Street. (See Exhibit C for details).

6. Create TAZ B (Project) generally located on the southwest quadrant of Highland Avenue and Floral Avenue. TAZ B shall have TAZ connectors to Future Street and North-South Street. (See Exhibit C for details).

7. Create TAZ C (Project) generally located on the southwest quadrant of Highland Avenue and Floral Avenue. TAZ C shall have TAZ connectors to Future Street and North-South Street. (See Exhibit C for details).

TAZ A (Project) Trip Generation
The trip generation rates for the proposed Project were obtained from the 11th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table I presents the trip generation for TAZ A with trip generation rates for Strip Retail Plaza, Fast-Food Restaurant with DriveThrough Window. At buildout, TAZ A is estimated to generate a maximum of 7,384 daily, 637 AM peak hour and 587 PM peak hour trips.
446
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 4
(559) 570-8991
Mr. Han - Fresno Council of Governments
Traffic Modeling Request (JLB Project No. 001-009)
April 10, 2023
Table I: (TAZ A) Project Trip Generation
Land Use (ITE Code) Size Unit
Daily AM (7-9) Peak Hour PM (4-6) Peak Hour
Rate Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total
% %
Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) (822) 24.000 k.s.f. 54.45 1,307 2.36 60 40 34 23 57 6.59 50 50 79 79 158 Fast-Food Restaurant with DriveThrough Window (934) 13.000 k.s.f. 467.48 6,077 44.60 51 49 296 284 580 33.03 52 48 223 206 429 Total Project Trips 7,384 330 307 637 302 285 587
Note: k.s.f. = Thousand Square Feet
TAZ B (Project) Trip Generation
The trip generation rates for the proposed Project were obtained from the 11th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table I presents the trip generation for TAZ B with trip generation rates for a Hotel. At buildout, TAZ B is estimated to generate a maximum of 719 daily, 41 AM peak hour and 53 PM peak hour trips.

Land Use (ITE Code) Size Unit
Daily AM (7-9) Peak Hour PM (4-6) Peak Hour
Rate Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total
% %
Hotel (310) 90 Rooms 7.99 719 0.46 56 44 23 18 41 0.59 51 49 27 26 53 Total Project Trips 719 23 18 41 27 26 53
TAZ C (Project) Trip Generation
The trip generation rates for the proposed Project were obtained from the 11th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table I presents the trip generation for TAZ C with trip generation rates for Multifamily Housing, Senior Adult Housing, Affordable Housing and a Public Park. At buildout, TAZ C is estimated to generate a maximum of 3,280 daily, 209 AM peak hour and 266 PM peak hour trips.

Table III: (TAZ C) Project Trip Generation
Land Use (ITE Code) Size Unit
Daily AM (7-9) Peak Hour PM (4-6) Peak Hour
Rate Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total Trip
Rate
In Out
In Out Total
% %
Multifamily Housing (Low Rise)
Not Close to Transit (220) 300 d.u. 6.74 2,022 0.40 24 76 29 91 120 0.51 63 37 96 57 153 Senior Adult Housing –
Multifamily (252) 120 d.u. 3.24 389 0.20 34 66 8 16 24 0.25 56 44 17 13 30 Affordable Housing –
Income Limits (223) 180 d.u. 4.81 866 0.36 29 71 19 46 65 0.46 59 41 49 34 83 Public Park (411) 3.350 Acres 0.78 3 0.02 59 41 0 0 0 0.11 55 45 0 0 0 Total Project Trips 3,280 56 153 209 162 104 266
Note: d.u. = Dwelling Units
447
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 5
(559) 570-8991
Mr. Han - Fresno Council of Governments
Traffic Modeling Request (JLB Project No. 001-009)
April 10, 2023
Vehicle Miles Traveled
JLB would like to request to be provided with the Project’s VMT in excel format or PDF format. The type of VMT outputs for the Proposed Project is as follows:

1. Retail Plaza and Fast-Food Restaurant – Regional VMT with and without the Project.

2. Hotel – VMT per service population (Population/Users + Employment) with and without the Project

3. Multifamily Housing and Senior Adult Housing – VMT per capita

4. Affordable Housing – Affordable Housing can be screened out based on the Fresno COG VMT Guidelines

5. Public Park – Public Park can be screened out based on the Fresno COG VMT Guidelines Please feel welcome to contact me if you have any questions or require additional information. I can be reached by phone at (559) 317-6243, or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Matt Arndt
Engineer I/II
cc: Santosh Bhattarai, Fresno COG
Jose Luis Benavides, JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Z:\01 Projects\001 Selma\001-009 Selma Development TIA-VMT\Traffic Modeling\02 Model Request\L20230410 Model Request (001-009).docx 448
449
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 6
(559) 570-8991
Mr. Han - Fresno Council of Governments
Traffic Modeling Request (JLB Project No. 001-009)
April 10, 2023
Exhibit A – Project Site Aerial

ASHLAN AVENUE

BLYTHE AVENUE

AUSTIN WAY
Fowler Avenue
450
451
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 7
(559) 570-8991
Mr. Han - Fresno Council of Governments
Traffic Modeling Request (JLB Project No. 001-009)
April 10, 2023
Exhibit B – Project Site Plan

452
453
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 Page | 8
(559) 570-8991
Mr. Han - Fresno Council of Governments
Traffic Modeling Request (JLB Project No. 001-009)
April 10, 2023
Exhibit C – Link and TAZ Modifications
454
455
456
457
458
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Base Year 2019 No Project
Selma Casitas Perea
137
49 5
9 86
361
4765
4795
10 4
9 11
89 85
3 4
6 4
46 48
3 4
3 3
40 40
7 9
7 11
86 86
SR 99
2005
2841
33208
SR 43
SR 43
783
424
499
684
6432
6123
SR 43
SR 43
783
424
499
684
6432
6123
SR 43
858
630
7764
Stillman
Stillman
0 0
0 0
0 0
StillmanStillman
134
108
152
173
1788
1796
SR 43
843
602
7493
SR 43
14 28
272
20 3
4 4
3 1
218
SR 43
843
602
7493
SR 43
525
795
7448
SR 43
525
738
7185
SR 43
21 /
3 8
6 3
9 490
SR 99
2888
2345
33499
Floral
Floral
186
540
616
384
5042
5065
Floral
Floral
186
540
616
384
5042
5065 SR 43/99
20 3
3 98
3482
Floral/99
294
359
3018
SR 99
3813
2945
40624
SR 99
2005
2841
33208
43Flo/99
49 7
7 57
6500
Floral
Floral
372
431
914
323
7264
4270
SR 43
824
602
7493
Floral/99
20 0
0 Floral/99
905
600
7125
338
1302
800
809
6508
SR 43
525
738
7185
Floral/9
0 9
0 0
Floral
Floral
363
905
686
674
5755
8062
SR 43
SR 43
448
323
567
410
5534
4018 Floral/99
2 0
0 0
Rose
Rose
19 16
18 21
197
189
SR 43
SR 43
783
424
499
684
6432
6123
Rose
Rose
42 108
97 57
797
790
SR 43
SR 43
662
373
430
573
5521
5213
DeWolf
DeWolf
33 25
45 44
429
390
Rose
Rose
1 1
4 1
21 17
DeWolf
DeWolf
1 1
1 1
15 16
Floral
Floral
101
92 137
131
1288
1282
Floral
Floral
81 80
107
102
1025
1059
Rose
Rose
9 11
10 11
111
107
Rose
Rose
42 108
97 57
797
790
Rose
Rose
42 108
97 57
797
790
SR 43
525
795
7448
SR 43
204
341
3218
SR 43
321
397
3966
SR 43
843
602
7493
Floral/99
20 0
0 Floral/99
235
Floral
Floral
186
540
616
384
5042
5065
FloralFloral
186540616
384
5042
5065
Floral/99
294
359
3018
SR 99
2908
2345
33499
SR 99
2005
2841
33208
SR 99
2908
2345
33499
S
S
4 3
5 5
4 n Sta
35 5
1 8
45 4
95 0
0 SR 43
SR 43
662
373
430
573
5521
5213
459
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Base Year 2019 No Project
Selma Casitas Perea
46 83
127
90 1109
1099
106
109
150
140
1618
1603
40 70
86 74
791
802 0
0 0
0 2
SR 99 2005 2841 33208
S
R
4 3
8 5
8 6
3 0
7 7
64 S
R
4 3
8 4
3 6
0 2
7 4
9 3
SR 43 1428
272
SR 43/99 203 44 3 1 218
S
R
4 3
8 4
3 6
0 2
7 4
9 3
S
R
4 3
5 2
5 7
9 5
7 4
4 8
S
R
4 3
5 2
5 7
3 8
7 1
8 5
SR 43 2 /
SR 99 235 196
2504
SR 99 2888 2345
33499
Floral
Floral
186
540
616
384
5042
5065
SR 43/99 203 398 3482
9 Floral
Floral
372
431
914
323
7264
4270
S
R
4 3
8 2
4 6
0 2
7 4
9 3
Floral/99
20 0
0 Floral/99 905
600
7125
Floral
Floral
338
1302
800
809
6508
10639
SR
43 525 738 7185 Floral/9 0 9
0 0
Floral
Floral
363
905
686
674
5755
8062
S
R
4 3
S
R
4 3
4 4
8 3
2 3
5 6
7 4
1 0
5 5
3 4
4 0
1 8
F
l
o
r
a
l
/
9 9
2000
Floral
Floral
371
678
689
482
5855
5658
Floral
Floral
325
638
648
415
5264
5046
Floral
Floral
325
638
648
415
5264
5046
Floral
Floral
307
574
595
378
4574
4641
Floral
Floral
307
574
595
378
4574
4641
S
R
4 3
5 2
5 7
9 5
7 4
4 8
SR
43 204 341 3218SR 4
3 3
2 1
3 9
7 3
9 6
6 S
R
4 3
8 4
3 6
0 2
7 4
9 3
Floral/99
20 0
0 Floral/99 235 196 2504
Floral/99 294 359 3018
SR 99 2908 2345
33499
SR 99 2005 2841 33208
SR 99 2908 2345
33499
Golden Sta
Golden S 35 ta 1 451 601 472 4949
5059
Golden Sta
Golden S 3 ta 51 404 584 471 4595
4991
Floral
Floral
307
574
595
378
4574
4641
460
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Base Year 2019 No Project
Selma Casitas Perea
54 202
215
109
1576
1550
Hig
hland
Hig
hland
93 245 388 174 2920 2672
S
R
4 3
S
R
4 3
3 2
0 4
6 7
5 0
2 5
1 0
4 6
3 6
5 3
0 3
SR
43 SR
43 332 071 560 163 4830 2430
Golden Sta 355 18 45 495
Golden Sta 404 471
4991
G
Golden Sta olden Sta 3510
584
0 4595
0 Golden Sta 715 653
7142
Golden Sta 559 688 7661
461
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Base Year 2019 with Road
Selma Casitas Perea
135
50 5
1 97
355
4766
4801
10 4
8 12
85 81
3 5
7 5
46 46
4 5
3 4
43 43
7 7
9 11
88 88
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
000000
0 0
0 0
0 0
SR 99
1999
2841
33223
SR 43
SR 43
786
424
513
687
6444
6113
SR 43
SR 43
786
424
513
687
6444
6113
SR 43
813
614
7324
Stillman
Stillman
15 45
55 30
505
461
Stillman
Stillman
139
103
160
175
1794
1800
SR 43
800
588
7044
SR 43
14 26
280
20 3
1 4
3 6
213
SR 43
800
588
7044
SR 43
517
748
6943
SR 43
513
690
6686
SR
Floral
Floral
176
496
566
347
4541
4586
FloralFloral
176
496
566
347
4541
4586 SR 43/99
20 4
5 04
3470
Floral/99
296
365
2988
SR 99
3811
2947
40685
SR 99
1999
2841
33223
43Flo/99
50 7
1 69
6458
Floral
Floral
360
384
870
286
6754
3812
SR 43
776
588
7044
Floral/99
24 0
0 Floral/99
909
601
7124
323
1256
753
770
5991
SR 43
513
690
6686
Floral/9
0 9
0 0
Floral
Floral
359
911
700
667
5745
8061
SR 43
SR 43
444
326
564
413
5560
4052 Floral/99
2 0
0 4
Rose
Rose
19 15
18 23
199
191
SR 43
SR 43
786
424
513
687
6444
6113
Rose
Rose
40 109
99 59
792
787
SR 43
SR 43
665
375
442
571
5532
5203
DeWolf
DeWolf
34 25
48 46
440
386
Rose
Rose
1 2
3 1
20 16
DeWolf
DeWolf
1 1
2 2
18 17
Floral
Floral
106
91 139
138
1309
1276
Floral
Floral
86 79
108
107
1034
1055
Rose
Rose
9 11
11 12
116
112
Rose
Rose
40 109
99 59
792
787
StillmanStillman
15455530
505461
SR 43
517
748
6943
SR 43
201
346
3213
SR 43
312
344
3473
SR 43
800
588
7044
Floral/99
24 0
0 Floral
Floral
191
541
621
377
5046
5047
Future St
Future St
15 45
55 30
505
461
Floral
Floral
176
496
566
347
4541
4586
Floral/99
296
365
2988
SR 99
2903
2346
33561
SR 99
1999
2841
33223
SR 99
2903
2346
33561
SR
S
5 4
R
3 4
46 5
en Sta
34 5
7 7
45 1
68 0
0 Stillman
Stillman
15 45
55 30
505
461
N-S St
N-S St
0 0
0 0
0 0
Future St
Future St
45 15
30 55
461
505
N-S St
N-S St
0 0
0 0
0 0
N-S St
N-S St
0 0
0 0
0 0
SR 43
SR 43
665
375
442
571
5532
5203
462
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Base Year 2019 with Road
Selma Casitas Perea
43 84
118
86 1098
1098
106
104
146
145
1601
1594
40 69
87 74
795
809 02
SR 99 1999 2841 33223
S
R
4 3
8 1
3 6
1 4
7 3
2 4
S
R
4 3
8 0
0 5
8 8
7 0
4 4
SR 43 1426
280
SR 43/99 203 14 3 6 213
S
R
4 3
8 0
0 5
8 8
7 0
4 4
S
R
4 3
5 1
7 7
4 8
6 9
4 3
S
R
4 3
5 1
3 6
9 0
6 6
8 6
SR 99 240 196 2496
SR 99 2879 2346
33561
Floral
Floral
176
496
566
347
4541
4586
SR 43/99 204 504 3470
Floral
Floral
360
384
870
286
6754
3812
S
R
4 3
7 7
6 5
8 8
7 0
4 4
Floral/99
24 0
0 Floral/99 909
601
7124
Floral
Floral
323
1256
753
770
5991
10173
SR
43 513 690 6686 Floral/9 0 9
0 0
Floral
Floral
359
911
700
667
5745
8061
S
R
4 3
S
R
4 3
4 4
4 3
2 6
5 6
4 4
1 3
5 5
6 0
4 0
5 2
Flo
ral/
9 9
2004
Floral
Floral
367
679
704
476
5840
5660
Floral
Floral
319
642
658
410
5249
5055
Floral
Floral
319
642
658
410
5249
5055
Floral
Floral
301
584
590
375
4547
4624
Floral
Floral
301
584
590
375
4547
4624
S
R
4 3
5 1
7 7
4 8
6 9
4 3
SR
43 201 346 3213SR 43 312 344 3473
S
R
4 3
8 0
0 5
8 8
7 0
4 4
Floral/99
24 0
0 Floral/99 240 196 2496
Floral/99 296 365 2988
SR 99 2903 2346
33561
SR 99 1999 2841 33223
SR 99 2903 2346
33561
Golden Sta
Golden S 34 ta 6 442 602 475 4923
5001
Golden Sta
Golden S 3 ta 47 403 571 477 4568
4915
Floral
Floral
301
584
590
375
4547
4624
463
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Base Year 2019 with Road
Selma Casitas Perea
55 204
218
104
1589
1558
Hig
hland
Hig
hland
83 849 385 172 2926 2681
S
R
4 3
S
R
4 3
3 1
8 4
6 5
4 8
8 5
0 6
4 6
3 5
5 3
1 0
SR
43 SR
43 322 870 553 160 4840 2421
Golden Sta 345 77 45 168
Golden Sta 403 477
4915
G
Golden Sta olden Sta 3470
571
0 4568
0 Golden Sta 722 658
7089
Golden Sta 559 182 7662
464
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Base Year 2019 plus Project
Selma Casitas Perea
140
48 5
0 93
338
4770
4809
11 9
11 13
106
111
2 5
4 2
41 40
3 3
4 4
38 40
8 7
7 9
85 83
128
51 85
132
1348
1366
5 25
30 19
274
292
279298249266
32953295
31 24
36 35
480
480
SR 99
2013
2906
33284
SR 43
SR 43
775
467
531
702
6644
6395
SR 43
SR 43
775
467
531
702
6644
6395
SR 43
811
612
7531
Stillman
Stillman
55 51
62 68
743
656
Stillman
Stillman
142
113
177
189
1906
1886
SR 43
788
576
7148
SR 43
22 37
383
23 3
1 5
3 2
402
SR 43
788
576
7148
SR 43
528
777
7213
SR 43
550
708
7152
SR
Floral
Floral
498
767
851
641
8296
8334
FloralFloral
498
767
851
641
8296
8334 SR 43/99
20 4
9 22
3464
Floral/99
307
440
4013
SR 99
3961
2997
41509
SR 99
2013
2906
33284
43Flo/99
51 8
5 62
7476
Floral
Floral
646
608
1115
465
10578
6603
SR 43
612
576
7007
Floral/99
176
0 142
Floral/99
843
657
7787
501
1307
941
947
89 16
SR 43
550
708
7152
Floral/9
0 9
0 0
Floral
Floral
444
1060
800
788
7458
9950
SR 43
SR 43
477
350
571
420
5926
4461 Floral/99
176
0 142
Rose
Rose
20 17
20 23
214
217
SR 43
SR 43
775
467
531
702
6644
6395
Rose
Rose
55 98
104
69 889
876
SR 43
SR 43
664
402
449
582
5638
5372
DeWolf
DeWolf
49 32
57 45
586
467
Rose
Rose
1 1
3 1
17 14
DeWolf
DeWolf
2 2
1 2
27 22
Floral
Floral
136
131
180
155
1759
1670
Floral
Floral
98 111
137
124
1324
1350
Rose
Rose
10 9
10 10
111
110
Rose
Rose
55 98
104
69 889
876
StillmanStillman
55516268
743656
SR 43
528
777
7213
SR 43
231
352
3402
SR 43
319
356
3750
SR 43
788
576
7148
Floral/99
176
0 142
Floral
Floral
223
559
668
387
5541
5492
Future St
Future St
20 68
79 48
721
734
Floral
Floral
203
491
589
340
4820
4758
Floral/99
307
440
4013
SR 99
3117
2340
33721
SR 99
2013
2906
33284
SR 99
3117
2340
33721
SR 43
SR 43
331
489
510
518
4929
5603
Golden Sta
32 5
7 2
41 3
83 n Sta 0
0 0
Stillman
Stillman
15 43
49 29
446
442
N-S St
N-S St
40 1
8 3
39 297
214
Future St
Future St
43 15
29 49
442
446
N-S St
N-S St
112
68 99
120
1186
1287
N-S St
N-S St
360
379
385
346
4722
4622
SR 43
SR 43
664
402
449
582
5638
5372
465
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Base Year 2019 plus Project
Selma Casitas Perea
53 81
119
87 1136
1132
102
103
150
128
1530
1526
49 78
101
81 916
936
SR 99 2013 2906 33284
S
R 43
81 1
61 2
7531
S
R
4 3
7 8
8 5
7 6
7 1
4 8
SR 43 2237
383
SR 43/99 233 15 3 2 402
S
R
4 3
7 8
8 5
7 6
7 1
4 8
S
R
4 3
5 2
8 7
7 7
7 2
1 3
S
R
4 3
5 5
0 7
0 8
7 1
5 2
SR 43/99 253 3
SR 99 242 218
2825
SR 99 2941 2340
33580
Floral
Floral
498
767
851
641
8296
8334
SR 43/99 204 922 3464
Floral
Floral
646
608
1115
465
10578
6603
S
R
4 3
6 1
2 5
7 6
7 0
0 7
Floral/99
176
0 142
Floral/99 843
657
7787
Floral
Floral
501
1307
941
947
8916
12728
SR
43 550 708 7152 Floral/99 0
0 0
Floral
Floral
444
1060
800
788
7458
9950
S
R 43
S
R 43
47 7
35 0
57 1
42 0
5926
4461
Flo
ral/
9 9
1 7
60 1
4 2
Floral
Floral
455
828
805
574
7558
7225
Floral
Floral
399
771
733
490
6756
6400
Floral
Floral
399
771
733
490
6756
6400
Floral
Floral
327
657
629
423
5291
5421
Floral
Floral
327
657
629
423
5291
5421
S
R
4 3
5 2
8 7
7 7
7 2
1 3
SR 43 231 352 3402SR 43 319 356 3750
S
R
4 3
7 8
8 5
7 6
7 1
4 8
Floral/99
176
0 142
Floral/99 242 218 2825
Floral/99 307 440 4013
SR 99 3117 2340
33721
SR 99 2013 2906 33284
SR 99 3117 2340
33721
Golden Sta
Golden S 37 ta 8 484 598 476 5325
5293
Golden Sta
Golden S 3 ta 27 391 523 437 4183
4636
Floral
Floral
327
657
629
423
5291
5421
466
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Base Year 2019 plus Project
Selma Casitas Perea
58 208
200
103
1529
1501
Hig
hland
Hig
hland
93 560 378 179 2905 2669
S
R
4 3
S
R
4 3
3 3
1 4
8 9
5 1
0 5
1 8
4 9
2 9
5 6
0 3
SR
43 SR
43 332 976 567 159 5165 2415
Golden Sta 325 72 41 383
Golden Sta 391 437
4636
G
Golden Sta olden Sta 3270
523
0 4183
0 Golden Sta 719 646
7150
Golden Sta 549 838 7605
467
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Base Year 2019 plus Project - Select Zone 1
Selma Casitas Perea
3 10
16 14
179
179
0 0
0 0
2 2
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
128
51 85
132
1348
1366
5 25
30 19
274
292
3754
7465
0 0
0 1
8 7
SR 9
0 9
0 0
SR 43
SR 43
1 3
0 1
5 0
106
93 SR 43
SR 43
1 3
0 1
5 0
106
93 SR 43
8 6
107
Stillman
Stillman
20 4
13 12
232
143
Stillman
Stillman
2 1
2 3
32 37
SR 43
0 0
0 SR 43
8 6
107
0 0
0 SR 43
0 0
0 SR 43
0 0
0 SR 43
0 0
0 SR 4
8 6
107
SR 99
0 0
0 Floral
Floral
100
44 68
114
1043
1141
FloralFloral
100
44 68
114
1043
1141 SR 43/99
0 0
0 Floral/99
14 54
456
SR 99
48 25
448
SR 9
0 9
0 0
43Flo/99
14 5
4 4
56 Floral
Floral
100
29 68
60 1043
685
SR 43
0 0
0 Floral/99
0 0
0 Floral/99
48 25
448
52 29
43 60
594
685
SR 43
0 0
0 Floral/9
0 9
0 0
Floral
Floral
37 23
32 43
421
507
SR 43
SR 43
6 15
18 11
178
174 Floral/99
0 0
0 Rose
Rose
0 0
0 0
3 3
SR 43
SR 43
1 3
0 1
5 0
106
93 Rose
Rose
5 1
3 2
40 38
SR 43
SR 43
2 5
2 7
65 50
456
DeWolf
DeWolf
1 3
1 3
19 21
Rose
Rose
0 0
0 0
0 0
DeWolf
DeWolf
1 0
0 0
0 2
Floral
Floral
2 15
14 5
96 113
Floral
Floral
1 12
11 4
76 90
Rose
Rose
0 0
0 0
1 1
Rose
Rose
5 1
3 2
40 38
Rose
Rose
5 1
3 2
40 38
StillmanStillman
20 4
1312
232143
SR 43
0 0
0 SR 43
0 0
0 SR 43
0 0
0 SR 43
0 0
0 Floral/99
0 0
0 Floral
Floral
5 25
30 19
274
292
Future St
Future St
5 25
30 19
274
292
Floral
Floral
0 0
0 0
0 0
Floral/99
1 5
4 4
456
SR 99
0 0
0 SR 9
0 9
0 0
SR 99
0 0
0 SR 43
SR 43
1 6
2 1
7 4
132
137
Golden Sta
0 0
0 olden Sta
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Stillman
Stillman
0 0
0 0
0 0
N-S St
N-S St
20 1
4 3
12 232
143
Future St
Future St
0 0
0 0
0 0
N-S St
N-S St
108
47 72
120
1116
1222
N-S St
N-S St
44 100
114
68 1141
1043
SR 43
SR 43
2 5
2 7
65 50
468
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Base Year 2019 plus Project - Select Zone 1
Selma Casitas Perea
0 1
1 1
20 16
0 0
0 0
0 0
3 1
3 3
35 39
0 0
0 SR 90 9 00
S
R
4 3
86 1
0 7
S
R
4 3
000
SR 43 86
107
SR 43/99 00
0 S
R
4 3
000
S
R
4 3
000
S
R
4 3
000
SR
SR 99 29
88 SR 99 000
Floral
Floral
100
44 68
114
1043
1141
SR 43/99 000
/99
Floral
Floral
100
29 68
60 1043
685
S
R
4 3
000
Floral/99
0 0
0 Floral/99 4825
448
Floral
Floral
52 29
43 60
594
685
SR
43 000 Floral/9 0 9
0 0
Floral
Floral
37 23
32 43
421
507
S
R
4 3
S
R
4 3
6151811 178 174
F
l
o
r
a
l
/
9 9
000
Floral
Floral
37 21
32 33
421
419
Floral
Floral
33 19
28 28
371
360
Floral
Floral
33 19
28 28
371
360
Floral
Floral
23 13
21 19
251
231
Floral
Floral
23 13
21 19
251
231
S
R
4 3
000
SR
43 000 SR 4
3 000
S
R
4 3
000
Floral/99
0 0
0 Floral/99 2988
Floral/99 1544 456
SR 99 000
SR 90 9 00
SR 99 000
Golden Sta
Golden S 1 ta 16710 120
129
Golden Sta
Golden Sta 000000
Floral
Floral
23 13
21 19
251
231
469
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Base Year 2019 plus Project - Select Zone 1
Selma Casitas Perea
1 1
1 1
8 12
Hig
hland
Hig
hland 12122123
S
R
4 3
S
R
4 3
162174 132 137
SR
43 SR
43 12
2 7
2 132
23 Golden Sta 000
Golden Sta 000
G
Golden Sta olden Sta 00
0 0
0 0
Golden Sta 116
111
Golden Sta 411 214
470
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Base Year 2019 plus Project - Select Zone 2
Selma Casitas Perea
6 20
18 8
206
190
0 0
0 1
3 8
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
2 1
7 3
4 5
65 74
0 0
0 0
0 0
279298249266
32953295
0 0
0 0
27 23
SR 9
0 9
0 0
SR 43
SR 43
15 17
16 16
191
236
SR 43
SR 43
15 17
16 16
191
236
SR 43
17 0
237
Stillman
Stillman
19 4
0 24
57 63
Stillman
Stillman
9 6
6 8
129
110
SR 43
17 0
237
SR 43
0 0
0 18
21 256
SR 43
17 0
237
SR 43
2 7
2 308
SR 43
24 43
564
25 SR 99
0 Floral
Floral
215
251
217
190
2668
2591
FloralFloral
215
251
217
190
2668
2591 SR 43/99
0 0
0 Floral/99
4 5
0 4
0 61
SR 99
60 35
451
SR 9
0 9
0 0
43Flo/99
40 5
4 0
61 Floral
Floral
215
211
217
140
2668
2130
SR 43
17 0
237
Floral/99
0 0
0 Floral/99
60 35
451
155
211
182
140
22 17
21 30
SR 43
2 4
4 3
564
Floral/9
0 9
0 0
Floral
Floral
93 159
109
108
1237
1485
SR 43
SR 43
35 38
31 29
408
416 Floral/99
0 0
0 Rose
Rose
0 0
0 1
6 10
SR 43
SR 43
15 17
16 16
191
236
Rose
Rose
11 3
5 8
94 86
SR 43
SR 43
1 6
2 9
8 99
132
DeWolf
DeWolf
1 3
3 1
7 2
139
82 Rose
Rose
0 0
0 0
0 0
DeWolf
DeWolf
2 0
0 0
0 5
Floral
Floral
29 21
30 18
346
280
Floral
Floral
16 18
17 11
205
193
Rose
Rose
0 0
0 0
2 2
Rose
Rose
11 3
5 8
94 86
StillmanStillman
19 40
245763
SR 43
2 7
2 308
SR 43
1 2
8 1
256
SR 43
2 7
2 308
SR 43
17 0
237
Floral/99
0 0
0 Floral
Floral
35 41
48 27
552
470
Future St
Future St
0 0
0 0
0 0
FloralFloral
35 41
48 27
552
470
Floral/99
4 5
0 0
461
SR 99
0 0
0 SR 9
0 9
0 0
SR 99
0 0
0 SR 4
SR 4
32 33
28 25
365
344
olden Sta
0 0
0 Sta
0 0
0 0
0 0
Stillman
Stillman
0 0
0 0
0 0
N-S St
N-S St
19 0
4 24
57 63
Future St
Future St
0 0
0 0
0 0
N-S St
N-S St
11 23
2 5
8 129
131
N-S St
N-S St
286
256
238
244
3143
3137
SR 43
SR 43
1 6
2 9
8 99
132
471
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Base Year 2019 plus Project - Select Zone 2
Selma Casitas Perea
1 0
1 1
44 40
0 0
0 0
0 0
6 3
9 8
104
112 000
SR 90 9 00
S
R
4 3
1 70
2 3
7 S
R
4 3
1 70
2 3
7 SR 43 000
SR 43/99 1821 256
S
R
4 3
1 70
2 3
7 S
R
4 3
272 308
S
R
4 3
2 4
4 3
5 6
4 SR
SR 99 2124
268
SR 99 000
Floral
Floral
215
251
217
190
2668
2591
SR 43/99 000
/99
Floral
Floral
215
211
217
140
2668
2130
S
R
4 3
1 70
2 3
7 Floral/99
0 0
0 Floral/99 6035
451
Floral
Floral
155
211
182
140
2217
2130
SR
43 2443 564 Floral/9 0 9
0 0
Floral
Floral
93 159
109
108
1237
1485
S
R
4 3
S
R
4 3
3 5
3 83129 408 416
F
l
o
r
a
l
/
9 9
000
Floral
Floral
93 138
109
85 1237
1217
Floral
Floral
87 134
99 76
1093
1060
Floral
Floral
87 134
99 76
1093
1060
Floral
Floral
49 90
63 57
676
691
Floral
Floral
49 90
63 57
676
691
S
R
4 3
272 308
SR
43 1281 256 SR 4
3 272 308
S
R
4 3
1 70
2 3
7 Floral/99
0 0
0 Floral/99 2124 268
Floral/99 4500 461
SR 99 000
SR 90 9 00
SR 99 000
Golden Sta
Golden S 3 ta 8443619 418
370
Golden Sta
Golden Sta 000000
Floral
Floral
49 90
63 57
676
691
472
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Base Year 2019 plus Project - Select Zone 2
Selma Casitas Perea
7 9
7 3
76 66
Hig
hland
Hig
hland 8181510
173
154
S
R
4 3
S
R
4 3
3 2
3 3
2 825 365 344
SR
43 SR
43 32182810 365 154
Golden Sta 000
Golden Sta 000
G
Golden Sta olden Sta 00
0 0
0 0
Golden Sta 2413
193
Golden Sta 1511 691
473
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Base Year 2019 plus Project - Select Zone 3
Selma Casitas Perea
1 1
1 1
23 21
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
8 7
0 0
0 0
0 0
0000
2723
31 24
36 35
480
480
SR 9
0 9
0 0
SR 43
SR 43
2 2
1 2
2 3
5 5
SR 43
SR 43
2 2
1 2
25 35
SR 43
1 0
31 Stillman
Stillman
1 0
0 3
8 7
Stillman
Stillman
0 0
2 1
20 13
SR 43
1 0
31 SR 43
0 0
0 2
3 39
SR 43
1 0
31 SR 43
4 3
0 8
SR 43
8 6
2 7
39 SR 99
0 Floral
Floral
19 26
30 28
385
371
FloralFloral
19 26
30 28
385
371 SR 43/99
0 0
0 Floral/99
6 8
82 SR 99
7 8
76 SR 9
0 9
0 0
43Flo/99
6 8
82 Floral
Floral
19 21
30 20
385
290
SR 43
1 0
31 Floral/99
0 0
0 Floral/99
7 8
76 12
21 22
20 308
290
SR 43
2 8
6 7
Floral/9
0 9
0 0
Floral
Floral
7 15
11 16
163
195
SR 43
SR 43
6 4
5 3
5 3
58 Floral/99
0 0
0 Rose
Rose
0 0
0 0
0 0
SR 43
SR 43
2 2
1 2
25 35
Rose
Rose
1 0
1 1
13 12
SR 43
SR 43
0 1
1 1
13 22
DeWolf
DeWolf
1 2
1 2
1 8
7 Rose
Rose
0 0
0 0
0 0
DeWolf
DeWolf
0 0
0 0
1 1
Floral
Floral
3 2
4 3
44 37
Floral
Floral
2 0
2 2
27 27
Rose
Rose
0 0
0 0
0 0
Rose
Rose
1 0
1 1
13 12
StillmanStillman
100387
SR 43
4 3
0 8
SR 43
2 3
3 9
SR 43
4 3
0 8
SR 43
1 0
31 Floral/99
0 0
0 Floral
Floral
4 3
5 4
66 57
Future St
Future St
0 0
0 0
0 0
FloralFloral
4 3
5 4
66 57
Floral/99
6 8
8 2
SR 99
0 0
0 SR 9
0 9
0 0
SR 99
0 0
0 SR 4
SR 4
4 5
2 4
52 58
olden Sta
0 0
0 Sta
0 0
0 0
0 0
Stillman
Stillman
0 0
0 0
0 0
N-S St
N-S St
8 0
1 0
3 7
Future St
Future St
0 0
0 0
0 0
N-S St
N-S St
1 1
0 3
15 15
N-S St
N-S St
30 23
33 34
438
442
SR 43
SR 43
0 1
1 1
13 22
474
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Base Year 2019 plus Project - Select Zone 3
Selma Casitas Perea
0 0
1 0
6 5
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 0
11 13
0 0
0 SR 90 9 00
S
R
4 3
1031
S
R
4 3
1031
SR 43 000
SR 43/99 2339
S
R
4 3
1031
S
R
4 3
4308
S
R
4 3
8627
SR
SR 99 35
45 SR 99 000
Floral
Floral
19 26
30 28
385
371
SR 43/99 000
/99
Floral
Floral
19 21
30 20
385
290
S
R
4 3
1031
Floral/99
0 0
0 Floral/99 78
76 Floral
Floral
12 21
22 20
308
290
SR
43 2867 Floral/9 0 9
0 0
Floral
Floral
7 15
11 16
163
195
S
R
4 3
S
R
4 3
64535358
F
l
o
r
a
l
/
9 9
000
Floral
Floral
7 12
11 12
163
150
Floral
Floral
6 11
11 11
147
132
Floral
Floral
6 11
11 11
147
132
Floral
Floral
4 7
7 5
91 80
Floral
Floral
4 7
7 5
91 80
S
R
4 3
4308
SR
43 2339 SR 4
3 4308
S
R
4 3
1031
Floral/99
0 0
0 Floral/99 3545
Floral/99 6882
SR 99 000
SR 90 9 00
SR 99 000
Golden Sta
Golden S
3 ta
3 4
6 57
52 Golden Sta
Golden Sta 000000
Floral
Floral
4 7
7 5
91 80
475
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Base Year 2019 plus Project - Select Zone 3
Selma Casitas Perea
0 1
1 1
10 12
Hig
hland
Hig
hland 03212128
S
R
4 3
S
R
4 3
45245258
SR
43 SR
43 2
3 4
1 52
28 Golden Sta 000
Golden Sta 000
G
Golden Sta olden Sta 00
0 0
0 0
Golden Sta 23
31 Golden Sta 2330
476
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project
Selma Casitas Perea
186
68 7
1 81
441
6138
6321
77 19
26 66
480
472
5 6
6 5
53 55
2 3
6 5
42 43
10 12
12 8
106
106
123
53 92
132
1390
1403
3 30
30 12
237
250
279298249266
32953295
31 24
36 35
480
480
SR 99
3615
4589
59902
SR 43
SR 43
1244
640
750
1185
9952
10202
SR 43
SR 43
1244
640
750
1185
9952
10202
SR 43
1238
860
10977
Stillman
Stillman
69 91
117
75 1000
761
Stillm
Stillm
18 11
19 23
23 226
SR 43
1199
800
10338
SR 43
39 60
639
56 9
5 2
7 1
717
SR 43
1199
800
10338
SR 43
719
1212
11027
SR 43
993
1566
13261
Floral
Floral
515
955
1012
751
9724
10091
FloralFloral
515
955
1012
751
9724
10091 SR 43/99
29 5
1 66
5483
Floral/99
36 39
6 2
4178
SR 99
5820
4886
71119
SR 99
3615
4589
59902
43Flo/99
65 9
8 59
9662
Floral
Floral
684
758
1264
611
11995
8184
SR 43
1097
800
10232
Floral/99
102
0 105
Floral/99
938
756
9649
596
1608
1078
11 82
SR 43
993
1566
13261
Floral/9
0 9
0 0
Flora
Flora
514
123
857
101
7979
1366
SR 43
SR 43
960
777
1417
709
11578
8394
Rose
Rose
84 34
42 77
602
599
SR 43
SR 43
1244
640
750
1185
9952
10202
Rose
Rose
69 115
125
74 959
935
SR 43
SR 43
1072
564
653
1003
8650
8879
DeWolf
DeWolf
53 39
43 55
610
561
Rose
Rose
1 5
3 2
21 25
DeWolf
DeWolf
2 8
6 15
31 184
182
Floral
Floral
138
176
193
155
1905
1850
Floral
Floral
115
150
165
131
1518
1511
Rose
Rose
9 17
17 11
136
141
StillmanStillman
6991
117
75 1000
761
SR 43
719
1212
11027
SR 43
565
921
7717
SR 43
428
646
5544
SR 43
1199
800
10338
Floral/99
102
0 105
Floral
Floral
255
788
854
476
6898
7026
Future St
Future St
20 99
115
52 871
879
FloralFloral
234
689
739
424
6027
6147
Floral/99
366
392
4178
SR 99
4882
4129
61471
SR 99
3615
4589
59902
SR 99
4882
4129
61471
S
S
1 8
1 8
n Sta
45 11
2 13
6416
Stillman
Stillman
17 69
85 40
634
629
N-S St
N-S St
52 22
31 35
366
132
Future St
Future St
69 17
40 85
629
634
N-S St
N-S St
119
79 100
136
1147
1394
N-S St
N-S St
354
368
388
333
4869
4622
SR 43
SR 43
1072
564
653
1003
8650
8879
477
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project
Selma Casitas Perea
48 111
144
98 1281
1310
127
131
190
186
1944
1891
64 66
102
85 1002
998
0 0
0 0
3 3
SR 99
3615
4589
59902
SR 43
1238
860
10977
SR 43
1199
800
10338
SR 43
39 60
639
SR 43/99
56 9
5 2
7 1
717
SR 43
1199
800
10338
SR 43
719
1212
11027
SR 43
993
1566
13261
SR 99
492
356
5930
SR 99
4780
4129
61366
Floral
Floral
515
955
1012
751
9724
10091
SR 43/99
29 5
1 66
5483
Floral
Floral
684
758
1264
611
11995
8184
SR 43
1097
800
10232 Floral/99
102
0 105
Floral/99
938
756
9649
Floral
Floral
596
1608
1078
1182
10196
16034
SR 43
993
1566
13261
Floral/9
0 9
0 0
Floral
Floral
514
1239
857
1019
7979
13661
SR 43
SR 43
960
777
1417
709
11578
8394
Floral/99
102
0 105
Floral
Floral
534
767
863
669
8147
7899
Floral
Floral
441
736
804
580
7255
7041
Floral
Floral
441
736
804
580
7255
7041
Floral
Floral
403
661
699
475
5975
5971
Floral
Floral
403
661
699
475
5975
5971
SR 43
719
1212
11027
SR 43
565
921
7717
SR 43
428
646
5544
SR 43
1199
800
10338
Floral/99
102
0 105
Floral/99
492
356
5930
Floral/99
366
392
4178
SR 99
4882
4129
61471
SR 99
3615
4589
59902
SR 99
4882
4129
61471
Golden Sta
Golden S
46 ta
8 1537
1179
690
7305
7846
Golden Sta
Golden S
4 ta
52 1484
1113
624
6416
7167
Floral
Floral
403
661
699
475
5975
5971
478
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project
Selma Casitas Perea
62 213
208
110
1575
1602
Hig
hland
Hig
hland
1 14 977
478 214 3640 3474
S
R
4 3
S
R
4 3
7 5
1 9
8 1
8 5
5 1
3 5
8 8
8 8
3 1
1 1
8 0
SR
43 SR
43 764 119 887 206 8984 3296
Golden Sta 45 11 213 6416
Golden Sta 1484 624
7167
G
Golden Sta olden Sta 4520
1113
0 6416
0 Golden Sta 2185 1040
12689
Golden Sta 1025 2296 14401
479
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project - Select Zone 1
Selma Casitas Perea
1 14
17 8
151
147
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
1 1
123
53 92
132
1390
1403
3 30
30 12
237
250
0453
5852
1 0
0 1
7 7
SR 9
0 9
0 0
SR 43
SR 43
5 9
3 8
8 7
6 6
SR 43
SR 43
5 9
3 8
86 76
SR 43
9 9
138
Stillman
Stillman
22 3
16 11
250
126
Stillm
Stillm
4 0
2 3
3 40
SR 43
0 0
1 SR 43
9 9
137
0 0
0 SR 43
0 0
1 SR 43
0 0
0 SR 43
0 0
0 Floral
Floral
95 49
73 115
1082
1212
FloralFloral
95 49
73 115
1082
1212 SR 43/99
0 0
0 Floral/99
1 4
9 4
3 52
SR 99
34 25
433
SR 9
0 9
0 0
43Flo/99
19 4
4 3
52 Floral
Floral
95 31
73 71
1082
760
SR 43
0 0
1 Floral/99
0 0
0 Floral/99
34 25
433
61 31
48 71
649
760
SR 43
0 0
0 Floral/9
0 9
0 0
Flora
Flora
37 21
28 48
417
537
SR 43
SR 43
9 24
24 20
223
232
Rose
Rose
0 0
1 0
2 3
SR 43
SR 43
5 9
3 8
86 76
Rose
Rose
4 1
1 2
23 24
SR 43
SR 43
3 5
2 6
60 50
DeWolf
DeWolf
1 2
0 1
17 22
Rose
Rose
0 0
0 0
0 0
DeWolf
DeWolf
2 0
3 0
1 9
4 Floral
Floral
3 16
13 4
86 103
Floral
Floral
2 12
9 3
60 67
Rose
Rose
0 0
0 0
1 2
StillmanStillman
22 3
1611
250126
SR 43
0 0
0 SR 43
0 0
0 SR 43
0 0
0 SR 43
0 0
1 Floral/99
0 0
0 Floral
Floral
3 30
30 12
237
250
Future St
Future St
3 30
30 12
237
250
FloralFloral
0 0
0 0
0 0
Floral/99
1 4
9 3
452
SR 99
0 0
0 SR 9
0 9
0 0
SR 99
0 0
0 S
S
2 n Sta
0 0
0 Stillman
Stillman
0 0
0 0
0 0
N-S St
N-S St
22 1
3 6
11 250
126
Future St
Future St
0 0
0 0
0 0
N-S St
N-S St
101
50 76
121
1141
1277
N-S St
N-S St
49 95
115
73 1212
1082
SR 43
SR 43
3 5
2 6
60 50
480
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project - Select Zone 1
Selma Casitas Perea
0 2
3 1
15 14
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 1
2 4
32 39
0 0
0 0
0 0
SR 90 9 00
S
R
4 3
99 1
3 8
S
R
4 3
001
SR 43 99
137
SR 43/99 00
0 S
R
4 3
001
S
R
4 3
000
S
R
4 3
000
SR 99 59
111
SR 99 000
Floral
Floral
95 49
73 115
1082
1212
SR 43/99 000
Floral
Floral
95 31
73 71
1082
760
S
R
4 3
001
Floral/99
0 0
0 Floral/99 3425
433
Floral
Floral
61 31
48 71
649
760
SR
43 000 Floral/9 0 9
0 0
Floral
Floral
37 21
28 48
417
537
S
R
4 3
S
R
4 3
9242420 223 232
F
l
o
r
a
l
/
9 9
000
Floral
Floral
37 17
28 39
417
427
Floral
Floral
33 16
26 32
372
373
Floral
Floral
33 16
26 32
372
373
Floral
Floral
22 11
16 20
250
241
Floral
Floral
22 11
16 20
250
241
S
R
4 3
000
SR
43 000 SR 4
3 000
S
R
4 3
001
Floral/99
0 0
0 Floral/99 59111
Floral/99 1493 452
SR 99 000
SR 90 9 00
SR 99 000
Golden Sta
Golden S 1 ta 15912 122
132
Golden Sta
Golden Sta 000000
Floral
Floral
22 11
16 20
250
241
481
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project - Select Zone 1
Selma Casitas Perea
1 0
1 1
9 9
Hig
hland
Hig
hland 21222323
S
R
4 3
S
R
4 3
2911821 200 191
SR
43 SR
43 21
1 18
2 200
23 Golden Sta 000
Golden Sta 000
G
Golden Sta olden Sta 00
0 0
0 0
Golden Sta 2016
176
Golden Sta 711 968
482
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project - Select Zone 2
Selma Casitas Perea
8 38
14 11
201
202
4 5
1 1
20 19
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
1 2
0 1
0 0
3 4
4 0
3 5
52 58
0 0
0 0
0 0
279298249266
32953295
0 0
1 2
25 28
SR 9
0 9
0 0
SR 43
SR 43
21 22
11 22
234
295
SR 43
SR 43
21 22
11 22
234
295
SR 43
9 0
340
Stillman
Stillman
29 17
14 21
103
5 Stillm
Stillm
7 5
6 10
11 11
SR 43
9 0
340
SR 43
0 0
0 15
15 243
SR 43
9 0
340
SR 43
1 0
4 306
SR 43
15 29
550
Floral
Floral
191
252
209
208
2717
2790
FloralFloral
191
252
209
208
2717
2790 SR 43/99
0 0
0 Floral/99
5 4
8 4
5 88
SR 99
31 39
454
SR 9
0 9
0 0
43Flo/99
58 4
4 5
88 Floral
Floral
191
193
209
163
2717
2302
SR 43
9 0
340
Floral/99
0 0
0 Floral/99
31 39
454
160
193
170
163
2263
2302
SR 43
1 2
5 9
550
Floral/9
0 9
0 0
Flora
Flora
84 138
96 108
1195
143
SR 43
SR 43
46 60
55 45
527
518
Rose
Rose
4 5
1 1
25 26
SR 43
SR 43
21 22
11 22
234
295
Rose
Rose
8 9
8 5
100
90 SR 43
SR 43
1 9
8 5
3 120
169
DeWolf
DeWolf
2 0
5 2
79 49
Rose
Rose
0 0
0 0
0 0
DeWolf
DeWolf
9 1
0 5
0 5
Floral
Floral
17 21
19 9
219
190
Floral
Floral
12 15
16 6
131
135
Rose
Rose
0 1
0 1
4 6
StillmanStillman
29171421
103
5 SR 43
1 0
4 306
SR 43
1 1
5 5
243
SR 43
1 0
4 306
SR 43
9 0
340
Floral/99
0 0
0 Floral
Floral
25 59
33 20
420
392
Future St
Future St
0 0
0 0
0 0
FloralFloral
25 59
33 20
420
392
Floral/99
5 4
8 5
488
SR 99
0 0
0 SR 9
0 9
0 0
SR 99
0 0
0 S
S
4 n Sta
0 0
0 Stillman
Stillman
0 0
0 0
0 0
N-S St
N-S St
29 17
14 21
103
5 Future St
Future St
0 0
0 0
0 0
N-S St
N-S St
21 29
23 19
57 161
N-S St
N-S St
277
250
241
229
3210
3109
SR 43
SR 43
1 9
8 5
3 120
169
483
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project - Select Zone 2
Selma Casitas Perea
3 9
1 3
30 36
0 0
0 0
0 0
9 5
5 6
100
89 0
0 0
0 0
0 SR 90 9 00
S
R
4 3
90 3
4 0
S
R
4 3
90 3
4 0
SR 43 000
SR 43/99 1515 243
S
R
4 3
90 3
4 0
S
R
4 3
104 306
S
R
4 3
1 5
2 9
5 5
0 SR 99 2618
251
SR 99 000
Floral
Floral
191
252
209
208
2717
2790
SR 43/99 000
Floral
Floral
191
193
209
163
2717
2302
S
R
4 3
90 3
4 0
Floral/99
0 0
0 Floral/99 3139
454
Floral
Floral
160
193
170
163
2263
2302
SR
43 1259 550 Floral/9 0 9
0 0
Floral
Floral
84 138
96 108
1195
1436
S
R
4 3
S
R
4 3
4 6
6 05545 527 518
F
l
o
r
a
l
/
9 9
000
Floral
Floral
84 112
96 90
1195
1184
Floral
Floral
67 105
88 83
1059
1065
Floral
Floral
67 105
88 83
1059
1065
Floral
Floral
41 59
54 59
686
670
Floral
Floral
41 59
54 59
686
670
S
R
4 3
104 306
SR
43 1155 243 SR 4
3 104 306
S
R
4 3
90 3
4 0
Floral/99
0 0
0 Floral/99 2618 251
Floral/99 5485 488
SR 99 000
SR 90 9 00
SR 99 000
Golden Sta
Golden S 2 ta 6453424 373
395
Golden Sta
Golden Sta 000000
Floral
Floral
41 59
54 59
686
670
484
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project - Select Zone 2
Selma Casitas Perea
2 6
4 5
53 52
Hig
hland
Hig
hland 5261914 204 198
S
R
4 3
S
R
4 3
5 7454149 463 468
SR
43 SR
43 57264114 463 198
Golden Sta 000
Golden Sta 000
G
Golden Sta olden Sta 00
0 0
0 0
Golden Sta 5222
259
Golden Sta 1932 570
485
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project - Select Zone 3
Selma Casitas Perea
0 2
2 1
23 20
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
1 1
1 0
0 1
7 7
0 0
0 0
0 0
0012
2528
31 24
36 35
480
480
SR 9
0 9
0 0
SR 43
SR 43
2 0
3 2
2 3
8 3
SR 43
SR 43
2 0
3 2
28 33
SR 43
1 0
40 Stillman
Stillman
0 2
1 3
14 1
Stillm
Stillm
0 0
1 1
2 13
SR 43
1 0
40 SR 43
0 0
0 0
3 37
SR 43
1 0
40 SR 43
3 1
0 9
SR 43
7 5
0 6
Floral
Floral
20 28
29 26
378
387
FloralFloral
20 28
29 26
378
387 SR 43/99
0 0
0 Floral/99
6 4
68 SR 99
2 6
65 SR 9
0 9
0 0
43Flo/99
6 4
68 Floral
Floral
20 22
29 22
378
319
SR 43
1 0
40 Floral/99
0 0
0 Floral/99
2 6
65 18
22 23
22 313
319
SR 43
0 7
5 6
Floral/9
0 9
0 0
Flora
Flora
10 16
11 13
164
206
SR 43
SR 43
7 9
5 8
7 3
73 Rose
Rose
0 0
1 0
2 2
SR 43
SR 43
2 0
3 2
28 33
Rose
Rose
0 2
0 0
12 13
SR 43
SR 43
1 0
1 1
13 19
DeWolf
DeWolf
0 0
0 1
1 8
4 Rose
Rose
0 0
0 0
0 0
DeWolf
DeWolf
0 0
0 0
0 2
Floral
Floral
0 2
4 1
37 33
Floral
Floral
0 1
3 1
23 22
Rose
Rose
0 0
0 0
2 2
StillmanStillman
0213
14 1
SR 43
3 1
0 9
SR 43
0 3
3 7
SR 43
3 1
0 9
SR 43
1 0
40 Floral/99
0 0
0 Floral
Floral
1 3
6 2
60 53
Future St
Future St
0 0
0 0
0 0
FloralFloral
1 3
6 2
60 53
Floral/99
6 6
4 8
SR 99
0 0
0 SR 9
0 9
0 0
SR 99
0 0
0 S
S
n Sta
0 0
0 Stillman
Stillman
0 0
0 0
0 0
N-S St
N-S St
1 1
0 2
3 4
1 Future St
Future St
0 0
0 0
0 0
N-S St
N-S St
2 2
0 3
3 8
1 N-S St
N-S St
28 24
32 31
447
432
SR 43
SR 43
1 0
1 1
13 19
486
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project - Select Zone 3
Selma Casitas Perea
0 0
0 0
4 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 2
1 1
14 13
0 0
0 0
0 0
SR 90 9 00
S
R
4 3
1040
S
R
4 3
1040
SR 43 000
SR 43/99 0337
S
R
4 3
1040
S
R
4 3
3109
S
R
4 3
7506
SR 99 43
45 SR 99 000
Floral
Floral
20 28
29 26
378
387
SR 43/99 000
Floral
Floral
20 22
29 22
378
319
S
R
4 3
1040
Floral/99
0 0
0 Floral/99 26
65 Floral
Floral
18 22
23 22
313
319
SR
43 0756 Floral/9 0 9
0 0
Floral
Floral
10 16
11 13
164
206
S
R
4 3
S
R
4 3
79587373
F
l
o
r
a
l
/
9 9
000
Floral
Floral
10 12
11 11
164
161
Floral
Floral
9 11
11 10
147
144
Floral
Floral
9 11
11 10
147
144
Floral
Floral
7 7
6 5
92 94
Floral
Floral
7 7
6 5
92 94
S
R
4 3
3109
SR
43 0337 SR 4
3 3109
S
R
4 3
1040
Floral/99
0 0
0 Floral/99 4345
Floral/99 6648
SR 99 000
SR 90 9 00
SR 99 000
Golden Sta
Golden S
2 ta
4 5
4 55
50 Golden Sta
Golden Sta 000000
Floral
Floral
7 7
6 5
92 94
487
(Licensed to )
AM, PM and Daily Volumes
Cumulative Year 2046 plus Project - Select Zone 3
Selma Casitas Perea
0 0
1 1
8 4
Hig
hland
Hig
hland 02423226
S
R
4 3
S
R
4 3
84876967
SR
43 SR
43 8
2 7
2 69
26 Golden Sta 000
Golden Sta 000
G
Golden Sta olden Sta 00
0 0
0 0
Golden Sta 74
37 Golden Sta 2641
488
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 App | D
(559) 570-8991
Appendix D: Methodology
489
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
(559) 570-8991
App | D-1
Levels of Service Methodology
The description and procedures for calculating capacity and level of service (LOS) are found in the Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The HCM 6th Edition represents the research on capacity and quality of service for transportation facilities.

Quality of service requires quantitative measures to characterize operational conditions within a traffic stream. Level of service is a quality measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience.

Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility that has analysis procedures available. Letters designate each level of service (LOS), from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. Each LOS represents a range of operating conditions and the driver’s perception of these conditions. Safety is not included in the measures that establish an LOS.

Intersection Levels of Service
One of the more important elements limiting and often interrupting the flow of traffic on a highway is the intersection. Flow on an interrupted facility is usually dominated by points of fixed operation such as traffic signals, stop signs and yield signs.

Signalized Intersections – Performance Measures
For signalized intersections, the performance measures include automobile volume-to-capacity ratio, automobile delay, queue storage length, ratio of pedestrian delay, pedestrian circulation area, pedestrian perception score, bicycle delay and bicycle perception score. LOS is also considered a performance measure. For the automobile mode, the average control delay per vehicle per approach is determined for the peak hour. A weighted average of control delay per vehicle is then determined for the intersection. An LOS designation is given to the weighted average control delay to better describe the level of operation. A description of LOS for signalized intersections is found in Table A-1. 490
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
(559) 570-8991
App | D-2
Table A-1: Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Description (Automobile Mode) Level
of
Service
Description
Average
Control
Delay
(Seconds
per Vehicle)
A
Operations with a control delay of 10 seconds/vehicle or less and a volume-to-capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume-to-capacity ratio is really low and either progression is exceptionally favorable or the cycle length is very short. If it’s due to favorable progression, most vehicles arrive during the green indication and travel through the intersection without stopping. ≤10
B
Operations with control delay between 10.1 to 20.0 seconds/vehicle and a volume-tocapacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume-tocapacity ratio is low and either progression is highly favorable or the cycle length is short. More vehicles stop than with LOS A.
>10.0 to

20.0 C
Operations with average control delays between 20.1 to 35.0 seconds/vehicle and a volume-to-capacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume-to-capacity ratio no greater than 1.0, the progression is favorable or the cycle length is moderate. Individual cycle failures (i.e., one or more queued vehicles are not able to depart as a result of insufficient capacity during the cycle) may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many vehicles still pass through the intersection without stopping.
>20 to 35
D
Operations with control delay between 35.1 to 55.0 seconds/vehicle and a volume-tocapacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume-tocapacity ratio is high and either progression is ineffective or the cycle length is long.

Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. >35 to 55
E
Operations with control delay between 55.1 to 80.0 seconds/vehicle and a volume-tocapacity ratio no greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume-tocapacity ratio is high, progression is unfavorable and the cycle length is long. Individual cycle failures are frequent.
>55 to 80
F
Operations with unacceptable control delay exceeding 80.0 seconds/vehicle and a volume-to-capacity ratio greater than 1.0. This level is typically assigned when the volume-to-capacity ratio is very high, progression is very poor and the cycle length is long. Most cycles fail to clear the queue.
>80
Note: Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition
Unsignalized Intersections
The HCM 6th Edition procedures use control delay as a measure of effectiveness to determine level of service. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption and increased travel time.

The delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, traffic and incidents. Total delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced and the reference travel time that would result during base conditions, i.e., in the absence of traffic control, geometric delay, any incidents and any other vehicles. Control delay is the increased time of travel for a vehicle approaching and passing through an unsignalized intersection, compared with a free-flow vehicle if it were not required to slow or stop at the intersection.
491
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
(559) 570-8991
App | D-3
All-Way Stop Controlled Intersections
All-way stop controlled intersections are a form of traffic controls in which all approaches to an intersection are required to stop. Similar to signalized intersections, at all-way stop controlled intersections the average control delay per vehicle per approach is determined for the peak hour. A weighted average of control delay per vehicle is then determined for the intersection as a whole. In other words, the delay measured for all-way stop controlled intersections is a measure of the average delay for all vehicles passing through the intersection during the peak hour. An LOS designation is given to the weighted average control delay to better describe the level of operation.

Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersections
Two-way stop controlled (TWSC) intersections in which stop signs are used to assign the right-of-way, are the most prevalent type of intersection in the United States. At TWSC intersections the stopcontrolled approaches are referred to as the minor street approaches and can be either public streets or private driveways. The approaches that are not controlled by stop signs are referred to as the major street approaches.

The capacity of movements subject to delay are determined using the "critical gap" method of capacity analysis. Expected average control delay based on movement volume and movement capacity is calculated. An LOS for a TWSC intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay for each minor movement. LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole for three main reasons: (a) major-street through vehicles are assumed to experience zero delay; (b) the disproportionate number of major-street through vehicles at the typical TWSC intersection skews the weighted average of all movements, resulting in a very low overall average delay from all vehicles; and (c) the resulting low delay can mask important LOS deficiencies for minor movements. Table A-2 provides a description of LOS at unsignalized intersections.

Table A-2: Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service Description (Automobile Mode) Control Delay (Seconds per Vehicle) LOS by Volume-to-Capacity Ratio v/c ≤ 1.0 v/c > 1.0
≤10 A F
>10 to 15 B F
>15 to 25 C F
>25 to 35 D F
>35 to 50 E F
>50 F F
Note: Source: HCM 6th Edition, Exhibit 20-2.
492
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
(559) 570-8991
App | D-4
Roundabout Controlled Intersections
Roundabouts are intersections with a generally circular shape, characterized by yield on entry and circulation around a central island. Roundabouts have been used successfully throughout the world and are being used increasingly in the United States, especially since 1990. The procedure used to calculate LOS incorporates a combination of lane-based regression models and gap acceptance models for both single-lane and multi-lane roundabouts. As a result, the capacity models focus on one entry of a roundabout at a time. Table A-3 provides a description of LOS at roundabout intersections.

Table A-3: Roundabout Intersection Level of Service Description (Automobile Mode) Control Delay (Seconds per Vehicle) LOS by Volume-to-Capacity Ratio v/c ≤ 1.0 v/c > 1.0
≤10 A F
>10 to 15 B F
>15 to 25 C F
>25 to 35 D F
>35 to 50 E F
>50 F F
Note: Source: HCM 6th Edition, Exhibit 22-8.
493
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
(559) 570-8991
App | D-5
Segment Levels of Service
Segments are portions of roads without any interruption of flow. These are typically studied as urban streets, basic freeways, multilane highways or two-lane highways. Each of these categories has further classification and the level of service analysis can differ between them.

Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segments
For segments of multilane highways and basic freeways outside the influence of merging, diverging and weaving maneuvers, LOS is defined by density. Density describes a motorist's proximity to other vehicles and is related to a motorist's freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream. Chapter 12 of the Highway Capacity Manual categorizes each LOS as follows:

LOS A describes free-flow operations. FFS prevails on the freeway or multilane highway, and vehicles are almost completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. The effects of incidents or point breakdowns are easily absorbed.

LOS B represents reasonably free-flow operations, and FFS on the freeway or multilane highway is maintained. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted, and the general level of physical and psychological comfort provided to drivers is still high. The effects of minor incidents are still easily absorbed.

LOS C provides for flow with speeds near the FFS of the freeway or multilane highway. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is noticeably restricted, and lane changes require more care and vigilance on the part of the driver. Minor incidents may still be absorbed, but the local deterioration in service quality will be significant. Queues may be expected to form behind any significant blockages.

LOS D is the level at which speeds begin to decline with increasing flows, with density increasing more quickly. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is seriously limited, and drivers experience reduced physical and psychological comfort levels. Even minor incidents can be expected to create queuing, because the traffic stream has little space to absorb disruptions.

LOS E describes operation at or near capacity. Operations on the freeway or multilane highway at this level are highly volatile because there are virtually no usable gaps within the traffic stream, leaving little room to maneuver within the traffic stream. Any disruption to the traffic stream, such as vehicles entering from a ramp or an access point or a vehicle changing lanes, can establish a disruption wave that propagates throughout the upstream traffic stream. Toward the upper boundary of LOS E, the traffic stream has no ability to dissipate even the most minor disruption, and any incident can be expected to produce a serious breakdown and substantial queuing. The physical and psychological comfort afforded to drivers is poor.

LOS F describes unstable flow. Such conditions exist within queues forming behind bottlenecks.

Breakdowns occur for a number of reasons:
494
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
(559) 570-8991
App | D-6
• Traffic incidents can temporarily reduce the capacity of a short segment so that the number of vehicles arriving at a point is greater than the number of vehicles that can move through it. • Points of recurring congestion, such as merge or weaving segments and lane drops, experience very high demand in which the number of vehicles arriving is greater than the number of vehicles that can be discharged.
• In analyses using forecast volumes, the projected flow rate can exceed the estimated capacity of a given location.

Basic Freeway
Basic Freeway segments generally have four to eight lanes and posted speed limits between 50 and 75 mi/hr. The performance measures include capacity, free flow speed, demand and volume-to-capacity ratio, space mean speed, average density and LOS. The LOS is dependent on the number of lanes, base free-flow speed, lane width, right side lateral clearance, total ramp density, hourly demand volume, peak hour factor and total truck percentage. Table A-4 provides a description of LOS for Basic Freeway Segments.

Multilane Highway
Multilane Highway segments generally have four to six lanes and posted speed limits between 40 and 55 mi/hr. The performance measures include capacity, free flow speed, demand and volume-to-capacity ratio, space mean speed, average density and LOS. The LOS is dependent on the number of lanes, base free-flow speed, lane width, right side lateral clearance, left side lateral clearance, access point density, terrain type, median type, hourly demand volume, peak hour factor and total truck percentage. Table A4 provides a description of LOS for Multilane Highway Segments.

Table A-4: Basic Freeway and Multilane Highway Segment Level of Service Description Level of Service Density (Passenger Cars per Mile per Lane) A ≤11
B >11 to 18
C >18 to 26
D >26 to 35
E >35 to 45
F >45 or Demand Exceeds Capacity
Note: Source: HCM 6th Edition, Exhibit 12-15.
495
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
(559) 570-8991
App | D-7
Two-Lane Highway Segments
Two-Lane Highways generally have one lane per direction and only allow passing maneuvers to take place in the opposing lane of traffic. If allowed, passing maneuvers are limited by the availability of gaps in the opposing traffic stream and by the availability of sufficient sight distance for a driver to discern the approach of an opposing vehicle safely. A principal measure of LOS is percent time spent following and follower density. This is the average percent of time that vehicles must travel in platoons behind slower vehicles due to the inability to pass. Chapter 15 of the Highway Capacity Manual categorizes each LOS as follows:

At LOS A, motorists experience high operating speeds on Class I highways and little difficulty in passing.

Platoons of three or more vehicles are rare. On Class II highways, speed is controlled primarily by roadway conditions, but a small amount of platooning would be expected. On Class III highways, motorists can maintain operating speeds at or near the facility's FFS.

At LOS B, passing demand and passing capacity are balanced. On both Class I and Class II highways, the degree of platooning becomes noticeable. Some speed reductions are present on Class I highways. On Class III highways, maintenance of FFS operation becomes difficult, but the speed reduction is still relatively small.

At LOS C, most vehicles travel in platoons. Speeds are noticeably curtailed on all three classes of highways.

At LOS D, platooning increases significantly. Passing demand is high on both Class I and Class II facilities, but passing capacity approaches zero. A high percentage of vehicles travels in platoons, and PTSF is noticeable. On Class III highways, the fall-off from FFS is significant.

At LOS E, demand is approaching capacity. Passing on Class I and II highways is virtually impossible, and PTSF is more than 80%. Speeds are seriously curtailed. On Class III highways, speed is less than twothirds of the FFS. The lower limit of LOSE represents capacity.

LOS F exists whenever demand flow in one or both directions exceeds the segment's capacity. Operating conditions are unstable and heavy congestion exists on all classes of two-lane highways. 496
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
(559) 570-8991
App | D-8
Two-Lane Highway
The performance measures include average travel speed, segment travel time, percent followers, volume to capacity ratio, follower density and LOS. The LOS is dependent on Highway Class (I, II, or III), lane width, shoulder width, access point density, terrain type, free flow speed, passing lane length, demand flow rate, opposing demand flow rate peak hour factor and total truck percentage. Tables A-5 and A-6 provide a description of LOS for Two-Lane Highway Segments.

Table A-5: Two-Lane Highway Segment Level of Service Description LOS Class I Highways Class II Highways Class III Highways ATS (Mile per Hour) PTSF (%) PTSF (%) PFFS (%)
A >55 ≤35 ≤40 >91.7
B >50 to 55 >35 to 50 >40 to 55 >83.3 to 91.7
C >45 to 50 >50 to 65 >55 to 70 >75.0 to 83.3
D >40 to 45 >65 to 80 >70 to 85 >66.7 to 75.0
E ≤40 >80 >85 ≤66.7
F Demand exceeds capacity
Note: ATS = Average Travel Speed
PTSF = Percent Time Spent Following
PFFS = Percent of Free Flow Speed
Source: HCM 6th Edition, Exhibit 15-3.

Table A-6: Two-Lane Highway Segment Level of Service Description LOS
Follower Density (Followers per Mile per Lane)
High Speed Highways
Posted Speed Limit ≥ 50 miles per hour
High Speed Highways
Posted Speed Limit < 50 miles per hour
A ≤2.0 ≤2.0
B >2.0 to 4.0 >2.5 to 5.0
C >4.0 to 8.0 >5.0 to 10.0
D >8.0 to 12.0 >10.0 to 15.0
E >12.0 >15.0
Note: Source: NCHRP 'Improved Analysis of Two-Lane Highway Capacity and Operational Performance, Table 3-23.

497
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
(559) 570-8991
App | D-9
Urban Streets (Automobile Mode)
The term “urban streets” refers to urban arterials and collectors, including those in downtown areas.

Arterial streets are roads that primarily serve longer through trips. However, providing access to abutting commercial and residential land uses is also an important function of arterials. Collector streets provide both land access and traffic circulation within residential, commercial and industrial areas. Their access function is more important than that of arterials and unlike arterials their operation is not always dominated by traffic signals. Downtown streets are signalized facilities that often resemble arterials.

They not only move through traffic but also provide access to local businesses for passenger cars, transit buses and trucks. Pedestrian conflicts and lane obstructions created by stopping or standing taxicabs, buses, trucks and parking vehicles that cause turbulence in the traffic flow are typical of downtown streets.

Flow Characteristics
The speed of vehicles on urban streets is influenced by three main factors, street environment, interaction among vehicles and traffic control.

The street environment includes the geometric characteristics of the facility, the character of roadside activity and adjacent land uses. Thus, the environment reflects the number and width of lanes, type of median, driveway/access point density, spacing between signalized intersections, existence of parking, level of pedestrian and bicyclist activity and speed limit.

The interaction among vehicles is determined by traffic density, the proportion of trucks and buses and turning movements. This interaction affects the operation of vehicles at intersections and, to a lesser extent, between signals.

Traffic controls (including signals and signs) force a portion of all vehicles to slow or stop. The delays and speed changes caused by traffic control devices reduce vehicle speeds; however, such controls are needed to establish right-of-way.
498
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704
(559) 570-8991
App | D-10
Urban Street Segments LOS
The average travel speed for through vehicles along an urban street is the determinant of the operating level of service (LOS). The travel speed along a segment, section or entire length of an urban street is dependent on the running speed between signalized intersections and the amount of control delay incurred at signalized intersections. Table A-7 provides a description of LOS for Urban Street Segments.

LOS A describes primarily free-flow operation. Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Control delay at signalized intersections is minimal. Travel speeds exceed 80 percent of the base free flow speed (FFS).

LOS B describes reasonably unimpeded operation. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and control delay at the boundary intersections is not significant. The travel speed is between 67 and 80 percent of the base FFS.

LOS C describes stable operations. The ability to maneuver and change lanes in midblock location may be more restricted than at LOS B. Longer queues at the boundary intersections may contribute to lower travel speeds. The travel speed is between 50 and 67 percent of the base FFS.

LOS D indicates a less stable condition in which small increases in flow may cause substantial increases in delay and decreases in travel speed. This operation may be due to adverse signal progression, high volumes or inappropriate signal timing at the boundary intersections. The travel speed is between 40 and 50 percent of the base FFS.

LOS E is characterized as an unstable operation and has significant delay. Such operations may be due to some combination of adverse progression, high volume and inappropriate signal timing at the boundary intersections. The travel speed is between 30 and 40 percent of the base FFS.

LOS F is characterized by street flow at extremely low speed. Congestion is likely occurring at the boundary intersections, as indicated by high delay and extensive queuing. The travel speed is 30 percent or less of the base FFS.

Table A-7: Urban Street Levels of Service (Automobile Mode) LOS Travel Speed Threshold by Base Free-Flow Speed (miles/hour) Volume-to55 50 45 40 35 30 25 Capacity Ratio A >44 >40 >36 >32 >28 >24 >20
≤ 1.0
B >37 >34 >30 >27 >23 >20 >17
C >28 >25 >23 >20 >18 >15 >13
D >22 >20 >18 >16 >14 >12 >10
E >17 >15 >14 >12 >11 >9 >8
F ≤17 ≤15 ≤14 ≤12 ≤11 ≤9 ≤8
F Any > 1.0
Note: a = The Critical volume-to-capacity ratio is based on consideration of the through movement-to-capacity ratio at each boundary intersection in the subject direction of travel. The critical volume-to-capacity ratio is the largest ratio of those considered.

Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition, Exhibit 16-3. 499
500
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 App | E
(559) 570-8991
Appendix E: Existing Traffic Conditions
501
502
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM Peak 1: Highland Avenue & Golden State Boulevard 05/15/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SEL SET SER NWU NWL NWT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 102 120 13 41 210 14 5 124 126 2 13 149 Future Volume (vph) 102 120 13 41 210 14 5 124 126 2 13 149 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.9 4.9 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 1810 1538 1795 1538 1719 3438 1538 1719 3438 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 1810 1538 1795 1538 1719 3438 1538 1719 3438 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 112 132 14 45 231 15 5 136 138 2 14 164 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 11 0 0 10 0 0 125 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 112 132 3 0 276 5 5 136 13 0 16 164 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 2 2 6 6 7 4 3 3 8
Permitted Phases 2 6 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.7 9.7 9.7 14.8 14.8 0.4 4.4 4.4 0.4 4.4 Effective Green, g (s) 9.7 9.7 9.7 14.8 14.8 0.4 4.4 4.4 0.4 4.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.31 0.31 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.09 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.9 4.9 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 353 371 316 562 482 14 320 143 14 320 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.07 c0.15 0.00 0.04 c0.01 c0.05
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.36 0.01 0.49 0.01 0.36 0.42 0.09 1.14 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 15.9 16.1 14.9 13.1 11.2 23.3 20.2 19.6 23.4 20.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.0 14.9 0.9 0.3 291.3 1.4 Delay (s) 16.5 16.7 14.9 13.8 11.2 38.2 21.1 19.8 314.7 21.8 Level of Service B B B B B D C B F C
Approach Delay (s) 16.5 13.7 20.8 43.3
Approach LOS B B C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 47.2 Sum of lost time (s) 17.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
503
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM Peak 1: Highland Avenue & Golden State Boulevard 05/15/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement NWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 31
Future Volume (vph) 31
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.2
Lane Util. Factor 1.00
Frt 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1538
Flt Permitted 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1538
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91
Adj. Flow (vph) 34
RTOR Reduction (vph) 31
Lane Group Flow (vph) 3
Heavy Vehicles (%) 5%
Turn Type Perm
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 4.4
Effective Green, g (s) 4.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09
Clearance Time (s) 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 143
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 19.4
Progression Factor 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1
Delay (s) 19.5
Level of Service B
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
504
HCM 6th TWSC Existing AM Peak
2: DeWolf Avenue & Floral Avenue 05/15/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 89 2 7 62 6 0 4 7 11 5 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 89 2 7 62 6 0 4 7 11 5 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333
Mvmt Flow 0 101 2 8 70 7 0 5 8 13 6 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 77 0 0 103 0 0 195 195 102 199 193 74 Stage 1 - - - - - - 102 102 - 90 90 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 93 93 - 109 103 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1515 - - 1483 - - 762 699 950 757 700 985 Stage 1 - - - - - - 902 809 - 915 818 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 912 816 - 894 808 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1515 - - 1483 - - 754 695 950 743 696 985 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 754 695 - 743 696 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 902 809 - 915 813 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 900 811 - 882 808 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.7 9.4 10.1

HCM LOS A B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 838 1515 - - 1483 - - 728
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 - - - 0.005 - - 0.025
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.4 0 - - 7.4 0 - 10.1
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0.1
505
HCM 6th TWSC Existing AM Peak
3: Floral Avenue & Future N-S Road 05/15/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 107 82 38 13 2
Future Vol, veh/h 3 107 82 38 13 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333
Mvmt Flow 4 130 100 46 16 2
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 146 0 - 0 261 123
Stage 1 - - - - 123 -
Stage 2 - - - - 138 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1430 - - - 726 925
Stage 1 - - - - 900 -
Stage 2 - - - - 886 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1430 - - - 724 925
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 724 -
Stage 1 - - - - 897 -
Stage 2 - - - - 886 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 9.9

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1430 - - - 746
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.025
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 - - 9.9
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1
506
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM Peak 4: Floral Avenue & Walmart Main Driveway 05/15/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT WBU WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 12 108 143 114 236 180 6
Future Volume (vph) 12 108 143 114 236 180 6
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3505 1752 3106 1752 1568
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3505 1752 3106 1752 1568
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Adj. Flow (vph) 15 132 174 139 288 220 7
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 156 0 0 6
Lane Group Flow (vph) 15 132 174 271 0 220 1
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 7438 6
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.6 11.3 7.2 17.9 8.0 8.0
Effective Green, g (s) 0.6 11.3 7.2 17.9 8.0 8.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.29 0.18 0.46 0.20 0.20
Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 26 1012 322 1421 358 320
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.04 c0.10 c0.09 c0.13
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.58 0.13 0.54 0.19 0.61 0.00
Uniform Delay, d1 19.1 10.3 14.5 6.3 14.1 12.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 27.4 0.1 1.8 0.1 3.1 0.0
Delay (s) 46.5 10.3 16.3 6.4 17.3 12.4
Level of Service D B B A B B
Approach Delay (s) 14.0 9.2 17.1
Approach LOS B A B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 11.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 39.1 Sum of lost time (s) 12.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
507
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM Peak 6: SR 99 SB Off-Ramp & Floral Avenue 05/15/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 324 49 53 422 0 0 0 50 164 23 61 Future Volume (vph) 0 324 49 53 422 0 0 0 50 164 23 61
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.8 6.8 5.7 6.8 5.7 6.1 5.7 5.7
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3471 1553 1736 3471 1580 3367 1827 1553 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3471 1553 1736 3471 1580 3367 1827 1553 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 348 53 57 454 0 0 0 54 176 25 66
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 0 45
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 348 15 57 454 0 0 0 13 176 25 21 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA pt+ov Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 1 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 14.4 14.4 2.9 23.0 12.9 5.8 16.2 16.2 Effective Green, g (s) 14.4 14.4 2.9 23.0 12.9 5.8 16.2 16.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.28 0.06 0.44 0.25 0.11 0.31 0.31 Clearance Time (s) 6.8 6.8 5.7 6.8 6.1 5.7 5.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.9 4.9 2.0 4.4 5.5 5.5 5.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 966 432 97 1544 394 377 572 486
v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.03 c0.13 0.01 c0.05 c0.01
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.36 0.03 0.59 0.29 0.03 0.47 0.04 0.04
Uniform Delay, d1 15.0 13.6 23.8 9.2 14.7 21.5 12.4 12.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.1 5.7 0.2 0.0 2.2 0.1 0.1
Delay (s) 15.4 13.7 29.6 9.3 14.7 23.7 12.4 12.4
Level of Service B B C A B C B B
Approach Delay (s) 15.2 11.6 14.7 19.9
Approach LOS BBBB
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.36
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 51.7 Sum of lost time (s) 24.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
508
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing AM Peak 7: Highland Avenue & Floral Avenue 05/15/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 158 419 96 121 531 79 69 108 61 30 194 170 Future Volume (veh/h) 158 419 96 121 531 79 69 108 61 30 194 170 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 161 428 98 123 542 81 70 110 62 31 198 173 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 333333333333
Cap, veh/h 176 1168 521 205 896 133 152 592 263 47 529 415 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.33 0.33 0.06 0.29 0.29 0.04 0.17 0.17 0.03 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3526 1572 3428 3077 458 3428 3526 1567 1767 3526 2768 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 161 428 98 123 310 313 70 110 62 31 198 173 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 1572 1714 1763 1772 1714 1763 1567 1767 1763 1384 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.8 5.9 2.9 2.2 9.7 9.8 1.3 1.7 2.2 1.1 3.2 3.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.8 5.9 2.9 2.2 9.7 9.8 1.3 1.7 2.2 1.1 3.2 3.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 176 1168 521 205 513 516 152 592 263 47 529 415 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.37 0.19 0.60 0.60 0.61 0.46 0.19 0.24 0.66 0.37 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 176 2610 1164 476 1374 1381 214 1951 867 179 2088 1639 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.6 16.3 15.3 29.4 19.5 19.6 29.9 22.9 23.1 30.9 24.6 24.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 43.0 0.3 0.3 1.1 1.7 1.7 0.8 0.3 0.8 5.8 0.8 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.4 2.3 1.0 0.9 3.9 4.0 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.5 1.3 1.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 71.6 16.6 15.6 30.5 21.2 21.3 30.7 23.2 23.9 36.8 25.3 25.9 LnGrp LOS E B B CCCCCCDCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 687 746 242 402
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.4 22.8 25.5 26.4
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.3 16.9 10.4 28.5 9.5 15.7 13.0 26.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.6 6.1 * 6.6 * 7.3 * 6.6 6.1 * 6.6 * 7.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 6.5 35.5 * 8.9 * 48 * 4 38.0 * 6.4 * 50 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 4.2 4.2 7.9 3.3 5.6 7.8 11.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.4 0.1 5.5 0.0 3.5 0.0 6.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 509
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM Peak 8: SR 99 NB Off-Ramp & Floral Avenue 05/15/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 417 0 0 521 172 37
Future Volume (vph) 417 0 0 521 172 37
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 3505 1752 1568
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 3505 1752 1568
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Adj. Flow (vph) 474 0 0 592 195 42
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 32
Lane Group Flow (vph) 474 0 0 592 195 10
Turn Type NA NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 2 2 8
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.4 16.4 9.0 9.0
Effective Green, g (s) 16.4 16.4 9.0 9.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.44 0.44 0.24 0.24
Clearance Time (s) 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.8 3.8 5.1 5.1
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1528 1528 419 375
v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 c0.17 c0.11
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.31 0.39 0.47 0.03
Uniform Delay, d1 6.9 7.2 12.2 10.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.2 1.8 0.1
Delay (s) 7.1 7.4 14.0 11.0
Level of Service A A B B
Approach Delay (s) 7.1 7.4 13.5
Approach LOS A A B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 37.6 Sum of lost time (s) 12.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
510
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM Peak 9: Whitson Street & Floral Avenue 05/15/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEU SEL SET SER NWU Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 4 10 264 94 78 390 9 4 67 129 10 4 Future Volume (vph) 4 10 264 94 78 390 9 4 67 129 10 4
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.6 4.2 4.2 4.2
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3367 1752 3492 1752 3505 1546
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3367 1752 3492 1752 3505 1546
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 4 11 287 102 85 424 10 4 73 140 11 4
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 38 002000090
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 15 351 0 85 432 0 0 77 140 2 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 4
Turn Type Prot Prot NA Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Prot
Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 8 1 1 6 5
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.4 19.1 7.3 25.6 5.0 8.3 8.3
Effective Green, g (s) 0.4 19.1 7.3 25.6 5.0 8.3 8.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.34 0.13 0.45 0.09 0.15 0.15
Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.6 4.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 12 1142 227 1587 155 516 227
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.10 c0.05 0.12 c0.04 c0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 1.25 0.31 0.37 0.27 0.50 0.27 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 27.9 13.7 22.4 9.6 24.5 21.3 20.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 352.1 0.2 1.0 0.1 2.5 0.3 0.0
Delay (s) 380.1 13.9 23.5 9.6 26.9 21.6 20.5
Level of Service F B C A C C C
Approach Delay (s) 27.5 11.9 23.4
Approach LOS C B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.34
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 56.3 Sum of lost time (s) 17.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
511
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM Peak 9: Whitson Street & Floral Avenue 05/15/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement NWL NWT NWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 115 104 17
Future Volume (vph) 115 104 17
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 3505 1568
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3400 3505 1568
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 125 113 18
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 15
Lane Group Flow (vph) 129 113 3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 4.8 8.1 8.1
Effective Green, g (s) 4.8 8.1 8.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.14 0.14
Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 289 504 225
v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.03
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.45 0.22 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 24.5 21.3 20.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 0.2 0.0
Delay (s) 25.6 21.5 20.7
Level of Service C C C
Approach Delay (s) 23.5
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
512
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM Peak 10: Highland Avenue & SR 99 SB Ramps 05/15/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SEL SER
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 610 26 175 231 0 0 341
Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 610 26 175 231 0 0 341
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.8 6.8 5.7 6.8 9.7
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.88
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3282 1468 1641 3282 2584
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3282 1468 1641 3282 2584
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 642 27 184 243 0 0 359
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 300
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 642 13 184 243 0 0 59
Heavy Vehicles (%) 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 1 6 5
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 17.5 17.5 5.5 13.2 5.8
Effective Green, g (s) 17.5 17.5 5.5 13.2 5.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 0.49 0.15 0.37 0.16
Clearance Time (s) 6.8 6.8 5.7 6.8 9.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 6.8 6.8 2.0 4.9 5.8
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1617 723 254 1220 422
v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 c0.11 0.07 0.02
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.40 0.02 0.72 0.20 0.14
Uniform Delay, d1 5.7 4.6 14.3 7.6 12.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.0 8.4 0.2 0.4
Delay (s) 6.2 4.6 22.7 7.7 13.1
Level of Service A A C A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 6.2 14.2 13.1
Approach LOS A A B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 35.5 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
513
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing AM Peak 12: Highland Avenue & Stillman Street 05/15/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 19 7 32 9 3 43 39 584 33 55 457 61 Future Volume (veh/h) 19 7 32 9 3 43 39 584 33 55 457 61 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1781 1781 1781 1781 1781 1781 1781 1781 1781 1781 1781 1781 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 19 7 33 9 3 44 40 596 34 56 466 62 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 888888888888
Cap, veh/h 61 119 101 16 103 87 111 1155 66 140 1231 966 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.35 0.35 0.04 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 3291 1781 1510 1697 1781 1510 3291 3255 185 3291 3385 2657 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 19 7 33 9 3 44 40 310 320 56 466 62 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1646 1781 1510 1697 1781 1510 1646 1692 1748 1646 1692 1329 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 0.2 1.1 0.3 0.1 1.5 0.6 7.5 7.6 0.9 5.3 0.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 0.2 1.1 0.3 0.1 1.5 0.6 7.5 7.6 0.9 5.3 0.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 61 119 101 16 103 87 111 600 620 140 1231 966 V/C Ratio(X) 0.31 0.06 0.33 0.57 0.03 0.51 0.36 0.52 0.52 0.40 0.38 0.06 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 252 1467 1243 130 1467 1243 265 1170 1208 277 2353 1847 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.3 22.8 23.3 25.8 23.2 23.9 24.7 13.3 13.3 24.3 12.3 10.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.5 4.2 11.2 0.2 6.8 0.7 2.3 2.3 0.7 0.6 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.2 2.6 2.7 0.3 1.6 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.4 23.3 27.4 37.0 23.4 30.7 25.4 15.6 15.6 25.0 12.9 10.9 LnGrp LOS CCCDCCCBBCBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 59 56 670 584
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.6 31.3 16.2 13.8
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.8 24.9 7.7 10.8 8.4 25.4 8.2 10.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.6 6.4 * 7.2 * 7.3 * 6.6 6.4 * 7.2 * 7.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 4.4 36.1 * 4 * 43 * 4.2 36.3 * 4 * 43 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 9.6 2.3 3.1 2.6 7.3 2.3 3.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.3
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 514
HCM 6th TWSC Existing AM Peak
13: Highland Avenue & Rose Avenue 05/15/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 4 4 23 1 110 2 529 24 68 382 2
Future Vol, veh/h 2 4 4 23 1 110 2 529 24 68 382 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 00001100001
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Stop - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 25 - - - 250 - - 250 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 9 99999999999
Mvmt Flow 2 4 4 24 1 117 2 563 26 72 406 2
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 839 1145 205 929 1133 296 409 0 0 589 0 0 Stage 1 552 552 - 580 580 -------
Stage 2 287 593 - 349 553 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.68 6.68 7.08 7.68 6.68 7.08 4.28 - - 4.28 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.68 5.68 - 6.68 5.68 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.68 5.68 - 6.68 5.68 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.59 4.09 3.39 3.59 4.09 3.39 2.29 - - 2.29 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 247 188 780 212 191 680 1098 - - 936 - - Stage 1 468 496 - 450 481 -------
Stage 2 677 475 - 621 495 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 191 173 779 194 176 680 1097 - - 936 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 191 173 - 194 176 -------
Stage 1 467 457 - 449 480 -------
Stage 2 558 474 - 565 456 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 19.4 16 0 1.4

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1097 - - 179 779 469 936 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - 0.036 0.005 0.304 0.077 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.3 - - 25.9 9.6 16 9.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - D A C A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0 1.3 0.3 - -
515
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM Peak 1: Highland Avenue & Golden State Boulevard 05/15/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SEU SEL SET SER NWU NWL Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 119 299 18 49 231 8 1 24 239 199 3 9 Future Volume (vph) 119 299 18 49 231 8 1 24 239 199 3 9 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.9 4.9 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1845 1548 1829 1568 1752 3505 1568 1752 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 1845 1548 1829 1568 1752 3505 1568 1752 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 128 322 19 53 248 9 1 26 257 214 3 10
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 13 0 0 7 0 0 0 182 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 128 322 6 0 301 2 0 27 257 32 0 13 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 2 2 6 6 7 7 4 3 3
Permitted Phases 2 6 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.7 16.7 16.7 13.3 13.3 1.3 8.5 8.5 0.5 Effective Green, g (s) 16.7 16.7 16.7 13.3 13.3 1.3 8.5 8.5 0.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.23 0.23 0.02 0.15 0.15 0.01 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.9 4.9 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 514 541 454 427 366 40 523 234 15
v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.17 c0.16 c0.02 c0.07 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.25 0.60 0.01 0.70 0.01 0.68 0.49 0.14 0.87
Uniform Delay, d1 15.3 17.2 14.3 20.0 16.7 27.6 22.2 21.0 28.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 1.8 0.0 5.2 0.0 36.7 0.7 0.3 162.9 Delay (s) 15.6 19.0 14.3 25.2 16.7 64.3 22.9 21.3 191.1 Level of Service B B B C B E C C F
Approach Delay (s) 17.9 25.0 24.5
Approach LOS B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 56.9 Sum of lost time (s) 17.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
516
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM Peak 1: Highland Avenue & Golden State Boulevard 05/15/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement NWT NWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 137 66
Future Volume (vph) 137 66
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 1568
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 1568
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph) 147 71
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 61
Lane Group Flow (vph) 147 10
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Turn Type NA Perm
Protected Phases 8
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.7 7.7
Effective Green, g (s) 7.7 7.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14
Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 474 212
v/s Ratio Prot 0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.31 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 22.2 21.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.1
Delay (s) 22.6 21.5
Level of Service C C
Approach Delay (s) 31.7
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
517
HCM 6th TWSC Existing PM Peak
2: DeWolf Avenue & Floral Avenue 05/15/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 124 9 16 175 16 7 5 16 8 4 2
Future Vol, veh/h 0 124 9 16 175 16 7 5 16 8 4 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333
Mvmt Flow 0 138 10 18 194 18 8 6 18 9 4 2
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 212 0 0 148 0 0 385 391 143 394 387 203 Stage 1 - - - - - - 143 143 - 239 239 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 242 248 - 155 148 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1352 - - 1427 - - 572 543 902 564 546 835 Stage 1 - - - - - - 857 777 - 762 706 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 759 699 - 845 773 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1352 - - 1427 - - 561 535 902 543 538 835 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 561 535 - 543 538 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 857 777 - 762 696 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 742 689 - 822 773 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.6 10.3 11.5

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 708 1352 - - 1427 - - 570
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.044 - - - 0.012 - - 0.027
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.3 0 - - 7.6 0 - 11.5
HCM Lane LOS B A - - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.1
518
HCM 6th TWSC Existing PM Peak
3: Floral Avenue & Future N-S Road 05/15/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 178 165 26 42 2
Future Vol, veh/h 3 178 165 26 42 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333
Mvmt Flow 3 202 188 30 48 2
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 218 0 - 0 411 203
Stage 1 - - - - 203 -
Stage 2 - - - - 208 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1346 - - - 595 835
Stage 1 - - - - 829 -
Stage 2 - - - - 824 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1346 - - - 593 835
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 593 -
Stage 1 - - - - 827 -
Stage 2 - - - - 824 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 11.5

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1346 - - - 601
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - - 0.083
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 0 - - 11.5
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.3
519
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM Peak 4: Floral Avenue & Walmart Main Driveway 05/15/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT WBU WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 22 198 117 169 397 415 22
Future Volume (vph) 22 198 117 169 397 415 22
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3505 1752 3090 1752 1568
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3505 1752 3090 1752 1568
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 23 208 123 178 418 437 23
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 261 0 0 15
Lane Group Flow (vph) 23 208 123 335 0 437 8
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 7438 6
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.6 11.8 6.4 17.6 16.0 16.0
Effective Green, g (s) 0.6 11.8 6.4 17.6 16.0 16.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.25 0.14 0.38 0.34 0.34
Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 22 883 239 1162 598 536
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.06 c0.07 c0.11 c0.25
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 1.05 0.24 0.51 0.29 0.73 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 23.1 13.9 18.8 10.2 13.5 10.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 206.7 0.1 1.9 0.1 4.6 0.0
Delay (s) 229.8 14.1 20.6 10.4 18.1 10.2
Level of Service F B C B B B
Approach Delay (s) 35.5 12.1 17.7
Approach LOS D B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 46.8 Sum of lost time (s) 12.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
520
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM Peak 6: SR 99 SB Off-Ramp & Floral Avenue 05/15/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 693 117 109 623 0 0 0 134 233 41 110 Future Volume (vph) 0 693 117 109 623 0 0 0 134 233 41 110 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.8 6.8 5.7 6.8 5.7 6.1 5.7 5.7
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 1568 1752 3505 1596 3400 1845 1548 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 1568 1752 3505 1596 3400 1845 1548 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 762 129 120 685 0 0 0 147 256 45 121
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 104 0 0 79
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 762 36 120 685 0 0 0 43 256 45 42 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA pt+ov Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 1 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 18.7 18.7 6.4 30.8 18.5 10.4 22.9 22.9 Effective Green, g (s) 18.7 18.7 6.4 30.8 18.5 10.4 22.9 22.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.28 0.10 0.47 0.28 0.16 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 6.8 6.8 5.7 6.8 6.1 5.7 5.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.9 4.9 2.0 4.4 5.5 5.5 5.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 990 442 169 1630 446 534 638 535
v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 c0.07 0.20 c0.03 c0.08 0.02
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.77 0.08 0.71 0.42 0.10 0.48 0.07 0.08
Uniform Delay, d1 21.8 17.4 29.0 11.8 17.7 25.4 14.5 14.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.3 0.2 11.1 0.3 0.0 1.7 0.1 0.2
Delay (s) 26.1 17.6 40.1 12.1 17.7 27.1 14.6 14.7
Level of Service C B D B B C B B
Approach Delay (s) 24.8 16.2 17.7 22.2
Approach LOS C B B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.2 Sum of lost time (s) 24.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
521
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing PM Peak 7: Highland Avenue & Floral Avenue 05/15/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 218 673 188 103 573 107 105 220 97 64 243 233 Future Volume (veh/h) 218 673 188 103 573 107 105 220 97 64 243 233 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 232 716 200 110 610 114 112 234 103 68 259 248 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 333333333333
Cap, veh/h 196 1310 584 181 929 173 181 616 275 87 603 474 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.37 0.37 0.05 0.31 0.31 0.05 0.17 0.17 0.05 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3526 1572 3428 2965 553 3428 3526 1572 1767 3526 2768 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 232 716 200 110 362 362 112 234 103 68 259 248 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 1572 1714 1763 1755 1714 1763 1572 1767 1763 1384 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.4 12.1 6.9 2.4 13.4 13.5 2.4 4.4 4.4 2.9 5.0 6.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.4 12.1 6.9 2.4 13.4 13.5 2.4 4.4 4.4 2.9 5.0 6.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 196 1310 584 181 552 550 181 616 275 87 603 474 V/C Ratio(X) 1.18 0.55 0.34 0.61 0.66 0.66 0.62 0.38 0.37 0.78 0.43 0.52 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 196 2372 1058 385 1188 1184 181 1463 653 248 1771 1390 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.6 18.7 17.1 35.1 22.4 22.5 35.1 27.6 27.6 35.6 28.0 28.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 122.0 0.5 0.5 1.2 2.0 2.0 4.6 0.7 1.5 5.6 0.8 1.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.1 4.7 2.5 1.0 5.6 5.6 1.1 1.8 1.7 1.3 2.1 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 155.6 19.3 17.6 36.3 24.4 24.4 39.7 28.3 29.0 41.1 28.9 30.1 LnGrp LOS F B B DCCDCCDCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 1148 834 449 575
Approach Delay, s/veh 46.6 26.0 31.3 30.8
Approach LOS DCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.3 19.3 10.6 35.4 10.6 19.0 15.0 31.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.6 6.1 * 6.6 * 7.3 * 6.6 6.1 * 6.6 * 7.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 11 31.4 * 8.5 * 51 * 4 38.0 * 8.4 * 51 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 6.4 4.4 14.1 4.4 8.2 10.4 15.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.8 0.1 10.5 0.0 4.8 0.0 7.9 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.6
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 522
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM Peak 8: SR 99 NB Off-Ramp & Floral Avenue 05/15/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 681 0 0 592 157 41
Future Volume (vph) 681 0 0 592 157 41
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 6.1 6.1
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 3505 1752 1568
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 3505 1752 1568
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 709 0 0 617 164 43
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 34
Lane Group Flow (vph) 709 0 0 617 164 9
Turn Type NA NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 2 2 8
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 21.4 21.4 8.3 8.3
Effective Green, g (s) 21.4 21.4 8.3 8.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.54 0.54 0.21 0.21
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 6.1 6.1
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.8 3.8 5.1 5.1
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1884 1884 365 326
v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.18 c0.09
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.38 0.33 0.45 0.03
Uniform Delay, d1 5.3 5.2 13.8 12.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.1 1.9 0.1
Delay (s) 5.5 5.3 15.7 12.6
Level of Service A A B B
Approach Delay (s) 5.5 5.3 15.0
Approach LOS A A B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 6.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 39.8 Sum of lost time (s) 10.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
523
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM Peak 9: Whitson Street & Floral Avenue 05/15/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEU SEL SET SER NWU Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 16 35 512 186 55 370 11 19 92 213 23 2 Future Volume (vph) 16 35 512 186 55 370 11 19 92 213 23 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.6 4.2 4.2 4.2
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3365 1752 3488 1752 3505 1568
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3365 1752 3488 1752 3505 1568
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 17 37 545 198 59 394 12 20 98 227 24 2
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 41 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 19 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 54 702 0 59 403 0 0 118 227 5 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8
Turn Type Prot Prot NA Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Prot
Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 8 1 1 6 5
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.1 20.8 3.4 20.7 13.1 13.6 13.6
Effective Green, g (s) 3.1 20.8 3.4 20.7 13.1 13.6 13.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.33 0.05 0.33 0.21 0.21 0.21
Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.6 4.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 85 1103 93 1138 362 751 336
v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.21 c0.03 0.12 c0.07 0.06
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.35 0.33 0.30 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 29.6 18.1 29.4 16.3 21.4 20.9 19.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 14.5 1.2 13.3 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.0
Delay (s) 44.1 19.3 42.7 16.5 21.9 21.1 19.6
Level of Service D B D B C C B
Approach Delay (s) 21.0 19.8 21.3
Approach LOS C B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 63.4 Sum of lost time (s) 17.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
524
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM Peak 9: Whitson Street & Floral Avenue 05/15/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement NWL NWT NWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 223 134 35
Future Volume (vph) 223 134 35
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 3505 1548
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3400 3505 1548
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 237 143 37
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 32
Lane Group Flow (vph) 239 143 5
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.8 9.3 9.3
Effective Green, g (s) 8.8 9.3 9.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.15 0.15
Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 471 514 227
v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.51 0.28 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 25.3 24.1 23.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.3 0.0
Delay (s) 26.2 24.4 23.2
Level of Service C C C
Approach Delay (s) 25.3
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
525
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM Peak 10: Highland Avenue & SR 99 SB Ramps 05/15/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SEL SER
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 699 50 265 272 0 0 355
Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 699 50 265 272 0 0 355
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.8 6.8 5.7 6.8 9.7
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.88
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3471 1521 1736 3471 2733
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3471 1521 1736 3471 2733
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 736 53 279 286 0 0 374
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 270
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 736 23 279 286 0 0 104
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 1 6 5
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 17.4 17.4 10.2 12.4 11.2
Effective Green, g (s) 17.4 17.4 10.2 12.4 11.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 0.25 0.31 0.28
Clearance Time (s) 6.8 6.8 5.7 6.8 9.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 6.8 6.8 2.0 4.9 5.8
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1506 659 441 1073 763
v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 c0.16 0.08 0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.49 0.03 0.63 0.27 0.14
Uniform Delay, d1 8.2 6.5 13.3 10.4 10.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.1 2.2 0.3 0.2
Delay (s) 9.0 6.6 15.5 10.7 11.0
Level of Service AABB B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 8.8 13.1 11.0
Approach LOS A A B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 40.1 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
526
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing PM Peak 12: Highland Avenue & Stillman Street 05/15/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 176 9 205 29 6 90 94 499 30 60 527 65 Future Volume (veh/h) 176 9 205 29 6 90 94 499 30 60 527 65 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 185 9 216 31 6 95 99 525 32 63 555 68 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 333333333333
Cap, veh/h 215 360 305 47 293 248 178 1035 63 144 1047 822 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.16 0.16 0.05 0.31 0.31 0.04 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 1856 1572 1767 1856 1570 3428 3376 205 3428 3526 2768 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 185 9 216 31 6 95 99 274 283 63 555 68 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 1856 1572 1767 1856 1570 1714 1763 1819 1714 1763 1384 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.4 0.3 8.2 1.1 0.2 3.5 1.8 8.1 8.2 1.1 8.4 1.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.4 0.3 8.2 1.1 0.2 3.5 1.8 8.1 8.2 1.1 8.4 1.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 215 360 305 47 293 248 178 540 558 144 1047 822 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.02 0.71 0.66 0.02 0.38 0.56 0.51 0.51 0.44 0.53 0.08 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 215 1249 1059 111 1249 1057 215 1007 1039 215 2015 1581 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.7 20.8 24.0 30.8 22.7 24.1 29.6 18.2 18.2 29.9 18.7 16.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 27.1 0.1 6.6 5.8 0.0 1.5 1.0 2.5 2.5 0.8 1.3 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 0.1 3.4 0.5 0.1 1.3 0.7 3.2 3.3 0.4 3.1 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.8 20.9 30.6 36.6 22.8 25.6 30.6 20.7 20.6 30.6 20.0 16.3 LnGrp LOS E CCDCCCCCCCB
Approach Vol, veh/h 410 132 656 686
Approach Delay, s/veh 42.2 28.0 22.2 20.6
Approach LOS DCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.3 26.0 8.9 19.7 9.9 25.4 11.2 17.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.6 6.4 * 7.2 * 7.3 * 6.6 6.4 * 7.2 * 7.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 4 36.5 * 4 * 43 * 4 36.5 * 4 * 43 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 10.2 3.1 10.2 3.8 10.4 5.4 5.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.7 0.0 1.9 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 527
HCM 6th TWSC Existing PM Peak
13: Highland Avenue & Rose Avenue 05/15/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 11 6 26 7 102 5 594 33 149 663 9
Future Vol, veh/h 5 11 6 26 7 102 5 594 33 149 663 9
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Stop - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 25 - - - 250 - - 250 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333
Mvmt Flow 5 11 6 27 7 104 5 606 34 152 677 9
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1303 1636 343 1281 1623 320 686 0 0 640 0 0 Stage 1 986 986 - 633 633 -------
Stage 2 317 650 - 648 990 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.96 4.16 - - 4.16 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.56 5.56 - 6.56 5.56 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.56 5.56 - 6.56 5.56 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 - - 2.23 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 117 99 650 122 101 673 897 - - 933 - - Stage 1 264 322 - 432 469 -------
Stage 2 666 461 - 423 320 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 81 82 650 95 84 673 897 - - 933 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 81 82 - 95 84 -------
Stage 1 262 270 - 429 466 -------
Stage 2 551 458 - 336 268 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 46.2 32.4 0.1 1.7

HCM LOS E D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 897 - - 82 650 265 933 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - 0.199 0.009 0.52 0.163 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9 - - 59.5 10.6 32.4 9.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - F B D A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.7 0 2.8 0.6 - -
528
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing AM Peak 13: Highland Avenue & Rose Avenue 05/23/2023
Improved Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2 4 4 23 1 110 2 529 24 68 382 2 Future Volume (veh/h) 2 4 4 23 1 110 2 529 24 68 382 2
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2 4 4 24 1 117 2 563 26 72 406 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 999999999999
Cap, veh/h 4 79 79 37 1 175 4 1672 77 89 1927 9
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.02 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.05 0.56 0.56 Sat Flow, veh/h 1682 809 809 1682 13 1483 1682 3267 151 1682 3425 17 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2 0 8 24 0 118 2 289 300 72 199 209 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1682 0 1618 1682 0 1495 1682 1678 1739 1682 1678 1764 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.0 4.7 0.1 6.3 6.4 2.6 3.7 3.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.0 4.7 0.1 6.3 6.4 2.6 3.7 3.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.01
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 4 0 159 37 0 176 4 859 890 89 944 992 V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.00 0.05 0.65 0.00 0.67 0.54 0.34 0.34 0.81 0.21 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 108 0 895 108 0 861 108 859 890 126 944 992 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.2 0.0 25.5 30.3 0.0 26.4 31.2 9.0 9.0 29.3 6.8 6.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 88.3 0.0 0.1 18.0 0.0 4.3 88.3 1.1 1.0 21.8 0.5 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 1.8 0.1 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 1.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 119.5 0.0 25.7 48.3 0.0 30.8 119.5 10.1 10.0 51.1 7.3 7.3 LnGrp LOS F A C D A C F B B D A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 10 142 591 480
Approach Delay, s/veh 44.4 33.7 10.4 13.9
Approach LOS D C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.5 37.3 5.6 12.1 4.3 40.5 4.3 13.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.2 5.3 * 4.2 6.0 * 4.2 5.3 * 4.2 * 6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 4.7 32.0 * 4 34.6 * 4 32.7 * 4 * 36 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.6 8.4 2.9 2.3 2.1 5.7 2.1 6.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.7
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 529
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing PM Peak 13: Highland Avenue & Rose Avenue 05/23/2023
Improved Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 11 6 26 7 102 5 594 33 149 663 9 Future Volume (veh/h) 5 11 6 26 7 102 5 594 33 149 663 9 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 5 11 6 27 7 104 5 606 34 152 677 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 333333333333
Cap, veh/h 10 100 54 46 11 162 10 990 55 188 1399 19
Arrive On Green 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.03 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.29 0.29 0.11 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 1129 616 1767 100 1488 1767 3394 190 1767 3562 47 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 5 0 17 27 0 111 5 314 326 152 335 351 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 0 1745 1767 0 1588 1767 1763 1821 1767 1763 1847 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.0 2.7 0.1 6.2 6.2 3.4 5.8 5.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.0 2.7 0.1 6.2 6.2 3.4 5.8 5.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.35 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.03
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 10 0 154 46 0 173 10 514 531 188 692 725 V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.00 0.11 0.59 0.00 0.64 0.52 0.61 0.61 0.81 0.48 0.48 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 188 0 1494 188 0 1414 188 1400 1447 188 1400 1467 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.0 0.0 17.0 19.5 0.0 17.2 20.0 12.3 12.3 17.7 9.2 9.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 38.0 0.0 0.3 11.5 0.0 3.9 38.0 1.2 1.1 22.4 0.5 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.1 1.8 1.9 2.2 1.4 1.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.1 0.0 17.3 31.0 0.0 21.2 58.1 13.5 13.5 40.1 9.7 9.7 LnGrp LOS E A B C A C E B B D A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 22 138 645 838
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.5 23.1 13.8 15.2
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.5 17.1 5.2 9.6 4.4 21.2 4.4 10.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.2 5.3 * 4.2 6.0 * 4.2 5.3 * 4.2 * 6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 4.3 32.1 * 4.3 34.6 * 4.3 32.1 * 4.3 * 36 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.4 8.2 2.6 2.4 2.1 7.8 2.1 4.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.5
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 530
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing AM Peak
Improved 05/23/2023
Improved SimTraffic Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection: 1: Highland Avenue & Golden State Boulevard Movement NB NB SB SB SE SE SE SE NW NW NW
Directions Served L T LT R UL T T R UL T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 65 93 327 71 4 78 35 32 7 25 40
Average Queue (ft) 30 37 241 14 1 11 58045
95th Queue (ft) 62 75 233 57 3 41 21 24 2 16 21
Link Distance (ft) 1215 1312 2556 2556 1128 1128
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 140 50 200 70 75
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 58 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 8 0
Intersection: 2: DeWolf Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 29 29
Average Queue (ft) 9 11
95th Queue (ft) 29 32
Link Distance (ft) 2737 2634
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Floral Avenue
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31
Average Queue (ft) 11
95th Queue (ft) 35
Link Distance (ft) 1334
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
531
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing AM Peak
Improved 05/23/2023
Improved SimTraffic Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection: 4: Floral Avenue & Walmart Main Driveway
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB
Directions Served L T T U T TR L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 31 74 69 136 75 101 107 29
Average Queue (ft) 10 19 17 68 19 42 61 4
95th Queue (ft) 32 49 45 110 55 85 92 19
Link Distance (ft) 238 238 675 675 715
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 120 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0
Intersection: 6: SR 99 SB Off-Ramp & Floral Avenue
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T R L T T R L L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 140 107 26 92 137 138 39 93 126 27 67 Average Queue (ft) 50 47 13 34 61 50 8 29 50 7 20
95th Queue (ft) 101 87 33 68 114 101 23 64 96 26 50
Link Distance (ft) 675 675 513 513 217 1827
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 200 380 380 380
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
532
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing AM Peak
Improved 05/23/2023
Improved SimTraffic Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection: 7: Highland Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB
Directions Served L T T R L L T TR L L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 150 315 247 120 87 249 258 252 68 90 235 58 Average Queue (ft) 102 93 89 30 43 38 106 113 28 38 63 23 95th Queue (ft) 168 200 167 91 88 109 181 188 58 82 147 55 Link Distance (ft) 513 513 471 471 578
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 60 150 150 170 170 80
Storage Blk Time (%) 30 4 21 0 2 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 63 6 20 0 2 0
Intersection: 7: Highland Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement SB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T T R R
Maximum Queue (ft) 95 180 95 70 73
Average Queue (ft) 27 59 32 36 30
95th Queue (ft) 64 123 80 60 63
Link Distance (ft) 299 299
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 100 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 4 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 0
Intersection: 8: SR 99 NB Off-Ramp & Floral Avenue
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB
Directions Served TTTT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 96 134 96 75 143 78
Average Queue (ft) 24 39 42 40 68 36
95th Queue (ft) 71 94 86 82 112 79
Link Distance (ft) 471 471 556 556 1193
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 40
Storage Blk Time (%) 15 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 1
533
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing AM Peak
Improved 05/23/2023
Improved SimTraffic Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection: 9: Whitson Street & Floral Avenue
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SE SE SE NW NW NW
Directions Served UL T TR L T TR UL T T UL L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 7 84 133 76 71 65 65 52 88 57 65 64
Average Queue (ft) 1 19 32 25 25 25 18 15 25 7 21 16
95th Queue (ft) 6 56 80 56 59 63 55 36 57 29 50 42
Link Distance (ft) 556 556 2655 2655 935 935 2910
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 80 100 130 120 120
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Intersection: 9: Whitson Street & Floral Avenue
Movement NW
Directions Served T
Maximum Queue (ft) 48
Average Queue (ft) 17
95th Queue (ft) 42
Link Distance (ft) 2910
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 10: Highland Avenue & SR 99 SB Ramps
Movement NB NB SB SB SB SE SE
Directions Served T T L T T R R
Maximum Queue (ft) 161 193 190 119 74 113 117
Average Queue (ft) 69 74 86 43 41 75 34
95th Queue (ft) 143 154 153 94 79 110 86
Link Distance (ft) 762 762 578 578 1130
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 65 175
Storage Blk Time (%) 17 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 20 3
534
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing AM Peak
Improved 05/23/2023
Improved SimTraffic Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection: 12: Highland Avenue & Stillman Street
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T R L T R L L T TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 22 39 14 38 49 30 55 67 65 238 280 70 Average Queue (ft) 2 8 1 11 8 3 26 25 4 89 91 30
95th Queue (ft) 12 27 6 28 31 18 55 57 29 178 189 61
Link Distance (ft) 291 356 356 673 673
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 75 100 100 300 300 320
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 12: Highland Avenue & Stillman Street
Movement SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 51 120 171 63
Average Queue (ft) 4 61 55 14
95th Queue (ft) 22 116 127 39
Link Distance (ft) 762 762
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 320 320
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 13: Highland Avenue & Rose Avenue
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR L T TR L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 24 30 76 105 28 159 157 117 115 139
Average Queue (ft) 2 5 27 44 2 80 70 51 42 59
95th Queue (ft) 11 21 60 82 13 142 142 100 105 124
Link Distance (ft) 2563 2526 2513 2513 560 560
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 250 250
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 132
535
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing PM Peak
Improved 05/23/2023
Improved SimTraffic Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection: 1: Highland Avenue & Golden State Boulevard Movement NB NB SB SB SE SE SE SE NW NW NW
Directions Served L T LT R UL T T R UL T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 90 160 286 71 26 44 55 77 10 23 60
Average Queue (ft) 30 79 110 14 5 27 15 16 0 2 5
95th Queue (ft) 63 134 203 56 18 50 37 53 3 10 28
Link Distance (ft) 1215 1312 2556 2556 1128 1128
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 140 50 200 70 75
Storage Blk Time (%) 6 37 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 3 0 0 0
Intersection: 2: DeWolf Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 27 53 28
Average Queue (ft) 3 20 8
95th Queue (ft) 15 41 28
Link Distance (ft) 3190 2737 2634
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Floral Avenue
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31 53
Average Queue (ft) 1 30
95th Queue (ft) 10 45
Link Distance (ft) 3190 1334
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
536
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing PM Peak
Improved 05/23/2023
Improved SimTraffic Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection: 4: Floral Avenue & Walmart Main Driveway
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SB SB
Directions Served L T T U T TR L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 72 98 94 101 137 166 177 48
Average Queue (ft) 19 39 46 53 63 84 114 11
95th Queue (ft) 51 72 81 94 123 147 169 35
Link Distance (ft) 238 238 675 675 715
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 120 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 2 10
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 2 2
Intersection: 6: SR 99 SB Off-Ramp & Floral Avenue
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T R L T T R L L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 640 667 150 138 179 218 89 144 158 49 88 Average Queue (ft) 191 207 81 69 87 96 31 62 71 14 31
95th Queue (ft) 456 483 175 120 161 170 67 120 125 41 61 Link Distance (ft) 675 675 513 513 217 1827
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 200 380 380 380
Storage Blk Time (%) 27 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 32 0
537
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing PM Peak
Improved 05/23/2023
Improved SimTraffic Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection: 7: Highland Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB
Directions Served L T T R L L T TR L L T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 150 538 570 120 154 142 191 220 113 107 220 122 Average Queue (ft) 136 340 339 75 47 31 123 134 53 50 116 17 95th Queue (ft) 176 602 621 159 99 81 185 203 96 95 188 69 Link Distance (ft) 513 513 471 471 578 578
Upstream Blk Time (%) 17 4
Queuing Penalty (veh) 88 21
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 60 150 150 170 170
Storage Blk Time (%) 69 6 35 0104 11
Queuing Penalty (veh) 231 12 67 1404 11
Intersection: 7: Highland Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement NB SB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served R L T T R R
Maximum Queue (ft) 126 116 204 126 94 74
Average Queue (ft) 38 52 100 40 47 33
95th Queue (ft) 96 97 169 95 75 65
Link Distance (ft) 299 299
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 80 100 100 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 2 11 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 12720
Intersection: 8: SR 99 NB Off-Ramp & Floral Avenue
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB
Directions Served TTTT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 173 235 120 112 116 59
Average Queue (ft) 54 75 50 52 51 38
95th Queue (ft) 113 153 102 94 79 75
Link Distance (ft) 471 471 556 556 1193
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 40
Storage Blk Time (%) 10 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 1
538
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing PM Peak
Improved 05/23/2023
Improved SimTraffic Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection: 9: Whitson Street & Floral Avenue
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SE SE SE NW NW NW
Directions Served UL T TR L T TR UL T T UL L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 145 211 294 85 148 98 170 118 127 82 126 61 Average Queue (ft) 32 75 114 31 51 41 62 43 52 31 59 29 95th Queue (ft) 93 174 238 65 111 87 126 90 105 68 107 54 Link Distance (ft) 556 556 2655 2655 935 935 2910
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 80 100 130 120 120
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 8 2 1 1 0 8 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 4 3 1 2 0 2 0
Intersection: 9: Whitson Street & Floral Avenue
Movement NW
Directions Served T
Maximum Queue (ft) 87
Average Queue (ft) 36
95th Queue (ft) 69
Link Distance (ft) 2910
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%) 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1
Intersection: 10: Highland Avenue & SR 99 SB Ramps
Movement NB NB SB SB SB SE SE
Directions Served T T L T T R R
Maximum Queue (ft) 128 112 194 222 77 151 64
Average Queue (ft) 64 56 90 33 42 83 33
95th Queue (ft) 112 104 156 102 73 121 64
Link Distance (ft) 762 762 578 578 1130
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 65 175
Storage Blk Time (%) 20 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 27 1
539
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing PM Peak
Improved 05/23/2023
Improved SimTraffic Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection: 12: Highland Avenue & Stillman Street
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T R L T R L L T TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 98 119 122 70 70 30 96 145 136 210 257 99 Average Queue (ft) 38 55 7 36 25 4 45 57 27 90 98 43
95th Queue (ft) 85 103 43 61 59 20 75 97 82 170 189 79
Link Distance (ft) 291 356 356 673 673
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 75 100 100 300 300 320
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 6
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 13
Intersection: 12: Highland Avenue & Stillman Street
Movement SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 54 180 178 50
Average Queue (ft) 7 89 93 21
95th Queue (ft) 33 156 161 41
Link Distance (ft) 762 762
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 320 320
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 13: Highland Avenue & Rose Avenue
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR L T TR L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 24 31 74 75 31 204 178 180 243 262
Average Queue (ft) 3 7 12 37 3 79 67 81 68 76
95th Queue (ft) 16 26 45 67 16 149 134 148 190 201
Link Distance (ft) 2563 2526 2513 2513 560 560
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 250 250
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 550
540
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 App | F
(559) 570-8991
Appendix F: Existing plus Project Traffic Conditions
541
542
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project AM Peak 1: Highland Avenue & Golden State Boulevard 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SEL SET SER NWU NWL NWT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 135 130 13 41 230 14 5 124 143 2 13 149 Future Volume (vph) 135 130 13 41 230 14 5 124 143 2 13 149 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.9 4.9 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 1810 1538 1796 1538 1719 3438 1538 1719 3438 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 1810 1538 1796 1538 1719 3438 1538 1719 3438 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 148 143 14 45 253 15 5 136 157 2 14 164 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 11 0 0 11 0 0 138 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 148 143 3 0 298 4 5 136 19 0 16 164 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 2 2 6 6 7 4 3 3 8
Permitted Phases 2 6 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 12.5 12.5 12.5 14.3 14.3 0.5 6.2 6.2 0.5 6.2 Effective Green, g (s) 12.5 12.5 12.5 14.3 14.3 0.5 6.2 6.2 0.5 6.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.28 0.28 0.01 0.12 0.12 0.01 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.9 4.9 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 418 440 374 499 427 16 414 185 16 414 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.08 c0.17 0.00 0.04 c0.01 c0.05
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.35 0.33 0.01 0.60 0.01 0.31 0.33 0.10 1.00 0.40 Uniform Delay, d1 16.1 16.0 14.8 16.1 13.4 25.3 20.7 20.1 25.4 20.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.4 0.0 1.9 0.0 10.9 0.5 0.2 225.0 0.6 Delay (s) 16.6 16.4 14.8 18.0 13.4 36.1 21.2 20.4 250.4 21.5 Level of Service B B B B B D C C F C
Approach Delay (s) 16.4 17.8 21.0 38.4
Approach LOS B B C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 51.4 Sum of lost time (s) 17.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
543
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project AM Peak 1: Highland Avenue & Golden State Boulevard 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement NWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 31
Future Volume (vph) 31
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.2
Lane Util. Factor 1.00
Frt 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1538
Flt Permitted 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1538
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91
Adj. Flow (vph) 34
RTOR Reduction (vph) 30
Lane Group Flow (vph) 4
Heavy Vehicles (%) 5%
Turn Type Perm
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 6.2
Effective Green, g (s) 6.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12
Clearance Time (s) 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 185
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 19.9
Progression Factor 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0
Delay (s) 20.0
Level of Service B
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
544
HCM 6th TWSC Existing plus Project AM Peak
2: DeWolf Avenue & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 107 2 15 91 6 0 4 20 11 5 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 107 2 15 91 6 0 4 20 11 5 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333
Mvmt Flow 0 122 2 17 103 7 0 5 23 13 6 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 110 0 0 124 0 0 267 267 123 278 265 107 Stage 1 - - - - - - 123 123 - 141 141 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 144 144 - 137 124 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1474 - - 1457 - - 684 637 925 672 639 944 Stage 1 - - - - - - 879 792 - 860 778 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 856 776 - 864 791 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1474 - - 1457 - - 673 629 925 646 631 944 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 673 629 - 646 631 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 879 792 - 860 769 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 839 767 - 838 791 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 1 9.3 10.8

HCM LOS A B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 858 1474 - - 1457 - - 641
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.032 - - - 0.012 - - 0.028
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.3 0 - - 7.5 0 - 10.8
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.1
545
HCM 6th TWSC Existing plus Project AM Peak
3: Future N-S Road & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 131 7 0 99 38 20 0 0 13 0 2
Future Vol, veh/h 3 131 7 0 99 38 20 0 0 13 0 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 250 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333
Mvmt Flow 4 160 9 0 121 46 24 0 0 16 0 2
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 167 0 0 169 0 0 318 340 165 317 321 144 Stage 1 - - - - - - 173 173 - 144 144 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 145 167 - 173 177 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1405 - - 1402 - - 633 580 877 634 594 901 Stage 1 - - - - - - 827 754 - 856 776 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 855 758 - 827 751 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1405 - - 1402 - - 630 578 877 633 592 901 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 630 578 - 633 592 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 825 752 - 853 776 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 853 758 - 825 749 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 10.9 10.6

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 630 - 1405 - - 1402 - - 659
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.039 - 0.003 ----- 0.028
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.9 0 7.6 0 - 0 - - 10.6
HCM Lane LOS BAAA -A - -B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0 - - 0 - - 0.1
546
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project AM Peak 4: Floral Avenue & Walmart Main Driveway 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 22 97 25 143 242 105 222 26 44 114 170 19 Future Volume (vph) 22 97 25 143 242 105 222 26 44 114 170 19 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3505 1568 1752 3101 1752 1645 1752 1780 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3505 1568 1752 3101 1752 1645 1752 1780 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Adj. Flow (vph) 27 118 30 174 295 128 271 32 54 139 207 23 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 26 0 0 154 0 0 98 0 0 5
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 118 4 0 469 245 0 32 95 0 207 25 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 2.1 9.9 9.9 27.0 34.8 2.2 14.5 12.4 24.7 Effective Green, g (s) 2.1 9.9 9.9 27.0 34.8 2.2 14.5 12.4 24.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.33 0.43 0.03 0.18 0.15 0.31 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 45 430 192 586 1338 47 295 269 545
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.03 c0.27 0.08 0.02 c0.06 c0.12 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.60 0.27 0.02 0.80 0.18 0.68 0.32 0.77 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 38.8 32.1 31.1 24.4 14.1 38.9 28.8 32.7 19.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 19.7 0.3 0.0 7.7 0.1 33.6 0.6 12.4 0.0 Delay (s) 58.5 32.4 31.1 32.1 14.2 72.5 29.4 45.2 19.7
Level of Service E C C C B E C D B
Approach Delay (s) 36.2 23.8 35.5 42.0
Approach LOS D C D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 29.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.6 Sum of lost time (s) 16.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
547
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project AM Peak 4: Floral Avenue & Walmart Main Driveway 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 6
Future Volume (vph) 6
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.82
Adj. Flow (vph) 7
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
548
HCM 6th TWSC Existing plus Project AM Peak
5: Eastern Driveway & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 518 3 0 702 0 72
Future Vol, veh/h 518 3 0 702 0 72
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - -0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333
Mvmt Flow 632 4 0 856 0 88
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - - 318
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Critical Hdwy - ---- 6.96
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -----
Follow-up Hdwy - ---- 3.33
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 0 - 0 675
Stage 1 - - 0 - 0 -
Stage 2 - - 0 - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - - 675
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -----
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 11.1

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 675 - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.13 - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.1 - - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - -
549
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project AM Peak 6: SR 99 SB Off-Ramp & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 541 49 53 596 0 0 0 50 164 23 106 Future Volume (vph) 0 541 49 53 596 0 0 0 50 164 23 106 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.8 6.8 5.7 6.8 5.7 6.1 5.7 5.7
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3471 1553 1736 3471 1580 3367 1827 1553 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3471 1553 1736 3471 1580 3367 1827 1553 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 582 53 57 641 0 0 0 54 176 25 114
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 0 92
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 582 33 57 641 0 0 0 7 176 25 22 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA pt+ov Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 1 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 84.0 84.0 7.9 97.6 18.6 14.8 25.9 25.9 Effective Green, g (s) 84.0 84.0 7.9 97.6 18.6 14.8 25.9 25.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.62 0.62 0.06 0.72 0.14 0.11 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time (s) 6.8 6.8 5.7 6.8 6.1 5.7 5.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.9 4.9 2.0 4.4 5.5 5.5 5.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2143 959 100 2490 216 366 347 295
v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 c0.03 0.18 0.00 c0.05 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.01
v/c Ratio 0.27 0.03 0.57 0.26 0.03 0.48 0.07 0.07
Uniform Delay, d1 11.9 10.2 62.4 6.6 50.9 57.0 45.2 45.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.22 0.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.1 4.1 0.2 0.0 2.4 0.2 0.3
Delay (s) 12.3 10.2 80.2 2.8 50.9 59.4 45.4 45.5
Level of Service B B F A D E D D
Approach Delay (s) 12.1 9.1 50.9 53.3
Approach LOS B A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.31
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) 24.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
550
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing plus Project AM Peak 7: Highland Avenue & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 198 590 102 142 691 79 47 118 76 30 197 206 Future Volume (veh/h) 198 590 102 142 691 79 47 118 76 30 197 206 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 202 602 104 145 705 81 48 120 78 31 201 210 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 333333333333
Cap, veh/h 222 2129 950 192 1702 195 84 431 191 39 423 332 Arrive On Green 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.02 0.12 0.12 0.02 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3526 1572 3428 3186 366 3428 3526 1565 1767 3526 2768 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 202 602 104 145 390 396 48 120 78 31 201 210 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 1572 1714 1763 1789 1714 1763 1565 1767 1763 1384 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.1 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 1.9 4.2 6.3 2.4 7.2 9.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.1 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 1.9 4.2 6.3 2.4 7.2 9.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 222 2129 950 192 942 956 84 431 191 39 423 332 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.28 0.11 0.76 0.41 0.41 0.57 0.28 0.41 0.79 0.48 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 226 2129 950 265 942 956 101 915 406 87 985 773 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.2 0.0 0.0 59.5 0.0 0.0 65.6 54.2 55.1 66.2 55.9 57.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 34.2 0.3 0.2 4.3 1.2 1.2 2.1 0.6 2.3 12.2 1.4 3.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.0 0.1 0.1 2.4 0.3 0.3 0.8 1.9 2.6 1.2 3.3 3.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 84.4 0.3 0.2 63.8 1.2 1.2 67.7 54.8 57.4 78.4 57.3 60.4 LnGrp LOS F AAEAAEDEEEE
Approach Vol, veh/h 908 931 246 442
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.0 11.0 58.1 60.2
Approach LOS BBEE
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.6 22.7 14.2 89.4 9.9 22.4 23.7 80.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.6 6.1 * 6.6 * 7.3 * 6.6 6.1 * 6.6 * 7.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 6.7 35.3 * 11 * 57 * 4 38.0 * 17 * 50 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.4 8.3 7.6 2.0 3.9 11.8 17.1 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.5 0.1 8.4 0.0 3.6 0.0 9.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 551
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project AM Peak 8: SR 99 NB Off-Ramp & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 537 0 0 679 195 37
Future Volume (vph) 537 0 0 679 195 37
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 3505 1752 1568
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 3505 1752 1568
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Adj. Flow (vph) 610 0 0 772 222 42
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 30
Lane Group Flow (vph) 610 0 0 772 222 12
Turn Type NA NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 2 2 8
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 40.1 40.1 15.7 15.7
Effective Green, g (s) 40.1 40.1 15.7 15.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.59 0.23 0.23
Clearance Time (s) 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.8 3.8 5.1 5.1
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2066 2066 404 362
v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 c0.22 c0.13
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.37 0.55 0.03
Uniform Delay, d1 6.9 7.3 23.0 20.3
Progression Factor 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.5 2.8 0.1
Delay (s) 6.1 7.9 25.8 20.3
Level of Service A A C C
Approach Delay (s) 6.1 7.9 24.9
Approach LOS A A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
552
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project AM Peak 9: Whitson Street & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEU SEL SET SER NWU Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 4 10 331 136 78 488 9 4 67 129 10 4 Future Volume (vph) 4 10 331 136 78 488 9 4 67 129 10 4 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.6 4.2 4.2 4.2
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3352 1752 3494 1752 3505 1546
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3352 1752 3494 1752 3505 1546
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 4 11 360 148 85 530 10 4 73 140 11 4
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 49 001000090
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 15 459 0 85 539 0 0 77 140 2 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 4
Turn Type Prot Prot NA Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Prot
Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 8 1 1 6 5
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.4 19.9 6.6 25.7 7.5 8.7 8.7
Effective Green, g (s) 0.4 19.9 6.6 25.7 7.5 8.7 8.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.34 0.11 0.43 0.13 0.15 0.15
Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.6 4.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 11 1122 194 1511 221 513 226
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.14 c0.05 0.15 c0.04 0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 1.36 0.41 0.44 0.36 0.35 0.27 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 29.5 15.2 24.7 11.3 23.7 22.5 21.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 409.1 0.2 1.6 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.0
Delay (s) 438.6 15.5 26.2 11.4 24.7 22.8 21.7
Level of Service F B C B C C C
Approach Delay (s) 27.6 13.5 23.4
Approach LOS C B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 59.4 Sum of lost time (s) 17.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
553
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project AM Peak 9: Whitson Street & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement NWL NWT NWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 167 104 17
Future Volume (vph) 167 104 17
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 3505 1568
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3400 3505 1568
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 182 113 18
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 15
Lane Group Flow (vph) 186 113 3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.4 8.6 8.6
Effective Green, g (s) 7.4 8.6 8.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.14 0.14
Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 423 507 227
v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.03
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.44 0.22 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 24.1 22.4 21.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.2 0.0
Delay (s) 24.8 22.7 21.8
Level of Service C C C
Approach Delay (s) 23.9
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
554
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project AM Peak 10: Highland Avenue & SR 99 SB Ramps 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SEL SER
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 641 34 194 242 0 0 350
Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 641 34 194 242 0 0 350
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.8 6.8 5.7 6.8 9.7
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.88
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3282 1468 1641 3282 2584
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3282 1468 1641 3282 2584
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 675 36 204 255 0 0 368
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 247
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 675 23 204 255 0 0 121
Heavy Vehicles (%) 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 1 6 5
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 42.7 42.7 12.8 29.2 22.3
Effective Green, g (s) 42.7 42.7 12.8 29.2 22.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.63 0.19 0.43 0.33
Clearance Time (s) 6.8 6.8 5.7 6.8 9.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 6.8 6.8 2.0 4.9 5.8
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2060 921 308 1409 847
v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 c0.12 0.08 0.05
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.02 0.66 0.18 0.14
Uniform Delay, d1 5.9 4.8 25.6 12.0 16.1
Progression Factor 0.81 0.75 0.93 0.72 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.0 4.0 0.3 0.2
Delay (s) 5.2 3.6 27.8 8.9 16.3
Level of Service A A C A B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 5.1 17.3 16.3
Approach LOS A A B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 11.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
555
HCM 6th TWSC Existing plus Project AM Peak
11: Stillman Street & Southern Driveway 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 37 25 53 84 5
Future Vol, veh/h 1 37 25 53 84 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333
Mvmt Flow 1 42 28 60 95 6
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 88 0 - 0 102 58
Stage 1 - - - - 58 -
Stage 2 - - - - 44 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1501 - - - 894 1005
Stage 1 - - - - 962 -
Stage 2 - - - - 976 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1501 - - - 893 1005
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 893 -
Stage 1 - - - - 961 -
Stage 2 - - - - 976 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 9.5

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1501 - - - 899
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - - 0.112
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 - - 9.5
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.4
556
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing plus Project AM Peak 12: Highland Avenue & Stillman Street 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 78 19 81 9 11 41 75 566 33 54 446 93 Future Volume (veh/h) 78 19 81 9 11 41 75 566 33 54 446 93 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1781 1781 1781 1781 1781 1781 1781 1781 1781 1781 1781 1781 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 80 19 83 9 11 42 77 578 34 55 455 95 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 888888888888
Cap, veh/h 122 133 113 14 82 70 118 2233 131 90 2297 1803 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.69 0.69 0.05 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3291 1781 1510 1697 1781 1510 3291 3249 191 3291 3385 2657 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 80 19 83 9 11 42 77 301 311 55 455 95 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1646 1781 1510 1697 1781 1510 1646 1692 1747 1646 1692 1329 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 1.4 7.3 0.7 0.8 3.7 3.1 9.2 9.2 2.2 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 1.4 7.3 0.7 0.8 3.7 3.1 9.2 9.2 2.2 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 122 133 113 14 82 70 118 1163 1201 90 2297 1803 V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.14 0.74 0.63 0.13 0.60 0.65 0.26 0.26 0.61 0.20 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 237 616 522 72 563 477 227 1163 1201 179 2297 1803 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 0.99 0.99 0.99 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 64.6 58.8 61.6 67.2 62.3 63.6 64.7 8.1 8.1 63.6 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 1.1 18.6 15.4 1.1 12.2 2.2 0.5 0.5 2.5 0.2 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 0.7 3.4 0.4 0.4 1.7 1.3 3.2 3.3 0.9 0.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 66.8 59.9 80.2 82.6 63.4 75.8 67.0 8.6 8.6 66.1 0.2 0.1 LnGrp LOS E E F F EEEAAEAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 182 62 689 605
Approach Delay, s/veh 72.2 74.6 15.1 6.2
Approach LOS EEBA
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.3 99.9 8.4 17.5 11.5 98.7 12.2 13.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.6 6.4 * 7.2 * 7.3 * 6.6 6.4 * 7.2 * 7.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 7.4 48.3 * 5.8 * 47 * 9.4 46.3 * 9.8 * 43 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.2 11.2 2.7 9.3 5.1 2.0 5.3 5.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.8 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.8
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 557
HCM 6th TWSC Existing plus Project AM Peak
13: Highland Avenue & Rose Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 4 4 23 1 115 2 538 24 81 394 2
Future Vol, veh/h 2 4 4 23 1 115 2 538 24 81 394 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 00001100001
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Stop - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 25 - - - 250 - - 250 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 9 99999999999
Mvmt Flow 2 4 4 24 1 122 2 572 26 86 419 2
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 885 1195 212 973 1183 300 422 0 0 598 0 0 Stage 1 593 593 - 589 589 -------
Stage 2 292 602 - 384 594 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.68 6.68 7.08 7.68 6.68 7.08 4.28 - - 4.28 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.68 5.68 - 6.68 5.68 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.68 5.68 - 6.68 5.68 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.59 4.09 3.39 3.59 4.09 3.39 2.29 - - 2.29 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 229 175 772 197 178 676 1085 - - 928 - - Stage 1 442 475 - 445 477 -------
Stage 2 672 470 - 592 474 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 173 158 771 178 161 676 1084 - - 928 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 173 158 - 178 161 -------
Stage 1 441 430 - 444 476 -------
Stage 2 548 469 - 529 429 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 20.7 16.7 0 1.6

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1084 - - 163 771 455 928 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - 0.039 0.006 0.325 0.093 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.3 - - 28 9.7 16.7 9.3 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - D A C A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0 1.4 0.3 - -
558
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project PM Peak 1: Highland Avenue & Golden State Boulevard 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SEU SEL SET SER NWU NWL Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 132 311 18 49 240 8 1 24 239 218 3 9 Future Volume (vph) 132 311 18 49 240 8 1 24 239 218 3 9 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.9 4.9 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1845 1548 1829 1568 1752 3505 1568 1752 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 1845 1548 1829 1568 1752 3505 1568 1752 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 142 334 19 53 258 9 1 26 257 234 3 10
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 13 0 0 7 0 0 0 198 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 142 334 6 0 311 2 0 27 257 36 0 13 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 2 2 6 6 7 7 4 3 3
Permitted Phases 2 6 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 17.0 17.0 17.0 12.8 12.8 1.3 8.9 8.9 0.5 Effective Green, g (s) 17.0 17.0 17.0 12.8 12.8 1.3 8.9 8.9 0.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.22 0.22 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.01 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.9 4.9 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 521 549 460 410 351 39 546 244 15
v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.18 c0.17 c0.02 c0.07 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.27 0.61 0.01 0.76 0.01 0.69 0.47 0.15 0.87
Uniform Delay, d1 15.3 17.2 14.1 20.7 17.2 27.7 22.0 20.8 28.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 1.9 0.0 7.8 0.0 41.8 0.6 0.3 162.9 Delay (s) 15.6 19.1 14.1 28.6 17.2 69.5 22.6 21.1 191.2 Level of Service B B B C B E C C F
Approach Delay (s) 17.9 28.2 24.4
Approach LOS B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 57.1 Sum of lost time (s) 17.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
559
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project PM Peak 1: Highland Avenue & Golden State Boulevard 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement NWT NWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 137 66
Future Volume (vph) 137 66
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 1568
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 1568
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph) 147 71
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 61
Lane Group Flow (vph) 147 10
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Turn Type NA Perm
Protected Phases 8
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.1 8.1
Effective Green, g (s) 8.1 8.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14
Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 497 222
v/s Ratio Prot 0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.30 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 21.9 21.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.1
Delay (s) 22.3 21.2
Level of Service C C
Approach Delay (s) 31.5
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
560
HCM 6th TWSC Existing plus Project PM Peak
2: DeWolf Avenue & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 147 9 22 187 16 7 5 29 8 4 2
Future Vol, veh/h 0 147 9 22 187 16 7 5 29 8 4 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333
Mvmt Flow 0 163 10 24 208 18 8 6 32 9 4 2
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 226 0 0 173 0 0 436 442 168 452 438 217 Stage 1 - - - - - - 168 168 - 265 265 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 268 274 - 187 173 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1337 - - 1398 - - 529 508 874 516 511 820 Stage 1 - - - - - - 832 758 - 738 688 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 735 681 - 812 754 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1337 - - 1398 - - 516 498 874 485 501 820 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 516 498 - 485 501 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 832 758 - 738 674 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 714 667 - 776 754 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.7 10.3 12.1

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 722 1337 - - 1398 - - 520
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.063 - - - 0.017 - - 0.03
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.3 0 - - 7.6 0 - 12.1
HCM Lane LOS B A - - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - - 0.1 - - 0.1
561
HCM 6th TWSC Existing plus Project PM Peak
3: Future N-S Road & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 185 29 0 169 26 14 0 0 42 0 2
Future Vol, veh/h 3 185 29 0 169 26 14 0 0 42 0 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 250 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333
Mvmt Flow 3 210 33 0 192 30 16 0 0 48 0 2
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 222 0 0 243 0 0 441 455 227 440 456 207 Stage 1 - - - - - - 233 233 - 207 207 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 208 222 - 233 249 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1341 - - 1317 - - 525 500 810 526 499 831 Stage 1 - - - - - - 768 710 - 793 729 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 792 718 - 768 699 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1341 - - 1317 - - 522 499 810 525 498 831 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 522 499 - 525 498 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 766 708 - 791 729 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 790 718 - 766 697 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 12.1 12.4

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 522 - 1341 - - 1317 - - 534
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 - 0.003 ----- 0.094
HCM Control Delay (s) 12.1 0 7.7 0 - 0 - - 12.4
HCM Lane LOS BAAA -A - -B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0 - - 0 - - 0.3
562
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project PM Peak 4: Floral Avenue & Walmart Main Driveway 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 32 172 23 117 157 159 377 14 36 67 379 60 Future Volume (vph) 32 172 23 117 157 159 377 14 36 67 379 60 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3505 1568 1752 3087 1752 1664 1752 1771 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3505 1568 1752 3087 1752 1664 1752 1771 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 34 181 24 123 165 167 397 15 38 71 399 63 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 20 0 0 261 0 0 61 0 0 13
Lane Group Flow (vph) 34 181 4 0 288 303 0 15 48 0 399 73 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 2.2 13.6 13.6 16.5 27.9 0.6 11.7 22.8 33.9 Effective Green, g (s) 2.2 13.6 13.6 16.5 27.9 0.6 11.7 22.8 33.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.17 0.17 0.20 0.34 0.01 0.14 0.28 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 47 585 261 355 1058 12 239 490 737
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.05 c0.16 c0.10 0.01 c0.03 c0.23 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.72 0.31 0.02 0.81 0.29 1.25 0.20 0.81 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 39.3 29.8 28.3 31.0 19.5 40.4 30.7 27.3 14.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 42.4 0.3 0.0 13.1 0.2 352.1 0.4 10.0 0.1 Delay (s) 81.7 30.1 28.3 44.1 19.6 392.5 31.1 37.3 14.5 Level of Service F C C D B F C D B
Approach Delay (s) 37.3 27.9 74.9 33.3
Approach LOS D C E C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 81.4 Sum of lost time (s) 16.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
563
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project PM Peak 4: Floral Avenue & Walmart Main Driveway 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 22
Future Volume (vph) 22
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 23
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
564
HCM 6th TWSC Existing plus Project PM Peak
5: Eastern Driveway & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 852 2 0 860 0 45
Future Vol, veh/h 852 2 0 860 0 45
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - -0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333
Mvmt Flow 968 2 0 977 0 51
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - - 485
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Critical Hdwy - ---- 6.96
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -----
Follow-up Hdwy - ---- 3.33
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 0 - 0 525
Stage 1 - - 0 - 0 -
Stage 2 - - 0 - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - - 525
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -----
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 12.6

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 525 - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.097 - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 12.6 - - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - -
565
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project PM Peak 6: SR 99 SB Off-Ramp & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 780 117 109 701 0 0 0 134 233 41 159 Future Volume (vph) 0 780 117 109 701 0 0 0 134 233 41 159 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.8 6.8 5.7 6.8 5.7 6.1 5.7 5.7
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 1568 1752 3505 1596 3400 1845 1547 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 1568 1752 3505 1596 3400 1845 1547 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 857 129 120 770 0 0 0 147 256 45 175
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 78 0 0 136
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 857 78 120 770 0 0 0 69 256 45 39 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA pt+ov Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 1 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 76.5 76.5 14.0 96.2 26.8 18.1 31.3 31.3 Effective Green, g (s) 76.5 76.5 14.0 96.2 26.8 18.1 31.3 31.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 0.55 0.10 0.69 0.19 0.13 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time (s) 6.8 6.8 5.7 6.8 6.1 5.7 5.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.9 4.9 2.0 4.4 5.5 5.5 5.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1915 856 175 2408 305 439 412 345
v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 c0.07 0.22 c0.04 c0.08 0.02
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.45 0.09 0.69 0.32 0.23 0.58 0.11 0.11
Uniform Delay, d1 19.1 15.2 60.9 8.8 47.8 57.4 43.3 43.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.25 0.63 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.2 7.6 0.3 0.1 3.4 0.3 0.4
Delay (s) 19.8 15.4 83.6 5.8 48.0 60.8 43.5 43.7
Level of Service B B F A D E D D
Approach Delay (s) 19.2 16.3 48.0 52.9
Approach LOS B B D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 24.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
566
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing plus Project PM Peak 7: Highland Avenue & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 240 778 148 125 655 107 77 227 107 64 253 257 Future Volume (veh/h) 240 778 148 125 655 107 77 227 107 64 253 257 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 255 828 157 133 697 114 82 241 114 68 269 273 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 333333333333
Cap, veh/h 258 2066 921 179 1493 244 103 434 194 86 500 393 Arrive On Green 0.29 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.98 0.98 0.06 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3526 1572 3428 3033 496 3428 3526 1572 1767 3526 2768 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 255 828 157 133 405 406 82 241 114 68 269 273 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 1572 1714 1763 1766 1714 1763 1572 1767 1763 1384 Q Serve(g_s), s 20.1 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.9 0.9 3.3 8.4 8.9 5.3 9.9 13.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 20.1 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.9 0.9 3.3 8.4 8.9 5.3 9.9 13.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.28 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 258 2066 921 179 868 869 103 434 194 86 500 393 V/C Ratio(X) 0.99 0.40 0.17 0.75 0.47 0.47 0.80 0.56 0.59 0.79 0.54 0.69 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 258 2066 921 250 868 869 103 761 339 151 957 751 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.5 0.0 0.0 61.8 0.6 0.6 65.4 49.4 49.6 65.9 55.8 57.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 49.7 0.5 0.4 3.8 1.7 1.7 30.4 1.8 4.5 5.9 1.5 3.8 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 11.4 0.1 0.1 2.3 0.6 0.6 1.8 3.5 3.5 2.5 4.5 4.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 99.2 0.5 0.4 65.6 2.2 2.2 95.8 51.2 54.2 71.8 57.3 60.9 LnGrp LOS F AAEAAFDDEEE
Approach Vol, veh/h 1240 944 437 610
Approach Delay, s/veh 20.8 11.2 60.3 60.6
Approach LOS C B E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.4 23.3 13.9 89.3 10.8 26.0 27.0 76.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.6 6.1 * 6.6 * 7.3 * 6.6 6.1 * 6.6 * 7.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 12 30.2 * 10 * 61 * 4.2 38.0 * 20 * 51 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.3 10.9 7.3 2.0 5.3 15.1 22.1 2.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.7 0.1 13.3 0.0 4.7 0.0 9.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.8
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 567
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project PM Peak 8: SR 99 NB Off-Ramp & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 770 0 0 668 184 41
Future Volume (vph) 770 0 0 668 184 41
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 3505 1752 1568
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 3505 1752 1568
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 802 0 0 696 192 43
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 34
Lane Group Flow (vph) 802 0 0 696 192 9
Turn Type NA NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 2 2 8
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 43.0 43.0 14.8 14.8
Effective Green, g (s) 43.0 43.0 14.8 14.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.61 0.61 0.21 0.21
Clearance Time (s) 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.8 3.8 5.1 5.1
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2153 2153 370 331
v/s Ratio Prot c0.23 0.20 c0.11
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.37 0.32 0.52 0.03
Uniform Delay, d1 6.8 6.5 24.4 21.9
Progression Factor 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.4 2.5 0.1
Delay (s) 6.1 6.9 27.0 22.0
Level of Service A A C C
Approach Delay (s) 6.1 6.9 26.1
Approach LOS A A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
568
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project PM Peak 9: Whitson Street & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEU SEL SET SER NWU Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 16 35 563 213 55 417 11 19 92 213 23 2 Future Volume (vph) 16 35 563 213 55 417 11 19 92 213 23 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.6 4.2 4.2 4.2
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3360 1752 3490 1752 3505 1568
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3360 1752 3490 1752 3505 1568
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 17 37 599 227 59 444 12 20 98 227 24 2
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 42 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 19 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 54 784 0 59 454 0 0 118 227 5 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8
Turn Type Prot Prot NA Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Prot
Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 8 1 1 6 5
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.1 22.7 3.4 22.6 13.6 13.7 13.7
Effective Green, g (s) 3.1 22.7 3.4 22.6 13.6 13.7 13.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.34 0.05 0.34 0.21 0.21 0.21
Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.6 4.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 82 1157 90 1196 361 728 325
v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.23 c0.03 0.13 c0.07 0.06
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.66 0.68 0.66 0.38 0.33 0.31 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 30.9 18.5 30.7 16.4 22.3 22.1 20.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 17.5 1.6 15.9 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.0
Delay (s) 48.4 20.1 46.6 16.6 22.8 22.4 20.8
Level of Service D C D B C C C
Approach Delay (s) 21.8 20.0 22.4
Approach LOS C B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.9 Sum of lost time (s) 17.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
569
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project PM Peak 9: Whitson Street & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement NWL NWT NWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 243 134 35
Future Volume (vph) 243 134 35
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 3505 1548
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3400 3505 1548
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 259 143 37
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 32
Lane Group Flow (vph) 261 143 5
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.3 9.4 9.4
Effective Green, g (s) 9.3 9.4 9.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.14
Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 479 499 220
v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.29 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 26.3 25.3 24.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.3 0.0
Delay (s) 27.6 25.6 24.3
Level of Service C C C
Approach Delay (s) 26.7
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
570
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing plus Project PM Peak 10: Highland Avenue & SR 99 SB Ramps 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SEL SER
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 702 56 279 250 0 0 382
Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 702 56 279 250 0 0 382
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.8 6.8 5.7 6.8 9.7
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.88
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3471 1520 1736 3471 2733
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3471 1520 1736 3471 2733
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 739 59 294 263 0 0 402
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 246
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 739 35 294 263 0 0 156
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 1 6 5
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 41.2 41.2 16.3 26.4 27.1
Effective Green, g (s) 41.2 41.2 16.3 26.4 27.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.59 0.23 0.38 0.39
Clearance Time (s) 6.8 6.8 5.7 6.8 9.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 6.8 6.8 2.0 4.9 5.8
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2042 894 404 1309 1058
v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 c0.17 0.08 0.06
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.36 0.04 0.73 0.20 0.15
Uniform Delay, d1 7.5 6.1 24.8 14.7 13.9
Progression Factor 1.20 2.78 0.92 0.82 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.1 5.3 0.3 0.2
Delay (s) 9.5 16.9 28.1 12.4 14.1
Level of Service A B C B B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 10.0 20.7 14.1
Approach LOS A B C B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
571
HCM 6th TWSC Existing plus Project PM Peak
11: Stillman Street & Southern Driveway 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 39 42 83 78 2
Future Vol, veh/h 5 39 42 83 78 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333
Mvmt Flow 5 42 46 90 85 2
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 136 0 - 0 143 91
Stage 1 - - - - 91 -
Stage 2 - - - - 52 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1442 - - - 847 964
Stage 1 - - - - 930 -
Stage 2 - - - - 968 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1442 - - - 844 964
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 844 -
Stage 1 - - - - 926 -
Stage 2 - - - - 968 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.9 0 9.7

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1442 - - - 847
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - - 0.103
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 - - 9.7
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.3
572
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing plus Project PM Peak 12: Highland Avenue & Stillman Street 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 210 20 270 29 17 87 146 477 30 55 483 119 Future Volume (veh/h) 210 20 270 29 17 87 146 477 30 55 483 119 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 221 21 284 31 18 92 154 502 32 58 508 125 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 333333333333
Cap, veh/h 271 388 329 39 283 239 202 1833 117 95 1809 1420 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.21 0.21 0.02 0.15 0.15 0.06 0.54 0.54 0.06 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 1856 1572 1767 1856 1569 3428 3366 214 3428 3526 2768 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 221 21 284 31 18 92 154 262 272 58 508 125 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 1856 1572 1767 1856 1569 1714 1763 1817 1714 1763 1384 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.9 1.3 24.4 2.4 1.2 7.4 6.2 11.2 11.2 2.3 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.9 1.3 24.4 2.4 1.2 7.4 6.2 11.2 11.2 2.3 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 271 388 329 39 283 239 202 960 989 95 1809 1420 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.05 0.86 0.79 0.06 0.38 0.76 0.27 0.27 0.61 0.28 0.09 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 387 689 584 86 570 482 304 960 989 157 1809 1420 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 0.98 0.98 0.98 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.5 44.3 53.4 68.1 50.8 53.4 64.9 17.1 17.1 65.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.8 0.1 13.7 12.1 0.1 1.5 2.6 0.7 0.7 2.3 0.4 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.1 0.6 10.9 1.2 0.6 3.0 2.7 4.6 4.7 1.0 0.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 69.3 44.4 67.2 80.2 50.9 55.0 67.5 17.8 17.8 67.7 0.4 0.1 LnGrp LOS E D E F D D EBBEAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 526 141 688 691
Approach Delay, s/veh 67.1 60.0 28.9 6.0
Approach LOS E E C A
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.5 82.6 10.3 36.6 14.9 78.2 18.3 28.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.6 6.4 * 7.2 * 7.3 * 6.6 6.4 * 7.2 * 7.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 6.4 47.3 * 6.8 * 52 * 12 41.3 * 16 * 43 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.3 13.2 4.4 26.4 8.2 2.0 10.9 9.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.1 0.0 2.6 0.1 9.8 0.2 0.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 33.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 573
HCM 6th TWSC Existing plus Project PM Peak
13: Highland Avenue & Rose Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 11 6 26 7 108 5 608 33 156 670 9
Future Vol, veh/h 5 11 6 26 7 108 5 608 33 156 670 9
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Stop - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 25 - - - 250 - - 250 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333
Mvmt Flow 5 11 6 27 7 110 5 620 34 159 684 9
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1331 1671 347 1313 1658 327 693 0 0 654 0 0 Stage 1 1007 1007 - 647 647 -------
Stage 2 324 664 - 666 1011 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.96 4.16 - - 4.16 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.56 5.56 - 6.56 5.56 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.56 5.56 - 6.56 5.56 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 - - 2.23 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 112 94 646 115 96 666 891 - - 922 - - Stage 1 256 314 - 424 462 -------
Stage 2 660 454 - 413 313 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 75 77 646 88 79 666 891 - - 922 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 75 77 - 88 79 -------
Stage 1 254 260 - 421 459 -------
Stage 2 539 451 - 324 259 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 50.1 35.2 0.1 1.8

HCM LOS F E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 891 - - 76 646 258 922 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - 0.215 0.009 0.558 0.173 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.1 - - 64.9 10.6 35.2 9.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - F B E A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.7 0 3.1 0.6 - -
574
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing plus Project AM Peak 13: Highland Avenue & Rose Avenue 09/08/2023
Improved Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2 4 4 23 1 115 2 538 24 81 394 2 Future Volume (veh/h) 2 4 4 23 1 115 2 538 24 81 394 2
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 1767 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2 4 4 24 1 122 2 572 26 86 419 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 999999999999
Cap, veh/h 4 87 87 40 2 192 4 962 44 105 1214 6
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.02 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 1682 809 809 1682 12 1483 1682 3269 148 1682 3426 16 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2 0 8 24 0 123 2 293 305 86 205 216 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1682 0 1618 1682 0 1496 1682 1678 1740 1682 1678 1764 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 3.0 0.0 5.8 5.8 1.9 3.5 3.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 3.0 0.0 5.8 5.8 1.9 3.5 3.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.01
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 4 0 175 40 0 193 4 494 512 105 595 625 V/C Ratio(X) 0.46 0.00 0.05 0.61 0.00 0.64 0.46 0.59 0.60 0.82 0.35 0.35 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 188 0 1455 188 0 1399 188 1400 1451 188 1400 1471 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.2 0.0 15.4 18.6 0.0 15.9 19.2 11.6 11.6 17.8 9.1 9.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 60.2 0.0 0.1 14.0 0.0 3.4 60.2 1.1 1.1 14.2 0.3 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 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.1 1.6 1.6 1.0 0.8 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 79.4 0.0 15.5 32.6 0.0 19.3 79.4 12.8 12.7 32.0 9.5 9.5 LnGrp LOS E A B C ABEBBCAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 10 147 600 507
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.3 21.5 13.0 13.3
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.6 16.6 5.1 10.2 4.3 18.9 4.3 11.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.2 5.3 * 4.2 6.0 * 4.2 5.3 * 4.2 * 6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 4.3 32.1 * 4.3 34.6 * 4.3 32.1 * 4.3 * 36 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.9 7.8 2.5 2.2 2.0 5.5 2.0 5.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 575
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing plus Project PM Peak 13: Highland Avenue & Rose Avenue 09/08/2023
Improved Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 11 6 26 7 108 5 608 33 156 670 9 Future Volume (veh/h) 5 11 6 26 7 108 5 608 33 156 670 9 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 5 11 6 27 7 110 5 620 34 159 684 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 333333333333
Cap, veh/h 10 106 58 46 11 170 10 1003 55 185 1406 18
Arrive On Green 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.03 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 1129 616 1767 95 1492 1767 3399 186 1767 3563 47 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 5 0 17 27 0 117 5 321 333 159 338 355 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 0 1745 1767 0 1587 1767 1763 1822 1767 1763 1847 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.0 2.9 0.1 6.4 6.5 3.6 5.9 5.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.0 2.9 0.1 6.4 6.5 3.6 5.9 5.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.35 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.03
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 10 0 163 46 0 181 10 520 538 185 696 729 V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.00 0.10 0.59 0.00 0.65 0.52 0.62 0.62 0.86 0.49 0.49 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 185 0 1472 185 0 1393 185 1380 1426 185 1380 1446 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.3 0.0 17.0 19.8 0.0 17.4 20.3 12.5 12.5 18.1 9.3 9.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 38.1 0.0 0.3 11.6 0.0 3.8 38.1 1.2 1.2 30.8 0.5 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 1.1 0.1 1.9 2.0 2.7 1.5 1.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.4 0.0 17.3 31.4 0.0 21.2 58.4 13.7 13.6 48.8 9.8 9.8 LnGrp LOS E A B C A C E B B D A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 22 144 659 852
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.6 23.1 14.0 17.1
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.5 17.4 5.3 9.8 4.4 21.5 4.4 10.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.2 5.3 * 4.2 6.0 * 4.2 5.3 * 4.2 * 6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 4.3 32.1 * 4.3 34.6 * 4.3 32.1 * 4.3 * 36 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.6 8.5 2.6 2.4 2.1 7.9 2.1 4.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.5
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 576
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing plus Project AM Peak Improved 09/08/2023
Improved SimTraffic Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection: 1: Highland Avenue & Golden State Boulevard Movement NB NB SB SB SE SE SE SE NW NW NW
Directions Served L T LT R UL T T R UL T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 128 135 285 75 4 40 60 51 12 27 52
Average Queue (ft) 48 43 109 30 0 12 39043
95th Queue (ft) 99 89 203 80 2 33 22 30 4 18 22
Link Distance (ft) 1215 1312 2556 2556 1128 1128
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 140 50 200 70 75
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 30 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0240 00
Intersection: 2: DeWolf Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 24 31 28
Average Queue (ft) 2 16 11
95th Queue (ft) 14 37 31
Link Distance (ft) 3178 2737 2634
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Future N-S Road & Floral Avenue
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR L LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 74 31 31
Average Queue (ft) 2 16 15
95th Queue (ft) 25 41 39
Link Distance (ft) 3178 1314
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
577
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing plus Project AM Peak Improved 09/08/2023
Improved SimTraffic Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection: 4: Floral Avenue & Walmart Main Driveway
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L T T R UL T TR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 59 72 68 70 194 275 177 88 84 168 88 Average Queue (ft) 19 30 29 17 157 91 61 21 39 89 16
95th Queue (ft) 51 61 59 48 218 245 127 54 69 148 55
Link Distance (ft) 251 251 374 374 346 716
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 100 340 100 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 20 0080
Queuing Penalty (veh) 11 0020
Intersection: 5: Eastern Driveway & Floral Avenue
Movement NB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft) 70
Average Queue (ft) 31
95th Queue (ft) 57
Link Distance (ft) 375
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: SR 99 SB Off-Ramp & Floral Avenue
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T R L T T R L L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 156 155 45 90 262 224 42 179 199 70 68 Average Queue (ft) 62 73 12 40 57 47 17 49 63 19 30
95th Queue (ft) 112 127 35 76 156 126 36 105 114 51 58
Link Distance (ft) 234 234 513 513 219 1827
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 200 380 380 380
Storage Blk Time (%) 3 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0
578
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing plus Project AM Peak Improved 09/08/2023
Improved SimTraffic Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection: 7: Highland Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB
Directions Served L T T R L L T TR L L T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 150 424 415 120 130 250 282 274 73 89 159 135 Average Queue (ft) 115 144 128 35 57 61 137 131 27 28 86 21 95th Queue (ft) 170 309 281 108 110 155 235 248 65 65 149 74 Link Distance (ft) 513 513 471 471 578 578
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 60 150 150 170 170
Storage Blk Time (%) 26 8 22 0007 01
Queuing Penalty (veh) 76 15 22 1 0 0 10 0 1
Intersection: 7: Highland Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement NB SB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served R L T T R R
Maximum Queue (ft) 130 93 181 144 98 93
Average Queue (ft) 33 34 99 53 51 40
95th Queue (ft) 71 73 163 101 90 74
Link Distance (ft) 299 299
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 80 100 100 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 13 4 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 004800
Intersection: 8: SR 99 NB Off-Ramp & Floral Avenue
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB
Directions Served TTTT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 149 157 184 148 204 70
Average Queue (ft) 35 51 61 50 94 38
95th Queue (ft) 86 105 137 107 153 83
Link Distance (ft) 471 471 556 556 1193
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 40
Storage Blk Time (%) 39 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 14 1
579
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing plus Project AM Peak Improved 09/08/2023
Improved SimTraffic Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection: 9: Whitson Street & Floral Avenue
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SE SE SE NW NW NW
Directions Served UL T TR L T TR UL T T UL L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 49 138 164 76 113 103 82 79 66 58 81 41 Average Queue (ft) 4 43 63 32 59 34 24 21 29 11 23 17
95th Queue (ft) 20 98 132 67 101 86 60 52 57 38 57 34
Link Distance (ft) 556 556 2655 2655 935 935 2910
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 80 100 130 120 120
Storage Blk Time (%) 3 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 0
Intersection: 9: Whitson Street & Floral Avenue
Movement NW
Directions Served T
Maximum Queue (ft) 69
Average Queue (ft) 27
95th Queue (ft) 59
Link Distance (ft) 2910
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Intersection: 10: Highland Avenue & SR 99 SB Ramps
Movement NB NB SB SB SB SE SE
Directions Served T T L T T R R
Maximum Queue (ft) 133 156 192 184 186 173 157
Average Queue (ft) 38 42 98 37 53 107 49
95th Queue (ft) 97 106 183 93 108 164 121
Link Distance (ft) 762 762 578 578 1130
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 65 175
Storage Blk Time (%) 20 1 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 24 2 1 0
580
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing plus Project AM Peak Improved 09/08/2023
Improved SimTraffic Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection: 11: Stillman Street & Southern Driveway
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 66
Average Queue (ft) 32
95th Queue (ft) 51
Link Distance (ft) 454
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 12: Highland Avenue & Stillman Street
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T R L T R L L T TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 90 118 53 56 48 91 51 151 69 242 240 78 Average Queue (ft) 23 45 9 18 12 12 22 59 15 91 113 40
95th Queue (ft) 72 93 33 45 36 53 46 109 55 185 209 77
Link Distance (ft) 307 356 356 673 673
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 75 100 100 300 300 320
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 3 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 3 0
Intersection: 12: Highland Avenue & Stillman Street
Movement SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 74 287 300 69
Average Queue (ft) 10 101 107 21
95th Queue (ft) 43 220 234 49
Link Distance (ft) 762 762
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 320 320
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
581
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing plus Project AM Peak Improved 09/08/2023
Improved SimTraffic Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection: 13: Highland Avenue & Rose Avenue
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR L T TR L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 25 31 53 77 31 183 178 265 235 283
Average Queue (ft) 2 4 17 42 1 93 90 80 52 79
95th Queue (ft) 12 21 44 74 10 166 164 182 131 175
Link Distance (ft) 2563 2526 2513 2513 560 560
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 250 250
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 207
582
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing plus Project PM Peak Improved 09/08/2023
Improved SimTraffic Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection: 1: Highland Avenue & Golden State Boulevard Movement NB NB NB SB SB SE SE SE SE NW NW NW
Directions Served L T R LT R UL T T R T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 105 284 115 262 56 47 107 100 66 24 19 24 Average Queue (ft) 47 104 4 129 11 6 31 24 24 1 3 1
95th Queue (ft) 92 186 38 204 48 23 69 66 53 8 12 8
Link Distance (ft) 1215 1312 2556 2556 1128 1128
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 140 80 50 200 70 120
Storage Blk Time (%) 11 40 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 16 3 0 1 0
Intersection: 2: DeWolf Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 25 53 28
Average Queue (ft) 3 20 8
95th Queue (ft) 17 40 27
Link Distance (ft) 3178 2737 2634
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Future N-S Road & Floral Avenue
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR L LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 31 31 49
Average Queue (ft) 1 11 26
95th Queue (ft) 10 35 46
Link Distance (ft) 3178 1314
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
583
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing plus Project PM Peak Improved 09/08/2023
Improved SimTraffic Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection: 4: Floral Avenue & Walmart Main Driveway
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L T T R UL T TR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 74 157 120 30 194 375 374 68 88 200 381 Average Queue (ft) 21 63 51 4 143 146 120 13 44 170 148 95th Queue (ft) 53 126 97 21 213 314 252 40 85 215 363
Link Distance (ft) 251 251 374 374 346 716
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 100 340 100 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 3 2 29 5 0 32 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 1 23 13 0 27 1
Intersection: 5: Eastern Driveway & Floral Avenue
Movement EB EB WB WB NB
Directions Served T TR T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 390 376 52 31 118
Average Queue (ft) 73 77 3 2 35
95th Queue (ft) 278 293 22 12 82
Link Distance (ft) 374 374 234 234 375
Upstream Blk Time (%) 4 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 13 12
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: SR 99 SB Off-Ramp & Floral Avenue
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T R L T T R L L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 246 280 150 192 240 200 146 252 266 90 136 Average Queue (ft) 174 171 32 100 78 60 47 97 109 34 47 95th Queue (ft) 275 281 112 173 182 135 105 185 187 76 86 Link Distance (ft) 234 234 513 513 219 1827
Upstream Blk Time (%) 14 14
Queuing Penalty (veh) 64 62
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 200 380 380 380
Storage Blk Time (%) 27 0 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 31 0 1
584
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing plus Project PM Peak Improved 09/08/2023
Improved SimTraffic Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection: 7: Highland Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB
Directions Served L T T R L L T TR L L T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 150 539 574 120 199 249 380 415 131 279 287 215 Average Queue (ft) 140 338 331 49 75 52 194 213 50 63 130 62 95th Queue (ft) 173 591 630 136 142 167 322 342 107 145 220 181 Link Distance (ft) 513 513 471 471 578 578
Upstream Blk Time (%) 14 8
Queuing Penalty (veh) 79 48
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 60 150 150 170 170
Storage Blk Time (%) 63 11 33 0 2 1 16 6 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 244 26 48 0 8 5 19 5 1
Intersection: 7: Highland Avenue & Floral Avenue
Movement NB SB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served R L T T R R
Maximum Queue (ft) 130 200 261 146 109 84
Average Queue (ft) 45 68 136 61 52 46
95th Queue (ft) 107 153 223 118 90 72
Link Distance (ft) 299 299
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 80 100 100 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 3 25 4 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 4 16 10 1 0
Intersection: 8: SR 99 NB Off-Ramp & Floral Avenue
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB
Directions Served TTTT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 199 208 171 136 232 70
Average Queue (ft) 59 76 65 65 113 42
95th Queue (ft) 137 157 130 128 199 85
Link Distance (ft) 471 471 556 556 1193
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 40
Storage Blk Time (%) 35 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 14 1
585
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing plus Project PM Peak Improved 09/08/2023
Improved SimTraffic Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection: 9: Whitson Street & Floral Avenue
Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB SE SE SE NW NW NW
Directions Served UL T TR L T TR UL T T UL L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 144 400 423 98 131 146 148 119 135 141 114 85 Average Queue (ft) 30 127 166 31 59 54 52 46 64 51 56 22 95th Queue (ft) 81 286 329 70 116 114 108 89 109 106 98 52 Link Distance (ft) 556 556 2655 2655 935 935 2910
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 80 100 130 120 120
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 12 0 2 0 0 10 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 6 1 1 00200
Intersection: 9: Whitson Street & Floral Avenue
Movement NW
Directions Served T
Maximum Queue (ft) 89
Average Queue (ft) 38
95th Queue (ft) 77
Link Distance (ft) 2910
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%) 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1
Intersection: 10: Highland Avenue & SR 99 SB Ramps
Movement NB NB SB SB SB SE SE
Directions Served T T L T T R R
Maximum Queue (ft) 234 200 194 324 136 222 184
Average Queue (ft) 89 73 127 69 45 111 74
95th Queue (ft) 208 151 207 213 107 193 151
Link Distance (ft) 762 762 578 578 1130
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 65 175
Storage Blk Time (%) 28 1 3 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 36 2 5 0
586
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing plus Project PM Peak Improved 09/08/2023
Improved SimTraffic Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection: 11: Stillman Street & Southern Driveway
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 66
Average Queue (ft) 32
95th Queue (ft) 51
Link Distance (ft) 454
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 12: Highland Avenue & Stillman Street
Movement EB EB EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L T R L T R L L T TR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 99 124 190 166 67 52 76 155 95 199 262 114 Average Queue (ft) 62 91 44 73 27 15 39 80 25 96 113 39 95th Queue (ft) 117 133 150 145 59 47 62 140 73 191 228 83 Link Distance (ft) 307 356 356 673 673
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 75 100 100 300 300 320
Storage Blk Time (%) 4 22 0 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 10 62 0 5
Intersection: 12: Highland Avenue & Stillman Street
Movement SB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T T R R
Maximum Queue (ft) 29 200 221 76 49
Average Queue (ft) 2 101 100 37 2
95th Queue (ft) 14 176 177 67 18
Link Distance (ft) 762 762
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 320 320 320
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
587
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing plus Project PM Peak Improved 09/08/2023
Improved SimTraffic Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection: 13: Highland Avenue & Rose Avenue
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR L T TR L T TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 27 29 74 76 50 204 206 286 287 253
Average Queue (ft) 4 8 23 37 6 104 103 131 84 96
95th Queue (ft) 18 27 60 71 28 188 185 245 196 183
Link Distance (ft) 2563 2526 2513 2513 560 560
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 250 250
Storage Blk Time (%) 3 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 11 0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 949
588
www.JLBtraffic.com
[email protected]
516 W. Shaw Ave., Ste. 103
Fresno, CA 93704 App | G
(559) 570-8991
Appendix G: Near Term plus Project Traffic Conditions
589
590
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term plus Project AM Peak 1: Highland Avenue & Golden State Boulevard 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SEL SET SER NWU NWL NWT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 160 176 13 44 310 14 5 125 177 2 13 151 Future Volume (vph) 160 176 13 44 310 14 5 125 177 2 13 151 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.9 4.9 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 1810 1538 1798 1538 1719 3438 1538 1719 3438 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 1810 1538 1798 1538 1719 3438 1538 1719 3438 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 176 193 14 48 341 15 5 137 195 2 14 166 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 11 0 0 10 0 0 169 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 176 193 3 0 389 5 5 137 26 0 16 166 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 2 2 6 6 7 4 3 3 8
Permitted Phases 2 6 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 14.5 14.5 14.5 19.1 19.1 0.5 7.9 7.9 0.5 7.9 Effective Green, g (s) 14.5 14.5 14.5 19.1 19.1 0.5 7.9 7.9 0.5 7.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.13 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.9 4.9 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 416 438 372 573 490 14 453 202 14 453 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.11 c0.22 0.00 0.04 c0.01 c0.05
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.42 0.44 0.01 0.68 0.01 0.36 0.30 0.13 1.14 0.37 Uniform Delay, d1 19.2 19.3 17.2 17.7 13.9 29.5 23.5 23.0 29.7 23.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.7 0.0 3.2 0.0 14.9 0.4 0.3 291.3 0.5 Delay (s) 19.9 20.0 17.3 20.9 13.9 44.5 23.9 23.2 321.0 24.2 Level of Service B B B C B D C C F C
Approach Delay (s) 19.8 20.7 23.8 45.5
Approach LOS B C C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 59.9 Sum of lost time (s) 17.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
591
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term plus Project AM Peak 1: Highland Avenue & Golden State Boulevard 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement NWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 35
Future Volume (vph) 35
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.2
Lane Util. Factor 1.00
Frt 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1538
Flt Permitted 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1538
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91
Adj. Flow (vph) 38
RTOR Reduction (vph) 33
Lane Group Flow (vph) 5
Heavy Vehicles (%) 5%
Turn Type Perm
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.9
Effective Green, g (s) 7.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13
Clearance Time (s) 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 202
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 22.6
Progression Factor 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.0
Delay (s) 22.7
Level of Service C
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
592
HCM 6th TWSC Near Term plus Project AM Peak
2: DeWolf Avenue & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 122 2 17 112 7 0 4 23 12 5 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 122 2 17 112 7 0 4 23 12 5 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333
Mvmt Flow 0 139 2 19 127 8 0 5 26 14 6 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 135 0 0 141 0 0 312 313 140 325 310 131 Stage 1 - - - - - - 140 140 - 169 169 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 172 173 - 156 141 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1443 - - 1436 - - 639 601 905 626 603 916 Stage 1 - - - - - - 861 779 - 831 757 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 828 754 - 844 778 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1443 - - 1436 - - 627 593 905 598 595 916 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 627 593 - 598 595 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 861 779 - 831 746 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 810 743 - 815 778 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.9 9.4 11.2

HCM LOS A B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 840 1443 - - 1436 - - 597
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.037 - - - 0.013 - - 0.032
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.4 0 - - 7.5 0 - 11.2
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.1
593
HCM 6th TWSC Near Term plus Project AM Peak
3: Future N-S Road & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 239 13 0 270 38 30 0 0 13 0 2
Future Vol, veh/h 3 239 13 0 270 38 30 0 0 13 0 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 250 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333
Mvmt Flow 4 291 16 0 329 46 37 0 0 16 0 2
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 375 0 0 307 0 0 660 682 299 659 667 352 Stage 1 - - - - - - 307 307 - 352 352 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 353 375 - 307 315 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1178 - - 1248 - - 375 371 738 376 378 689 Stage 1 - - - - - - 701 659 - 663 630 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 662 615 - 701 654 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1178 - - 1248 - - 372 370 738 375 376 689 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 372 370 - 375 376 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 698 656 - 660 630 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 660 615 - 698 651 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 15.7 14.5

HCM LOS C B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 372 - 1178 - - 1248 - - 399
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.098 - 0.003 ----- 0.046
HCM Control Delay (s) 15.7 0 8.1 0 - 0 - - 14.5
HCM Lane LOS C A A A - A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - 0 - - 0 - - 0.1
594
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term plus Project AM Peak 4: Floral Avenue & Walmart Main Driveway 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 22 205 25 147 242 276 238 26 44 114 189 19 Future Volume (vph) 22 205 25 147 242 276 238 26 44 114 189 19 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3505 1568 1752 3228 1752 1645 1752 1780 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3505 1568 1752 3228 1752 1645 1752 1780 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Adj. Flow (vph) 27 250 30 179 295 337 290 32 54 139 230 23 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 25 0 0 115 0 0 89 0 0 5
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 250 5 0 474 512 0 32 104 0 230 25 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 2.2 15.4 15.4 32.5 45.7 3.7 14.7 16.3 27.3 Effective Green, g (s) 2.2 15.4 15.4 32.5 45.7 3.7 14.7 16.3 27.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.34 0.48 0.04 0.15 0.17 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 40 564 252 594 1541 67 252 298 507
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.07 c0.27 0.16 0.02 c0.06 c0.13 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.68 0.44 0.02 0.80 0.33 0.48 0.41 0.77 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 46.4 36.3 33.8 28.6 15.5 45.1 36.6 37.9 24.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 36.7 0.6 0.0 7.4 0.1 5.3 1.1 11.7 0.0 Delay (s) 83.1 36.8 33.8 36.0 15.7 50.3 37.7 49.6 24.8
Level of Service F D C D B D D D C
Approach Delay (s) 40.6 24.4 39.5 46.8
Approach LOS D C D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 31.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 95.7 Sum of lost time (s) 16.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
595
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term plus Project AM Peak 4: Floral Avenue & Walmart Main Driveway 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 6
Future Volume (vph) 6
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.82
Adj. Flow (vph) 7
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
596
HCM 6th TWSC Near Term plus Project AM Peak
5: Eastern Driveway & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 649 3 0 901 0 72
Future Vol, veh/h 649 3 0 901 0 72
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - -0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333
Mvmt Flow 791 4 0 1099 0 88
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - - 398
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Critical Hdwy - ---- 6.96
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -----
Follow-up Hdwy - ---- 3.33
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 0 - 0 599
Stage 1 - - 0 - 0 -
Stage 2 - - 0 - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - - 599
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -----
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 12

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 599 - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.147 - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 12 - - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - - -
597
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term plus Project AM Peak 6: SR 99 SB Off-Ramp & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 672 49 54 739 0 0 0 51 165 23 162 Future Volume (vph) 0 672 49 54 739 0 0 0 51 165 23 162 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.8 6.8 5.7 6.8 5.7 6.1 5.7 5.7
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3471 1553 1736 3471 1580 3367 1827 1553 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3471 1553 1736 3471 1580 3367 1827 1553 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 723 53 58 795 0 0 0 55 177 25 174
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 141
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 723 33 58 795 0 0 0 7 177 25 33 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA pt+ov Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 1 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 85.8 85.8 8.0 99.5 18.7 14.9 26.0 26.0 Effective Green, g (s) 85.8 85.8 8.0 99.5 18.7 14.9 26.0 26.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.62 0.62 0.06 0.72 0.14 0.11 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time (s) 6.8 6.8 5.7 6.8 6.1 5.7 5.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.9 4.9 2.0 4.4 5.5 5.5 5.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2158 965 100 2502 214 363 344 292
v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 c0.03 0.23 0.00 c0.05 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.02
v/c Ratio 0.34 0.03 0.58 0.32 0.03 0.49 0.07 0.11
Uniform Delay, d1 12.5 10.1 63.4 7.0 51.8 58.0 46.1 46.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.34 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.1 4.5 0.3 0.0 2.5 0.2 0.4
Delay (s) 12.9 10.2 89.2 2.6 51.8 60.5 46.3 46.9
Level of Service B B F A D E D D
Approach Delay (s) 12.7 8.5 51.8 53.2
Approach LOS B A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.36
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 138.0 Sum of lost time (s) 24.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
598
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Near Term plus Project AM Peak 7: Highland Avenue & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 234 650 138 169 760 82 58 151 91 31 243 273 Future Volume (veh/h) 234 650 138 169 760 82 58 151 91 31 243 273 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 239 663 141 172 776 84 59 154 93 32 248 279 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 333333333333
Cap, veh/h 248 2000 892 219 1574 170 97 540 240 41 522 410 Arrive On Green 0.28 1.00 1.00 0.13 0.98 0.98 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.02 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3526 1572 3428 3208 347 3428 3526 1566 1767 3526 2768 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 239 663 141 172 426 434 59 154 93 32 248 279 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 1572 1714 1763 1793 1714 1763 1566 1767 1763 1384 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.4 0.0 0.0 6.7 1.2 1.2 2.3 5.3 7.4 2.5 8.9 13.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.4 0.0 0.0 6.7 1.2 1.2 2.3 5.3 7.4 2.5 8.9 13.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 248 2000 892 219 865 879 97 540 240 41 522 410 V/C Ratio(X) 0.96 0.33 0.16 0.79 0.49 0.49 0.61 0.29 0.39 0.79 0.48 0.68 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 248 2000 892 308 865 879 99 899 400 87 971 762 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.2 0.0 0.0 59.3 0.7 0.7 66.3 51.7 52.6 67.1 53.9 55.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 44.8 0.4 0.4 4.8 1.8 1.8 6.5 0.5 1.6 11.7 1.2 3.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.2 0.1 0.1 2.9 0.7 0.7 1.1 2.4 3.0 1.3 4.0 4.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 94.0 0.4 0.4 64.1 2.5 2.4 72.8 52.2 54.2 78.8 55.0 59.1 LnGrp LOS F AAEAAEDDEEE
Approach Vol, veh/h 1043 1032 306 559
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.9 12.7 56.8 58.4
Approach LOS C B E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.8 27.2 15.4 85.6 10.5 26.5 26.0 75.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.6 6.1 * 6.6 * 7.3 * 6.6 6.1 * 6.6 * 7.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 6.8 35.2 * 12 * 57 * 4 38.0 * 19 * 50 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 9.4 8.7 2.0 4.3 15.2 20.4 3.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.0 0.1 9.7 0.0 4.5 0.0 10.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 599
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term plus Project AM Peak 8: SR 99 NB Off-Ramp & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 581 0 0 744 227 41
Future Volume (vph) 581 0 0 744 227 41
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 3505 1752 1568
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 3505 1752 1568
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Adj. Flow (vph) 660 0 0 845 258 47
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 29
Lane Group Flow (vph) 660 0 0 845 258 18
Turn Type NA NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 2 2 8
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 39.7 39.7 17.1 17.1
Effective Green, g (s) 39.7 39.7 17.1 17.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.58 0.58 0.25 0.25
Clearance Time (s) 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.8 3.8 5.1 5.1
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2016 2016 434 388
v/s Ratio Prot 0.19 c0.24 c0.15
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.42 0.59 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 7.7 8.2 22.9 19.8
Progression Factor 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.6 3.4 0.1
Delay (s) 7.2 8.8 26.2 19.9
Level of Service A A C B
Approach Delay (s) 7.2 8.8 25.3
Approach LOS A A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 11.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
600
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term plus Project AM Peak 9: Whitson Street & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEU SEL SET SER NWU Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 4 10 363 144 78 537 23 4 73 129 10 4 Future Volume (vph) 4 10 363 144 78 537 23 4 73 129 10 4 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.6 4.2 4.2 4.2
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3355 1752 3481 1752 3505 1546
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3355 1752 3481 1752 3505 1546
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 4 11 395 157 85 584 25 4 79 140 11 4
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 45 003000090
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 15 507 0 85 606 0 0 83 140 2 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 4
Turn Type Prot Prot NA Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Prot
Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 8 1 1 6 5
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 0.5 20.9 6.3 26.3 7.8 8.7 8.7
Effective Green, g (s) 0.5 20.9 6.3 26.3 7.8 8.7 8.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.35 0.10 0.44 0.13 0.14 0.14
Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.6 4.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 14 1160 182 1515 226 504 222
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.15 c0.05 c0.17 c0.05 0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 1.07 0.44 0.47 0.40 0.37 0.28 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 29.9 15.2 25.5 11.7 24.0 23.0 22.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 265.6 0.3 1.9 0.2 1.0 0.3 0.0
Delay (s) 295.5 15.5 27.4 11.8 25.1 23.4 22.2
Level of Service F B C B C C C
Approach Delay (s) 22.9 13.7 23.9
Approach LOS C B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.4 Sum of lost time (s) 17.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
601
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term plus Project AM Peak 9: Whitson Street & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement NWL NWT NWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 177 104 17
Future Volume (vph) 177 104 17
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 3505 1568
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3400 3505 1568
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 192 113 18
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 15
Lane Group Flow (vph) 196 113 3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Turn Type Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.7 8.6 8.6
Effective Green, g (s) 7.7 8.6 8.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.14 0.14
Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 433 499 223
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.03
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.45 0.23 0.01
Uniform Delay, d1 24.4 23.0 22.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.2 0.0
Delay (s) 25.2 23.2 22.3
Level of Service C C C
Approach Delay (s) 24.3
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
602
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term plus Project AM Peak 10: Highland Avenue & SR 99 SB Ramps 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SEL SER
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 752 34 233 312 0 0 386
Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 752 34 233 312 0 0 386
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.8 6.8 5.7 6.8 9.7
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.88
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3282 1468 1641 3282 2584
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3282 1468 1641 3282 2584
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 792 36 245 328 0 0 406
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 257
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 792 22 245 328 0 0 149
Heavy Vehicles (%) 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 1 6 5
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 41.8 41.8 14.7 27.2 25.3
Effective Green, g (s) 41.8 41.8 14.7 27.2 25.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.61 0.61 0.21 0.39 0.37
Clearance Time (s) 6.8 6.8 5.7 6.8 9.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 6.8 6.8 2.0 4.9 5.8
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1988 889 349 1293 947
v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 c0.15 0.10 0.06
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.40 0.02 0.70 0.25 0.16
Uniform Delay, d1 7.1 5.4 25.1 14.1 14.7
Progression Factor 0.85 0.69 0.90 0.68 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.0 5.0 0.5 0.2
Delay (s) 6.6 3.8 27.6 10.0 14.9
Level of Service A A C B B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 6.5 17.5 14.9
Approach LOS A A B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 11.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
603
HCM 6th TWSC Near Term plus Project AM Peak
11: Stillman Street & Southern Driveway 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.9
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 43 35 53 84 5
Future Vol, veh/h 1 43 35 53 84 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333
Mvmt Flow 1 49 40 60 95 6
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 100 0 - 0 121 70
Stage 1 - - - - 70 -
Stage 2 - - - - 51 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1486 - - - 872 990
Stage 1 - - - - 950 -
Stage 2 - - - - 969 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1486 - - - 871 990
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 871 -
Stage 1 - - - - 949 -
Stage 2 - - - - 969 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 9.6

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1486 - - - 877
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - - 0.115
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 - - 9.6
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.4
604
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Near Term plus Project AM Peak 12: Highland Avenue & Stillman Street 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 78 19 93 15 11 41 91 677 39 55 550 94 Future Volume (veh/h) 78 19 93 15 11 41 91 677 39 55 550 94 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1781 1781 1781 1781 1781 1781 1781 1781 1781 1781 1781 1781 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 80 19 95 15 11 42 93 691 40 56 561 96 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 888888888888
Cap, veh/h 121 147 125 22 104 88 137 2204 127 91 2247 1764 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.68 0.68 0.06 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3291 1781 1510 1697 1781 1510 3291 3252 188 3291 3385 2657 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 80 19 95 15 11 42 93 359 372 56 561 96 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1646 1781 1510 1697 1781 1510 1646 1692 1748 1646 1692 1329 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 1.4 8.5 1.2 0.8 3.7 3.8 12.0 12.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 1.4 8.5 1.2 0.8 3.7 3.8 12.0 12.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 121 147 125 22 104 88 137 1147 1184 91 2247 1764 V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.13 0.76 0.70 0.11 0.48 0.68 0.31 0.31 0.62 0.25 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 210 577 489 96 564 478 248 1147 1184 176 2247 1764 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 0.98 0.98 0.98 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 65.6 58.7 61.9 67.9 61.5 62.9 65.2 9.1 9.1 64.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 0.9 18.9 14.0 0.7 5.9 2.2 0.7 0.7 2.5 0.3 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 0.7 3.9 0.6 0.4 1.6 1.6 4.2 4.4 1.0 0.1 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.9 59.5 80.8 81.9 62.2 68.8 67.5 9.8 9.8 67.0 0.3 0.1 LnGrp LOS E E F F EEEAAEAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 194 68 824 713
Approach Delay, s/veh 73.4 70.6 16.3 5.5
Approach LOS EEBA
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.4 99.9 8.9 18.7 12.3 98.0 12.3 15.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.6 6.4 * 7.2 * 7.3 * 6.6 6.4 * 7.2 * 7.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 7.4 50.6 * 7.8 * 45 * 10 47.6 * 8.8 * 44 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.3 14.0 3.2 10.5 5.8 2.0 5.3 5.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 12.2 0.0 0.9 0.0 10.9 0.0 0.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 605
HCM 6th TWSC Near Term plus Project AM Peak
13: Highland Avenue & Rose Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 4 6 38 1 117 5 605 39 98 475 2
Future Vol, veh/h 2 4 6 38 1 117 5 605 39 98 475 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 00001100001
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Stop - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 25 - - - 250 - - 250 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 9 99999999999
Mvmt Flow 2 4 6 40 1 124 5 644 41 104 505 2
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1049 1410 255 1138 1391 344 508 0 0 685 0 0 Stage 1 715 715 - 675 675 -------
Stage 2 334 695 - 463 716 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.68 6.68 7.08 7.68 6.68 7.08 4.28 - - 4.28 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.68 5.68 - 6.68 5.68 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.68 5.68 - 6.68 5.68 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.59 4.09 3.39 3.59 4.09 3.39 2.29 - - 2.29 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 173 129 723 148 133 632 1006 - - 859 - - Stage 1 372 416 - 394 435 -------
Stage 2 634 425 - 530 416 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 125 113 723 129 116 632 1005 - - 859 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 125 113 - 129 116 -------
Stage 1 370 365 - 392 433 -------
Stage 2 505 423 - 456 365 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 23.8 27.9 0.1 1.7

HCM LOS C D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1005 - - 117 723 319 859 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - - 0.055 0.009 0.52 0.121 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.6 - - 37.5 10 27.9 9.8 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - E B D A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.2 0 2.8 0.4 - -
606
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term plus Project PM Peak 1: Highland Avenue & Golden State Boulevard 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SEU SEL SET SER NWU NWL Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 229 438 18 55 378 8 1 24 241 313 3 9 Future Volume (vph) 229 438 18 55 378 8 1 24 241 313 3 9 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.9 4.9 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1845 1548 1833 1568 1752 3505 1568 1752 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 1845 1548 1833 1568 1752 3505 1568 1752 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 246 471 19 59 406 9 1 26 259 337 3 10
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 13 0 0 6 0 0 0 294 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 246 471 6 0 465 3 0 27 259 43 0 13 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1
Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 2 2 6 6 7 7 4 3 3
Permitted Phases 2 6 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 24.4 24.4 24.4 22.0 22.0 1.3 9.4 9.4 0.6 Effective Green, g (s) 24.4 24.4 24.4 22.0 22.0 1.3 9.4 9.4 0.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.30 0.30 0.02 0.13 0.13 0.01 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.9 4.9 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 575 605 508 542 464 30 443 198 14
v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 c0.26 c0.25 c0.02 c0.07 0.01
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.43 0.78 0.01 0.86 0.01 0.90 0.58 0.22 0.93
Uniform Delay, d1 19.5 22.5 16.8 24.7 18.4 36.4 30.6 29.1 36.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 6.3 0.0 12.7 0.0 122.1 2.0 0.5 201.0 Delay (s) 20.0 28.8 16.8 37.4 18.4 158.6 32.6 29.7 237.8 Level of Service C C B D B F C C F
Approach Delay (s) 25.5 37.0 36.5
Approach LOS C D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 74.3 Sum of lost time (s) 17.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
607
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term plus Project PM Peak 1: Highland Avenue & Golden State Boulevard 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement NWT NWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 138 75
Future Volume (vph) 138 75
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 1568
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 1568
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph) 148 81
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 72
Lane Group Flow (vph) 148 9
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Turn Type NA Perm
Protected Phases 8
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.7 8.7
Effective Green, g (s) 8.7 8.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12
Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 410 183
v/s Ratio Prot 0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.36 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 30.2 29.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.1
Delay (s) 30.8 29.3
Level of Service C C
Approach Delay (s) 41.4
Approach LOS D
Intersection Summary
608
HCM 6th TWSC Near Term plus Project PM Peak
2: DeWolf Avenue & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 190 9 98 226 18 7 5 132 12 4 2
Future Vol, veh/h 0 190 9 98 226 18 7 5 132 12 4 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333
Mvmt Flow 0 211 10 109 251 20 8 6 147 13 4 2
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 271 0 0 221 0 0 698 705 216 772 700 261 Stage 1 - - - - - - 216 216 - 479 479 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 482 489 - 293 221 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1287 - - 1342 - - 354 360 821 315 362 775 Stage 1 - - - - - - 784 722 - 566 553 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 564 548 - 713 719 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1287 - - 1342 - - 324 325 821 237 327 775 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 324 325 - 237 327 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 784 722 - 566 500 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 504 495 - 581 719 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 2.3 11.3 19.1

HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 728 1287 - - 1342 - - 275
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.22 - - - 0.081 - - 0.073
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.3 0 - - 7.9 0 - 19.1
HCM Lane LOS B A - - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 0 - - 0.3 - - 0.2
609
HCM 6th TWSC Near Term plus Project PM Peak
3: Future N-S Road & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 539 47 0 581 26 32 0 0 42 0 2
Future Vol, veh/h 3 539 47 0 581 26 32 0 0 42 0 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - 250 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333
Mvmt Flow 3 613 53 0 660 30 36 0 0 48 0 2
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 690 0 0 666 0 0 1322 1336 640 1321 1347 675 Stage 1 - - - - - - 646 646 - 675 675 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 676 690 - 646 672 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 900 - - 919 - - 133 153 474 133 150 452 Stage 1 - - - - - - 459 465 - 442 452 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 441 445 - 459 453 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 900 - - 919 - - 132 152 474 132 149 452 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 132 152 - 132 149 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 457 463 - 440 452 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 439 445 - 457 451 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 42.3 46.1

HCM LOS E E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 132 - 900 - - 919 - - 136
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.275 - 0.004 ----- 0.368
HCM Control Delay (s) 42.3 0 9 0 - 0 - - 46.1
HCM Lane LOS EAAA -A - -E
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1 - 0 - - 0 - - 1.5
610
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term plus Project PM Peak 4: Floral Avenue & Walmart Main Driveway 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 32 526 23 129 157 571 400 14 36 67 417 60 Future Volume (vph) 32 526 23 129 157 571 400 14 36 67 417 60 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3505 1568 1752 3258 1752 1664 1752 1771 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3505 1568 1752 3258 1752 1664 1752 1771 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 34 554 24 136 165 601 421 15 38 71 439 63 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 19 0 0 95 0 0 61 0 0 12
Lane Group Flow (vph) 34 554 5 0 301 927 0 15 48 0 439 74 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 7 4 3 3 8 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 2.4 22.0 22.0 20.1 39.7 0.9 14.8 29.2 43.1 Effective Green, g (s) 2.4 22.0 22.0 20.1 39.7 0.9 14.8 29.2 43.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.39 0.01 0.14 0.28 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 40 749 335 342 1256 15 239 497 741
v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.16 c0.17 c0.28 0.01 c0.03 c0.25 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.74 0.02 0.88 0.74 1.00 0.20 0.88 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 50.1 37.8 31.9 40.2 27.1 51.0 38.8 35.2 18.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 84.3 3.8 0.0 22.1 2.3 232.4 0.4 16.8 0.1 Delay (s) 134.4 41.6 31.9 62.4 29.4 283.4 39.3 52.0 18.2 Level of Service F D C E C F D D B
Approach Delay (s) 46.4 36.9 68.8 46.5
Approach LOS D D E D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 42.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 102.9 Sum of lost time (s) 16.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
611
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term plus Project PM Peak 4: Floral Avenue & Walmart Main Driveway 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 22
Future Volume (vph) 22
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frpb, ped/bikes
Flpb, ped/bikes
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 23
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
612
HCM 6th TWSC Near Term plus Project PM Peak
5: Eastern Driveway & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1255 2 0 1316 0 45
Future Vol, veh/h 1255 2 0 1316 0 45
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - -0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333
Mvmt Flow 1426 2 0 1495 0 51
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - - 714
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Critical Hdwy - ---- 6.96
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -----
Follow-up Hdwy - ---- 3.33
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 0 - 0 371
Stage 1 - - 0 - 0 -
Stage 2 - - 0 - 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - - 371
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -----
Stage 1 - -----
Stage 2 - -----
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 16.2

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 371 - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.138 - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 16.2 - - -
HCM Lane LOS C - - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - - -
613
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term plus Project PM Peak 6: SR 99 SB Off-Ramp & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 1183 117 111 994 0 0 0 136 235 41 322 Future Volume (vph) 0 1183 117 111 994 0 0 0 136 235 41 322 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.8 6.8 5.7 6.8 5.7 6.1 5.7 5.7
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 1568 1752 3505 1596 3400 1845 1547 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 1568 1752 3505 1596 3400 1845 1547 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1300 129 122 1092 0 0 0 149 258 45 354 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 86
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1300 76 122 1092 0 0 0 89 258 45 268 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA pt+ov Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 2 1 6 1 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 2 8 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 74.7 74.7 13.6 94.0 30.3 16.4 33.5 33.5 Effective Green, g (s) 74.7 74.7 13.6 94.0 30.3 16.4 33.5 33.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.53 0.53 0.10 0.67 0.22 0.12 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 6.8 6.8 5.7 6.8 6.1 5.7 5.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 4.9 4.9 2.0 4.4 5.5 5.5 5.5
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1870 836 170 2353 345 398 441 370
v/s Ratio Prot c0.37 c0.07 0.31 0.06 0.08 0.02
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 c0.17
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.09 0.72 0.46 0.26 0.65 0.10 0.72
Uniform Delay, d1 24.2 16.0 61.3 11.0 45.5 59.0 41.5 49.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.02 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 0.2 9.4 0.5 0.1 5.4 0.3 9.0
Delay (s) 26.4 16.2 72.1 10.6 45.7 64.4 41.8 58.0
Level of Service C B E B D E D E
Approach Delay (s) 25.5 16.8 45.7 59.4
Approach LOS C B D E
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 29.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 24.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
614
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Near Term plus Project PM Peak 7: Highland Avenue & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 393 989 189 169 771 116 96 288 125 65 323 417 Future Volume (veh/h) 393 989 189 169 771 116 96 288 125 65 323 417 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 418 1052 201 180 820 123 102 306 133 69 344 444 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 333333333333
Cap, veh/h 258 1785 796 226 1311 197 108 664 296 87 728 571 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.67 0.67 0.13 0.85 0.85 0.04 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3526 1572 3428 3074 461 3428 3526 1572 1767 3526 2768 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 418 1052 201 180 470 473 102 306 133 69 344 444 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 1572 1714 1763 1772 1714 1763 1572 1767 1763 1384 Q Serve(g_s), s 20.4 22.6 7.0 7.1 11.8 11.8 4.2 10.3 10.0 5.4 12.0 21.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 20.4 22.6 7.0 7.1 11.8 11.8 4.2 10.3 10.0 5.4 12.0 21.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 258 1785 796 226 752 756 108 664 296 87 728 571 V/C Ratio(X) 1.62 0.59 0.25 0.80 0.63 0.63 0.95 0.46 0.45 0.79 0.47 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 258 1785 796 313 752 756 108 763 340 153 957 751 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.33 1.33 1.33 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.4 15.0 12.4 59.9 6.8 6.8 67.0 46.4 46.3 65.8 48.9 52.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 292.7 1.0 0.5 5.7 3.5 3.5 64.5 0.8 1.6 5.8 0.8 5.1 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 29.7 8.0 2.5 3.1 3.2 3.3 2.7 4.4 4.0 2.6 5.4 7.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 349.1 16.0 13.0 65.6 10.3 10.3 131.5 47.2 48.0 71.7 49.7 57.6 LnGrp LOS F BBEBBFDDEDE
Approach Vol, veh/h 1671 1123 541 857
Approach Delay, s/veh 99.0 19.1 63.3 55.5
Approach LOS F B E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.5 32.5 15.8 78.2 11.0 35.0 27.0 67.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.6 6.1 * 6.6 * 7.3 * 6.6 6.1 * 6.6 * 7.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 12 30.3 * 13 * 58 * 4.4 38.0 * 20 * 51 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 12.3 9.1 24.6 6.2 23.2 22.4 13.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.4 0.1 15.7 0.0 5.7 0.0 11.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 64.1
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 615
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term plus Project PM Peak 8: SR 99 NB Off-Ramp & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 884 0 0 790 227 58
Future Volume (vph) 884 0 0 790 227 58
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3505 3505 1752 1568
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3505 3505 1752 1568
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph) 921 0 0 823 236 60
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 39
Lane Group Flow (vph) 921 0 0 823 236 21
Turn Type NA NA Prot Perm
Protected Phases 2 2 8
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 41.4 41.4 16.4 16.4
Effective Green, g (s) 41.4 41.4 16.4 16.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.59 0.23 0.23
Clearance Time (s) 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.8 3.8 5.1 5.1
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2072 2072 410 367
v/s Ratio Prot c0.26 0.23 c0.13
v/s Ratio Perm 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.44 0.40 0.58 0.06
Uniform Delay, d1 7.9 7.6 23.7 20.8
Progression Factor 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.6 3.2 0.1
Delay (s) 7.7 8.2 26.9 20.9
Level of Service A A C C
Approach Delay (s) 7.7 8.2 25.7
Approach LOS A A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
616
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term plus Project PM Peak 9: Whitson Street & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SEU SEL SET SER NWU Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 16 35 649 243 55 501 24 19 109 213 23 2 Future Volume (vph) 16 35 649 243 55 501 24 19 109 213 23 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.6 4.2 4.2 4.2
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3361 1752 3478 1752 3505 1568
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3361 1752 3478 1752 3505 1568
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 17 37 690 259 59 533 26 20 116 227 24 2 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 40 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 19 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 54 909 0 59 555 0 0 136 227 5 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 8
Turn Type Prot Prot NA Prot NA Prot Prot NA Perm Prot
Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 8 1 1 6 5
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 3.1 25.7 3.4 25.6 13.5 14.0 14.0
Effective Green, g (s) 3.1 25.7 3.4 25.6 13.5 14.0 14.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.37 0.05 0.37 0.20 0.20 0.20
Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.6 4.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 78 1250 86 1288 342 710 317
v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.27 c0.03 0.16 c0.08 0.06
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.73 0.69 0.43 0.40 0.32 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 32.5 18.7 32.3 16.3 24.3 23.5 22.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 23.3 2.1 20.3 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.0
Delay (s) 55.8 20.8 52.6 16.5 25.0 23.8 22.1
Level of Service E C D B C C C
Approach Delay (s) 22.7 20.0 24.1
Approach LOS C B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.1 Sum of lost time (s) 17.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
617
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term plus Project PM Peak 9: Whitson Street & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement NWL NWT NWR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 268 134 35
Future Volume (vph) 268 134 35
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 3505 1548
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3400 3505 1548
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 285 143 37
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 32
Lane Group Flow (vph) 287 143 5
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.2 9.7 9.7
Effective Green, g (s) 9.2 9.7 9.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.14 0.14
Clearance Time (s) 4.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 452 492 217
v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.04
v/s Ratio Perm 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.63 0.29 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 28.4 26.6 25.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.9 0.3 0.0
Delay (s) 31.3 26.9 25.7
Level of Service C C C
Approach Delay (s) 29.5
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
618
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Near Term plus Project PM Peak 10: Highland Avenue & SR 99 SB Ramps 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement WBL WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR SEL SER
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 851 56 313 371 0 0 430
Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 851 56 313 371 0 0 430
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.8 6.8 5.7 6.8 9.7
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.88
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3471 1520 1736 3471 2733
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3471 1520 1736 3471 2733
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 896 59 329 391 0 0 453
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 267
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 896 34 329 391 0 0 186
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 1 6 5
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 39.8 39.8 17.7 24.8 28.7
Effective Green, g (s) 39.8 39.8 17.7 24.8 28.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.57 0.57 0.25 0.35 0.41
Clearance Time (s) 6.8 6.8 5.7 6.8 9.7
Vehicle Extension (s) 6.8 6.8 2.0 4.9 5.8
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1973 864 438 1229 1120
v/s Ratio Prot c0.26 c0.19 0.11 0.07
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.45 0.04 0.75 0.32 0.17
Uniform Delay, d1 8.8 6.7 24.1 16.4 13.1
Progression Factor 1.20 2.34 1.00 0.89 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.1 6.0 0.6 0.2
Delay (s) 11.3 15.6 30.0 15.3 13.3
Level of Service B B C B B
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 11.5 22.1 13.3
Approach LOS A B C B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
619
HCM 6th TWSC Near Term plus Project PM Peak
11: Stillman Street & Southern Driveway 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.9
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 57 60 83 78 2
Future Vol, veh/h 5 57 60 83 78 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333
Mvmt Flow 5 62 65 90 85 2
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 155 0 - 0 182 110
Stage 1 - - - - 110 -
Stage 2 - - - - 72 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1419 - - - 805 941
Stage 1 - - - - 912 -
Stage 2 - - - - 948 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1419 - - - 802 941
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 802 -
Stage 1 - - - - 908 -
Stage 2 - - - - 948 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.6 0 10

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1419 - - - 805
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - - 0.108
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 - - 10
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.4
620
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Near Term plus Project PM Peak 12: Highland Avenue & Stillman Street 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 212 20 301 42 17 89 176 622 42 55 651 119 Future Volume (veh/h) 212 20 301 42 17 89 176 622 42 55 651 119 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 223 21 317 44 18 94 185 655 44 58 685 125 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 333333333333
Cap, veh/h 273 426 361 57 338 286 234 1725 116 95 1671 1311 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.03 0.18 0.18 0.07 0.51 0.51 0.06 0.95 0.95 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 1856 1572 1767 1856 1570 3428 3353 225 3428 3526 2768 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 223 21 317 44 18 94 185 344 355 58 685 125 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 1856 1572 1767 1856 1570 1714 1763 1815 1714 1763 1384 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.0 1.2 27.2 3.5 1.1 7.3 7.4 16.5 16.5 2.3 2.3 0.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.0 1.2 27.2 3.5 1.1 7.3 7.4 16.5 16.5 2.3 2.3 0.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 273 426 361 57 338 286 234 907 934 95 1671 1311 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.05 0.88 0.78 0.05 0.33 0.79 0.38 0.38 0.61 0.41 0.10 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 387 649 550 124 570 482 328 907 934 142 1671 1311 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 0.96 0.96 0.96 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.4 42.0 52.0 67.3 47.3 49.8 64.2 20.5 20.5 65.4 2.0 1.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.1 0.1 15.8 8.2 0.1 1.0 5.5 1.2 1.2 2.3 0.7 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.2 0.6 12.3 1.7 0.5 3.0 3.4 6.8 7.1 1.0 0.8 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 69.5 42.1 67.8 75.5 47.4 50.8 69.7 21.7 21.7 67.7 2.7 2.1 LnGrp LOS E D E E D D E C C E A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 561 156 884 868
Approach Delay, s/veh 67.5 57.4 31.8 7.0
Approach LOS E E C A
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.5 78.4 11.7 39.4 16.1 72.7 18.3 32.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.6 6.4 * 7.2 * 7.3 * 6.6 6.4 * 7.2 * 7.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 5.8 47.9 * 9.8 * 49 * 13 40.3 * 16 * 43 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.3 18.5 5.5 29.2 9.4 4.3 11.0 9.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 10.5 0.0 2.7 0.1 13.0 0.2 0.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.8
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 621
HCM 6th TWSC Near Term plus Project PM Peak
13: Highland Avenue & Rose Avenue 09/08/2023
Baseline Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 25.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 11 15 48 8 112 15 738 52 169 798 9 Future Vol, veh/h 5 11 15 48 8 112 15 738 52 169 798 9
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - Stop - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 25 - - - 250 - - 250 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333333333
Mvmt Flow 5 11 15 49 8 114 15 753 53 172 814 9
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1574 1999 412 1567 1977 403 823 0 0 806 0 0 Stage 1 1163 1163 - 810 810 -------
Stage 2 411 836 - 757 1167 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.96 4.16 - - 4.16 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.56 5.56 - 6.56 5.56 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.56 5.56 - 6.56 5.56 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 - - 2.23 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 73 59 586 74 60 594 796 - - 808 - -
Stage 1 205 265 - 338 389 -------
Stage 2 586 378 - 364 264 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 42 46 586 49 46 594 796 - - 808 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 42 46 - 49 46 -------
Stage 1 201 209 - 332 382 -------
Stage 2 454 371 - 264 208 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 70 274.7 0.2 1.8

HCM LOS F F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 796 - - 45 586 125 808 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 - - 0.363 0.026 1.371 0.213 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.6 - - 125 11.3 274.7 10.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - - F B F B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 1.3 0.1 11.4 0.8 - -
622
HCM 6th AWSC Near Term plus Project AM Peak
3: Future N-S Road & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Improved Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.1
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 239 13 0 270 38 30 0 0 13 0 2
Future Vol, veh/h 3 239 13 0 270 38 30 0 0 13 0 2
Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Heavy Vehicles, % 333333333333
Mvmt Flow 4 291 16 0 329 46 37 0 0 16 0 2
Number of Lanes 021020110010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 3 1 2
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 3 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 2 3
HCM Control Delay 10 10.2 10.2 9.8

HCM LOS A B B A

Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 100% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 87%
Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 96% 100% 0% 100% 70% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 30% 13%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 30 0 83 159 13 180 128 15
LT Vol 30 0 3 0 0 0 0 13
Through Vol 0 0 80 159 0 180 90 0
RT Vol 0 0 0 0 13 0 38 2
Lane Flow Rate 37 0 101 194 16 220 156 18
Geometry Grp 88888888
Degree of Util (X) 0.071 0 0.154 0.297 0.021 0.328 0.224 0.035 Departure Headway (Hd) 6.953 6.45 5.516 5.498 4.794 5.386 5.177 6.854 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 518 0 646 649 740 663 688 525
Service Time 4.654 4.151 3.288 3.269 2.566 3.151 2.943 4.555 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.071 0 0.156 0.299 0.022 0.332 0.227 0.034 HCM Control Delay 10.2 9.2 9.3 10.6 7.7 10.8 9.4 9.8
HCM Lane LOS B N ABABAA
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.2 0 0.5 1.2 0.1 1.4 0.9 0.1
623
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Near Term plus Project AM Peak 7: Highland Avenue & Floral Avenue 09/08/2023
Improved Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 234 650 138 169 760 82 58 151 91 31 243 273 Future Volume (veh/h) 234 650 138 169 760 82 58 151 91 31 243 273 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 239 663 141 172 776 84 59 154 93 32 248 279 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 333333333333
Cap, veh/h 288 2000 892 219 1755 190 97 540 240 41 522 410 Arrive On Green 0.17 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.02 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 3428 3526 1572 3428 3208 347 3428 3526 1566 1767 3526 2768 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 239 663 141 172 426 434 59 154 93 32 248 279 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1714 1763 1572 1714 1763 1793 1714 1763 1566 1767 1763 1384 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.3 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 2.3 5.3 7.4 2.5 8.9 13.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.3 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 2.3 5.3 7.4 2.5 8.9 13.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 288 2000 892 219 964 981 97 540 240 41 522 410 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.33 0.16 0.79 0.44 0.44 0.61 0.29 0.39 0.79 0.48 0.68 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 482 2000 892 308 964 981 99 899 400 87 971 762 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.5 0.0 0.0 59.3 0.0 0.0 66.3 51.7 52.6 67.1 53.9 55.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 0.4 0.4 4.8 1.3 1.3 6.5 0.5 1.6 11.7 1.2 3.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.8 0.1 0.1 2.9 0.4 0.4 1.1 2.4 3.0 1.3 4.0 4.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 58.7 0.4 0.4 64.1 1.3 1.3 72.8 52.2 54.2 78.8 55.0 59.1 LnGrp LOS EAAEAAEDDEEE
Approach Vol, veh/h 1043 1032 306 559
Approach Delay, s/veh 13.8 11.8 56.8 58.4
Approach LOS BBEE
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.8 27.2 15.4 85.6 10.5 26.5 18.2 82.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.6 6.1 * 6.6 * 7.3 * 6.6 6.1 * 6.6 * 7.3 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 6.8 35.2 * 12 * 57 * 4 38.0 * 19 * 50 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 9.4 8.7 2.0 4.3 15.2 11.3 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.0 0.1 9.7 0.0 4.5 0.3 10.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. 624
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Near Term plus Project AM Peak 13: Highland Avenue & Rose Avenue 09/08/2023
Improved Synchro 11 Report
JLB Traffic Engineering, Inc.

Selma City CouncilDecember 16, 2025

Selma City Council
December 16, 2025