West Sacramento City Council
September 18, 2024

filed within ten days after the planning commission's decision. Appeals filed pursuant to other city ordinances, state statutes or other laws may be subject to different time lines. The notice of appeal filed with the city clerk, except a notice filed by the city council or a city councilmember, shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee as established by the city pursuant to resolution. Upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the city clerk shall cause the record of proceedings before the planning commission to be transmitted to the city council. The record of proceeding shall include all written materials the planning commission considered in taking the action being appealed. The city council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the planning commission.
(Ord. 15-1 § 2)

2.20.210 Adoption of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6—Exhaustion of remedies.

A. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6(g), the provisions of Section 1094.6 are made applicable to decisions of the planning commission and city council, as defined by Section 1094.6(e).

B. A decision shall be final for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, as set forth in Section 2.20.170.

C. Appeal to the city council, when expressly made available by city ordinance or other provisions of law, is a necessary step in the administrative appeals process and the failure to pursue an appeal shall be deemed a failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
(Ord. 15-1 § 2)
Article III
Parks, Recreation and Intergenerational Services Commission

2.20.220 Scope and duties.

The parks, recreation and intergenerational services commission shall provide advice and recommendations to the city council and staff on matters within the commission's scope and duties that have been referred to the commission by the city council, mayor or city manager. The scope and duties of the parks, recreation and intergenerational services commission shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:

A. Parks and related facilities and programs;
B. Sports and active living programs;
C. Recreation and leisure programs;
D. Support for civic and community-based organizations; E. Community services, including health and welfare concerns; F. Adaptation of the full range of city plans, projects, programs and services to the needs of seniors and youth;
G. Plans for the provision of services targeted to the elderly, including recreation, leisure, housing, financial security, and mobility;
H. Plans for the provision of services targeted to youth; and I. Early learning and universal preschool.
(Ord. 15-1 § 2)
Article IV
Economic Development and Housing Commission

2.20.260 Scope and duties.

The economic development and housing commission shall provide advice and recommendations to the city council and staff on matters within the commission's scope and duties that have been referred to the commission by the city council, mayor, or city manager.

The scope and duties of the economic development and housing commission shall include:
835
Ordinance 24-12

A. Incentives and programs to promote economic development; B. Make recommendations on marketing strategies that have been suggested by staff in anticipation of a report to the city council;
C. Business retention and recruitment;
D. Community investment and development assistance;
E. Housing standards and affordability;
F. Homelessness; and
G. Community development block grant policies and priorities. (Ord. 15-1 § 2)
Article V
Board of Appeals

2.20.290 Jurisdiction.

A. The board of appeals shall act as the board of appeals, the relocation appeals board, and the hazardous materials advisory commission (H/M commission).

B. The board of appeals shall have jurisdiction over, and shall hear and act upon the following matters:

1. Appeals from and determinations by the fire chief and/or building official regarding the suitability of alternative materials and methods of construction, when required, and it shall provide reasonable interpretation and render decisions, pertaining to, and in accordance with, the following:
a. The codes promulgated by the California Building Standards Commission, as published in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, as adopted and amended by city ordinance, and the International Property Maintenance Code, as adopted and amended by city ordinance.
b. City ordinances regarding nuisance abatement, including, but not limited to, the abatement of weeds and vehicles.

2. Appeals from and determinations by the relocation director regarding eligibility for, and amount of relocation and replacement housing benefits, when required, and it shall provide reasonable interpretation and render decisions, pertaining to, and in accordance with, California Health and Safety Code Section 33417.5, and California Government Code Section 7266.

C. Any decision of the board of appeals pursuant to this section shall be final. (Ord. 15-1 § 2)

2.20.300 Powers and duties.

Notwithstanding the powers and duties set forth in Section 2.20.290, and in addition to the powers and duties set forth therein, the board of appeals shall have the following powers and duties:

A. It shall hold at least one regular meeting per calendar year and it shall maintain a public record of its transactions of business, which shall include findings and determinations on matters within the scope of its responsibilities. At each regular meeting, its business shall include, but not be limited to, review of the activities of the fire department's hazardous materials program, which is established under the Fire Code published in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, as adopted and amended by city ordinance. Minutes of all such meetings shall be forwarded to the city council for review. In addition, the board of appeals shall hold special meetings upon the request of the fire chief, building official, relocation director, hazardous materials manager or city manager.

B. It shall periodically review the workings and finances of the fire department hazardous materials program. In addition, it may be called upon to evaluate the 836
Ordinance 24-12

proposed operations of businesses that desire to locate within the city of West Sacramento, and it shall make recommendations to the community development department on whether the proposed businesses' use of hazardous material is consistent with the planned location. Any recommendation will indicate whether the business will require a conditional use permit.

C. It shall review and comment on response plans and permits prepared pursuant to state law submitted to the board of appeals, in its capacity as the H/M commission, by the fire chief; review and comment on monthly incident reports submitted by the fire chief; request that the fire chief prepare enforcement reports; produce the annual report for the city manager and the city council regarding the status of hazardous materials program; and review and make recommendations to the community development department regarding potential land uses that involve the use, storage, and/or transportation of hazardous material.

D. It shall have all the powers and duties set forth in the codes and city ordinances referred to in Section 2.20.290 (Board of appeals—Jurisdiction), and it may recommend to the city council the adoption of new ordinances regarding the subject matter addressed in such codes and ordinances.

E. It shall inform the planning commission of any action or decision that may affect the scope of responsibility of the planning commission. During April of each year, a representative of the board of appeals may appear before the city council to report on work accomplished in the past year. Such report, at the discretion of the city council, may be required to be in writing.

F. It shall exercise all duties and powers permitted under California Health and Safety Code Section 33417.5, and California Government Code Section 7266 (pertaining to Relocation Appeals).
(Ord. 15-1 § 2)

2.20.320 Membership.

The board of appeals shall consist of five public members appointed in the manner set forth in Section 2.20.030 of the Municipal Code. Two of the members shall have backgrounds directly associated with architecture, civil engineering, building trades, or fire protection. In filling the remaining three positions, consideration shall be given to applicants with backgrounds in the following categories:

A. Toxicology;
B. Epidemiology;
C. Health education;
D. Commercial business;
E. Industry;
F. Environmental technology;
G. Public interest organizations; Local neighborhood organizations; and H. Labor organizations.
(Ord. 15-1 § 2)
Article VI
Transportation, Mobility and Infrastructure Commission

2.20.340 Scope and duties.

The transportation, mobility and infrastructure commission shall provide advice and recommendations to the city council and staff on matters within the commission's scope and duties that have been referred to the commission by the city council, mayor, or city manager.

The scope and duties of the transportation, mobility and infrastructure commission shall include:

A. Transportation planning;
B. Bicycle and pedestrian policies and facility planning; 837
Ordinance 24-12

C. Goods movement;
D. Charging and fueling infrastructure for electric, hydrogen, and other alternative fuel vehicles;
E. Public transit;
F. Ridesharing, transportation network services, and taxicabs; G. Plans and standards for roads, bridges, and highways; H. Flood management infrastructure.

The commission shall be the local advisory body, pursuant to Section 2.20.121(C), for the city's representative to the Yolo County Transportation District, the governing entity for the streetcar system, the Port Commission, and, as appropriate, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments.
(Ord. 15-1 § 2)
Article VII
Arts, Culture and Historic Preservation Commission

2.20.370 Scope and duties.

The arts, culture and historic preservation commission shall provide advice and recommendations to the city council and staff on matters within the commission's scope and duties and that have been referred to the commission by the city council, mayor or city manager. The scope and duties of the arts, culture and historic preservation commission shall include:

A. Cultural enrichment of the city;
B. Coordinating and strengthening existing organizations in the cultural arts field; C. Private initiative in the arts and culture;
D. Creative activities, as well as public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of the cultural and art forms and activities;
E. Review and make recommendations upon all works of art to be acquired by the city, either by purchase, gift or otherwise, and their proposed locations; and F. The designation and inventory of historic resources and districts. (Ord. 15-1 § 2)
Article VIII
Environment and Utilities Commission

2.20.390 Scope and duties.

The environment and utilities commission shall provide advice and recommendations to the city council and staff on matters within the commission's scope and duties and that have been referred to the commission by the city council, mayor, or city manager. The scope and duties of the environment and utilities commission shall include:

A. Tree preservation;
B. Habitat and natural communities conservation;
C. Williamson Act easements;
D. Agricultural land conservation;
E. Open space;
F. Energy;
G. Water, wastewater, and stormwater services and usage; H. Refuse, recycling, and solid waste services and usage; and I. Telecommunications services and usage.

The commission shall be the local advisory body pursuant to Section 2.20.121(C), for the city's representative to the Sacramento Regional Sanitation District, the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, the Yolo Habitat Conservancy, and the Delta Protection Commission.
(Ord. 15-1 § 2)
838
Ordinance 24-12

Article IX
Sacramento-Yolo Port District Commission

2.20.400 Responsibility—Jurisdiction.

The Sacramento-Yolo Port Commission shall have all the powers and duties prescribed by state statute.
(Ord. 15-1 § 2)
839

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2024 ITEM # 17
SUBJECT:

PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 24-97 ADOPTING SACRAMENTO AVENUE COMPLETE STREET PLAN (CIP 10048 - SACRAMENTO

AVENUE COMPLETE STREETS CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PLAN), AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 24-105 AMENDING THE PROJECT BUDGET INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[ ] Council [X] Staff
[ ] Other
Stephanie Chhan, Senior Transportation Planner
Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT [X] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [X] Action

OBJECTIVE
The objective of this report is to present the draft final Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan to City Council for consideration of adoption.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council:
1) Conduct a public hearing; and
2) Find the adoption of the Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act and qualifies for a Statutory Exemption under Senate Bill 922 as an active transportation plan pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 21080.20; and 3) Approve Resolution 24-97 adopting the Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan; and 4) Approve Resolution 24-105 amending the project budget.

BACKGROUND
Through the 2021 Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Regional Funding Round - Community Design Funding Program – Non-Competitive Funding Category, the City was awarded $273,000 in Regional Surface Transportation Program funds, with a commitment of $35,371 of local matching funds, to develop the Sacramento Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Improvement Plan (Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan).

On October 19, 2022, the City Council authorized staff to execute a contract with GHD, Inc and to proceed with the development of the Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan. The Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan is intended to be a comprehensive, cohesive vision of transportation and land enhancements. Planning work includes documenting existing conditions and challenges, providing design recommendations, identifying funding opportunities, and presenting an implementation plan. The Plan will provide the framework and recommendations for the transformation of a crucial east/west transportation corridor from a vehicle-centric arterial to a Complete Streets multimodal corridor which serves low-income Assembly Bill 1550 communities, schools, employment centers and retail.

Along with the contract award, City Council authorized staff to submit a grant application for the SACOG Green Means Go funding program and to return to Council with a contract amendment with GHD should the City receive a grant award. In March 2023, SACOG awarded the City $650,000 for the Sacramento Avenue Corridor Infill & Infrastructure Capacity, Needs, and Financing Plan. In November 2023, the City Council approved Amendment No. 1 to the Contract for Services with GHD for $620,077 to include the scope of the Infill & Infrastructure Capacity, Needs, and Financing Plan. The remainder of the Green Means Go grant is used for staff time to support tasks. This effort will identify zoning and development code changes and non-transportation utility improvement needs that can encourage infill housing development.

ANALYSIS
Staff is presenting the draft final Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan to the City Council (Attachment 1).

The vision for the Sacramento Avenue corridor is a safe, accessible, and enjoyable community asset with active mobility infrastructure and pedestrian-oriented streetscapes that support local economic and social opportunities.

Primarily, the Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan proposes the following improvements:
 Bicyclist Infrastructure Improvements: Bicycle level of traffic stress (LTS) is a metric of perceived sense of danger associated with bicycling adjacent to vehicular traffic. A score of LTS 1 indicates a street with low stress and high comfort for people bicycling and LTS 4 reflects a highly stressful experience. A low-stress network means more bicyclists, regardless of age or ability, can comfortably ride to their 840
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Adoption
September 18, 2024

destination. All segments of Sacramento Avenue are currently rated LTS 3 or 4. Where feasible, the recommended concept proposes to provide cyclists with their own dedicated space, separated from vehicular traffic. A Class IV bikeway – a raised cycle track adjacent to and at level with the sidewalk and furthermore protected from vehicular traffic with the landscape strip – is recommended along the corridor.

From Solano Street to Bryte Avenue, the Class IV bikeway on the south side curb transitions to a twoway facility to facilitate safe crossing and access to the future Sycamore Trail extension that is planned to connect to bicycle facilities at Yolo Street. Due to right-of-way constraints between Douglas Street and Reuter Drive, bicyclists have the option to use a Class II on-street option or a Class I bike path through Elkhorn Plaza on the northside curb. Due to right-of-way constraints between 5th Street to the 3rd Street, a Class II on-street bike lane is proposed.
 Roundabouts/Protected Intersections for Improved Safety and Traffic Operations: Per the City’s 2018 Systemic Safety Analysis Report, Sacramento Avenue is one of the City’s most dangerous roadways. Roundabouts or protected intersections are recommended along the Sacramento Avenue corridor at Harbor Boulevard, Jefferson Boulevard/Keagle Drive, and 5th Street. Roundabouts can improve safety and connectivity by reducing conflict points between all modes, while also addressing traffic flow. Protected intersections create shorter, simpler crossings and high visibility crossings for bicyclists and pedestrians. Roundabouts are preferred alternative at Harbor Boulevard and Jefferson Boulevard/Keagle Drive but require some right-of-way acquisition. Though there is general support for roundabouts through the engagement conducted through the Complete Street Plan, the City will further analyze both roundabouts and protected intersections. During the preliminary engineering phase, the City will refine and select a context sensitive solution that is revalidated and supported with more comprehensive data and analysis.
 Green Infrastructure for Sustainability, Placemaking, and Shade: Consistent with the City’s Landscape Development Guidelines and Master Tree List, the proposed concept includes a landscaped buffer between the Class IV bicyclist that will provide shade during the region’s hot summers and can also be designed as a bioswale to assist with stormwater management. Due to the 100-foot right-of-way available along significant segments of the Sacramento Avenue corridor, a landscaped median is proposed for the excess right-of-way involved in reducing vehicle travel lanes to 11 feet. Narrower vehicle lanes will help to calm traffic, contributing to a more pedestrian-oriented streetscape. The landscaped median will also provide shade as trees mature and can be designed to facilitate stormwater management.

The Plan also recommends integrating other pedestrian infrastructure such as lighting, wayfinding signage, transit stop features, and social hubs with enhanced pedestrian amenities with the proposed concept. Chapter 6: Improvement Concept of the Plan (Attachment 1) provides a visual layout of the proposed concept.

Outreach Activities
The public has been involved in developing and refining the improvement concepts recommended in the Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan. A community workshop was held on March 23, 2023 to understand the community’s transportation needs along the corridor. The project team held a pop-up event during the Yolo County Children’s Alliance Back-to-School Family Resource Fair on August 5, 2023 to further publicize the project and seek reactions and opinions on initial concepts. A second community workshop was held on October 10, 2023 to share with proposed pedestrian and bicyclist improvements for feedback from the community. A second pop-up event was held during the Breathe Bike Festival on April 28, 2024 to share the improvement concepts and publicize the upcoming release and comment period of the draft plan. The draft Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan was available for public review between May 6 to June 7, 2024. In general, public comments were supportive of the Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan. Response to public comments is provided in Attachment 2. The project team presented updates and sought feedback from the Transportation, Mobility and Infrastructure (TMI) Commission in February 2023, January 2024, and May 2024.

Green Means Go Grant
In January 2024, SACOG notified staff that initial state budget proposals considered rescinding $300 million from the statewide Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) 2 program, the funding source of the SACOG Green Means Go program. The proposed budget was estimated to limit grant award reimbursement by 50 percent. Due to uncertainty in the state’s budget and insufficient funding for the completion a singular task, the Infill & Infrastructure Capacity, Needs, and Financing Plan tasks were put on indefinite hold between January 2024 to August 2024.

After the state’s budget adoption, the REAP 2 program only faced a 6 percent budget cut. On August 15, 2024, the SACOG Board of Directors adopted revisions to Green Means Go awards, reducing the City’s award by $41,000 - from $650,000 to $609,000.
841
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Adoption
September 18, 2024

The Green Means Go grant activities must be complete by June 30, 2026. City staff will return to City Council at a later date to request local funding to cover the gap for staff time and the consultant contract due to the state’s budget cut.

Next Steps
Staff is seeking City Council’s approval of Resolution 24-97 (Attachment 3), adopting the Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan.

The total estimated project cost is $125 million - escalated to mid-point year of activity and inclusive of nontransportation improvements estimated to be necessary for completion of the project. The City has been awarded $1,666,279 from the United States Department of Transportation’s Community Project Funding / Congressionally Directed Spending Program to move the project forward for preliminary engineering. Additionally, the City has applied to the State’s Active Transportation Program (ATP) for environmental, design, and right-of-way for $11.3 million. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) staff recommendations of the statewide ATP projects will be posted in November 2024 and the CTC will adopt the statewide projects in December 2024. City staff will seek additional external funding sources to expediate this project.

Environmental Considerations
The Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan qualifies for a Statutory Exemption under Senate Bill 922 as a pedestrian transportation plan because it was developed by the City to promote and encourage residents to choose walking through the creation of safe, comfortable, connected, and accessible pedestrian networks.

Projects identified in the plan remain subject to CEQA unless other exemptions apply (Public Resources Code Section 20180.20(a)(3)). As such, staff has prepared a Notice of Exemption for the Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan (Attachment 4). Environmental analysis and documentation will be conducted for the Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan at the next phase.

Commission Recommendation
The contents of the draft Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan were presented to the Transportation, Mobility, and Infrastructure Commission on May 6, 2024. The TMI Commission did not have any further comments or policy guidance for staff to consider. Due to unsubstantial changes between the draft and final draft plans based on the public comment period, on September 9, 2024, staff provided a verbal staff report to the TMI Commission that the final draft Plan would be presented to City Council for adoption on September 18, 2024.

Strategic Plan Integration
This project advances the 2023 Strategic Plan strategic principle of Mobility and Connectivity to provide convenient and sustainable choices for people to get where they’re going. The Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan is also directly implementing the goals, strategies and tactics set forth by the General Plan 2035; Mayors’ Commission on Climate Change; Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plan; Age Friendly Action Plan; Mobility Action Plan; and forthcoming Climate Action Plan.

Alternatives
The City Council’s primary action alternatives are as follows:
1) Approve the recommended actions as stated above; or
2) Approve with modifications to the Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan; or 3) Direct the item to be moved to a later meeting; or
4) Decline to hold a public hearing and adopt the Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan.

Alternative 1 is the recommended action. Alternative 2 is not recommended given that the project team has developed the final Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan with extensive public outreach. Alternatives 3 and 4 are not recommended as the work on the plan is complete and ready to be adopted. If the project is delayed and not completed within the grant timeline, the City cannot incur valid project cost after the grant deadline of January 30, 2025. Furthermore, grant award performance is sometimes taken into consideration under evaluation of future grant applications.

Coordination and Review
This report was coordinated by the Transportation & Mobility Division of the Community Development Department. Elements of the Agenda Report’s content were coordinated with the Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan project team comprised of GHD, Inc and WRT. Varying levels of coordination of the project have also occurred with the City Manager’s Office, Community Development Department, Capital Projects 842
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Adoption
September 18, 2024

Department, Economic Development and Housing Department, Parks and Recreation Department, and Public Works Department.

Budget/Cost Impact
The City was awarded $273,000 in Regional Surface Transportation Program funds, with a commitment of $35,371 of local matching funds through the 2021 SACOG Funding Round - Community Design Funding Program. This project was appropriated to the FY 2021-22 Capital Improvement Project budget as approved by Council via Resolution 21-49 for a total appropriation of $35,330 of Measure N – Community Improvements Funds. On October 19, 2022, City Council approved Resolution 22-129 authorizing the transfer of $24,129 from the Measure N (Fund 111) to support the contract contingency and staff time. On June 28, 2023, City Council approved Resolution 23-57, authorizing $650,000 Green Means Go grant award in the project budget through the Fiscal Year 2023-2025 Budget adoption. An additional $25,000 of Measure N funds were approved by City Council through Resolution 24-92 adopting midterm budget updates for FY2024-25. In total, City Council has approved $1,007,129 for this project; however, with the reduction in Green Means Go grant funds, the total approved budget is now $966,129. Additional local funds of $41,000 are needed to offset the grant reduction.

Those funds are proposed to be funded by Measure N – Community Improvement.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Final Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan

2. Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix Excerpt – Public Comment Table

3. Resolution 24-97

4. Notice of Exemption

5. Resolution 24-105 Amending the Project Budget
843

SACRAMENTO AVENUE COMPLETE STREET PLAN

FINAL PLAN
SEPTEMBER 2024
844
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | ii
PREPARED FOR:

PREPARED BY:

IN COLLABORATION WITH:

845
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION............................... 1
SACRAMENTO AVENUE ................................ 1
PLANNING CONTEXT.................................... 6
2 VISION & GOALS...........................19
VISION STATEMENT ...................................19
FROM VISION TO GOALS ............................20
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............... 21
ESTABLISHING A BASELINE.........................21
LOCAL CONTEXT .......................................22 LOCAL MOBILITY TRENDS ..........................28
ROADWAY CONDITIONS .............................32
MULTIMODAL CONDITIONS .........................47
SAFETY HISTORY ......................................57 KEY FINDINGS...........................................60 4 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT...... 63
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ......................63
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT TEAM..................64
WALK AUDIT .............................................64 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 ......................65
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP # 2 ......................67
WEBSITE AND SURVEY ..............................68
POP-UP EVENTS .......................................72 DRAFT PLAN REVIEW ................................75
5 DESIGN APPROACH .................... 76
FROM VISION TO STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT76
VISION STRATEGIES OVERVIEW .................77
IMPROVEMENT TYPES................................79
CORRIDOR STRATEGIES ............................88
WESTERN AREA STRATEGIES ....................96
CENTRAL AREA STRATEGIES .....................98
EASTERN AREA STRATEGIES ...................100
6 IMPROVEMENT CONCEPTS ...... 101
WESTERN AREA SEGMENT 1 ...................102
WESTERN AREA SEGMENT 2 ...................103
WESTERN AREA SEGMENT 3 ................... 104
CENTRAL AREA SEGMENT 4 .................... 105
CENTRAL AREA SEGMENT 5 .................... 106
EASTERN AREA SEGMENT 6 .................... 107
7 EVALUATION.............................. 109
SAFETY & GAP CLOSURE BENEFITS ........ 110

LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS & CONNECTIVITY
BENEFIT ................................................. 112 VEHICULAR BENEFIT ............................... 113
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY BENEFIT.... 114
COMMUNITY SUPPORT ............................ 116
BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS........................ 118
8 IMPLEMENTATION &
PRIORITIZATION................................126
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN........................... 126
FUNDING SOURCES ................................ 132
IMPLEMENTATION OPPORTUNITIES........... 137
846
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | iv
This page was intentionally left blank
847
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 1
1 Introduction

SACRAMENTO AVENUE
Sacramento Avenue is a key corridor in the City of West Sacramento (the “City”) that runs east-west between interstates 5 and 80. As one of the City’s major arterials, and most significant east-west transportation corridors, the roadway connects regional amenities such as West Sacramento’s commercial anchors to the west and the developing Sacramento River riverfront, the C Street Railyards Bridge, the I Street Bridge Deck Conversion for Active Transportation Project, and Downtown Sacramento, to the east. As a local transportation route through primarily residential neighborhoods, the corridor also provides access to community amenities, including trails and outdoor recreation, schools, and lifestyle destinations. Figure 1 presents the Sacramento Avenue corridor in relation to its local context, highlighting the location of adjacent West Sacramento areas and regional interstates.

The land use context across the corridor is varied, and both City-wide and regional land use and infrastructure growth is projected in the near and long-term. Fulfilling these diverse and changing functions in both the near and long term requires a balance between traffic operations, safety, and accessibility for all of the road users who will use the corridor. With a 2021 Community Design Program grant from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), the City initiated the Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan to ensure that existing and future travel needs, and development impacts are considered within the local context.

The corridor’s existing transportation infrastructure is primarily oriented toward vehicular traffic, offering limited multimodal facilities to support safe and connected travel along and across the corridor for nonvehicular modes. Class II bike lanes are present on most of the corridor; however, their value is limited due to high vehicular speeds, wide travel lanes, and minimal separation between bikes and cars. Pedestrian facilities are intermittent and disconnected, with approximately 40 percent of the corridor lacking sidewalk coverage. The existing conditions along the corridor result in a stressful experience for all road users, but especially for those who are walking, biking, or using transit.

CORRIDOR HISTORY
Sacramento Avenue developed along some of the oldest communities in West Sacramento, where Euro American settlers first established and settled in the area in the 1840s. The alignment of Sacramento Avenue can be traced back to the development of Legislative Route Number 50 (LRN 50), which was commissioned in 1919 to connect the cities of Woodland to Sacramento. LRN 50 was also known as State Sign Route 16 and State Sign Route 24 between the 1930s to 1960s due to varying signing policies in California. In September 1963, the passage of Senate Bill 64 resulted in state-wide highway renumbering to reconcile the duplicative and confusing numbering and naming system, and it became known as Route 84 as adopted by the State Legislature in 1965. When State Route 84 was extended north along Jefferson Boulevard at United States 50 to Sacramento Avenue in the 1970- 1980s, Sacramento Avenue between Jefferson Boulevard/Kegle Avenue to Interstate 80 was also widened to a four-lane street and resigned as part of the State Route 84 to provide connections among the communities of Bryte, Broderick, and West Sacramento. Original design of the Sacramento Avenue section proposed a 100-foot cross section that would include four 12-foot lanes, a 16-foot median for left-turn movements, 8-foot parking strips on each side, 10-foot sidewalks on each side, and possibly utility area. Despite the original intent, this section of Sacramento Avenue was built without complete parking strips, sidewalks, and the utilities were installed along the available area.

Though the City of West Sacramento was incorporated in 1987, Sacramento Avenue remained part of the state highway system until it was relinquished by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to the City in 2003. The history of Sacramento Avenue's original intended use - as a main thoroughfare to the county offices in 848
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 2
Woodland and as a state-controlled facility for 84 years - provides context to its current vehicular focused design. The City has made minor improvements to the corridor over time - by 2011, the City removed parking along Sacramento Avenue between Jefferson Boulevard/Kegle Avenue and Harbor Boulevard to add in Class II bike lanes with the Measure K Elkhorn/Broderick Area Street Rehabilitation Project.

PURPOSE & APPROACH
Creating a complete street corridor plan that meets the needs of residential neighborhoods, businesses, and commuters, while contending with right-of-way constraints, requires context-sensitive solutions that adapt to changing character and limitations. This Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan (the “Plan”) aims to provide a roadmap for implementing community-driven improvements that provide safer and more comfortable transportation options for people of all ages and abilities, while enhancing public spaces for economic and community vitality along the corridor.

The Plan presents an overview of the project purpose and corridor study area, summarizes previous planning efforts and community engagement that informed the development of the project, and establishes a vision to introduce new mobility choices to Sacramento Avenue, expand safe access to existing multimodal opportunities, and strengthen community connectivity through urban and street design.

Subsequent chapters review the existing conditions along the corridor, identify and evaluate strategies for addressing the needs of the corridor and present a strategic plan to implement the corridor vision.

The Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan will provide the City with an actionable framework for implementable programs and projects with proven results to address real safety and accessibility issues in the study area. Developed in close coordination with the community and project stakeholders, this Plan identifies improvements to streets, intersections, streetscape, and landscape using Complete Streets planning and design elements. A key focus of this Plan is to expand access and connectivity for non-vehicular modes of transportation. Improvements are evaluated based on several criteria, including safety, accessibility, equity, sustainability, and benefit-cost.

PROJECT AREA
The Sacramento Avenue corridor is approximately two miles in length between 2nd Street and Harbor Boulevard, including C Street east of 6th Street. The corridor runs east-west through the City of West Sacramento, with Interstate 5 on the West and Interstate 80, as well as the Sacramento River, on the east.

Land uses and destinations along the corridor include commercial and community destinations, and residential neighborhoods, many of which are considered disadvantaged. The Riverpoint Marketplace shopping center, which includes various retailers such as The Home Depot, IKEA, Walmart, and various other commercial businesses is located just west of the corridor. To the east of the corridor, the Sacramento Riverfront trail runs north-south adjacent to the corridor. Eastward beyond the river, the I Street Bridge connects to Downtown Sacramento. To the north and south of the corridor, there are several parks and open space areas, as well as schools.

Because the existing land use and street character is varied, the corridor was grouped into three core areas based on the initial segmentation of the corridor into six segments. This segmentation is described in detail in the subsequent section of the Plan. The discussion of existing conditions, proposed strategies and improvements and evaluation of the preferred concept in the chapters that follow are organized around the segmentation of the corridor.
849
California St

SACRAMENTO RIVER
I st Bridge
Reed Ave
Kegle Dr
Douglas St
Sycamore Trail
Jefferson Blvd
Todhunter Ave
Sunset Ave
Bryte Ave
5th St
Harbor Blvd
Solano St
6th St
4th St
3rd St
2nd St

SACRAMENTO AVE
C St
Cummins Way
To I-5 & City of
Sacramento
To I-80
160
275
50 16
99 80
80 80
5 84 50

CITY OF

SACRAMENTO

DOWNTOWN

CITY OF WEST

SACRAMENTO
City Boundary

SACRAMENTO RIVER

AMERICAN RIVER

LISBON AVE
F ST
3RD
ST
C ST
6TH
ST

G ST JEFFERSON BL VD

DOUGLAS ST
E ST
5TH
ST

BRYTE AVE
4TH
ST

LIGHTHOUSE DR

HOLLAND DR

KEGLE DR FREMONT BLVD

TODHUNTER AVE

SUNSET AVE
OAK ST

SOLANO ST
7TH
ST
2ND
ST

TOWER BRIDGE GATEWAY

MYRTLE AVE

REUTER DR
I ST

TOWER BRID

GATEWAY
GE

RIVERBANK RD

N HOBSON AVE

N HOBSON AVE

SACRAMENTO AVE REED AVE

CUMMINS WAY
113
45 16
505 5
West
Sacramento
Woodland
Davis
113
45 16
80 505
5 16
113
84 5
50 505

EXTENT OF

TOP RIGHT
MAP
West
Sacramento
Woodland
Davis
YOLO
COUNTY
LEGEND
Area of
Interest
Study
Corridor
Schools
Parks
Rail
Figure 1 Area of Interest & Regional Vicinity 0 0.2 0.4 MILES N
850
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 4

CORRIDOR AREAS & SEGMENTS
The corridor areas and sub-segments are shown in Figure 2, and described in further detail below.

WESTERN AREA: WIDE & MULTI-LANE
The western area of the corridor includes segments one, two and three, the areas from Harbor Boulevard to Jefferson Boulevard. This section features a wide, five-lane cross-section with adjacent land use that is almost entirely developed. The adjacent land use through this area is predominantly low- to medium-density residential, as well as some commercial. At the southwest of the western area is the Riverpoint Marketplace shopping center, which is a regional commercial destination that includes big box retailers like IKEA and Walmart as well as smaller businesses and restaurants. Just north of the corridor along Bryte Avenue is Lighthouse Charter School, a K-8 school whose students are served by Sacramento Avenue.

This section of the corridor serves as a key connection between two of the City’s most highly trafficked arterial roadways, Harbor and Jefferson Boulevards, and connects to I-80 at the west, resulting in the highest traffic volumes found along the corridor. While speeds are posted at 40 mph, the 85th percentile speed is 45 mph, and community members report speeding is a common occurrence. The existing transportation facilities include Class II bike lanes and sidewalks, but there are intermittent gaps in sidewalk coverage and high traffic volumes and speeds result in a stressful experience for active transportation users.

CENTRAL AREA: TRANSITIONAL & UNDERDEVELOPED
The central area of the corridor includes segments four and five, the areas west of Jefferson Boulevard to the 6th Street curve west of California Street. West of Jefferson Boulevard, Sacramento Avenue narrows to two through lanes with a left-turn pocket at some locations.

Most of the central area lacks sidewalks and while Class II bike lanes exist, high speeds and lack of street lighting diminish their utility.

The adjacent land use is varied and currently undeveloped in most areas on the south side of the corridor. To the northwest of the Sacramento Avenue / Jefferson Boulevard intersection is the Riverbend Shopping Plaza, which includes two grocery stores, a Post Office and convenience store. East of the shopping center, also on the north side, is a medium-density residential, and a small parklet called Elkhorn Plaza.

East of Elkhorn Plaza, the street width along Sacramento Avenue begins to narrow, constrained by railroad right-of-way to the south. At the east end of the central area, the roadway curves, and Sacramento Avenue transitions to 6th Street for a short distance. The curve in the roadway is notorious for safety concerns, with a lack of street lighting, site distance limitations and speeding being common issues.

EASTERN AREA: CONSTRAINED & DEVELOPED
The eastern area of the corridor comprises segment six, which includes the areas east of California Street to the corridor’s east end at 2nd Street. Sacramento Avenue at 5th and 6th Streets provide connections to residential neighborhoods to the north and south of the corridor.

East of 5th Street, the land use context changes from medium-density residential to high density residential and mixed-use development, with a few vacant parcels. The posted speeds also lower to 25 mph. With the transition in land use and lower speed, the eastern area / segment six lends more toward a pedestrian-scale environment.

While included in the corridor area of interest for the Plan, this segment is at the intersection of several planned projects, which are at various stages of planning and/or construction process. This segment is constrained by both an existing historical site and the planned projects that are already slated to upgrade the existing infrastructure and roadway geometry, as well as provide new connections to Downtown Sacramento. Planned projects are discussed in more detail in the following section of the Plan.
851
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 5
Figure 2 Corridor Areas & Segments
852
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 6

PLANNING CONTEXT
The Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan builds upon a framework of existing plans and policy documents at the statewide, regional and local levels, as well as several development and infrastructure projects within or connecting to the study area. This framework is described in more detail in the following sections.

STATE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
CALTRANS CORRIDOR PLANNING PROCESS GUIDE (2020)
The Corridor Planning Process Guide was prepared by Caltrans’ Division of Transportation Planning to provide guidance on preparing corridor planning document. The guide establishes a comprehensive planning approach vis-à-vis protocols and procedures to identify and implement transportation needs.

TOWARD AN ACTIVE CALIFORNIA (2017)
» Toward an Active California is the State’s first bicycle and pedestrian plan that provides policies and actions for Caltrans and partner agencies to undertake to improve comfort,
connectivity, safety, and feasibility of travel by walking and bicycling. By 2040, people in California of all ages, abilities, and incomes can safely, conveniently, and comfortably walk and bicycle for their transportation needs.
» The goals outline in the Caltrans’ plan as related to the Complete Street Plan are:
o MOBILITY: Reduce dependency on single-occupancy
vehicle travel through mode shift to bicycling, walking, and transit.
o SAFETY: Increase safety for all users (modes) and
abilities, as
expressed
through
Toward Zero
Deaths
(Caltrans) and
Vision Zero
(local
agencies)
initiatives
o EQUITY:

Promote active
transportation
solutions that
serve the
communities
within the District by improving accessibility and
expanding healthy transportation options for
underserved communities
o PRESERVATION: Ensure District active transportation
strategies and actions adequately address the longterm maintenance needs and resources required to maintain a state of good repair for the state highway
system.

DESIGN GUIDANCE
In addition to standards and planning guidance provided by state, regional and local agency documents, this project incorporates design guidance and best practices for multimodal and complete streets. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has developed two manuals relevant to the Plan: a Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, (also called the “Green Book”), and a Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) has also published several relevant books that provide comprehensive guidance and safety considerations for urban street environments, including the Urban Street Design Guide, Urban Bikeway Design Guide and the Transit Street Design Guide.
853
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 7

REGIONAL PLANNING DOCUMENTS

YOLO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS PLAN (YATC)
The YATC Plan is under development by the Yolo County
Transportation District (YoloTD) and is scheduled for completion in summer 2024. The YATC Plan prioritizes active transportation connections within and throughout Yolo County communities, addressing mobility barriers of low-income and minority residents.

Goals outlined by the YATC relevant to the Plan include:
» Improve safety by providing dedicated active transportation facilities
» Advance environmental sustainability and climate action by encouraging mode shift
» Enhance quality of life and equity by addressing
transportation barriers facing isolate, low-income, and minority communities
» Promote state of good repair by reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on existing roadways
» Boost economic competitiveness by increasing foot traffic to local business in incorporated areas and agritourism
» Advance regional vision for an interconnected trail network SACRAMENTO REGION TRAIL NETWORK ACTION PLAN (2022)
The Sacramento Region Trail Network Action Plan establishes a prioritization framework and implementation strategy for planned trail projects in the SACOG region. The goals of the Action Plan are to establish a network that promotes safety, all ages and abilities, economic vitality, environmental justice, health, and recreation. The Sacramento Region Trail Network map identifies Sacramento Avenue as a trail study corridor.

SACOG METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN/SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY

STRATEGY (MTP/SCS)
The SACOG 2020 MTP/SCS
presents a transportation and land
use strategy for the SACOG region
of Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and
Yuba counties. Its purpose is to
support jobs, economic
opportunity, transportation choices,
and affordable housing for all. It
identifies the best way forward to
improve regional air quality,
preserve open space and natural
resources, and help the state of
California achieve its greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions reduction targets.

Goals of the MTP/SCS relevant to the Plan include:
» “Build vibrant places for today’s and tomorrow’s residents.” » “Foster the next generation of mobility solutions.”
» “Modernize the way we pay for transportation infrastructure.” » “Build and maintain a safe, reliable, and multimodal
transportation system.”
Programmed and planned projects proposed by the MTP/SCS relevant to the Sacramento Avenue corridor are described below. SACOG is underway with an update to the MTP/SCS, called the 2025 Blueprint, scheduled for adoption in early 2025. The following lists projects programmed and planned in the 2020 MTP/SCS, with updates from the City.
854
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 8
Programmed Projects:
» Downtown/Riverfront Streetcar: Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT) extension of Light Rail Transit (LRT) Service (Phase 1): The updated alignment for this LRT extension into West Sacramento at Sutter Health Park from the Sacramento Valley Station regional mobility hub in Sacramento utilizes existing rail infrastructure on H Street, 7th and 8th Streets; connecting with new track and LRT stations along N Street, 3rd Street, and Capitol Mall/Tower Bridge Gateway. This West Sacramento service extension will use the same LRT vehicles that are used systemwide. (Project Development programmed separately under VAR56127, for $14,570,000.) (Anticipated cost: $162,000,000 ; Anticipated completion: 2025-2030) Planned Projects:
» C Street-Railyards Bridge (I Street Bridge Replacement): New Northern Bridge from Sacramento to West Sacramento across the Sacramento River. Includes auto, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Project is currently under final design phase. Led by City of Sacramento in cooperation with West Sacramento and Caltrans. (Anticipated cost: $280,000,000; Anticipated completion: 2030-2031)
» 3rd and C Gateway Improvements: Design, environmental clearance, permitting and construction of streetscape
improvements at and adjacent to the intersection of 3rd and C Streets in Washington. The improvements implement the
streetscape improvements recommended by the Washington
Realized: Sustainable Community Strategy for C Street, 3rd Street and the reconfigured 2nd Street south roadway.
(Anticipated cost: $1,500,000; Anticipated completion: 2020- 2025)
» I Street Bridge Deck Conversion: Design, environmental clearance, permitting and construction of approaches and the upper deck for the I St Bridge. The improvements include construction/modification of the approaches for ADA
compliance, resurfacing of the deck and other appurtenant circulation improvements. Civic spaces will be incorporated into the project. Project is entering the design phase. (Anticipated cost: $23,000,000; Anticipated completion:
2030-2031)
» I Street to Indian Heritage Bike Trail: Construct Bike Trail under I Street Bridge and new C Street Bridge then continue atop levee to Indian Heritage Center. (Anticipated cost:
$2,000,000; Anticipated completion: 2030-2035)
» Sycamore Trail Phase V: A five-phase project that extends south from Sacramento Avenue near Yolo Street across
United States Highway 50 (US 50) and the Barge Canal to the Lake Washington Boulevard and Jefferson Boulevard
intersection. Phase 1 between Rice Avenue and West Capitol was completed in 2019. The City is currently underway with construction of Phase 2 which will extend the trail from Westmore Oaks School over US 50 connecting with Joey
Lopes Park and design of Phase 3 which will further extend the trail from Westmore Oaks Elementary School to the
intersection of Park Boulevard and Stone Boulevard. SACOG was awarded a Reconnecting Communities and
Neighborhood - Regional Partnership Challenge grant to
conduct feasibility studies for extending the trail south across the Barge Canal (Phase IV) and north over the Union Pacific Railroad and Sierra Northern Railway (Phase V). Utilizing the existing sewer easement, Sycamore Trail Phase V will cross the Mikon Junction Underpass, twenty-foot-high Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)/Sierra Northern Railway track embankments at the north end to reach the Broderick/Bryte neighborhoods. (Phase V Anticipated cost: $TBD; Anticipated completion:
2030-2035)
» I-80/Reed Ave. Interchange: Led by Caltrans, I-80 at Reed Ave. interchange improvements include widening ramps at the intersection with Reed Avenue, widening Reed Avenue, and limiting some local street access, as well as adding ramp metering to the on-ramps. (Anticipated cost: $12,350,000; Anticipated completion: 2025-2030)
Note that the City is planning to include the following projects in the 2025 Blueprint, consistent with grant applications/awards that were not captured in SACOG's 2022 data request.
» Clarksburg Branch Line Trail (CBLT) North Terminus Extension to Broderick: The planned northern terminus of the CBLT in West Sacramento is the Washington District and Broderick neighborhood. The upcoming updates to the Washington
855
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 9
Specific Plan and to the West Sacramento Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plan will each identify the Clarksburg extension and future trailhead connecting at 8th Street and Sacramento Avenue where, like the Sycamore Trail, the City will work with Union Pacific Railroad to design an under or overcrossing of existing elevated Union Pacific Railroad track.

Within the City limits, 1.3 miles of the trail corridor between Locks Drive and Cherokee Road, running east of River City High School and the City’s recreation center. From there, a 3- mile segment south to the City Limit was funded by SACOG through the Community Design Program to complete
engineering design, and this work is estimated to be
completed by 2025. Construction funding has been
committed for that portion of the project as well through execution of local development agreements. The City, Yolo County, YoloTD, and the Delta Protection Commission
submitted a 2024 Carbon Reduction Program grant
application to SACOG for the planning and design of the Cityowned 6.4-mile length of the Clarksburg Branch Line abandoned railroad right-of-way at the south City limits to Clarksburg in unincorporated Yolo County. (Anticipated cost TBD; Anticipated completion 2040 or later)
» HSIP Safety and Signal Improvement Project: Improvements aimed to increase the safety between vehicle and pedestrian movements at multiple intersections along the corridor.

Citywide improvements include pedestrian crossing
enhancements, improved hardware at signalized intersections, and geometric modification of approaches at intersections. (Anticipated cost: $3.3 million; Anticipated completion: 2019- 2025)
» North 5th Street Connectivity and Complete Street Project:

The City was awarded a 2023 Regional Active Transportation Program grant from SACOG for planning, design and right-ofway. The project will increase safety and close gaps in the active transportation network for bicyclists and pedestrians to safely connect to the Riverwalk Trail and the upcoming C Street-Railyards Bridge and the I Street Bridge Deck
Conversion Project. The project will continue the high visibility bike lanes by reallocating one travel lane in each direction to add high visibility, parking protected Class II bike lanes on 5th Street between C Street and A Street and will add buffered high visibility bike lanes on Lighthouse Drive between A Street and Fountain Drive. The project will include the construction of the remaining needed active transportation infrastructure on C Street between 3rd Street and 6th Street to make the facility a complete streets corridor, facilitating a safe a connected network between residential areas to local
destinations to the upcoming bridge projects. The project will also include pedestrian improvements such as construction of new sidewalk to close sidewalk gaps, safer pedestrian
crossings at unmarked and unsignalized intersections, and an ADA accessible connection on A Street from 5th Street to the Riverwalk Trail. (Anticipated cost: $3.5 million; Anticipated completion 2025-2030)

GREEN MEANS GO DESIGNATION
The Sacramento Ave corridor is located within the West Sacramento Green Zone in SACOG's Green Means Go Program. Green Means Go is a multi-year pilot that aims to lower greenhouse gas emissions in the sixcounty Sacramento region by accelerating infill development and reducing and electrifying vehicle trips. Green Means Go allocates state funding to projects that create more infill housing, increase mobility, and reduce vehicle emissions.

COUNTY OF YOLO BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (2013)
The County of Yolo Bicycle Transportation
Plan acts as a comprehensive, long-range
policy guide to achieving a fully realized
bikeway network in the county. It includes
a prioritized list of planned bicycle
facilities to be developed in service to the
goal of increasing countywide bicycle
ridership as a means to improved air
quality, improved energy efficiency,
reduced traffic congestion, as well as
improved individual health and fitness.

Priorities set by the County’s Bicycle
Transportation Plan relevant to the Complete Street Plan Include:
856
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 10
» Prioritize bicycle safety and security, with emphasis on bicycle commute facilities over recreation facilities
» Emphasis on transportation interfaces to allow bicyclists to employ multiple modes of transportation to reach their
destinations
» Prioritize cost effective measures like removal of physical barriers and maintenance
» Rights of way on collector streets and minor streets should be adequate for bikeways. The needs of bicyclists shall be considered when new roads are constructed, or existing roads are upgraded
» Ensure that bikeways are striped and signed in accordance with the standards defined in the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the Caltrans Highway Design Manual
» Encourage the provision of bicycle rest facilities
» Encourage the provision of bicycle parking facilities » When constructing bicycle facilities, trees and other significant vegetation shall be preserved or planted where feasible, considering the effects on construction, maintenance
activities, and public safety, to realize the benefit of vegetation’s shading effect and improved aesthetics

LOCAL PLANNING CONTEXT

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING CONTEXT
West Sacramento General Plan 2035 - Mobility Element
The Mobility Element addresses the City’s transportation network, guiding its development with greater focus on connectivity, efficiency, and multi-modality. The Mobility Element pays particular attention to complete streets as well as policies related to parking, goods movement, and the Port of West Sacramento.

Goals and priorities set by the Mobility Element relevant to the Complete Street Plan include:
» Develop and maintain a multimodal transportation system that provides for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods, supports vibrant neighborhoods, and reduces air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and VMT. This includes establishing multimodal corridors and hubs within and
between urban centers
and along major
corridors, removing and
minimizing the effects of
natural or manmade
barriers on accessibility
and within existing
communities, ensuring
that all streets are safe
and accessible to people
with disabilities and
others with limited
mobility, involving the
public and seeking input
at all stages of the
planning process,
» Provide complete streets that are safe, attractive, and comfortable for all road users. This includes minimizing barriers to accessibility; reducing lane numbers and widths; enhancing walking and bicycling by minimizing, consolidating, or removing unused, underutilized, or unnecessary driveways and curb cuts; requiring street trees and landscaped medians for aesthetic and functional (stormwater runoff management) purposes; reducing conflicts between bicyclists, pedestrians, transit, and motorists; and providing amenities that promote walking, bicycling, and transit use.
» Develop and maintain a street and highway system that is safe, efficient, and reduces noise, air quality, and GHG emission impacts. This includes traffic calming measures, consideration of roundabouts as intersection traffic control options, and level of service flexibility when considering impacts to active transportation.
» Support and maintain a range of public and private transit systems that are efficient, safe, and respond to the needs of all users.
» Develop comprehensive, safe, accessible, and integrated bicycle network and bicycle support facilities throughout the 857
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 11
city. This includes providing context appropriate bicycle facilities, connections to commercial and recreation activities, and ensuring that bikeways connecting to the existing
bikeway system be provided in the first phase of all major phased developments.
» Develop a safe, accessible, and integrated pedestrian network that promotes walking. This includes filling gaps in systems of existing neighborhoods, separated sidewalks and paths,
landscaping, and creating a continuous, convenient network free of impediments and obstacles; improving pedestrian safety at intersections and mid-block crossings by providing enhanced treatments like well-marking pedestrian crossings, bulb outs, or median refuges that reduce crossing distances. » Develop and manage on- and off-street parking systems that balance the City’s goals of economic development, livable neighborhoods, and public safety.
» Use transportation demand management to improve
efficiency, reduce dependence on motor vehicles congestion, and expand travel options.
» Provide an efficient system for goods movement for industrial and commercial areas, while protecting residents from
adverse impacts.

West Sacramento Bicycle Pedestrian and Trails Master Plan (2018) The City’s Bicycle, Pedestrian, and
Trails Master Plan (BPTMP) lays
out the vision for a connected
active transportation network
linking neighborhoods,
employment centers, shopping
destinations, parks, and schools. It
seeks to build awareness and
support for equal roadway access
for all road users with the ultimate
goal to increase the number of
people bicycling or walking to
work, school, errands, or for
recreation in West Sacramento.

The vision of the BPTMP is “to be one of the United States’ top bicycleand pedestrian-friendly communities through the creation of a worldclass bicycle and pedestrian trails network that efficiently and safely connects users of all ages to work, school, shopping and recreational amenities throughout the City.”
Goals set by the BPTMP relevant to the Complete Street Plan include:
» Creating a continuous and interconnected network of low stress bikeways connecting residential areas and key
destinations, integrated with other forms of transportation including public transit.
» Increasing bicycle mode share to at least 5 percent and a walking mode share of at least 10 percent by 2030.
» Secure and convenient bike parking at all major bicycle trip generators and attractors.
» Ensure new development provides bicycle- and pedestrianfriendly on-site circulation and access. » Educational opportunities aimed at all levels of bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists, and law enforcement personnel.

Other priorities include improving safety, reducing congestion, emissions, and the need for road expansions and parking infrastructure, enhancing community health, and improving overall commuting experience.

Improvements proposed by the BPTMP for Sacramento Avenue and adjacent roadways include:
» Class III Bike Route on N. Harbor Blvd from Sacramento Avenue/Reed Avenue to West Sacramento City Limit
(Northwest)
» Class II Bike Lane on Reed Avenue from Riverside Parkway to Harbor Boulevard
» Class III Bike Route 6th Street from C Street to Cummins Way » Class II Bike Lane on 5th St between A & C Streets
» Class III Bike Route on Kegle Drive from Cummins Way to Fremont Boulevard
» Convert Class III Bike Route to Class II Bike Lanes on C Street from 6th Street to 3rd Street
858
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 12
West Sacramento Mobility Action Plan (2021)
The City’s Mobility Action
Plan (MAP) reflects the
ongoing effort to expand
access sustainable
transportation solutions for
members of the community.

It provides tools and
recommendations to help
implement the mobility and
climate goals it sets, and
strategies to prepare for
new mobility options and
technological innovation in
the future.

This plan aims to assist the City in achieving these goals. Specific priorities in the Mobility Action Plan relevant to the Plan include:
» Building a network of mobility hubs connecting residents to transit and activity centers, prioritizing under resourced, transit dependent areas.
» Enhance safety and create space for non-motor vehicle users. » Provide convenient and accessible transit and shared mobility, connecting to local and regional destinations.
» Equitable access to zero emissions vehicles and alternative transportation options.
» Prepare for equitable implementation of emerging
transportation technologies.
» Support the City’s policies and equitably guide transportation investments.

Improvements along Sacramento Avenue proposed by the Plan, consistent with the MAP, include:
» Mobility hub and related infrastructure at State Foods Supermarket (Jefferson Blvd/Sacramento Ave).
1 West Sacramento General Plan 2035 Policy Document, Introduction » Develop a protected bike lane network and create protected intersections for a safer bike experience.

CLIMATE CHANGE CONTEXT
Goals and objectives related to climate change are intertwined throughout all of the General Plan elements to create and recreate West Sacramento as a safe, healthy, socially, and environmentally viable, and sustainable community. The General Plan is built around goals and objectives that promote sustainability and seek to address the sources of greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate changes. Sustainability concepts built into the General Plan include but are not limited to: “increasing densities in appropriate locations; promoting mix-use, green-building and transit-oriented development; encouraging energy efficiency and water conservation; developing complete streets that provide for bicyclists, pedestrians and transit and policy standards for GHG reduction targets.”1

Climate Action Plan (CAP)
The West Sacramento CAP aims to reduce the City’s GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels, consistent with the state’s goals.

Additionally, the CAP creates a framework for achieving carbon zero by 2045, supporting climate goals set by the Mayor’s Commission on Climate Change.

The City is underway with an update to the CAP. The CAP’s draft GHG mitigation measures to reimagine how people and goods are moved related to the Plan include:
» Prioritize transit-oriented development and center/corridor community growth through land use planning.
» Allocate funding to expand the active transportation and micro-mobility network.
» Develop partnerships and allocate funding to increase the accessibility, frequency, and reliability of public transit. » Provide more telecommuting opportunities for City staff. 859
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 13
» Advocate for use of alternative fuels within the rail freight system.

Mayors’ Commission on Climate Change Final Report (2020) Goals established in the Mayor’s Commission on Climate Change Report relevant to the Complete Street Plan include:
» Expand and enhance access to low-stress and connected infrastructure for bicycling, walking, and rolling so that 30 percent of all trips are by active transportation by 2030 and 40 percent by 2045.
» Expand and improve transit and shared mobility services to be more accessible, affordable, reliable, and attractive than single-occupancy vehicles to achieve 30 percent of all trips by transit and/or pooled shared mobility by 2030 and 50 percent transit and/or pooled shared mobility by 2045.
» Create incentives and policies to encourage the adoption of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) so that 70 percent of new registrations will be for ZEVs by 2030 and all
(public/private/shared fleet) vehicles are fully electric by 2045.

Landscape Development Guidelines
The City’s Landscape
Development
Guidelines provides a
basic framework for
designing landscaped
areas to ensure
consistency and design
excellence, as well as
further the City’s
Climate Action Plan
goals of reducing
greenhouse gas
emissions, promoting
the use of recycled
materials, and urban forest growth and maintenance. The document guided the development of landscaping and streetscape improvements along the corridor.

LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT
This section summarizes the land use, parcel utilization, and proposed development and mobility projects within the study area The Sacramento Avenue corridor adjoins a mix of developed, undeveloped, and under-developed properties of primarily residential and mixed-use land uses. The corridor’s design is car oriented and does not meet existing standards for keeping drivers safe and reducing potential conflicts on the road.

West Sacramento General Plan 2035 - Land Use Element
Existing land use along the corridor is characterized by low to highdensity residential or neighborhood mixed-use commercial. The parcel which includes the Bryte Church is located at the northwest corner of Sacramento Avenue and Jefferson Boulevard/Kegle Avenue and is considered quasi-public. Figure 3 presents the City of West Sacramento General Plan Land Use. Approximately 40 percent of the corridor is fronted by residential land use, and 54 percent by a mixeduse land use. Approximately 21 percent of the corridor is fronted by a vacant parcel.

The following table summarizes the land use frontage per study segment based on total frontage (i.e., both sides of the roadway).

Table 1 Land Use Frontage Summary
Segment
Location
Residential
Frontage
Mixed-Use
Frontage
Other
Frontage
Vacant
Parcel
Frontage
Segment 1 76% 24% - 28%
Segment 2 19% 81% - 10%
Segment 3 70% 8% 22% -
Segment 4 30% 70% - 43%
Segment 5 41% 50% 9% 34%
Segment 6 - 100% - 12%
860
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 14
Vacant/Underutilized Parcels
Most of the parcels that front the Sacramento Avenue corridor are developed. Vacant parcels are primarily mixed-use. Several parcels are considered underutilized. The designation of underutilized estimated considering two factors:

1. The parcel has structures that cover less than or around 25 percent of the parcel area.

2. The parcel has just fences or structures that are temporary in nature, like small sheds/enclosures.

Figure 4 presents the parcel utilization within the study area.

Washington Specific Plan (2020)
The Washington Specific Plan is
a comprehensive update to the
1996 Specific Plan and identifies
the long-term vision and
strategy for redeveloping the
Washington District, located
along the western bank of the
Sacramento River between A
Street and Tower Bridge. The
specific plan aims to support
the Washinton District in
becoming a vibrant, well-connected, transit-oriented neighborhood.

The city is currently updating the Washington Specific Plan, scheduled for completion in summer/fall 2024. The guiding principles of the Washinton Specific Plan relevant to the Complete Street Plan include:
» Prioritizing transit-oriented development to create an equitable walkable, mixed-use transit rich district that is integrated and connected to residential, employment, retail, entertainment, and recreational uses.
» Provide open space and pedestrian linkages that create both physical and visual connections to the river front.
» Provide memorable and meaningful outdoor experiences
within the public realm through placemaking.
» Create a sustainable, resilient, and thriving district that through a mix of transit-serving uses and green building practices results in reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and stronger connections between people and place.
» Build social capacity and provide equitable access to a variety of housing types, services, amenities, jobs, open space, and transit.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: INFILL AND MOBILITY PROJECTS
With projected City-wide and regional land use and infrastructure growth in the near and long-term, the City initiated the Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan to ensure that future travel needs, and development impacts are considered within the local context.

There are a variety of project types, including both land use and transportation projects, that are planned or proposed for the Sacramento Avenue corridor and the nearby corridor area of interest.

Several residential and mixed-use projects are proposed along the Sacramento Avenue corridor to redevelop existing vacant parcels, as well as transportation projects that seek to improve mobility options for all road users. Proposed development and mobility projects are shown in Figure 5, and described in more detail below.

Proposed Infill Projects
Proposed infill projects relevant to the corridor study area of interest include the following:
» 219-225 5th Street
o Three-story, high-density residential development with 18 units.
» 326 5th Street
o Five-story, high-density residential development with 30 units.
» 735 Sacramento Avenue
o Five-story, mixed-use development with 196 multifamily residential units and neighborhood commercial on the eastern side of the property.
» 851 Sacramento Avenue
861
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 15
o Five-story, mixed-used development with 445
residential units with ground floor live/work units along the frontage accessible via Sacramento Avenue and a
one story retail building on the western side of the
property.

Proposed Mobility Projects
Proposed mobility projects in the corridor study area of interest include the following:
» C Street-Railyards Bridge (I Street Bridge Replacement) o Connecting the Cities of Sacramento and West
Sacramento across the Sacramento River, the new C
Street-Railyards bridge will include facilities for
automobiles, transit, bicycles, and pedestrians.
» Existing I Street Bridge Conversion
o The existing I Street Bridge will be converted to a
bicycle and pedestrian only facility.
» 5th Street Connectivity and Complete Street Project
o The project includes bicycle and pedestrian facility
improvements along 5th Street between C and A
Street, along Lighthouse Drive between A Street and
Fountain Drive, and complete remaining improvements
along C Street between 3rd and 6th Streets.
» Elkhorn Plaza EV Charging Station
o At Elkhorn Plaza, the project will include Direct Current Fast Charging (DCFC) stations for three trucks and
passenger electric vehicles. 2
» Jefferson Boulevard / Kegle Drive Mobility Improvements o The Mobility Action Plan proposed a mobility hub at
the northeast corner and protected intersection
concept at the intersection.
2 DCFC allows for a much higher capacity battery charging system, including commercial or fleet vehicles.
» HSIP Safety and Signal Improvements Projects at several intersection locations along the corridor, including the following:
o C Street at 6th Street: includes a high-visibility
crosswalk markings across C, 6th, and California Streets; Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB), yield
landing strip markings, and yield signage at the C and
6th Street intersection, Class II bicycle lane markings west of C Street / 6th Street, and shared roadway
bicycle pavement markings across California Street
along C Street.
o Jefferson Boulevard at Sacramento Avenue: includes
signal hardware upgrades at the intersection of
Jefferson Boulevard, Kegle Drive and Sacramento
Avenue.
o Simon Terrace at Sacramento Avenue: includes a
median refuge island, high visibility crosswalk, RRFBs, advance warning markings and yield markings /
signage across Sacramento Avenue.
o Solano Street at Sacramento Avenue: includes high
visibility crosswalk markings across both Solano Street and Sacramento Avenue, and a median refuge island,
RRFBs, advance warning markings and yield markings
/ signage across Sacramento Avenue.
o Sunset Avenue at Sacramento Avenue: the project
reconfigures the intersection to improve safety by
restricting left-turn access at Sunset Avenue, allowing right-in-right-out access only.
862
California St

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO AVE
I st Bridge
Reed Ave
Kegle Dr
Douglas St
Sycamore Trail
Jefferson Blvd
Todhunter Ave
Bryte Ave
Sunset Ave
5th St
Harbor Blvd
Solano St
6th St
4th St
3rd St
2nd St
80 80
Bryte
Park
8th St
F St
Michigan Blvd

SACRAMENTO RIVER
N
0 0.2 0.4 MILES
Rail
Study Corridor
Area of Interest
Low-Density Residential
Residential Zones
Commercial Zones
Mixed Use Zones
Industrial Zones
Other Zones
Light Industrial
Mid-Density Residential
High-Density Residential
Neighborhood Mixed Use
Business Park
Commercial
Highway-Service Commercial
Heavy Industrial
Mixed Commercial Industrial
Riverfront Mixed Use
Open Space
Recreation and Parks
Public/Quasi Public
LEGEND
Highways
Figure 3 General Plan Land Use (2035) 863
California St

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO AVE
I st Bridge
Kegle Dr
Douglas St
Sycamore Trail
Jefferson Blvd
Todhunter Ave
Bryte Ave
Sunset Ave
5th St
Harbor Blvd
Solano St
6th St
4th St
3rd St
2nd St
80 275
80 Tower Bridge
Gateway
Bryte
Park
Riverband
Nature
Area
Sutter
Health
Park
8th St
F St
W Capitol Ave
Michigan Blvd
Lighthouse Dr

SACRAMENTO RIVER
Reed Ave
BRYTE

NEIGHBORHOOD

BRODERICK

NEIGHBORHOOD

LIGHTHOUSE

NEIGHBORHOOD

WASHINGTON

NEIGHBORHOOD
48% 31% PRIVATE CAR

WALKING
11%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
49% 32% PRIVATE CAR

WALKING
12%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
38%
PRIVATE CAR 55%

WALKING
3%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
9%
BIKING
59%

PRIVATE CAR
19%

WALKING
California St

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO AVE
I st Bridge
Reed Ave
Kegle Dr
Douglas St
Sycamore Trail
Jeffersons Blvd
Todhunter Ave
Bryte Ave
Sunset Ave
5th St
Harbor Blvd
Solano St
6th St
4th St
3rd St
2nd St
80 275
80 Tower Bridge
Gateway
Bryte
Park
Riverband
Nature
Area
Sutter
Health
Park
8th St
F St
W Capitol Ave
Michigan Blvd
Lighthouse Dr

SACRAMENTO RIVER
Yolo St
Reuter Dr
WESTERN AREA:

WIDE & MULTI-LANE
CENTRAL AREA:

TRANSITIONAL &
UNDERDEVELOPED EASTERN AREA:

CONSTRAINED &

DEVELOPED
S1
S2 S3 S4
S5 S6
N
0 0.2 0.4 MILES
Rail
Schools
Parks and
Open Spaces
Study
Corridor
Area of
Interest
LEGEND
Study Area
Neighborhoods
Parcels
Building
Footprints
Underutilized
Parcels
Parking
Vacant Parcels
Figure 4 Vacant & Undeutilized Parcels
12,327
864
• High-density residen�al with 18 units
• Three-story building
219-225 5th Street
735 SACRAMENTO AVENUE
• Mul�-family with 196 residen�al units
• Five-story building, 65’ height
• Neighborhood commercial on the
eastern side of the property
• Residen�al units accessed from
Sacramento Avenue with porches
851 SACRAMENTO AVENUE
• Mixed-use with 445 residen�al units
• Five-story building
• The building will also feature ground-floor
live/work units along the frontage with
direct access to sidewalk on Sacramento
Avenue
• One-story retail building on the western
side of the property
• Mul�-family residen�al
with 30 units
• Five-story building
326 5th Street
Planned HSIP project
Planned HSIP projects
Intersec�on improvements, per Mobility Ac�on Plan
New
I Street Bridge
New bridge
infrastructure to
connect with east side of
the river, star�ng at C
Street
EV charging and parking area for three trucks and
passenger electric vehicles
Elkhorn
EV Project
Mobility hub site, per Mobility Ac�on Plan
Mobility Hub
5th Street Connec�vity Project
Bicycle and pedestrian facility upgrades to improve
safety and close gaps n the ac�ve transporta�on network Exis�ng I Street Bridge
Conversion of exis�ng I Street bridge into a bicycle and pedestrian-only ac�ve transporta�on project
California St

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO AVE
I st Bridge
Reed Ave
Kegle Dr
Douglas St
Sycamore Trail
Jefferson Blvd
Todhunter Ave
Bryte Ave
Sunset Ave
5th St
Harbor Blvd
Solano St
6th St
4th St
3rd St
2nd St
80 80
Bryte
Park
F St
Michigan Blvd

SACRAMENTO RIVER
N
0 0.2 0.4 MILES
Rail
Study Corridor
Area of Interest
LEGEND
Ongoing Intersection Redesign
and Bike/Pedestrian-Friendly
Infrastructure Projects
Proposed Housing/
Mixed-use Projects
Proposed Mobility
Projects
Schools
Parks and Open
Spaces
Parcels
Building Footprints
Figure 5 Proposed Development & Mobility Projects 865
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 19
2 Vision & Goals
Based on current and prior planning efforts, direction from the Project Development Team and input from the community, a vision statement was identified for Sacramento Avenue that defines the desired purposed and function of the corridor as an integral thoroughfare in the West Sacramento Community. Safety, accessibility, and mobility emerged as priorities. Throughout the early phases of this project, the vision statement was refined as community input and technical analyses illuminated the priorities for the Sacramento Avenue Corridor.

The Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan aims to enhance safety and access of existing multimodal opportunities, provide more mobility options, and improve connectivity along the corridor. The Plan will target solutions that improve access to key amenities for the surrounding low-income community in West Sacramento through an improved multimodal transportation network.

VISION STATEMENT

THE SACRAMENTO AVENUE / C STREET CORRIDOR IS A SAFE, ACCESSIBLE, AND ENJOYABLE

COMMUNITY ASSET WITH ACTIVE MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED STREETSCAPES THAT SUPPORTS LOCAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL OPPORTUNITIES. 866
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 20

FROM VISION TO GOALS
Building on the vision statement and input from the community, two primary goals were identified to guide the project. These goals are distinguished from one another to emphasize the varying factors that will affect ultimate design, funding, and implementation of the Sacramento Avenue corridor. Each goal cannot be adequately achieved without proper consideration of and attempted implementation of the other.

Mobility-Focused Goal: Provide safer and more comfortable transportation options, including walking, biking, rolling, and driving, for people of all ages and abilities by incorporating “complete street” infrastructure within the roadway right-of way.

Urban Design-Focused Goal: Integrate placemaking strategies with multi-modal mobility and infill development.

Once two primary goals were identified, three themes were developed, with community input, to guide how the project vision and goals would be implemented. Each theme described below addresses the Plan’s objectives but highlights a different focus, like green infrastructure, maximizing space for community use, or expanding mobility options.

The themes were presented throughout the engagement processes to better understand the community’s priorities. Based on community input, “regional corridor” was desired to be de-emphasized, with emphasis on multimodal street in its place. The themes are listed below:

These themes do not reflect specific recommendations but were used to guide the project team when identifying and refining specific strategies and the development of improvement concepts. Together, the goals and themes provide a framework for the evaluation of existing conditions and development of recommended improvements along Sacramento Avenue to make the vision statement become a reality. The specific strategies associated with each of the identified themes are described in detail in Chapter 5: Design Approach.

Green Corridor Community
Streetscape
Multimodal
Boulevard
867
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 21
3 Existing Conditions

ESTABLISHING A BASELINE
The Existing Conditions chapter explores transportation conditions and development patterns along Sacramento Avenue. This document will assist the planning team in understanding the existing strengths and opportunities of the Sacramento Avenue corridor.

Sacramento Avenue is a key corridor in the City of West Sacramento (the “City”) that runs east-west between interstates 5 and 80. The corridor is approximately 2-miles in length between 2nd Street and Harbor Boulevard, including C Street east of 6th Street. As one of the City’s major arterials, the roadway connects regional amenities such as West Sacramento’s commercial anchors to the west (IKEA, Walmart, and The Home Depot) and the developing Sacramento River riverfront and downtown Sacramento to the east. As a local transportation route through primarily residential neighborhoods, the corridor also provides access to community amenities, including trails and outdoor recreation, schools, and lifestyle destinations.

The corridor’s existing transportation infrastructure offers limited multimodal facilities to support safe and connected travel along and across the corridor. Class II bike lanes are present on most of the corridor; however, their value is limited due to high vehicular speeds, wide travel lanes, and minimal separation between bikes and cars.

Pedestrian facilities are inadequate or largely disconnected, with approximately 40 percent of the corridor lacking sidewalk coverage.

With projected City-wide and regional land use and infrastructure growth in the near and long-term, the city initiated the Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan to ensure that future travel needs, and development impacts are considered within the local context. 868
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 22

LOCAL CONTEXT
The Sacramento Avenue corridor is used by both residents and visitors, as well as those who pass-through the study area for a variety of trip purposes. The corridor’s east-west alignment bisects primarily residential and mixed-use land uses and borders West Sacramento’s northernmost neighborhood areas. The existing railroad alignment runs parallel to Sacramento Avenue just south of the corridor, further distinguishing the geographies of northern and southern West Sacramento neighborhoods. As such, it is critical to consider the demographics or those who most frequently use the corridor and live within walking or biking distance to the corridor.

This section summarizes existing land use and local points of interest, as well as key demographic data points for individuals who reside in the Sacramento Avenue corridor area of interest. Individuals included in this evaluation include those who reside in the West Sacramento neighborhoods that intersect with the corridor area of interest – the Broderick, Bryte, Lighthouse, and Washington neighborhoods. Figure 6 presents neighborhood boundaries and points of interest within the vicinity.

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
Demographic data presented here reflects 2021 Year estimates sourced from Replica. The study area neighborhoods within the vicinity of the Sacramento Avenue corridor have
14,300 residents, or 5,170
households.

AGE
The average age of residents within
the study area neighborhoods is 35
years. Of those residents, older
adults (age 62 years and older)
comprise over 15 percent while
young people under the legal
driving age (16 years) comprise 25
percent of the study area
population.

VEHICLE OWNERSHIP
Vehicle ownership is relatively high within the study area neighborhoods, with 34 percent of households owning one vehicle and 50 percent of households owning two or more vehicles. Approximately 11 percent of households do not own a vehicle. For the remaining 5 percent of households, vehicle ownership is categorized as unknown.

EMPLOYMENT STATUS
Of residents within the study area neighborhoods aged 16 years or older, approximately 55 percent of residents are employed, 39 percent are not in the labor force, and 6 percent are unemployed. The average age of residents that are not within the labor force is 53 years and the average age of residents that are unemployed is 30 years.

POINTS OF INTEREST
The corridor’s east-west alignment provides access to primarily residential and commercial properties. The north-south streets that intersect Sacramento Avenue provide access to neighborhood amenities including schools, parks and open space, community destinations and shopping.

Key destinations directly adjacent to the corridor include:
» Green/Open Space, including the Riverwalk along the
Sacramento River at the corridor’s east end.
» Neighborhood commercial centers, including:
o Commercial center west of Harbor Boulevard/Reed
Ave, including IKEA, Walmart, and The Home Depot.
o Local markets and shops near Sacramento Avenue at
Bryte Avenue and Solano Street.
o Riverbend Shopping Plaza near Sacramento at
Jefferson Boulevard/Kegle Drive.
o Mixed-use residential and commercial buildings along C Street, between 5th Street and 2nd Street.
869
BRYTE

NEIGHBORHOOD

BRODERICK

NEIGHBORHOOD

LIGHTHOUSE

NEIGHBORHOOD

WASHINGTON

NEIGHBORHOOD
To I-80
To I-5 & City of
Sacramento
California St

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO AVE
I st Bridge
Reed Ave
Kegle Dr
Douglas St
Sycamore Trail
Jefferson Blvd
Todhunter Ave
Bryte Ave
Sunset Ave
5th St
Harbor Blvd
Solano St
6th St
4th St
3rd St
2nd St
80 275
80 Tower Bridge
Gateway
Bryte
Park
Riverband
Nature
Area
Sutter
Health
Park
8th St
F St
W Capitol Ave
Michigan Blvd
Lighthouse Dr

SACRAMENTO RIVER
BRYTE

NEIGHBORHOOD

BRODERICK

NEIGHBORHOOD

LIGHTHOUSE

NEIGHBORHOOD

WASHINGTON

NEIGHBORHOOD
48% 31% PRIVATE CAR

WALKING
11%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
49% 32% PRIVATE CAR

WALKING
12%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
38%
PRIVATE CAR 55%

WALKING
3%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
9%
BIKING
59%

PRIVATE CAR
19%

WALKING
California St

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO AVE
I st Bridge
Reed Ave
Kegle Dr
Douglas St
Sycamore Trail
Jeffersons Blvd
Todhunter Ave
Bryte Ave
Sunset Ave
5th St
Harbor Blvd
Solano St
6th St
4th St
3rd St
2nd St
80 275
80 Tower Bridge
Gateway
Bryte
Park
Riverband
Nature
Area
Sutter
Health
Park
8th St
F St
W Capitol Ave
Michigan Blvd
Lighthouse Dr

SACRAMENTO RIVER
Yolo St
Reuter Dr
WESTERN AREA:

WIDE & MULTI-LANE
CENTRAL AREA:

TRANSITIONAL &
UNDERDEVELOPED EASTERN AREA:

CONSTRAINED &

DEVELOPED
S1
S2 S3 S4
S5 S6
N
0 0.2 0.4 MILES
Rail
Community
Destination
Commercial
Attractor
Police
Station
Fire Station
City Hall
Library
Schools
Parks and
Open Spaces
Study
Corridor
Area of
Interest
LEGEND
Study Area
Neighborhoods
Parcels
Building
Footprints
Figure 6 Local Context
12,327
870
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 24

DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Disadvantaged communities, including low-income communities, communities of color, tribal nations and other disadvantaged groups are often faced with environmental or pollution burden. These communities often also have a history of a lack of investment in infrastructure, burdened by lack of appropriate facilities for bicycling, walking and public transit. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) cites that historical practices often limited access to public services and public funding for communities, based on race or ethnicity.3 People living in disadvantaged communities often face difficulty in accessing transportation, and are more likely to be reliant on walking, bicycling, or public transit. It is important to identify disadvantaged communities, and to analyze infrastructure in these communities.

Disadvantaged community (DAC) status can be measured based on a variety of criteria. The DAC status criteria examined in the Plan are consistent with the California Transportation Commission (CTC) 2023 Active Transportation Program Guidelines and are discussed in greater detail below.

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Communities located within Census Tracts with a Median Household Income (MHI) that is less than 80 percent of the statewide median, or less than $60,188 is considered disadvantaged.4 Figure 7 presents the MHI for the Census Tracts within the vicinity of the study corridor. As shown, both of the Census Tracts overlap with the corridor area of interest, and the two Tracts to the southwest are considered disadvantaged based on income. Three of the four tracts in the area that are considered disadvantaged based on MHI, feature incomes that are less than 65 percent of the statewide average.

CALENVIROSCREEN 4.0
CalEnviroScreen (CES) 4.0 is the latest iteration of the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool, an environmental justice mapping tool developed by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and the California Office of Environmental 3 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/opportunities-address-past-inequitysustainable-communities Health Hazard Assessment (OEHH). CES combines a variety of data sources to identify communities affected by multiple forms of pollution and highlight communities living at the intersection of pollution and poverty.

According to the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Indicator Maps, the census tracts that encompass the study area neighborhoods are identified as disadvantaged communities based on their rankings in a variety of environmental, health, and socio-economic factors. Census Tracts 6113010102 and 6113010101 boundaries overlap with the Plan’s area of interest and are referenced here. The two Census Tracts to the southeast of the study area are also considered disadvantaged These communities are within the top 25 percent of California’s disadvantaged communities, identifying them as funding priority areas for projects that reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (per SB 535).

Figure 8 presents the CES 4.0 results for the areas within the vicinity of the study corridor and highlights the Census Tracts considered disadvantaged based on the CES results.

SACOG ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AREAS
SACOG, with the assistance of the SACOG Equity Working Group, identified 2020 Environmental Justice (EJ) areas based on various factors related to environmental impact in the Sacramento region, consistent with SACOG’s 2020 MTP/SCS adopted plan. The EJ areas consider Census block group-level concentrations of income status, minority status, DAC status identified by CES 3.0, and “other vulnerabilities”. Other vulnerabilities consider concentrations of older adults aged 75 or more, linguistically isolated households, single parent households with children under the age of 18, low educational attainment, severely housing cost burdened households, and persons with disabilities.

Figure 9 presents the block groups in the study area vicinity considered disadvantaged based on SACOG’s EJ Area designation. As shown, all the block groups within the vicinity are considered disadvantaged based on at least one of the criteria used to quantify SACOG’s EJ Areas.
4 Based on data U.S. Census Data Table B19013, 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year estimates. Statewide median income for this vintage is $75,235. 871
Census Tract
06113010101
MHI: $ 40,203
53% of statewide
median
Census Tract
06113010102
MHI: $ 58,030
77% of statewide
median
Census Tract
6113010203
MHI: $ 24,232
24% of statewide
median
Census Tract
6113010204
MHI: $ 47,788
64% of statewide
median
California St

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO AVE
I st Bridge
Kegle Dr
Douglas St
Sycamore Trail
Jefferson Blvd
Todhunter Ave
Bryte Ave
Sunset Ave
5th St
Harbor Blvd
Solano St
6th St
4th St
3rd St
2nd St
80 275
80 Tower Bridge
Gateway
Bryte
Park
Riverband
Nature
Area
Sutter
Health
Park
8th St
F St
W Capitol Ave
Michigan Blvd
Lighthouse Dr

SACRAMENTO RIVER
Reed Ave
Reuter Dr
BRYTE

NEIGHBORHOOD

BRODERICK

NEIGHBORHOOD

LIGHTHOUSE

NEIGHBORHOOD

WASHINGTON

NEIGHBORHOOD
48% 31% PRIVATE CAR

WALKING
11%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
49% 32% PRIVATE CAR

WALKING
12%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
38%
PRIVATE CAR 55%

WALKING
3%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
9%
BIKING
59%

PRIVATE CAR
19%

WALKING
California St

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO AVE
I st Bridge
Reed Ave
Kegle Dr
Douglas St
Sycamore Trail
Jeffersons Blvd
Todhunter Ave
Bryte Ave
Sunset Ave
5th St
Harbor Blvd
Solano St
6th St
4th St
3rd St
2nd St
80 275
80 Tower Bridge
Gateway
Bryte
Park
Riverband
Nature
Area
Sutter
Health
Park
8th St
F St
W Capitol Ave
Michigan Blvd
Lighthouse Dr

SACRAMENTO RIVER
Yolo St
Reuter Dr
WESTERN AREA:

WIDE & MULTI-LANE
CENTRAL AREA:

TRANSITIONAL &
UNDERDEVELOPED EASTERN AREA:

CONSTRAINED &

DEVELOPED
S1
S2 S3 S4
S5 S6
N
0 0.2 0.4 MILES
Rail
Study
Corridor
Area of
Interest
LEGEND
> 80% of MHI
(> $60,188.00)
75% to 80% of
MHI ($56,426.25 -
$60,188.00)
70% to < 75% of
MHI ($52,664.50 -
$56,426.24)
65% to < 70% of
MHI ($48,902.75 -
$52,664.49)
< 65% of MHI
(< $48,902.75)
Median Household
Income
Figure 7 Disadvantaged Communities: Median Household Income (MHI) 12,327
872
Census Tract
06113010101
CES 4.0
Percentile:
87th
Census Tract
06113010102
CES 4.0
Percentile:
93rd
Census Tract
6113010201
CES 4.0
Percentile:
66th
Census Tract
6113010204
CES 4.0
Percentile:
82nd
California St

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO AVE
I st Bridge
Kegle Dr
Douglas St
Sycamore Trail
Jefferson Blvd
Todhunter Ave
Bryte Ave
Sunset Ave
5th St
Harbor Blvd
Solano St
6th St
4th St
3rd St
2nd St
80 275
80 Tower Bridge
Gateway
Bryte
Park
Riverband
Nature
Area
Sutter
Health
Park
8th St
F St
W Capitol Ave
Michigan Blvd
Lighthouse Dr

SACRAMENTO RIVER
Reed Ave
Reuter Dr
BRYTE

NEIGHBORHOOD

BRODERICK

NEIGHBORHOOD

LIGHTHOUSE

NEIGHBORHOOD

WASHINGTON

NEIGHBORHOOD
48% 31% PRIVATE CAR

WALKING
11%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
49% 32% PRIVATE CAR

WALKING
12%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
38%
PRIVATE CAR 55%

WALKING
3%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
9%
BIKING
59%

PRIVATE CAR
19%

WALKING
California St

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO AVE
I st Bridge
Reed Ave
Kegle Dr
Douglas St
Sycamore Trail
Jeffersons Blvd
Todhunter Ave
Bryte Ave
Sunset Ave
5th St
Harbor Blvd
Solano St
6th St
4th St
3rd St
2nd St
80 275
80 Tower Bridge
Gateway
Bryte
Park
Riverband
Nature
Area
Sutter
Health
Park
8th St
F St
W Capitol Ave
Michigan Blvd
Lighthouse Dr

SACRAMENTO RIVER
Yolo St
Reuter Dr
WESTERN AREA:

WIDE & MULTI-LANE
CENTRAL AREA:

TRANSITIONAL &
UNDERDEVELOPED EASTERN AREA:

CONSTRAINED &

DEVELOPED
S1
S2 S3 S4
S5 S6
N
0 0.2 0.4 MILES
Rail
Study Corridor
Area of Interest
LEGEND
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Results
>90 - 100 (Most Disadvantaged
>80 - 90
>70 - 80
>60 - 70
>50 - 60
>40 - 50
>30 - 40
>20 - 30
>10 - 20
0 - 10 (Least Disadvanatged)
Top 25% (disadvantaged
communities)
Figure 8 Disadvantaged Communities: CalEnviron Screen (CES) 4.0 12,327
873
California St

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO AVE
I st Bridge
Reed Ave
Kegle Dr
Douglas St
Sycamore Trail
Jeffersons Blvd
Todhunter Ave
Bryte Ave
Sunset Ave
5th St
Harbor Blvd
Solano St
6th St
4th St
3rd St
2nd St
80 275
80 Tower Bridge
Gateway
Bryte
Park
Riverband
Nature
Area
Sutter
Health
Park
8th St
F St
W Capitol Ave
Michigan Blvd
Lighthouse Dr

SACRAMENTO RIVER
N
0 0.2 0.4 MILES
Rail
Study
Corridor
Area of
Interest
LEGEND
CalEnviroScreen 3.0
Other Vulnerability
Minority and Low Income
Minority
Low Income
SACOG EJ Communities
(2020)
Figure 9 Disadvantaged Communities: SACOG EJ Areas
874
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 28

LOCAL MOBILITY TRENDS
This section discusses local mobility trends, such as how people commute, where they walk or bike, and length of trips for individuals who reside within the vicinity of the Sacramento Avenue corridor area.

Individuals included in this evaluation include residents of West Sacramento neighborhoods that intersect with the corridor area of interest – the Broderick, Bryte, Lighthouse, and Washington neighborhoods. Data reflects 2021 Year estimates sourced from Replica.5

ALL TRIPS
As shown in Table 2, 73 percent of all trips made by residents within the vicinity of Sacramento Avenue are made by vehicle, including carpool trips. Approximately 13 percent of trips were made by foot and 12 percent were made by bike. Just under 2 percent of trips were made by either public transit or on-demand services.

The average trip distance for all trips is 8.3 miles. As shown in Table 2, the average vehicle trip is 8.8 miles, the average walking trip is 0.6 miles, the average bicycle trip is 2.4 miles, and the average public transit trip is 8.9 miles.

Table 2 Trip Distance & Mode Split
Mode
Average
Trip
Distance
(miles)
Proportion
of Trips
Walking 0.6 13%
Biking 2.4 12%
Vehicle (including carpool) 8.8 73%
Public Transit/On-Demand 8.9 2%
5 Replica is a “big data” platform that provides traffic volume estimates based on a variety of sources, including mobile location data.

Figure 10 Trip Mode Split – All Trips

TRIP PURPOSE
The primary trip purpose for residents of the neighborhood study area are home-based trips (where the destination is the residence), comprising 33 percent of all resident trips.

NON-HOME-BASED TRIPS
For all non-home-based trips, 18 percent were work trips, 67 percent were lifestyle trips (shopping, eating, social), 9.4 percent were school trips, and 5.3 percent were recreation trips. Table 3 presents the average trip lengths associated with each trip purpose. 875
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 29
Table 3 Non-Home-Based Trip Purposes
Trip Purpose
Average Trip
Distance
(miles)
Proportion
of Trips
Work-based 10.7 18.0%
Recreation 8.6 5.3%
Shop/Eat/Social 9.2 67.3%
School 3.4 9.4%
*”Other” trip purpose are not included in this analysis.

COMMUTE TO WORK
As shown in Table 4, over 63 percent of employed residents in the study area neighborhoods drive alone to work, while 27 percent carpool, almost 3 percent bike and 5 percent walk to work.

Table 4 Commute Mode Split
Mode
Average
Trip
Distance
(miles)
Proportion
of Trips
Public Transit or On-Demand 14.1 1.2%
Carpool 11.4 27.5%
Vehicle (including carpool
trips) 8.3 63.5%
Biking 3.4 2.8%
Walking 0.4 5.0%

SHORT TRIPS
Understanding where “short” vehicle trips (one-way trips up to 1-mile in length) are concentrated highlights areas of opportunity where implementing complete street infrastructure may encourage a shift from driving to active modes. While not all drivers will choose to shift from driving to other modes, it is more likely when infrastructure and streetscape design make the active transportation experience more comfortable.

For study area residents, most short trips are made by vehicle (70 percent). Approximately 19 percent of short trips are made by walking and 11 percent are made by bicycle. Short trips of 1-mile or less are concentrated on Sacramento Avenue west of Jefferson Boulevard. Of those trips that are 0.5-mile or less, most occur on Sacramento Avenue between Solano Street and Todhunter Avenue.

Figure 11 and Figure 12 show the concentration of short trips of up to

0.5-mile and 1-mile, respectively.

CORRIDOR ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS
Understanding the directionality of trips is important in identifying the routes that are most often used to access the corridor.

Figure 13 shows the directionality and distribution of outbound vehicle trips on the Sacramento Avenue corridor that are made by residents of the neighborhoods surrounding the corridor area of interest. These trip estimates exclude “home-based” trips (i.e., they do not include trips made to residents’ houses. Trip patterns are consistent with traffic volume counts, with most trips occurring on Reed Avenue west of the study area, Jefferson Avenue south of the study area, and the I Street Bridge east of the study area.
876
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 30
Figure 11 Concentration of Short Vehicle Trips (up to 0.5 mile) Source: Replica.

Figure 12 Concentration of Short Vehicle Trips (0.5 to 1 mile) Source: Replica.
877
~100
2,100
3,000
1,100
~100
2,000
500
California St

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO AVE
I st Bridge
Reed Ave
Kegle Dr
Douglas St
Sycamore Trail
Jefferson Blvd
Todhunter Ave
Bryte Ave
Sunset Ave
5th St
Harbor Blvd
Solano St
6th St
4th St
3rd St
2nd St
80 275
80 Tower Bridge
Gateway
Bryte
Park
Riverband
Nature
Area
Sutter
Health
Park
8th St
F St
W Capitol Ave
Michigan Blvd
Lighthouse Dr

SACRAMENTO RIVER
BRYTE

NEIGHBORHOOD

BRODERICK

NEIGHBORHOOD

LIGHTHOUSE

NEIGHBORHOOD

WASHINGTON

NEIGHBORHOOD
48% 31% PRIVATE CAR

WALKING
11%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
49% 32% PRIVATE CAR

WALKING
12%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
38%
PRIVATE CAR 55%

WALKING
3%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
9%
BIKING
59%

PRIVATE CAR
19%

WALKING
California St

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO AVE
I st Bridge
Reed Ave
Kegle Dr
Douglas St
Sycamore Trail
Jeffersons Blvd
Todhunter Ave
Bryte Ave
Sunset Ave
5th St
Harbor Blvd
Solano St
6th St
4th St
3rd St
2nd St
80 275
80 Tower Bridge
Gateway
Bryte
Park
Riverband
Nature
Area
Sutter
Health
Park
8th St
F St
W Capitol Ave
Michigan Blvd
Lighthouse Dr

SACRAMENTO RIVER
Yolo St
Reuter Dr
WESTERN AREA:

WIDE & MULTI-LANE
CENTRAL AREA:

TRANSITIONAL &
UNDERDEVELOPED EASTERN AREA:

CONSTRAINED &

DEVELOPED
S1
S2 S3 S4
S5 S6
N
0 0.2 0.4 MILES
Rail
Schools
Parks and
Open Spaces
Study
Corridor
Area of
Interest
LEGEND
Study Area
Neighborhoods
Parcels
Building
Footprints
Percent of Total Trips
> 20%
10 - 20%
5 - 10%
< 5%
Figure 13 Resident* Outbound (Non-Hom-Based) Trips
12,327
878
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 32

ROADWAY CONDITIONS
The Sacramento Avenue corridor includes Sacramento Avenue and C Street between Harbor Boulevard and 2nd Street in West Sacramento. It is classified as a medium-high access control arterial with an east-west alignment bisecting West Sacramento between Interstates 5 and 80.

The western end of the corridor transitions to Reed Avenue approximately ¼ mile from Interstate 80 ramps. The eastern end of the corridor transitions to I Street across the existing I Street Bridge alignment, providing access to the Sacramento River, Downtown Sacramento, and indirect access to Interstate 5 freeway ramps.

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
Sacramento Avenue is classified as a minor arterial between Harbor Boulevard and 5th Street, and as a major arterial from 5th Street to the I Street Bridge. The corridor intersects major north-south roadways in West Sacramento including other major arterials (Harbor Boulevard and Jefferson Boulevard), several minor arterials (North Harbor Boulevard, 5th Street, and 3rd Street) and several collectors (Bryte Avenue, Todhunter Avenue, Kegle Drive, Douglas Street, and 6th Street).

TRAFFIC CONTROL & SPEED
Figure 14 presents the traffic control at intersections and speed limits along the corridor. As shown, there are signalized intersections at the following intersections:
» Harbor Boulevard/Reed Avenue
» Sacramento Avenue/ Bryte Avenue
» Sacramento Avenue/Kegle Dr/Jefferson Boulevard
» Sacramento Avenue/5th Street
» Sacramento Avenue/3rd Street
The remaining intersections along the corridor are side-stop-controlled.

Posted speeds along most of the corridor, from the east end at Harbor Boulevard to 6th Street, are 40 mph. Posted speed on the west end of the corridor is 25 mph. According to traffic data collected by the City of West Sacramento in 2021 and 2022, the 85th percentile vehicle speeds along the corridor exceed the speed limits, with speeds of 45 mph west of 5th street and speeds of 37 mph east of 5th street.

However, public engagement efforts highlighted issues with speeding, with some members of the public citing speeds as high as 70 mph in some locations.

VOLUME & OPERATIONS
Average daily traffic (ADT) volume, heavy truck movement and intersection level of service along the corridor is discussed in the following sections.

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
Daily roadway segment traffic volumes were collected at three locations on the corridor by the City of West Sacramento in 2021 and 2022:
» Sunset Avenue to Jefferson Boulevard: 14,464 ADT
» Jefferson Boulevard to 6th Street: 7,840 ADT
» 5th Street to City Limit: 10,100 ADT
Twelve additional locations on roadways that intersect the study corridor were also collected in 2021 and 2022. Figure 15 presents the ADT volumes from these. As shown, volumes along the corridor west of Jefferson Boulevard/Kegle Drive are around 14,000 to 15,000 vehicles per day and 8,000 to 10,000 vehicles per day east of Jefferson Boulevard.

HEAVY TRUCKS
Figure 16 presents truck routes in the vicinity of the corridor area of interest. As shown, west of Jefferson Blvd, Sacramento Avenue west of Jefferson Boulevard is a Terminal Access (STAA) truck route. The STAA route continues south along Jefferson Boulevard. Additionally, the south leg Harbor Blvd connects at Sacramento Avenue as a local city truck route (CA LEGAL).

Heavy truck volumes along the corridor are approximately 8 percent of total vehicle volumes west of Jefferson Boulevard, 6 percent between Jefferson Boulevard and 5th Street, and 11 percent east of 5th Street according to 2021 Replica estimates. Replica is a “big data” platform that provides traffic volume estimates based on a variety of sources, including mobile location data.
879
SPEED
LIMIT
40 SPEED
LIMIT
35 SPEED
LIMIT
25 SPEED
LIMIT
25 SPEED
LIMIT
25 SPEED
LIMIT
35 SPEED
LIMIT
25 SPEED
LIMIT
40 STOP

STOP STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP

STOP STOP STOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
California St

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO AVE
I st Bridge
Reed Ave
Kegle Dr
Douglas St
Sycamore Trail
Jefferson Blvd
Todhunter Ave
Bryte Ave
Sunset Ave
5th St
Harbor Blvd
Solano St
6th St
4th St
3rd St
2nd St
80 275
80 Tower Bridge
Gateway
Bryte
Park
Riverband
Nature
Area
Sutter
Health
Park
8th St
F St
W Capitol Ave
Michigan Blvd
Lighthouse Dr

SACRAMENTO RIVER
BRYTE

NEIGHBORHOOD

BRODERICK

NEIGHBORHOOD

LIGHTHOUSE

NEIGHBORHOOD

WASHINGTON

NEIGHBORHOOD
48% 31% PRIVATE CAR

WALKING
11%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
49% 32% PRIVATE CAR

WALKING
12%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
38%
PRIVATE CAR 55%

WALKING
3%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
9%
BIKING
59%

PRIVATE CAR
19%

WALKING
California St

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO AVE
I st Bridge
Reed Ave
Kegle Dr
Douglas St
Sycamore Trail
Jeffersons Blvd
Todhunter Ave
Bryte Ave
Sunset Ave
5th St
Harbor Blvd
Solano St
6th St
4th St
3rd St
2nd St
80 275
80 Tower Bridge
Gateway
Bryte
Park
Riverband
Nature
Area
Sutter
Health
Park
8th St
F St
W Capitol Ave
Michigan Blvd
Lighthouse Dr

SACRAMENTO RIVER
Yolo St
Reuter Dr
WESTERN AREA:

WIDE & MULTI-LANE
CENTRAL AREA:

TRANSITIONAL &
UNDERDEVELOPED EASTERN AREA:

CONSTRAINED &

DEVELOPED
S1
S2 S3 S4
S5 S6
N
0 0.2 0.4 MILES
Rail
Schools
Parks and
Open Spaces
Study
Corridor
Area of
Interest
LEGEND
Study Area
Neighborhoods
Parcels
Building
Footprints
Figure 14 Existing Traffic Control & Speed
12,327
880
14,464
7,840
7,910
17,007
22,194
4,023
3,713
3,497
1,591
6,323 2,296
10,100
2,358
1,006
California St

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO AVE
I st Bridge
Reed Ave
Kegle Dr
Douglas St
Sycamore Trail
Jefferson Blvd
Todhunter Ave
Bryte Ave
Sunset Ave
5th St
Harbor Blvd
Solano St
6th St
4th St
3rd St
2nd St
80 275
80 Tower Bridge
Gateway
Bryte
Park
Riverband
Nature
Area
Sutter
Health
Park
8th St
F St
W Capitol Ave
Michigan Blvd
Lighthouse Dr

SACRAMENTO RIVER
BRYTE

NEIGHBORHOOD

BRODERICK

NEIGHBORHOOD

LIGHTHOUSE

NEIGHBORHOOD

WASHINGTON

NEIGHBORHOOD
48% 31% PRIVATE CAR

WALKING
11%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
49% 32% PRIVATE CAR

WALKING
12%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
38%
PRIVATE CAR 55%

WALKING
3%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
9%
BIKING
59%

PRIVATE CAR
19%

WALKING
California St

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO AVE
I st Bridge
Reed Ave
Kegle Dr
Douglas St
Sycamore Trail
Jeffersons Blvd
Todhunter Ave
Bryte Ave
Sunset Ave
5th St
Harbor Blvd
Solano St
6th St
4th St
3rd St
2nd St
80 275
80 Tower Bridge
Gateway
Bryte
Park
Riverband
Nature
Area
Sutter
Health
Park
8th St
F St
W Capitol Ave
Michigan Blvd
Lighthouse Dr

SACRAMENTO RIVER
Yolo St
Reuter Dr
WESTERN AREA:

WIDE & MULTI-LANE
CENTRAL AREA:

TRANSITIONAL &
UNDERDEVELOPED EASTERN AREA:

CONSTRAINED &

DEVELOPED
S1
S2 S3 S4
S5 S6
N
0 0.2 0.4 MILES
Rail
Schools
Parks and
Open Spaces
Area of
Interest
LEGEND
Parcels
Building
Footprints
*Approximate locations for Average Daily Trafic (ADT)
counts collected in 2021 & 2022 by City of West Sacramento. Figure 15 Daily Vehicle Volumes 12,327
881
California St

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO AVE
I st Bridge
Reed Ave
Kegle Dr
Douglas St
Sycamore Trail
Jefferson Blvd
Todhunter Ave
Bryte Ave
Sunset Ave
5th St
Harbor Blvd
Solano St
6th St
4th St
3rd St
2nd St
80 275
80 Tower Bridge
Gateway
Bryte
Park
Riverband
Nature
Area
Sutter
Health
Park
8th St
F St
W Capitol Ave
Michigan Blvd
Lighthouse Dr

SACRAMENTO RIVER
BRYTE

NEIGHBORHOOD

BRODERICK

NEIGHBORHOOD

LIGHTHOUSE

NEIGHBORHOOD

WASHINGTON

NEIGHBORHOOD
48% 31% PRIVATE CAR

WALKING
11%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
49% 32% PRIVATE CAR

WALKING
12%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
38%
PRIVATE CAR 55%

WALKING
3%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
9%
BIKING
59%

PRIVATE CAR
19%

WALKING
California St

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO AVE
I st Bridge
Reed Ave
Kegle Dr
Douglas St
Sycamore Trail
Jeffersons Blvd
Todhunter Ave
Bryte Ave
Sunset Ave
5th St
Harbor Blvd
Solano St
6th St
4th St
3rd St
2nd St
80 275
80 Tower Bridge
Gateway
Bryte
Park
Riverband
Nature
Area
Sutter
Health
Park
8th St
F St
W Capitol Ave
Michigan Blvd
Lighthouse Dr

SACRAMENTO RIVER
Yolo St
Reuter Dr
WESTERN AREA:

WIDE & MULTI-LANE
CENTRAL AREA:

TRANSITIONAL &
UNDERDEVELOPED EASTERN AREA:

CONSTRAINED &

DEVELOPED
S1
S2 S3 S4
S5 S6
N
0 0.2 0.4 MILES
Rail
Schools
Parks and
Open Spaces
Area of
Interest
LEGEND
Parcels
Building
Footprints
Local City
Truck Routes
(CA LEGAL)
Truck Routes
Terminal Access
Truck Routes
(STAA)
Figure 16 Truck Routes
12,327
882
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 36

INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
Traffic operations were measured by Level of Service (LOS) at key intersections selected for vehicle operations analysis, including:

1. Sacramento Ave/Reed Ave/Harbor Boulevard

2. Sacramento Avenue/Solano Street

3. Sacramento Avenue/Bryte Avenue

4. Sacramento Avenue/Todhunter Avenue

5. Sacramento Avenue/Kegle Drive

6. Sacramento Avenue/Douglas Street

7. Sacramento Avenue/Reuter Drive

8. Sacramento Avenue/C Street/6th Street

9. C Street/5th Street

10. C Street/3rd Street
LOS a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions, whereby a letter grade “A” through “F” is assigned to an intersection, or roadway segment, representing progressively worsening traffic conditions. LOS “A” represents free-flow operating conditions and LOS “F” represents over-capacity conditions. Levels of Service methodology is described in the Appendix.

The City’s General Plan Mobility Element includes the following policies pertaining to LOS.

M-3.2 Vehicular Level of Service
For planning purposes, the City shall endeavor to maintain a vehicular Level of Service “C” on all streets within the City, except at intersections and on roadway segments within one-quarter mile of a freeway interchange or bridge crossing of the Deep Water Ship Channel, barge canal, or Sacramento River, where a Level of Service “D” shall be deemed acceptable, and within pedestrian oriented, highdensity, mixed-use areas, such as the Pioneer Bluff and Stone Lock Reuse Master Plan area, Bridge District Specific Plan area, Washington District Specific Plan area, and Sacramento Avenue and West Capitol Avenue corridors east of Harbor Boulevard, where a vehicular Level of Service “E” shall be deemed acceptable. (RDR)
M-3.3 Level of Service Flexibility
The City shall, on a case-by-case basis, allow for lower vehicle level of service if other transportation goals (i.e., creation of complete streets) will be met; other modes (i.e., walking, bicycling, and public transit) would be negatively impacted by improvements required to maintain the vehicular LOS; or the land use context warrants deviation.

Exceptions to the vehicular level of service operating goals shall require the approval of the City Council. (RDR)
Per policy M-3.2, all study intersections use LOS E as the threshold for acceptable conditions as Sacramento Avenue and the Washington District Specific Area are pedestrian oriented, high-density, mixed-use area. Policy M-3.3 does allow flexibility in determining the LOS threshold within the context of meeting other transportation goals, such as complete streets, which is a goal of this plan; however, exceptions to the LOS thresholds stated in Policy M-3.2 require approval from City Council.

LOS Results
Table 5 presents the LOS results at the ten study intersections, and these results are also shown in Figure 17. As shown, all intersections currently operate better than the target LOS E threshold for the corridor.
883
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 37
Table 5 Intersection Level of Service – Existing Conditions # Location
Control
Type 1
Target
LOS2
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Sacramento Ave/Reed Ave/Harbor Blvd Signal E 20.1 C 24.0 C 2 Sacramento Ave/ Solano Street SSSC E 16.6 C 32.2 D
3 Sacramento Ave/ Bryte Avenue Signal E 11.1 B 11.1 B
4 Sacramento Ave/ Todhunter Ave Signal E 13.6 B 11.3 B
5 Sacramento Ave/Kegle Dr Signal E 29.3 C 32.9 C
6 Sacramento Ave/Douglas St SSSC E 16.2 C 16.4 C
7 Sacramento Ave/Reuter Dr SSSC E 11.2 B 14.2 B
8 Sacramento Ave/C St/6th St SSSC E 12.6 B 15.7 C
9 C Street/5th St Signal E 21.3 C 23.4 C
10 C Street/3rd St Signal E 7.7 A 9.7 A

1. SSSC = Side-Street Stop Control

2. LOS = Delay based on worst minor street approach for SSSC and average of all approaches for Signal.

Figure 17 Existing Intersection Level of Service
884
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 38

EXISTING ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS
The Sacramento Avenue roadway cross-section varies in paved roadway width, number of lanes per direction, posted vehicle speed, and fronting land use types. Furthermore, the corridor adjoins a mix of developed, undeveloped, and underdeveloped properties. The Plan has identified six distinct segments along the corridor to emphasize the changing characteristics of the roadway as well as the adjacent land use types and development status. The existing roadway
characteristics and surrounding land use of the six segments are described below. Multimodal facilities and connectivity are described in greater detail in the following chapter.

The corridor segments include the following:
» S1. Harbor Boulevard to Solano Street
» S2. Solano Street to Todhunter Avenue
» S3. Todhunter Avenue to Jefferson Boulevard/Kegle Dr
» S4. Jefferson Boulevard/Kegle Drive to Douglas Street » S5. Douglas Street to California Street
» S6. California Street to 2nd Street
Cross sections associated with each segment are presented in the following pages. The key map for the cross-sections associated with each segment is presented in Figure 18.

SEGMENT SUMMARY
The following table presents a summary of the existing roadway conditions per study segment.
885
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 39
Table 6 Roadway Conditions Summary
Segment Location
Length
(mile)
Posted Speed
Limit (mph)
Total # Vehicle
Lanes
ROW (feet)
1,2
Existing Pavement
(average, rounded) (feet)
Segment 1 0.30 40 4 + Center Turn Lane 100 80
Segment 2 0.35 40 4 + Center Turn Lane 100 80
Segment 3 0.35 40 4 + Center Turn Lane 90 – 120 80
Segment 4 0.35 40 2 + Buffered Median /
Center Turn Lane 80 – 100 30 – 75
Segment 5 0.40 40 2 36* - 100 30 – 75
Segment 6 0.25 25 2 + Left/Right Turn Lanes 80** 47 – 65

1. Calculated to mid-intersection to reflect curb.
2 Approximate measurements between existing parcel boundaries. *55’ ROW borders City-owned landscaped area on southside of Elkhorn Plaza. **ROW for Segment 6 provided within the Washington Realized, A Sustainable Community Strategy, 2015 Figure 18 Existing Cross-Section Key Map
886
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 40
Segment 1: Harbor Boulevard to Solano Street
Segment one is 0.3 miles long with two vehicle lanes per direction and a center turn lane. The posted speed is 40 mph and the 85th percentile speed is 45 mph. The right-of-way (ROW) is 90 feet, and the average paved roadway width is 80 feet.

The segment includes sidewalk facilities with gaps on both the north and south sides of the street. There are Class II bike lanes on both sides of the street. Adjacent land use designations include medium-density residential, commercial, and business park.

The cross-section associated with Segment 1 is shown in Figure 19.

Figure 19 Segment 1 – Cross-Section AA’
887
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 41
Segment 2: Solano Street to Todhunter Avenue
Segment two is 0.35 miles long with two vehicle lanes per direction and a center turn lane. The posted speed is 40 mph and the 85th percentile speed is 45 mph. The right-of-way is 90 feet, and the average paved roadway width is 80 feet.

The segment includes sidewalk facilities with gaps on the north side of the street, while the majority of the south side of the street includes continuous sidewalks. There are Class II bike lanes on both sides of the street. Adjacent land use designations include low-density residential and neighborhood mixed use.

The cross-section associated with Segment 2 is shown in Figure 20.

Figure 20 Segment 2 – Cross Section BB’
888
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 42
Segment 3: Todhunter Avenue to Jefferson Boulevard/Kegle Drive Segment three is 0.35 miles long with two vehicle lanes per direction and a center turn lane. The posted speed is 40 mph and the 85th percentile speed is 45 mph. The right-of-way is 90 feet, and the average paved roadway width is 80 feet.

The segment includes sidewalk facilities with gaps on the north side of the street, with continuous sidewalk on the south side. There are Class II bike lanes on both sides of the street. Adjacent land use designations include low- and high-density residential, commercial, neighborhood mixed use and public/quasi-public (church).

The cross-section associated with Segment 3 is shown in Figure 21.

Figure 21 Segment 3 – Cross Section CC’
889
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 43
Segment 4: Jefferson Boulevard/Kegle Drive to Douglas Street Segment four is 0.35 miles long with two vehicle lane per direction and left turn pockets at some intersections. The posted speed is 40 mph and the 85th percentile speed is 45 mph. The right-of-way is 75 feet, and the average paved roadway width is 30 to 75 feet.

The segment includes minimal sidewalk facilities on the north side of the street, with no sidewalk facilities on the south side. There are Class II bike lanes on both sides of the street. Adjacent land use designations include high-density residential and neighborhood mixed use. There is a large vacant parcel on the south side of the roadway that is slated for proposed high-density, mixed-use development.

The cross-sections associated with Segment 4 are shown in Figure 22 and Figure 23.

Figure 22 Segment 4 – Cross Section EE’
Figure 23 Segment 4 – Cross Section DD’
890
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 44
Segment 5: Douglas Street to California Street
Segment five is 0.40 miles long with one vehicle lane per direction with no center turn lane. The posted speed is 40 mph and the 85th percentile speed is 45 mph. The right-of-way is 75 feet, and the average paved roadway width is 30 to 75 feet.

Aside from a small segment of existing sidewalk on the south side of the street south of California/6th Street, there are no sidewalk facilities along the segment and there are Class II bike lanes on both sides of the street. Adjacent land use designations include low-density residential and neighborhood mixed use.

The cross-section associated with Segment 5 is shown in Figure 24.

Figure 24 Segment 5 –Section FF’
891
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 45
Segment 6a: California Street to 2nd Street
Segment 6 significantly differs in cross-section west and east of 5th Street. Both conditions are described below as 6a and 6b, respectively.

Segment 6a: California Street to 5th Street
Segment five is 0.10 miles long with one vehicle lane per direction with no center turn lane. The posted speed is 40 mph and the 85th percentile speed is 45 mph. The right-of-way is 80 feet, and the average paved roadway width is 60 feet.

There are sidewalk facilities on both sides of the street. The Class II bike lanes are dropped in this location, but the segment is designated as a Class III bike route. Adjacent land use designations include mediumdensity residential and neighborhood mixed use.

The cross-section associated with Segment 6a is shown in Figure 25.

Figure 25 Segment 6a –Section GG’
892
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 46
Segment 6b: 5th Street to 2nd Street
Segment 6b is 0.15 miles long with one to two vehicle lanes per direction and left turn pockets at some intersections. The posted speed is 25 mph and the 85th percentile speed is 37 mph. The right-of-way is 80 feet, and the average paved roadway width is 60 feet.

There are sidewalk facilities on both sides of the street. There are no bike lanes along this segment. Adjacent land use designations include medium- and high-density residential and neighborhood mixed use.

Nearby land use includes recreation along the Sacramento Riverfront.

The cross-section associated with Segment 6b is shown in Figure 26.

Note this cross section reflects roadway conditions prior to streetscape improvements as part of the North Riverwalk Trail Extension Project completed in summer 2023.

Figure 26 Segment 6b –Section HH’
893
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 47

MULTIMODAL CONDITIONS
This section provides a summary of existing multimodal infrastructure, including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit service and rail, as well as identifies barriers and discusses results for the Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress and connectivity assessment conducted for the corridor.

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES OVERVIEW
Figure 28 displays existing multimodal infrastructure within the study area vicinity, including bicycle facilities, transit stops and rail facilities.

Pedestrian facilities are shown only within the corridor area of interest.

BICYCLE FACILITIES
The corridor area of interest features existing Class II bike lanes and Class III bike routes, as shown in Figure 28. Existing bike lanes widths generally vary between four and six feet through the corridor but narrow in a few locations where roadway width/right-of-way is constrained.

There are existing Class II bicycle lanes along Sacramento Avenue from the corridor’s west end at Harbor Boulevard/Reed Avenue to California Street/6th Street. Additionally, there are Class II bicycle facilities along Harbor and Jefferson Boulevards, connecting to the corridor at the south, and at Kegle Drive, connecting at the north.

Between California Street/6th Street to the corridor’s east end, there is an existing Class III bike route. Class II bike lanes, which are upgraded with green paint and conflict markings connect to the corridor from the south at 5th Street. The bike lane that connects at 5th Street/Sacramento Avenue provides connectivity to additional facilities along W Capitol Ave and the Tower Bridge Gateway, which connects key destinations to the south of the study area, and Downtown Sacramento.

Bicycle facilities at most of the key intersections along the corridor lack buffers, barriers or conflict markings, or are dropped all together at the intersection approach. Coupled with cracking pavement or fading paint in some locations, existing bicycle facilities along the corridor provide a high-stress experience for bicyclists, particularly children and other vulnerable road users.

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Pedestrian facilities like sidewalks and crossings form the foundation of a complete street. Users of all modes of transportation become pedestrians for at least part of their journey after parking a car, locking a bicycle, or arriving at a transit stop.

Pedestrian facilities throughout the corridor area of interest include a discontinuous network of sidewalks with gaps, narrow sections, and vegetation overgrowth in many locations. Most locations with sidewalk vary in width between four and six feet. However, there are some locations that also feature a landscaped area with sidewalk that are as wide as 15 feet.

The east end of the corridor, specifically between 2nd Street and 5th Street is markedly more pedestrian-oriented, with very few gaps in sidewalk, fewer travel lanes, lower vehicle speeds, and more lighting, landscaped areas and higher-density land use. Conversely, the west end of the corridor is much less pedestrian-friendly, with many sidewalk gaps, wider roadway widths and higher vehicle speeds.

While there are marked crosswalks along at least two of the legs of the intersection locations listed below, some locations have faded crosswalk markings and lack ADA compliant curb ramps and proper sidewalk connections.
» Sacramento Avenue/Reed Avenue & Harbor Boulevard
» Sacramento Avenue & Bryte Avenue
» Sacramento Avenue & Todhunter Avenue/Sierra Pl
» Sacramento Avenue & Jefferson Blvd/Kegle Drive
» C Street & 5th Street
» C Street & 3rd Street

SEGMENT BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN FACILITY SUMMARY
The following table summarizes the existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities per study segment based on total frontage (i.e., both sides of the roadway). These calculations do not include roadway frontage on side streets; however, the calculations do include curbs at intersections. 894
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 48
Figure 27 Segment Bicycle & Pedestrian Facility Summary Segment
Location
Length
(mi)
Sidewalk
Coverage
(%)
Average
Sidewalk
Width
(feet)
Bike
Lane
(Y/N)
Average
Bike
Lane
Width
(feet)
Segment 1 0.30 59% 5 Y 8.0
Segment 2 0.35 81% 5.0 Y 7.5
Segment 3 0.35 88% 5.5 Y 8.0
Segment 4 0.35 30% 5 Y 6.0
Segment 5 0.40 4% 5 Y 6.0
Segment 6 0.25 100% 5
(up to 16)
N -

TRANSIT SERVICE
Local transit service within the study area of interest includes bus service and Via Rideshare, which are discussed below.

BUS SERVICE
Bus service is provided by Yolobus, which is administered by YoloTD.

Local bus routes servicing the study area neighborhoods include Routes 40, 41, and 240. Figure 29 presents Yolobus’ West Sacramento Map, showing local and regional routes servicing West Sacramento. As shown, Routes 40 and 41 both loop in the Bryte and Broderick neighborhoods, and along Sacramento Avenue. Route 240 services the shopping center at the corridor’s west end, near Harbor Boulevard.

ON-DEMAND RIDESHARE PROGRAM
Via is a transportation technology company contracted by the City of West Sacramento to provide on-demand rideshare services to and from any destination within the City for residents, employees, and visitors. The service is most easily accessed using the Via Rideshare App but can also be booked by phone. Riders are required to take a short walk or roll to an intersection or main road close to their 6 City of West Sacramento Via Rideshare Information webpage, 2023. destination where they are picked up to share a ride with passengers traveling in a similar direction.

BRYTE/BRODERICK FREE RIDE PROGRAM
Between February 1, 2023, and April 19, 2023, the City of West Sacramento was able to offer all Via on-demand rides starting and ending in the Broderick and Bryte neighborhoods at no cost. The program was funded by a Clean Air Funds grant awarded by the YoloSolano Air Quality Management District and expanded upon the 2022 Summer Free Rides program. The Bryte/Broderick Free Ride Program was able to provide 16,691 free rides in about ten-and-a-half weeks.6 RAIL
Existing rail facilities include both passenger, freight, and recreation operations along two rail lines that intersect the corridor.

The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Martinez subdivision line runs south of the corridor from the east end at the I St bridge and continues southwest toward the City of Davis before continuing on to the bay Area. This rail line includes freight operations provided by UPRR and BNSF Railway. Passenger operations along this line is provided by Amtrak and services the California Zephyr, Capitol Corridor and Coast Starlight routes. The closest passenger rail stop is at Sacramento Valley Station in Downtown Sacramento.

The Sierra Northern Railway (SERA) Woodland Branch subdivision line runs southeast edge of the corridor, intersects with the Martinez subdivision line at the West Sacramento Diamond Railroad Crossing and continues northeast through the corridor area of interest via a grade-separated rail crossing before continuing adjacent to Sunset Ave. This line provides service for the Sacramento River Train, a recreational passenger rail line that runs from West Sacramento to Woodland, as well as freight operations.
895
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
California St

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO AVE
I st Bridge
Reed Ave
Kegle Dr
Douglas St
Sycamore Trail
Jefferson Blvd
Todhunter Ave
Bryte Ave
Sunset Ave
5th St
Harbor Blvd
Solano St
6th St
4th St
3rd St
2nd St
80 275
80 Tower Bridge
Gateway
Bryte
Park
Riverband
Nature
Area
Sutter
Health
Park
8th St
F St
W Capitol Ave
Michigan Blvd
Lighthouse Dr

SACRAMENTO RIVER
BRYTE

NEIGHBORHOOD

BRODERICK

NEIGHBORHOOD

LIGHTHOUSE

NEIGHBORHOOD

WASHINGTON

NEIGHBORHOOD
48% 31% PRIVATE CAR

WALKING
11%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
49% 32% PRIVATE CAR

WALKING
12%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
38%
PRIVATE CAR 55%

WALKING
3%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
9%
BIKING
59%

PRIVATE CAR
19%

WALKING
California St

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO AVE
I st Bridge
Reed Ave
Kegle Dr
Douglas St
Sycamore Trail
Jeffersons Blvd
Todhunter Ave
Bryte Ave
Sunset Ave
5th St
Harbor Blvd
Solano St
6th St
4th St
3rd St
2nd St
80 275
80 Tower Bridge
Gateway
Bryte
Park
Riverband
Nature
Area
Sutter
Health
Park
8th St
F St
W Capitol Ave
Michigan Blvd
Lighthouse Dr

SACRAMENTO RIVER
Yolo St
Reuter Dr
WESTERN AREA:

WIDE & MULTI-LANE
CENTRAL AREA:

TRANSITIONAL &
UNDERDEVELOPED EASTERN AREA:

CONSTRAINED &

DEVELOPED
S1
S2 S3 S4
S5 S6
N
0 0.2 0.4 MILES
Rail Sidewalk
Schools
Parks
and Open
Spaces
Study
Corridor
Area of
Interest
LEGEND
Parcels
Building
Footprints
Class I Shared
Use Path
Class II Bike
Lane
Class III Bike
Route
! Bus Stops
Class II Bike
Lane with Green
Paint
Class II Buffered
Bike Lane
Figure 28 Existing Multimodal Infrastructure
12,327
896
DGS
CHP
Academy
MEADOW
Riverpoint

CITY HALL

CITY COLLEGE

COMMUNITY
CENTER

LIBRARY

SENIOR CENTER
40 41
240
42A 42B
West Sacramento
Transit Center
TOWER
BRIDGE
Sutter
Health
Park
Bus Stop
T Transit Center
Landmark
Timepoint (Scheduled Stop)
9th at
L St.

DETAIL
Downtown
Commons
(DOCO)
Bus Stop
Landmark
Timepoint (Scheduled Stop)
40,41,240
Capitol Mall at
7th St.

Sacramento Avenue
Complete Street Plan
Corridor Area of Interest
N

NOT TO SCALE
Data Source: Yolobus Route 40, 41 & 240 West Sacramento Transit Map (Yolo County Transportation District, January, 2022) Figure 29 Existing Transit Service
897
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 51

EXISTING MULTIMODAL FACILITIES AT INTERSECTIONS

PEDESTRIAN CONDITIONS
Many intersections on Sacramento Avenue have four-way, transverse crosswalks. However, crosswalk markings may be faded, and wide intersections make for longer crossing distances that are high stress for most pedestrians. On Sacramento Avenue and Todhunter Avenue, pedestrians are prohibited from crossing Sacramento Avenue on the east side of the intersection where they are instead instructed to cross on the opposing crosswalk. Some intersections lack ADA accessible curb ramps. Sight distance issues are present along 6th Street and C Street, and there are no crossing opportunities at California Street and 6th Street, creating a dangerous environment for pedestrians.

Advanced stop bars are present at the Jefferson Boulevard/Kegle Drive intersection. Some intersections have left turn pockets and protected left turn phases that prevent conflicts with pedestrians.

Gaps in the sidewalk network are common approaching intersections along Sacramento Avenue. Missing sidewalks create an inaccessible environment for pedestrians and force users to walk on dirt paths or road shoulders. Existing sidewalks are narrow and adjacent to highspeed and high-volume traffic. In some cases, sidewalks are degrading or overgrown by plants.

BICYCLING CONDITIONS
Exiting bicycle facilities are typically four- to five-foot Class II bike lanes that are adjacent to high-speed and high-volume traffic. Bicycle facilities are unprotected in most locations.

At some intersections along Sacramento Avenue and adjacent streets, bicycle lanes transition from the right side of the roadway to the left side of the right turn pockets without high visibility conflict markers. In these instances, the bicycle lane typically disappears. Bicycle lanes may also be positioned on the right side of vehicles turning right, creating a higher risk of conflict between motor vehicles and bicyclists. Bicycle parking facilities are positions at intersections between 5th Street and 3rd Street.

LIGHTING CONDITIONS
Standard roadway lighting on traffic signal mounts is typical at most intersections. Light fixtures are blocked by foliage in some locations.

Lighting is sparce towards the west end of the corridor where the context is lower-density. Pedestrian scale lighting is present on C Street and 3rd Street.

TRANSIT CONDITIONS
Some transit stops along the corridor include rider amenities like benches and shelters, while most are only represented by a route blade sign. In some cases, transit stops lack accessible infrastructure like curb ramps or paved pathways connecting transit stops to sidewalks. A bus pullout is present at the stop between Douglas Street and Kegle drive and includes a shelter, bench, lighting, and a trash receptacle.

Kegle Drive/Jefferson Boulevard Todhunter Avenue
Kegle Drive/Jefferson Boulevard
898
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 52

BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
This section provides information about the level of traffic stress (LTS) analysis and results for the bicycle network within the Sacramento Avenue corridor area of interest and the surrounding areas. A detailed summary of methodology and results is provided in the Appendix.

LTS is the perceived sense of danger associated with bicycling or walking in or adjacent to vehicle traffic. Studies have shown that traffic stress is one of the biggest deterrents to bicycling and walking. The less stressful the experience, and the lower the LTS score, the more likely it is to appeal to a broader segment of the population7. A bicycle and pedestrian network will attract a larger portion of the community if it is designed to reduce stress associated with potential motor vehicle conflicts and connect people to their destinations.

Bicycle and pedestrian facilities that provide greater separation between vehicle traffic and people walking and bicycling, as well as minimize the potential for stressful conflicts between active transportation users and vehicles, will result in the lowest levels of traffic stress and highest level of comfort using the facility. Moreover, bicycle and pedestrian facilities are considered lower stress if they have fewer interactions with vehicles (such as along slow, low-traffic neighborhood streets).
7 “Four Types of Transportation Cyclists in Portland,” Geller, 2006 Bicycle LTS assigns a score from one to four to street segments, intersection approaches, and intersection crossings, with one being the most comfortable four being the least comfortable, and based on roadway data including the following:
» type of bikeway, if applicable
» level of separation from vehicular traffic
» street width (number of lanes), daily traffic volumes and/or functional classification
» posted speed limit, or prevailing speed
» presence, width and configuration of bike lanes, parking lanes, medians and turn lane
» intersection control type (stop signs, traffic signals) Bicycle LTS is considered for the three infrastructure categories described below:
» Segments traveling between intersections in a bikeway or sharing the roadway with vehicles
» Approaches to intersections where there are dedicated rightor left-turn lanes can create conflict points distinct from segment or intersection characteristics
» Intersection Crossings between two roadways, which may cause challenges for bicyclists when crossing the intersection 899
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 53
Based on the evaluation of infrastructure characteristics at segments, approaches, and intersection crossings, locations are assigned scores between one and four. A score of LTS 1 indicates a street with low stress and high comfort for people bicycling. LTS 4 reflects a highly stressful experience. A lower-stress network means all bicyclists, regardless of age or ability, can comfortably ride to their destination.

TYPES OF BICYCLISTS
Research conducted by the Portland Bureau of Transportation indicates the majority of people in the United States would bicycle if dedicated bicycle facilities were provided. Based on their skill level and confidence, most people self-identify as one of the four “types of bicyclists” shown in Figure 30. Only a small percentage of Americans are willing to ride if no facilities are provided—the “Strong & Fearless” cyclists.

To better meet the needs of the “Interested but Concerned” bicyclists, it is recommended that communities work to decrease traffic stress and improve the comfort of their bikeway network. LTS 1 and LTS 2 roads are typically the most appealing to these bicyclists.

Figure 30 Types of Bicyclists
Data Source: Image created by GHD, based on PDOT research. 900
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 54

WHAT WE LEARNED
Below are the LTS results for segments, intersection approaches, and crossings along Sacramento Avenue. A detailed description of the criteria for analyzing each of the following infrastructure categories is provided in the Appendix.

Segments
The LTS of segments within a roughly 0.75-mile proximity of the corridor were evaluated to allow for connectivity to nearby destinations to be assessed. Local, or neighborhood streets with speeds of 25 mph or less and one lane per direction were assumed to be low stress, while streets classified as collector or arterial streets, and/or those with speeds greater than 25 mph were analyzed.

Many of the segments to the north and south of the corridor scored LTS 1 (64 percent), however, these facilities are primarily minor local roads or off-street paths. When examining only arterial roadways, which serve as the direct connections to most destinations, 76 percent of the analyzed segments are LTS 3 and LTS 4. Most residents may not feel comfortable bicycling outside their immediate neighborhood on low-stress local streets. This means reaching major destinations from residential areas may not be possible given most people’s tolerance for bicycling with traffic, even on streets that have bicycle lanes.

Intersection Approaches
Intersection approaches are analyzed in locations where right or left turn lanes are present.8 At right-turn locations, the configuration of turn lanes, length of turn lanes, and vehicle turning speeds are considered.

At left-turn locations, the analysis considers the number and speed of vehicle lanes a bicyclist must cross to access the left-turn movement.

Intersection approaches with right- and left-turn lanes along the corridor and within a roughly 0.25-mile proximity of the corridor were assessed in this analysis.
8 See Appendix for detailed analysis criteria.

Many intersection approaches along Sacramento Avenue feature bicycle lanes that end abruptly as well as right turn pockets that are long or position bicyclists on the right side of the turn lane, which increases risk of right hook collisions. Left turn pockets on Sacramento Avenue force bicyclists to shift across several lanes of high-speed and volume traffic to reach the turn lane. These conditions result in high stress approaches for bicyclists.

Intersection Crossings
Crossings at intersections of two local residential streets were typically found to be low-stress, likely to be easy for most adults and children on bicycles to navigate. Moderately stressful LTS 3 crossings were identified primarily along collector and arterial roadways, contributing to the perception of these larger streets as barriers to low-stress connectivity. A stressful crossing can discourage a potential bicyclist, even if the route is otherwise low stress.

Overall LTS
The overall LTS score reflects the worst-case score between a given segment and the adjacent intersection approaches and crossings. The overall LTS results are shown in Figure 31. The separately mapped LTS results for segments, intersection approaches and intersection crossings can be found in the Appendix.

The LTS results shown in Figure 31 reflects the impact a higher-stress crossing or approach can have on an otherwise lower stress segment, which can result in a barrier to connectivity. When considering segment LTS scores alone, the entirety of the Sacramento Avenue corridor is already considered high stress, with segment LTS scores of LTS 3 and LTS 4. When crossings and approaches are considered, many locations with segment LTS scores of LTS 3 increase to LTS 4, and almost all of the adjacent segments are also considered high stress.
901
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 55
Connectivity Assessment
Low stress connectivity is defined in this analysis by connections that can be made via the LTS 1 and LTS 2 bicycling network. The overall LTS results highlight the “islands of connectivity” created by high-stress barriers that surround pockets, or “islands” of lower-stress streets. Most local neighborhood streets, with lower traffic volumes and speed are buttressed by high stress segments, approaches and intersections, specifically along collector and arterial streets with higher speeds and traffic volumes, which serve as barriers to low stress connectivity throughout the analyzed areas.

With 100 percent of segments along the corridor assigned overall LTS scores of LTS 3 or LTS 4, all connections between destinations to the north and south of the corridor are cut off by the high stress corridor, meaning that zero percent of destinations between the north and south of the corridor can be accessed via the low stress network. With higher stress barriers creating islands of low stress connectivity within small areas to the north and south of the corridor, potential connection points between key destinations and points of interest are closed off, resulting in no low stress connectivity. While low stress connections can be made within the small pockets of low stress areas to the north and south of the corridor, residential and non-residential destinations are mostly cut off from one another.

Infrastructure recommendations proposed as part of this Plan will seek to improve level of traffic stress to LTS 1 or 2, where possible. “Zero percent of
destinations
between the north
and south of the
corridor can be
accessed via the low
stress network.”
902
California St

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO AVE
I st Bridge
Reed Ave
Kegle Dr
Douglas St
Sycamore Trail
Jefferson Blvd
Todhunter Ave
Bryte Ave
Sunset Ave
5th St
Harbor Blvd
Solano St
6th St
4th St
3rd St
2nd St
80 275
80 Tower Bridge
Gateway
Bryte
Park
Riverband
Nature
Area
Sutter
Health
Park
8th St
F St
W Capitol Ave
Michigan Blvd
Lighthouse Dr

SACRAMENTO RIVER
BRYTE

NEIGHBORHOOD

BRODERICK

NEIGHBORHOOD

LIGHTHOUSE

NEIGHBORHOOD

WASHINGTON

NEIGHBORHOOD
48% 31% PRIVATE CAR

WALKING
11%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
49% 32% PRIVATE CAR

WALKING
12%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
38%
PRIVATE CAR 55%

WALKING
3%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
9%
BIKING
59%

PRIVATE CAR
19%

WALKING
California St

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO AVE
I st Bridge
Reed Ave
Kegle Dr
Douglas St
Sycamore Trail
Jeffersons Blvd
Todhunter Ave
Bryte Ave
Sunset Ave
5th St
Harbor Blvd
Solano St
6th St
4th St
3rd St
2nd St
80 275
80 Tower Bridge
Gateway
Bryte
Park
Riverband
Nature
Area
Sutter
Health
Park
8th St
F St
W Capitol Ave
Michigan Blvd
Lighthouse Dr

SACRAMENTO RIVER
Yolo St
Reuter Dr
WESTERN AREA:

WIDE & MULTI-LANE
CENTRAL AREA:

TRANSITIONAL &
UNDERDEVELOPED EASTERN AREA:

CONSTRAINED &

DEVELOPED
S1
S2 S3 S4
S5 S6
N
0 0.2 0.4 MILES
Rail
Schools
Parks and
Open Spaces
Study
Corridor
Area of
Interest
LEGEND
Parcels
Building
Footprints
LTS 1
LTS 2
LTS 3
LTS 4
Overall LTS
Figure 31 Existing LTS - Overall
12,327
903
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 57

SAFETY HISTORY
Sacramento Avenue serves diverse populations and trip purposes and features changing roadway conditions and land use characteristics from end to end. As a result, the corridor faces the challenge of competing mobility needs. In some locations, the existing roadway conditions feature multiple travel lanes, high speeds, and minimal, or non-existent, multimodal infrastructure that prioritizes vehicular travel over other non-vehicular modes of travel (walking, biking, and transit).

Collision information was sourced from 2011-2021 Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) data. Data was post-processed to correct for data points with missing /inaccurate location coordinate information.

Collision density is shown for all collisions and fatal and severe injury collisions only in Figure 32.

COLLISION OVERVIEW
As shown in Figure 32, prominent collision hotspots can be seen at several locations, including Harbor Boulevard/Reed Ave, Sacramento Avenue/Jefferson Boulevard, C St between 2nd and 3rd Streets, with the highest collision density at the Jefferson Boulevard location. Less prominent collision hotspot locations can also be seen between 4th and 6th Streets, and near Todhunter and Bryte Avenue.

Most collisions, including both fatal collisions and nine of the ten severe injury collisions, occurred at intersections along the corridor.9 Table 7 presents the number of collisions occurring at intersection locations versus along roadway segment locations. As shown, 86 percent were classified as having occurred at an intersection, while the remaining occurred between intersections (i.e., on a segment), highlighting safety concerns at intersections along the corridor.
9 Collisions occurring within 250 of an intersection were considered intersection collisions.

Table 7 Intersection and Segment Collisions by Severity Location Type
Number
of
Collisions
Percent
of
Total
Occurred at Intersection 440 86%
PDO 301 68.4%
Complaint of Pain 88 20.0%
Visible 40 9.1%
Severe 9 2.0%
Fatal 2 0.5%
Occurred on Segment 71 14%
PDO 44 62.0%
Complaint of Pain 14 19.7%
Visible 12 16.9%
Severe 1 1.4%
Grand Total 511 100%

COLLISION SEVERITY & TYPE
Table 8 summarizes collision severity of total collisions and pedestrian and bicycle collisions. Between 2011 and 2021, 511 collisions occurred within the study area of interest, including two fatal collisions and 10 severe injury collisions. Fifty-nine collisions involved pedestrians and bicyclists, resulting in two fatalities. Pedestrian and bicycle collisions make up 12 percent of all crashes, but 100 percent of fatalities and 50 percent of severe injuries.

Figure 32 shows the density and location of fatal and severe injury collisions. As shown, prominent collision hotspots associated with fatal and severe injury collisions are present near Sunset Avenue, Todhunter Avenue, Jefferson Boulevard, and Douglas Street, with less prominent hot spots at Solano Street and 6th Street.
904
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 58
Table 8 Collisions by Severity
Collision Severity
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only (PDO) Total Total
Collisions 2 10 52 102 345 511
Bicycle
Collisions 0 2 14 15 12 43
Pedestrian
Collisions 2 3 6 3 2 16

Table 9 presents the total collisions by collision type, the majority of which were rear-end (32 percent) or broadside (28 percent) collisions resulting from high vehicular speeds.

Table 9 Collision Types
Collision Type
Number
of
Collisions
Percent
of
Total
Rear-End 161 32%
Broadside 143 28%
Sideswipe 84 16%
Hit Object 58 11%
Head-On 30 6%
Vehicle/Pedestrian 17 3%

SEGMENT COLLISION SUMMARY
Table 10 provides a summary of total collisions, FSI collisions, bicycle or pedestrian collisions, and the primary cause of the collisions per corridor segment. As shown, unsafe speed was the most common cause of collisions across the corridor, underscoring the need for traffic calming. Of the total collisions, most concentrated in segments one, two, three and six, with 21, 15, 22 and 32 percent of all collisions, respectively. Fatal and severe injury collisions were concentrated in segments one, two and three, with nine of the 12 fatal and severe injury collisions occurring in these segments, and both fatal collisions occurring in segment two.

Table 10 Segment Collision Summary
Segment
Location
Total CollisionPercent of TotalFatal CollisionsSevere Injury CollisionsBike / Pedestrian Collisions Primary Collision
Cause
Segment 1 107 21% - 2 8 Unsafe Speed / Auto
ROW
Segment 2 77 15% 2 1 12 Unsafe Speed
Segment 3 111 22% - 4 17 Unsafe Speed
Segment 4 22 4% - 1 7 Automobile ROW
Segment 5 32 6% - 1 - Unsafe Speed / Wrong
Side of the Road
Segment 6 162 32% - 1 15 Unsafe Speed
Total 511 100% 2 10 59 Unsafe Speed
905
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 59
Figure 32 Collision Density Maps
906
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 60

KEY FINDINGS

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Throughout the community engagement process, the community highlighted a variety of concerns relating to transportation along Sacramento Avenue, including:
» High vehicle speeds
» Disconnection throughout the pedestrian network, including gaps in the sidewalk network and a lack of safe crossing opportunities.
» Bicycle safety, and an interest in protected bicycle facilities and clear bicycle routes.
» The public showed interest in creating a corridor for a variety of road users, from commuters to recreators. The community showed interest in shared use paths, landscaping, and creating a park-like feel along the corridor, as well as improving connectivity and safety.
» Lighting issues, specifically along the C Street curve

EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT
The existing conditions analysis revealed findings that aligned with community concerns. These findings highlight opportunities and needs that can be addressed by the complete street improvements identified in later chapters of the Plan. Key findings from the existing conditions assessment are described below.

MULTIMODAL CONDITIONS
» The sidewalk network features gaps, is inconsistent in width, and features vegetation overgrowth in many areas.
» Where they do exist, crossing distances are often long and some feature accessibility issues such as ADA non-compliant curb ramps and sidewalk connections ending abruptly.
» The bikeway network includes unprotected bike lanes or missing bicycle facilities alongside high-speed and highvolume traffic. » Bicycle facilities at intersection approaches feature less-thanideal alignment, lack conflict markings, or disappear altogether.
» Stressful, non-existent, or discontinuous bicycle and pedestrian facilities along segments, and at intersection approaches and crossings result in high levels of traffic stress conditions along the entire corridor.
» Most transit stops lack amenities like transit shelters or benches and some lack accessible infrastructure like curb ramps and paved pathways that connect stops to nearby
sidewalks.

LAND USE CONTEXT & STREETSCAPE
» Adjacent land use ranges from single-family residential to neighborhood retail/commercial to multi-family residential, with most of the current land use along the corridor
characterized as low- to medium-density.
» The north-south streets that intersect the corridor provide access to neighborhood amenities, such as schools, parks, and open spaces, but stressful, auto-oriented multimodal facilities reduce the connectivity to these destinations.
907
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 61
» While most of the parcels adjacent to the corridor are developed, the areas east of Jefferson Boulevard feature the most amount of vacant land. Some parcels are considered under-utilized.
» While limited, corridor edges along the corridor include active frontages in some locations. Edges are primarily defined by long stretches of undefined or fenced edges, and landscaping in some locations.
» There are long stretches of the corridor with no street trees or shading, making the environment hostile to pedestrians. » A lack of pedestrian-oriented community space along the corridor highlights placemaking opportunities.

TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS
» Most trips along the corridor are made via car.
» Lifestyle trips, like shopping and social activities, make up most of trips along the corridor.
» People also commute along Sacramento Avenue, and while most drive, there is an opportunity to create protected facilities that create safer, more comfortable facilities for people interested in walking and biking to work, utilitarian and leisure trips alike.
» A concentration of short vehicles trips (less than one mile) along the corridor highlights an opportunity for mode shift from vehicles to active modes.

SAFETY
» Collision history shows high collision densities overall as well as fatal and severe injury (FSI) collisions at major
intersections, highlighting intersection safety concerns. » Collisions involving bicycle and pedestrian collisions make up a disproportionate share of FSI collisions, highlighting safety concerns with non-motorized infrastructure.
» Unsafe speed was the most common primary cause of
collisions, echoing public concerns over traffic speeds and underscoring the need to implement traffic calming measures.

ROADWAY VOLUME & OPERATIONS
» Average daily traffic volumes along the corridor range between roughly 7,800 and 14,500 vehicles per day, with the highest volumes seen west of Jefferson Boulevard.
» Most of the intersections along the corridor are currently operating at acceptable levels of service
908
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 62
ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS: CORRIDOR AREAS
The Sacramento Avenue roadway cross-section varies in paved roadway width, number of lanes per direction, posted vehicle speed, and fronting land use types. Furthermore, the corridor adjoins a mix of developed, undeveloped, and underdeveloped properties. The existing corridor generally consists of three basic cross-section types, which are listed below with the corresponding segments of the corridor. Corridor strategies and proposed improvements presented in the following chapters align with the grouping of these three core areas. » WIDE & MULTI-LANE: Five-lane cross-section with wide
vehicle lanes and center turn lanes, unbuffered bike lanes, and narrow or incomplete sidewalk infrastructure. This section connects two major north- south arterials: Harbor Boulevard and Jefferson Boulevard. The primary land use is low to highdensity residential with pockets of neighborhood mixed-use commercial. This cross-section condition generally applies to Segments 1 – 3, which comprises the Western Area of the corridor.
» TRANSITIONAL & UNDERDEVELOPED: Transitional crosssection between five-lane and 2-lane cross- section with narrow, unbuffered bike lanes and minimal sidewalk
infrastructure. This section adjoins the largest vacant parcels on the south side of the study corridor where 641 new multifamily apartments are proposed. This section is constrained to the south near 8th Street by the Union Pacific Railroad alignment. This cross-section generally applies to Segment 4 and Segment 5 and comprises the Central Area of the
corridor.
» CONSTRAINED & DEVELOPED: Two-lane cross-section with
left and/or right turn lanes, no bike lanes, and complete sidewalk infrastructure of varying widths. This section will play a key role in ensuring bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to the planned improvements along C Street and the future I Street bicycle and pedestrian bridge. This cross-section generally applies to Segment 6, or the Eastern Area of the corridor.

Segment 1, looking West towards Sunset Ave (Image Source: Google) Segment 4, looking West toward Jefferson Boulevard / Kegle Drive (Image Source: Google)
Segment 6, looking West toward 5th Street (Image Source: Google) 909
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 63
4 Community Engagement

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Successful plans are partnerships between local agencies, stakeholders, and community members. Engaging the Bryte / Broderick communities and the broader West Sacramento community has been a priority throughout the Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan process to ensure the Plan addresses community concerns and priorities. A variety of outreach opportunities, led by GHD’s sub consultant, AIM, were used to seek input from West Sacramento’s community members, including targeted coordination with key community stakeholder groups, several pop-ups and open-house style community meetings, as well as email and social media blasts, flyers, and lawn signs. Additionally, a project website was developed, which includes a project landing page and corridor use and theme survey, as well as an interactive map and ideas wall that allowed members of the public to provide comments regarding corridor concerns and priorities.

Ongoing outreach ensured a continuous process that informed the final improvement concept and development of the Plan. This Chapter presents an overview of the format and approach for these outreach opportunities, and summarizes the feedback received. This plan reflects the guidance and input gathered through a robust community outreach process, summarized in the timeline below. Additional details about community engagement can be found in the Appendix.
910
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 64

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT TEAM
A project development team (PDT) was developed to provide the project team with insight from key interdepartmental representatives from the City of West Sacramento and other relevant government agencies. GHD met with the PDT at key decision points in the development of the Plan, including project kick-off, existing conditions, goals and strategy development, and concept development.

WALK AUDIT
At the start of the project walk audit was performed with the PDT to gather feedback regarding the existing conditions along the corridor.

Those in attendance for the walk audit were directed to respond to a questionnaire, which included prompts concerning sidewalk and bicycle lane quality, perceived safety for pedestrians and bicyclists riding or crossing the street, traffic speeds, and more.

Findings from the walk audit included:
» The sidewalk network is disconnected, and sidewalks are narrow and obstructed in many locations.
» The bicycle network is disconnected, and bike lanes are narrow, unprotected, and unsafe for vulnerable road users.

Poor bicycle lane quality, lack of bicycle parking, and concerns about interface between bikeways and transit routes were also mentioned.
» Intersections are wide, under-signalized, have large turning radii, making pedestrians and bicyclists crossings unsafe. » Wide travel lanes, high vehicle speeds, and poor transit facilities.
911
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 65
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1
The first community workshop at the West Sacramento City Hall Galleria at 1110 West Capitol Avenue on March 23rd, 2023. Attendees had the opportunity to learn more about the Plan, discuss details of the project with the planning team, and share their feedback on potential improvements to the Sacramento Avenue corridor, including bike and pedestrian safety changes and landscaping design. A total of 66 community members attended the workshop. The purpose of the initial community workshop was to introduce the project to the public and solicit community feedback on ways to make future improvements to Sacramento Avenue.

A variety of materials were created for participants to provide comments, including:
» Six segment boards each displaying an arial view of the corridor segment, facts about the area, existing cross sections, and a map for participants to leave location-based comments. » A complete street design element board with examples like intersection control, shared use paths, and street amenities.

Attendees were also provided sticker dots to indicate their priorities on two additional engagement boards:
» A corridor theme board where participants could prioritize how they want to use and experience Sacramento Avenue.

Choices included an accessible green corridor, a multimodal boulevard, a community streetscape, and a regional corridor. » A corridor use board where participants could describe how they use the corridor (destination, recreation, etc.) and how they travel.
912
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 66

WHAT WE HEARD
Traffic speeds were identified as high priority concerns, with participants noting a need for traffic calming and slowing throughout the entire study area. The intersection of 6th Street curve was identified as a location for frequent crashes and hazards for pedestrians and bicyclists, including speeding and lack of lighting.

Comments highlighted the need for new and improved crosswalks, specifically to connect pedestrians to the Cornerstone Diner, under the train tracks, at Simon Terrace, Sunset Avenue, Reed Avenue, and Yolo Street, and a decorative crossing at C Street and 5th Street. Participants showed interest in RRFBs.

Participants mentioned closing gaps in the sidewalk network along the entire corridor as a top priority, as well as improved lighting for active transportation users.

Bicycle facility improvements like protected and buffered bicycle lanes, clearing bike lane labels, bicycle racks were mentioned by workshop participants.
913
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 67
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP # 2
The City of West Sacramento hosted the second community workshop at the West Sacramento City Hall Galleria at 1110 West Capitol Avenue.

Attendees had the opportunity to hear a project update, discuss the proposed improvements with the planning team, and share their feedback on potential changes to the Sacramento Avenue corridor, including bike and pedestrian safety changes and landscaping design.

A total of 38 community members attended the workshop.

Attendees were invited to provide feedback using a variety of interactive engagement materials provided at the workshop, including:
» Design concept boards for various locations throughout the corridor.
» Examples of crossing treatments, protected intersections, and roundabout intersections, and other potential improvements. » A corridor map where participants could make location-based comments about flooding, power outages, and sewer issues.

Participants were given dots to place on design concepts they wished to prioritize, including the below. Dots noted in parentheses indicate the number of dot votes each concept received.
» A roundabout option (3 dots) and a signalized intersection option (2 dots) at the Jefferson Kegle Social Hub.
» A plan focused on an accessible green corridor (3 dots) as compared to community streetscape and multimodal focuses. » Elkhorn Plaza concept with on-street bicycle facilities and shared use path (5 dots)
» Protected one-way bikeways and sidewalks on East Jefferson Blvd/Kegle Dr. Concept (2 dots)
» Landscape protected bikeways and sidewalk concept (6 dots) and the two-way neighborhood shared use path concept (6 dots) between Harbor Boulevard and Jefferson
Boulevard/Kegle Dr.
» Sidewalk and bike lanes (1 dot) from 8th Street to 6th Street, and high visibility crosswalks and green painted bicycle facilities (2 dots) on C Street.

Comments gathered at Workshop 2 were reviewed and incorporated into the final improvement concepts presented in Chapter 6 of this Plan. A summary of community support for the presented design concepts can be found in Chapter 7.
914
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 68

WEBSITE AND SURVEY
A project website was developed for the Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan to share information about the project, update the community regarding engagement events, and gather feedback.

In addition to a project landing page and informational sub-pages, the project website features three primary engagement tools for gathering public input:
» An interactive project map for location specific ideas and comments.
» An ideas wall for community members to discuss ideas, provide images of conceptual ideas, and engage with one another’s comments.
» A corridor use and theme survey to gather information about how people use and travel along the Sacramento Avenue
corridor, as their preferences for how the corridor could be transformed in the future.

Findings from the three key engagement tools listed above are described in the following sections.
915
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 69

INTERACTIVE PROJECT MAP
The interactive project map was open for comments between January 2023 and January 2024, during which 159 comments were left. The interactive map gave six comment category options where members of the public could select the comment category and drag it to a location along the corridor to provide their comment. The map also includes the location of existing bus stops and bicycle facilities for reference, and community members could engage with one another’s comments by liking, disliking, and responding to comments.

As shown in Figure 33, most comments were related to walking and biking at 44.7 percent of all comments, followed by traffic speed & safety at 28.4 percent of all comments. Common concerns noted in interactive map comments included mentions of overall safety while walking and bicycling, high traffic speeds or vehicles speeding, lighting, and difficulty at intersection crossings.

Figure 33 Distribution of Interactive Map Comments by Category Figure 34 Interactive Map Comments
916
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 70

IDEAS WALL
The ideas wall was open to the public from
February 2023 to January 2024, during
which 29 posts were made to the idea wall.

The idea wall allows community members to
select one of three categories for posting,
including ideas and suggestions, a general
comment and something they like. Postings
can include text and/or images to allow
members of the public to provide examples
of images of their ideas and comments.

Respondents could also engage with existing
postings by liking or disliking an existing
post.

Concerns over traffic control and speeding,
as well as the need for protected bike
facilities were a common theme among idea
wall comments.
917
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 71

CORRIDOR USE & THEME SURVEY
The corridor use and theme survey was open
to the public from April 2023 to January
2024, during which between 11 and 18
responses were received on each of the
three questions posed. The three questions
posed mimicked the corridor use and theme
survey boards presented in Workshop 1 to
allow for members of the public who could
not attend the workshop to participate. The
results of the online survey were combined
with the workshop results to form the vision,
goals, and themes for the corridor.

Survey questions included:
» How do you use Sacramento
Avenue?
» How do you typically travel to or on
Sacramento Avenue?
» How could Sacramento Avenue be
transformed?
How do you use Sacramento Avenue?
How could Sacramento Avenue be transformed?
918
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 72

POP-UP EVENTS
Over the course of the planning process, the project team held two pop-up events. The goal of these events were to meet community members at spaces where they were already gathering to encourage them to participate in the Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan, gather their feedback on potential street improvements, and promote upcoming outreach opportunities. The two pop-up events are described in more detail below.

POP-UP EVENT # 1
The first pop-up event was hosted by the City of West Sacramento on August 3, 2023, at the Yolo County Children’s Alliance’s Back-to-School Family Resource Fair, which was held at Bryte Park (425 Todhunter Avenue). The project team engaged approximately thirty community members about the Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan, handed out more than 100 flyers with information on the project website, and distributed more than 125 cards promoting the community meeting planned for Fall 2023.

The Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan booth was one of many booths available for community members to visit during the Back-toSchool Resource Fair. Project team members engaged families and individuals in a conversation about Sacramento Avenue, what is being planned for improvement, and upcoming outreach opportunities for sharing input. The purpose of the pop-up workshop is to spread awareness of the Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan, obtain community feedback on how the street can better fit their needs, and encourage people to visit the project website for upcoming engagement opportunities.

In addition to handing out collateral pieces such as project fliers and business cards, the project team also asked pop-up workshop attendees to share their input on the two interactive board displays using dot stickers.

One of the interactive boards included an overview of the project and a map of the project area, where participants were asked to place dots along the corridor at areas of concern where they would like to see improvements. The second board presented complete street infrastructure improvements and asked participants to place dots next to the improvement types they would like to see made along Sacramento Avenue. Improvement types presented included crossing improvement types to improve safety, one-way protected bikeway types, two-way bike facility types, and raised bikeway types. 919
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 73

WHAT WE HEARD
On each of the interactive boards, the project team received 13 vote dots from members of the public. With regards to areas of concern along the corridor, two locations received two votes each – the intersections of Sacramento Avenue with Kegle Drive / Jefferson Boulevard and Yolo Street. The following locations received one vote each:
» intersection of 3rd Street and Sacramento Avenue
» intersection of 4th Street and Sacramento Avenue
» intersection of 5th Street and Sacramento Avenue
» intersection of California Street and Sacramento Avenue » intersection of Elizabeth Street and 8th Street
» intersection of Kegle Drive and Fremont Boulevard
» intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Reed Avenue
» west most point of Reed Avenue
» the area slightly north of the Reed Avenue and Harbor Boulevard
Community members also identified improvement types they would like to see implemented along the corridor, with the improvement types below receiving votes:
» Safer Crossings:
o High-Visibility Crosswalks with Flashing Beacons (3
votes)
» One-Way Protected Facilities:
o Concrete Protected Bikeways (3 votes)
o Landscaping Protected Bikeways (1 vote)
» Two-Way Bike Facilities:
o Shared-Use Path with Landscape (2 votes)
o Bike-Only Cycle Track (1 vote)
» Raised Bikeways
o Sidewalk-Level Raised Bikeway (2 votes)
o Two-Way Raised Bikeway (1 vote)
The following improvement types did not receive any votes:
» Median refuge islands
» Curb extensions (bulb-outs)
» One-way bollard-protected bikeways
» Two-way shared-use paths (without landscaping)
» Rolled-curb raised bikeways
920
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 74
POP-UP EVENT # 2
The second pop-up event was held on Sunday April 28, 2024, by featuring a booth at the 2024 Breathe Bike Festival and May is Bike Month Kick Off Event hosted by Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates (SABA) and Breathe California Sacramento Region.

Five project team members engaged with community members to discuss the complete street improvement concepts for Sacramento Avenue, and the upcoming release of the draft plan. The event provided an opportunity for community members to learn more about the project and the inclusions to the forthcoming draft plan. Over 100 project website cards and stickers were distributed to attendees at the event.

The pop-up format was designed to provide a comprehensive overview of the project. It featured a project map board, two boards showing the draft improvement concepts along the corridor, and a previous outreach board. These boards were instrumental in educating community members about the project’s progress, the proposed improvements, and the general project area. Project engineers and managers were on hand to explain the draft plan initiatives and project history. The pop-up event was centered around bicycling and bicycle safety, with project team members engaging with dozens of bicyclists about Sacramento Ave bicycle safety issues and improvements.

Attendees were prompted to visit the website to provide comments on the draft plan and the recommended improvement concepts. 921
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 75

DRAFT PLAN REVIEW
The Draft Plan was available for public review between May 7, 2024, and June 7, 2024. The City of West Sacramento hosted a website that provided links to download the Draft Plan document. Community members were able to provide their comments on the Draft Plan to the City via email, by mail or by phone. These details were also posted to the project website.

Community partners, the Broderick & Bryte Community Action Network and Meals on Wheels, helped distribute flyers to advertise the public review period for the Draft Plan, which included details about the Plan and how to provide comment, in three languages. Also, City staff promoted the public comment period through utility mailer, the City’s Sock Station for May is Bike Month, and the Community Senior Resource Fair.

Comments received on the Draft Plan and responses to these comments are summarized in the Appendix.
922
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 76
5 Design Approach
Based on the vision statement, community input, and existing corridor conditions identified in previous chapters, strategies that relate to the identified themes were developed to improve the corridor as a whole as well as for the three corridor areas. This chapter reiterates the vision statement, goals, and established themes for the corridor, and identifies strategies associated with each of the vision themes.

In following sections, the variety of improvement types and treatments considered in this plan are described and depicted, and specific strategies for achieving these goals as they relate to the corridor as a whole and the corridor areas and segments are discussed. The strategies presented in this chapter are intended to address the goals and themes identified in Chapter 2 and provide an overall framework for recommending mobility and urban design focused improvements throughout the corridor.

Detailed design concepts informed by these over-arching strategies are presented in Chapter 6. In subsequent chapters, the benefits associated with the improvement concepts are assessed and recommendations for implementing the proposed improvement concepts are presented.

FROM VISION TO STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
Findings from the existing conditions and opportunities assessment and the community engagement process support the three themes for Sacramento Avenue: green corridor, community streetscape, and multimodal street. With these findings in mind, and in close collaboration with the city and the community, strategies were developed to address the identified goals and themes for the corridor.

To the right, the vision statement, goals, and themes described previously in Chapter 2 are reiterated. In the next section, strategies associated with each of the three themes are discussed.

VISION STATEMENT

THE SACRAMENTO AVENUE / C STREET

CORRIDOR IS A SAFE, ACCESSIBLE, AND

ENJOYABLE COMMUNITY ASSET WITH

ACTIVE MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND

PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED STREETSCAPES

THAT SUPPORTS LOCAL ECONOMIC AND
SOCIAL OPPORTUNITIES.

CORRIDOR GOALS
Mobility-Focused Goal: Provide safer and more comfortable transportation options, including walking, biking, rolling, and driving, for people of all ages and abilities by incorporating “complete street” infrastructure within the roadway right-of way.

Urban Design-Focused Goal: Integrate placemaking strategies with multi-modal mobility and infill development.
923
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 77

VISION STRATEGIES OVERVIEW
Consistent with the vision & goals of the Plan, strategies for street design relate to the three themes identified in Chapter 2 and described below. Overall corridor strategies associated with each of these three themes are discussed in the following section. The overall corridor strategies associated with the three themes described below were integrated in the more specific strategies for each of the corridor’s three areas – the western area, central area and eastern area – which is discussed in subsequent sections.

Green Corridor: Use natural, sustainable landscaping
to improve comfort, aesthetics, and resiliency.

Community Streetscape: Maximize space for active
lifestyles and community activities.

Multimodal Boulevard: Prioritize safe and connected
travel options for people of all ages and abilities.

THEME A: GREEN CORRIDOR
Use natural, sustainable landscaping to improve
comfort, aesthetics, and resiliency.

STRATEGIES
» Use landscape as a buffer between pedestrian through zone and the street.
» Incorporate green infrastructure to treat roadway runoff and to provide adequate stormwater management.
» Provide seamless connectivity to the riverfront trails. » Provide shade along the corridor using native and droughttolerant trees. 924
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 78
THEME B: COMMUNITY STREETSCAPE
Maximize space for active lifestyle and community
activities.

THEME C: MULTIMODAL BOULEVARD
Prioritize safe and connected travel options for people of all ages and abilities.

STRATEGIES
» Improve retail and dining options with cohesive built forminformed character zones. » Enhance the experience along and across the corridor with pedestrian scale and oriented design.
» Create clearly defined public spaces at key locations along the corridor through inviting streetscapes with a variety of amenities, such as seating, water fountains, landscape, and art.
» Foster civic identity and community pride through
placemaking.

STRATEGIES
» Integrate mobility hubs along the corridor, consistent with the Mobility Action Plan, to increase accessibility and convenience of mobility options.
» Support access to transit and shared-mobility services with continuous and universally accessible multimodal
infrastructure that accommodates a wide range of users. » Provide continuous sidewalks and/or pathways along the corridor and provide frequent, well designed pedestrian crossings that provide access to local destinations.
» Provide comfortable bicycle infrastructure that encourages a wide range of users by providing physical separation
between bicyclists and motor vehicles via painted buffers and/or vertical elements.
» Enhance pedestrian and bicyclist visibility at intersections through strategic design that provides easily navigable dedicated paths of travel.

Source: City of West Sacramento
925
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 79

IMPROVEMENT TYPES
This section describes the types of complete
street and placemaking improvements
considered in developing the Complete
Street Plan.

TYPES OF BIKEWAYS

CLASS I SHARED USE PATHS
Class I shared use paths are two-way, paved
trails completely separated from the
roadway. Class I facilities are intended for
pedestrians and bicyclists to share and are
more comfortable for less experienced or
vulnerable riders as compared to on street
facilities. The minimum width of a Class I
facility is 8 feet, 10 feet preferred.

CLASS II BICYCLE LANES
Class II bicycle lanes are one-way travel
lanes for bicyclists. A painted, striped buffer
can be added on both sides of the lane to
increase separation from vehicle traffic and
parked cars, where people may open doors
into the bicycle lane. Some Class II bicycle
lanes may also include green paint to
increase the visibility of bicyclists in areas
known to feature higher levels of vehicle to
bicyclist conflict.

Standard Class II Bicycle Lane
Class II Bicycle Lane with Green Paint
Class II Buffered Bicycle Lane

CLASS III BICYCLE ROUTE
Class III bicycle facilities are signed routes on
low-speed, low volume streets where
bicyclists share the road with motorists.

Sharrows, or shared lane markings that
indicate a Class III, can be added to
recommend to alert drivers that bicyclists
may be present. Class III bicycle boulevards
are Class III routes enhanced with traffic
calming measures that prioritize bicyclists
and increase comfort.

Sacramento, CA
West Sacramento, CA
Sacramento, CA
West Sacramento, CA
West Sacramento, CA
926
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 80

CLASS IV SEPARATED BIKEWAYS
Class IV separated bikeways are on street
bicycle facilities with a physical barrier
separating them from vehicle traffic.

Bollards, parking, planters, and landscaping
can all be used as protection from the
roadway. Class IV facilities can be one-way
or two-way and increase comfort on higher
speed, higher volume roadways where
inexperienced or vulnerable road users may
be uncomfortable on Class II facilities.

Parking-Protected Class IV Bikeway
One-Way Class IV Bikeway at Sidewalk Grade
Bi-directional Class IV Bikeway

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN

IMPROVEMENTS

SIDEWALK

HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK MARKINGS
High visibility crosswalks typically include
bold white bars that run perpendicular to the
pedestrian path of travel. High visibility
crossings are easier to see than standard
crosswalks and improve visibility of
pedestrians.

ENHANCED DECORATIVE CROSSWALK
Enhanced decorative crosswalks may
include decorative or aesthetic elements
such as stamped concrete or colored
pavement to aesthetically enhance the
streetscape and calm traffic by sending a
visual cue to motorists about pedestrianscale function the street. These should include reflective lines to ensure proper
visibility, especially at night or on rainy days.

Claremont, CA
West Sacramento, CA
Pedbikeimages.org / Carl Sundstorm
Vancouver, CA
Sacramento, CA
West Sacramento, CA
West Sacramento, CA
927
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 81

ADVANCE STOP BAR
Advance stop bars include a white bar prior
to a marked crossing that indicates where
drivers should stop and discourage vehicle
encroachment into the crosswalk.

ADVANCE YIELD LINE
Advance yield lines include a white bar, or
triangular “shark’s teeth” placed prior to a
marked crosswalk that is without stop or
signal control. They indicate where drivers
should yield and discourage vehicle
encroachment into the crosswalk.

CURB RAMPS
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), curb ramps are required at street
crossing with grade changes to ensure
accessibility for pedestrians at crosswalks
and for bicyclists where sidewalks level
bikeways or shared-use facilities transition to
street level. At intersections, two
perpendicular curb ramps are preferred to a
single diagonal ramp.

CURB EXTENSION
Curb extensions expand the sidewalk into
the street at a crossing. Curb extensions are
typically used where there is on street
parking. They narrow traffic lanes to slow
speeds, shorten crossing distances, and
improve visibility of people crossing the
street.

PASSIVE BICYCLE DETECTIONS
Passive bicycle detection eliminates the
need for bicyclists to push a button to
receive a green crossing signal; allowing
bicyclists to remain upright on their bicycle
and reducing risk of collisions with turning
vehicles. Most commonly, bicycle detection
loops are placed in the pavement that detect
metal bicycle frames to turn the crossing
signal green.

GREEN CONFLICT MARKINGS
Green conflict markings are dashed marks
placed where potential conflicts with drivers
are anticipated. Locations typically include
intersections and driveways. Conflict
markings increase visibility of bicycle
facilities and remind drivers to yield to
bicyclists. Sacramento, CA
Sacramento, CA West Sacramento, CA
West Sacramento, CA
Image capture: Oct 2022, 2023 Google
West Sacramento, CA
NACTO
Portland, OR
928
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 82

PROTECTED INTERSECTION
Protected intersections increase safety for
pedestrians and bicyclists at crossings.

Raised pedestrian islands are used to reduce
crossing distances, increase turning radii for
vehicles, and reduce conflict risk between
bicycles and turning drivers.

ROUNDABOUT
Roundabouts decrease conflict points
compared to traffic signals, stop signs, or
yield-controlled intersections. Roundabouts
allow for the continuous flow of traffic in all
directions, potentially reducing queuing and
wait times for drivers.

MEDIAN REFUGE ISLAND
At intersections and midblock crossings,
Median refuge islands break up long
crossings and reduce crossing distances for
pedestrians. A protected, pedestrian
designated space is placed in the middle of
the roadway and allows pedestrians to wait
and cross one direction of traffic at a time.

RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON
(RRFB)
RRFBs combine pedestrian crossing signs
and bright flashing lights that are illuminated
when a pedestrian presses a button. RRFBs
improv visibility at crossings and are proven
to increase yielding. RRFBs can be used at
intersections or midblock crossings.

LEAD PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL (LPI)
LPIs are signalized intersections with a walk
phase that prevents the green phase for
motorists by a few seconds, allowing
pedestrians to get a head start crossing the
street. LPIs improve visibility of pedestrians
by bringing them into the crosswalk into the
field of view for turning vehicles.

West Sacramento, CA
West Sacramento, CA
Kings Beach, CA
Long Beach, CA
Image Capture: October 2019, 2023, Google
Silver Spring, MD
929
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 83

PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON (PHB) OR

PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL
PHBs or pedestrian signals are used at
locations where motorists must yield to
pedestrians, but the current crossing is not
signalized or stop controlled. Roadway
context like the number of lanes, crossing
distances, and posted speed limit may be
used to dictate where PHBs or pedestrian
signals are recommended. PHBs and
pedestrian signals are pedestrian activated
and display a red signal when the button is
pushed, indicating drivers to stop.

Pedestrians must wait for a WALK signal
before crossing.

STREETSCAPE AND PLACEMAKING

BENCHES
Benches can be placed at transit stops and
along the corridor for a variety of roads
users, like people taking transit, walking,
jogging, or bicycling.

When placing benches, consider transit wait
time, heavily trafficked areas, or if the areas
serve vulnerable road users like children or
seniors. Plan room for people with mobility
devices to pull next to benches or move
easily around them.

TRASH RECEPTACLES
Trash and recycling receptables provide a
convenient place to dispose of litter. When
placing receptacles, consider maintenance,
visibility for easy access and preventing
vandalism, and areas that are heavily
trafficked.

BICYCLE PARKING
Bicycle racks at convenient locations provide
secure places to park and lock bicycles on a
short-term basis. Bicycle parking should be
sited at level locations that are highly visible
to avoid bicycle theft and are near bicycle
amenities. Avoid conflicts with motor
vehicles, pedestrians, and mobility devices.

Providing sanctioned bike parking in the
right locations can help avoid bikes locked to
objects such as trees, fences, railings, etc.
which may cause maintenance or
accessibility issues.

The chosen style of rack should support the
bicycle upright by its frame in two places,
prevent the wheel of the bicycle from
tipping over, enable the frame and one or
both wheels to be secured, support bicycles
without a diamond-shaped frame with a
horizontal top tube, and allow front-in
parking. A U-lock should be able to lock the
front wheel and the down tube of an upright
bicycle, and allow back-in parking, and a Ulock should be able to lock the rear wheel and seat tube of the bicycle. Wheel-bending
schoolyard bicycle racks, which can damage
bicycles, and “wave” style bicycle racks, are
outdated and space inefficient. Thus, these
are not recommended.

LANDSCAPED MEDIANS
Raised medians offer opportunities to add
greenery to a corridor. Native plants, water
use, and maintenance costs should be
considered when planning landscaping.

Foliage should be trimmed and maintained
to preserve visibility at crossings. All
landscaping components should be selected
in accordance with the City’s Landscape
Development Guidelines and Master Tree
List.

FHWA
West Sacramento, CA
West Sacramento, CA
930
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 84

LANDSCAPED SIDEWALK/BIKEWAY BUFFER
Like medians, buffers between active
transportation facilities and vehicle traffic
are prime locations for creating green
spaces along a corridor. A landscape buffer
provides separation from the roadway,
aesthetic benefits, and canopy shade for
users.

SHADE TREES
In cities like West Sacramento, with hot, dry
summers, street trees provide pedestrians
with essential shade protection from the sun,
while also contributing to air quality,
aesthetic, and mental health benefits. Street
trees can also improve traffic safety, with
studies showing that individual driving
speeds are significantly reduced along treelined streets in suburban settings.

BIOSWALES
Bioswales are areas of landscaping that
provide a permeable surface to drain
stormwater back into soil rather than
diverting it back into the drainage system or
flooding into the street. Bioswales can be
placed at medians, curb extensions, or
sidewalk buffer areas.

WAYFINDING
Wayfinding signage informs road users of
their surroundings and guides them along
the best routes to key destinations.

Decision signs inform bicyclists of routes
connecting to key destinations – they may
also show information about how long or far
a destination may be from the sign location.

Decision signs should be placed at
intersections of two or more bikeways to
indicate the best route to each destination.

Turn signs signal when a bikeway turns from
the current roadway onto another roadway.

Confirmation signs indicate that a road is a
designated bicycle route and can inform
drivers that they are sharing the roadway
with bicyclists.

Pedestrian wayfinding should help
pedestrians navigate efficiently to their
desired destinations. Waying should be
comprehensible and easy to find, placed at
pedestrian height for easy access.

Wayfinding visuals should be consistent and
appealing, avoiding cluttered information.

Transit wayfinding should guide riders to
and between transit stops. It should be
developed in partnership with local
transportation service providers, and have
clear, predictable placement, and legibly
display routes and service information.

Claremont, CA
West Sacramento, CA
931
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 85

PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING
Pedestrian scale lighting illuminate walkways
to increase comfort for people walking and
improve visibility of pedestrians for drivers.

Scaled lighting is typically mounted 10 to 15
feet high and spaced 15 to 30 feet apart.

BICYCLE REPAIR STATIONS
Bicycle repair stations allow users to repair
their bicycles on the go. Repair stations
typically include securely attached tools, a
stand, and a bike pump, and are meant to
withstand both vandalism and the elements.

Care should be taken when placing bicycle
repair stations to avoid areas where
vandalism is more likely, and instead placing
them in highly visible, well-lit, and accessible
locations where bicyclists may easily pull off
the bikeway to make repairs.

Davis, CA
Bicycle Repair Station, Davis Local Wiki
Landscapeforms.com
West Sacramento, CA
932
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 86

TRANSIT FACILITIES

TRANSIT SHELTERS
Transit shelters provide a comfortable place
for passengers to wait for the bus by
providing shade and protection from the
elements. Transit shelters should include
benches for passengers to rest. When
deciding placement of transit shelters,
consider elements like ridership, if the transit
line serves vulnerable users like children or
seniors, or stops that are particularly
weather exposed.

FLOATING TRANSIT ISLAND
Floating transit islands provide a platform
for riders and a designated area for buses to
stop in the travel lane, or within a bus
pullout. The island allows for a continuous
protected bike facility, separating the
bikeway from vehicular traffic and
eliminating conflicts between buses and
bicyclists.

When designing separated bikeways
adjacent to a transit island, there are multiple
variations that can be implemented,
depending upon vehicle traffic volumes,
roadway speed, transit ridership and
headways, and right-of-way constraints. In
the examples below, the bikeway is designed
adjacent to the transit island within a bicycle
and pedestrian mixing zone.

TURN-OUT BAYS
The images to the left depict in-lane transit
stop, while the two images below depict two
turn-out bay design options, which are the
two design options preferred by YoloTD, the
transit agency serving the corridor.

In the first image below, the transit shelter is
placed on the floating transit island, with a
mixing zone that provides connection to the
sidewalk. The mixing zone features high
visibility markings and crossings between
the transit shelter and the sidewalk. In the
second image, there is also a mixing zone
with high visibility markings, but the transit
shelter is placed at the sidewalk.

NACTO
Seattle, WA
Albany, CA
Google Image Capture, 2023
GHD Remix Example
GHD Remix Example
West Sacramento, CA
933
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 87
This page was intentionally left blank.
934
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 88

CORRIDOR STRATEGIES
Investing in green spaces and infrastructure, enhanced
community streetscape and multimodal improvements
designed for all ages and abilities will transform
Sacramento Avenue into a vibrant, inviting, and multifunctional corridor with unique community spaces and character that enhance social and economic activity. The figure to the right gives an overview of both the mobility and design-focused improvements recommended as part
of this complete street plan.

This section outlines corridor-wide mobility-focused and urban-design focused strategies leveraged to develop
the corridor recommendations. In subsequent sections,
key strategies utilized in each of the corridor’s three core areas, western, central, and eastern are discussed.

MOBILITY-FOCUSED STRATEGIES
With a key focus of this Plan being improving access and connectivity for non-vehicular modes of transportation, complete street improvement design standards and best
practices inform the corridor-wide strategies used to
develop the recommended improvements.

Throughout the corridor, the Plan recommends safe,
comfortable bicycle and pedestrian facilities designed for people of all ages and abilities and the “interested but concerned” category of bicyclists, meaning that the
recommendations seek to provide facilities that are level of traffic stress scores LTS 1 or LTS 2 to appeal to as much of the population as possible.10 Similarly, new
sidewalk and sidewalk gap closure is recommended
across the corridor, which should provide a comfortable, connected and accessible pedestrian experience.
10 See the existing bicycle level of traffic stress analysis section in Chapter 4 for “Types of Bicyclists” categorized as interested but concerned.
935
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 89 936
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 90

MOBILITY-FOCUSED STRATEGIES (CONTINUED)
Pedestrian paths should be provided in the form of sidewalks or shared-use paths on both sides of the street, and should be at least six feet in width, where feasible.

Class IV separated bikeways are recommended at sidewalk grade, which are also known as raised cycle tracks. Differentiation between the material type of the raised cycle tracks and sidewalks are recommended to provide a visual and tactile queue between the different facility types. In areas where right-of-way allows, additional separation between the bikeway and sidewalk is recommended with a paved concrete area, or small landscape strip that would separate the two facilities. Additionally, native, and drought-tolerant plantings are recommended in the landscaped areas, space permitting, within the median and the buffer zone between proposed Class IV bikeways and vehicular travel lanes. Landscaped areas will provide ample separation between vehicular traffic and dedicated spaces for those who are walking, biking and rolling along Sacramento Avenue, as well as narrow street widths to provide a more pedestrian-scale environment.

At key locations along the corridor, new crossing locations and improvements at existing crossing locations will provide additional lowstress crossings for both bicyclists and pedestrians, resulting in improved connectivity.

Transit Strategies
During the Plan development process, the project team coordinated with the regional transit agency serving the corridor, YoloTD, to identify transit stop design options and changes in stop placement that meets the existing and future needs of the corridor with regards to multimodal operations, accessibility, and land use context.

In collaboration with YoloTD, several transit stop design options were identified. While a floating transit island stop design with a bus turnout, rather than an in-lane stop, is the transit agency’s preferred design option, and in-lane stop design was also discussed as an option. Two turn-out bay type design options were identified, which are depicted in the improvement types discussed in the previous section of this chapter. All transit stops are recommended to include a transit shelter and bench.

While turn-out bays are preferred along the corridor, there may be potential right-of-way acquisition required in some locations to implement these changes. Subsequent design phases will further consider existing right-of-way constraints and right-of-way acquisition needs that may be required to implement upgrades. Additionally, further bus stop and route location planning will be coordinated with YoloTD during the design phase.

Truck Routes
What we heard from the community is that besides speed and volume of traffic, the presence of trucks contributes to making the corridor less attractive to walking, biking, and rolling. Several strategies to minimize the impacts of truck traffic along the corridor were identified during the Plan development process.

Truck Strategies include:
» Traffic calming will reduce the auditory impact of freight on adjacent neighborhoods due to reduced speeds that will result from traffic calming.
» The design standards for intersections will be designed to discourage truck traffic off of designated truck routes. » City collaboration with Caltrans to change the truck routes along and adjacent to the corridor while preserving access to key STAA terminals.

Proposed truck routes are shown in Figure 35 on the following page.

Vehicular Facilities
Complete street plans consider all modes, including vehicles. The Plan recommendations seek to maintain acceptable traffic conditions in the existing and future condition, per city LOS standards, while balancing the needs of all road users.

Roundabouts
There are myriad safety and operational benefits associated with roundabouts that would be realized with the implementation of roundabouts proposed at a few key locations along the corridor. 937
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 91
Featuring lower vehicle speeds and fewer conflict points, roundabouts are a proven safety countermeasure at locations known to be collision hotspots. Roundabouts can also serve as a traffic calming treatment at the entry to a corridor to slow vehicle speeds and signal a change in context as vehicles enter a corridor.

According to the City of West Sacramento’s 2018 Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR), the Sacramento Avenue corridor is among the City’s highest ranked crash corridors. The Jefferson Boulevard / Sacramento Avenue intersection is the sixth highest ranked high crash intersection location. Moreover, converting intersections to roundabouts from signals was a countermeasure identified by the SSAR for high crash signalized intersection locations, making roundabouts an obvious safety countermeasure to consider for the Sacramento corridor.

In addition to safety benefits, roundabouts offer traffic operations benefits due to the fact that, when appropriately designed, they can accommodate 30 to 50 percent more traffic than conventional intersections and result in less traffic delay.11 As discussed in further detail in Chapter 7, maintaining acceptable traffic conditions at the Jefferson Boulevard / Sacramento Avenue intersection in the future condition would otherwise require widening to accommodate expected increases in traffic if a roundabout is not implemented.

Alternative Intersection Configurations
Although the roundabout option was selected as the preferred concept, protected intersection concepts have also been developed and are presented in the Appendix. While protected intersection concepts provide safety benefits, the additional right-of-way needed would constrain operational conditions such that vehicular delay would drop below acceptable levels of service in the future condition. 11 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (August 2000), roundabout.kittelson.com. Modern Roundabouts.

The next sections present a corridor-wide overview of urban-design focused strategies, then strategies specific to each corridor area are discussed. Detailed improvement concepts are presented for each of in Chapter 6.
938
California St

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO AVE
I st Bridge
Kegle Dr
Douglas St
Sycamore Trail
Jefferson Blvd
Todhunter Ave
Bryte Ave
Sunset Ave
5th St
Harbor Blvd
Solano St
6th St
4th St
3rd St
2nd St
80 275
80 Tower Bridge
Gateway
Bryte
Park
Riverband
Nature
Area
Sutter
Health
Park
8th St
F St
W Capitol Ave
Michigan Blvd
Lighthouse Dr

SACRAMENTO RIVER
Reed Ave
BRYTE

NEIGHBORHOOD

BRODERICK

NEIGHBORHOOD

LIGHTHOUSE

NEIGHBORHOOD

WASHINGTON

NEIGHBORHOOD
48% 31% PRIVATE CAR

WALKING
11%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
49% 32% PRIVATE CAR

WALKING
12%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
38%
PRIVATE CAR 55%

WALKING
3%
BIKING
<1%

ON-DEMAND
9%
BIKING
59%

PRIVATE CAR
19%

WALKING
California St

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO AVE
I st Bridge
Reed Ave
Kegle Dr
Douglas St
Sycamore Trail
Jeffersons Blvd
Todhunter Ave
Bryte Ave
Sunset Ave
5th St
Harbor Blvd
Solano St
6th St
4th St
3rd St
2nd St
80 275
80 Tower Bridge
Gateway
Bryte
Park
Riverband
Nature
Area
Sutter
Health
Park
8th St
F St
W Capitol Ave
Michigan Blvd
Lighthouse Dr

SACRAMENTO RIVER
Yolo St
Reuter Dr
WESTERN AREA:

WIDE & MULTI-LANE
CENTRAL AREA:

TRANSITIONAL &
UNDERDEVELOPED EASTERN AREA:

CONSTRAINED &

DEVELOPED
S1
S2 S3 S4
S5 S6
N
0 0.2 0.4 MILES
Rail
Schools
Parks and
Open Spaces
Area of
Interest
LEGEND
Parcels
Building
Footprints
Local City
Truck Routes
(CA LEGAL)
Truck Routes
Terminal Access
Truck Routes
(STAA)
Figure 35 Proposed Truck Routes
Existing Truck Routes
12,327
939
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 93
This page was intentionally left blank.
940
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 94

URBAN DESIGN-FOCUSED STRATEGIES
The urban-design focused strategies identified as part of the Plan are centered around identifying key focus areas along the corridor that meet the goals, visions and three themes of the corridor. The image above presents an overview of four urban design focus areas. The focus areas include recommendations for residential frontage opportunities, edge activation and placemaking, streetscape and greening and mobility hubs, which are depicted below. Each of these four focus areas are described in more detail in the sections that follow, which outline the strategies that are specific to the corridor areas and segments.

STREETSCAPE & GREENING
Similarly, streetscape elements, like benches, bike racks along with greening can activate pedestrian-scale and community-friendly spaces that promote community vitality and livability
941
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 95

RESIDENTIAL FRONTAGE OPPORTUNITIES
As new development occurs, residential frontages can integrate with streetscape and mobility improvements to activate spaces and create a sense of place.

MOBILITY HUBS
Mobility hubs can be placed at key locations at the intersection of important transportation routes and transit stops with micro-mobility options and community spaces that bring together transportation options and placemaking.
942
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 96

WESTERN AREA STRATEGIES
The image to the right shows a standard cross-section for the western area of the corridor in an area where there is existing mature tree coverage. Existing trees in these areas will be retained where ever feasible.

Along with sidewalk gaps closure and new Class IV bikeways, a landscaped buffer and landscaped medians are proposed. Twotravel lanes per direction will remain to accommodate the heavier through traffic that the Jefferson Boulevard to Harbor Boulevard stretch is known for.

The cross-section below shows the minimum proposed widths and variation allowable by the existing right-of-way.

On the following page, two urban design focus areas are identified within the Western Area, depecited below, at Bryte Avenue and Jefferson Boulevard / Kegle Drive, which identify mobility, land use and edge activation and linear green opportunities. 943
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 97 944
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 98

CENTRAL AREA STRATEGIES
As shown in Focus Area 2 on the previous page, the mobility hub proposed at the northeast corner of Jefferson Boulevard / Kegle Drive will interface with the mobility improvements that continue eastward along Sacramento Avenue.

As shown in the standard street section in the image at the top left of the page, along Sacramento Avenue east of the Jefferson Boulevard / Kegle Drive intersection, the roadway narrows to one travel lane per direction. However, the wide existing right-of way allows for the new Class IV bikeway, landscaped median or two left turn lane, as well as sidewalk recommendations to continue east. The cross-section images to the right shows the minimum proposed widths and variation allowable by the existing right-of-way.

As shown in the standard street section on the next page, East of Douglas Street, the existing right of way between Elkhorn Plaza and the south side of the roadway begins to narrow. As shown, the Class IV bikeway recommendation continues east alongside the eastbound travel lane, while a Class II buffered bike lane is proposed in the westbound direction. However, the right of way within Elkhorn Plaza provides an opportunity for a Class I shared use path that could interface with the City’s planned EV charging station and the Plan’s proposed mobility hub at the Plaza, where mature trees would remain. The image at the bottom right of the following page t highlights these opportunities in Focus Area 3.

East of Reuter Dr, the roadway right of way further constrains, where the landscaped buffer between Class IV bikeways and vehicular traffic is transitioned to concrete curb separation. This is discussed in greater detail in the improvement concepts presented in Chapter 6. 945
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 99 946
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 100

EASTERN AREA STRATEGIES
The strategies within the eastern area include maintaining consistency with existing plans for C Street and 5th Street improvements planned by the City, as well as a protected intersection at 5th and C Streets. Planned improvements would include high visibility features like buffers, curb extension, and colored pavement where feasible to improve the safety and comfort of bicyclists and pedestrians.

As shown in Focus Area 4 to the right, there is opportunity for placemaking activation, development potential and
residential frontage opportunities. At the intersection of the future C Street-Railyards Bridge realignment and planned bicycle and pedestrian only bridge along the existing I Street Bridge, these opportunities would integrate with mobility improvements and opportunities.
947
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 101
6 Improvement Concepts
This chapter provides improvement
concepts that support safety, comfort, and
connectivity along Sacramento Avenue for
all road users. The recommendations
outlined are a product of an extensive
community engagement process and
analysis of existing conditions. They support
a vision for the corridor that encourages
active transportation, activates public
spaces, and supports a variety of needs,
from commuting to recreation. The
recommendations aim to not only create a
safe environment for road users, but to
create enjoyable, useful public spaces for
people of all ages and abilities.

The following sections present the
improvements concepts developed for
Sacramento Avenue. The design concepts
included are the product of an iterative
community engagement process with the
public, key stakeholders, and city staff, and
were informed by the visions and goals,
analysis, and identified needed developed
throughout the Plan.

More detailed improvement concepts are
provided in the Appendix.

Based on similarity in roadway
characteristics, the Plan recommendations
are grouped into the corridor into three
areas, including
» The Western Area from Harbor
Boulevard and Reed Avenue to
Kegle Drive/Jefferson Boulevard
along Sacramento Avenue
» The Central Area from Kegle
Drive/Jefferson Boulevard to 6th
Street along Sacramento Avenue
» The Eastern Area from California
Street to 2nd Street along C Street
The complete street improvement concepts
are presented by corridor sub-segment and
improvement details are called out as they
relate to each of the three corridor themes:
green corridor, community streetscape and
multimodal street.

Planned transportation improvement and
development projects are called out with
dark grey boxes and circles.

Yellow and green dashed areas highlight key
areas where community streetscape and
green corridor improvements are
recommended, consistent with the focus
areas noted in the previous chapter.
948
WESTERN AREA - SEGMENT 1

HARBOR BLVD / REED AVE TO SOLANO ST
The City received HSIP funding to implement
medians at Sunset Avenue and Sacramento Avenue.

The Plan recommends including pedestrian refuge
islands on both approaches, high visibility crosswalk
/ cross-bike markings. A bulb out is also added at
the northeast corner, which will shorten the crossing
distance and calm trac by reducing the wide turn
radii that contributes to high turning speeds.

The City received HSIP funding to implement
high visibility crosswalks on both intersection
approaches, a RRFB, and median refuge
island across Sacramento Avenue. The Plan
recommends implementing these projects by
modifying designs to be consistent with
other improvements along this segment. The
Plan recommends adding crossbike and
conflict markings across Solano Street.

High visibility crosswalk and
bicycle conflict markings at the
Oak Street, Sunset Avenue and
Solano Street intersections will
improve safety for all users by
increasing visibility of active users
crossing the roadway.

Pedestrian refuge islands at
Sunset Ave and Solano Street will
reduce crossing distances,
alowing pedestrians to cross one
direction of trac at a time, while
RRFBs will increase driver
awareness of bicyclists and
pedestrians crossing the roadway.

The roundabout at Harbor Boulevard will
improve safety and connectivity by reducing
conflict points between active users and
vehicles, while improving trac flow. With
landscaping and gateway signage
improvements, there is also opportunity for
the roundabout to serve as a gateway feature
to the corridor, which will further help calm
trac as it enters the corridor from the west
end, as well as contribute to community
streetscape.

At the transit stops on
both sides of Oak Street,
the Class IV bikeway will
transition to a bicycle and
pedestrian mixing zone as
it traverses behind floating
transit islands. The transit
stops at this location will
include a transit shelter
and in-line stop
configuration.

Eight-foot Class IV bikeways in each direction (directional) that are separated from vehicular trac by a landscaped bu
er are
recommended to increase safety and comfort for bicyclists of all experience levels. Throughout the corridor, the Class IV bikeway is recommended as a raised cycle track at sidewalk-grade, and the two facilities will be distinguished by distinct materials that create a visual and tactical cue between the two facilities. A bike facility that is flush with the sidewalk appeals to the community’s interest in Class I facilities and recreational walkways, as well as the needs of bicyclists who may move at a faster pace than pedestrians and recreational bicyclists. This will provide safe and comfortable connectivity throughout the corridor.

As drought-tolerant trees mature, the landscaped bu
er will
provide shade during the region’s hot summers, and can also be designed as a bioswale to assist with stormwater management.

Together, the sidewalk, raised cycle track, and landscaping improvements will address all three themes of the Plan by improving mobility, and contributing to a green corridor and community streetscape improvements.

SOLANO ST
HSIP PROJECT:

PEDESTRIAN REFUGE

SUNSET AVE
HSIP PROJECT:

RESTRICT LEFT TURNS OUT
Sidewalk gaps will be
addressed on both sides
of Sacramento Avenue to
improve pedestrian
connectivity. Sidewalks
along this segment will be
6-feet wide, separated
from vehicular trac by a
Class IV bikeway and
landscaped bu
er.

A 12-foot landscaped median
will require reducing vehicle
travel lanes to 11 feet.

Narrower vehicle lanes will
help to calm trac,
contributing to a more
pedestrian-oriented
steetscape. The landscaped
median will also provide
shade as trees mature and
can be designed to facilitate
stormwater management.

Sunset Ave
949
WESTERN AREA - SEGMENT 2

SOLANO ST TO TODHUNTER AVE
The Class IV bikeway on the south side of Sacramento Avenue transitions to a two-way facility from Solano Street to Bryte Avenue in order to facilitate safe crossing and access to the future Sycamore Trail extension that is planned to connect to bicycle facilities along Yolo Street. The proposed bikeway along other areas of this segment are one-way facilities on each side of the roadway.

To accomodate the two-way facility on the south side, the bikeway is separated from the roadway by a 4-foot concrete bu
er rather than the landscaped median separation
seen throughout most of the corridor. Curb cuts will be included to allow for vehicles driving into residential and commercial driveways on the south side. Signage, conflict markings, and a change in material can improve safety at driveways by making active users more visible to drivers. If redevelopment occurs, the City should seek driveway and lot consolidation opportunities to further address conflict points between driveways and the proposed Class IV facility.

The community voiced support for protected facilities as well as improved connections to recreation and community spaces. The two-way Class IV bikeway will include wayfinding signage to help bicyclists safely access the future Sycamore Trail extension to the south, the Sacramento Riverfront to the east of the corridor, and Riverpointe Shopping Center to the west of the corridor to help realize this community priority.

A high visibility crosswalk and
green bicycle conflict markings at
the north-side segment of Yolo
Street highlights conflict and
increases motorist visibility of
active users as they cross, which
will improve comfort for all road
users and improve safety and
connectivity for bicyclists and
pedestrians.

The transit stops on both sides of Bryte Avenue are
proposed to include a floating transit island and sidewalk area, with the bi-directional Class IV bikeway traversing behind the transit island as a mixing zone that is raised to slow bicycle trac as it passes through. The street
edges along the northwest and northeast corners
provide a placemaking opportunity for a social node with community streetscape enhancements. The location also
provides a micro-mobility hub opportunity that could
integrate well with the proposed pocket park highlighted to the east.

The vacant parcel east of the Bryte
Avenue intersection that is filled with
existing trees is identified as an
opportunity site for a pocket park.

The pocket park could integrate with
potential in-fill development as in
occurs. The details of funding, design
and construction of the park will
need to be studied prior to
implementation.

Closing sidewalk gaps, which
predominantly exist on the north
side of Sacramento Avenue, will
improve pedestrian connectivity
and accessibility along the
corridor.

Existing crosswalks at Todhunter
Avenue will be upgraded with
high visibility crosswalks and
protected bike crossings that
facilitate safe and comfortable
travel along and crossing of
Sacramento Avenue.

The 12-foot landscaped median
and 8-foot landscaped bu
er
separating the Class IV facility
from the travel lane will
continue through this segment,
providing green space, shade
trees and stormwater
managment opportunities.

A high visibility school crossing
and green bicycle conflict
markings improve safety for
people traveling between
facilities on the south side of
the corridor and key
destinations to the north,
including several schools that
are accessible via Bryte Avenue.

FUTURE CONNECTION:

SYCAMORE TRAIL

EXTENSION TO THE SOUTH
Todhunter Ave
Bryte Ave
Yolo St
Yolo St
950
WESTERN AREA - SEGMENT 3

TODHUNTER AVE TO JEFFERSON BLVD / KEGLE DR
The 12 foot lansdcaped median and
8 foot landscaped bu
er
separating the Class IV facility from
the travel lane continues east
through the corridor. The
landscaped areas have the
opportunity to provide green
space, shade trees and stormwater
management opportunities.

The Je
erson Boulevard / Kegle Drive intersection
features a high density of collisions. Being one of the most prominent collision hotspots along the corridor as well as across the City as a whole, safety concerns are a key priority at this location. In addition to safety concerns, trac operations are expected to degrade to less than
acceptable level of service in the future condition. The proposed roundabout will improve safety and
connectivity by reducing conflict points between all
modes, while also addressing trac flow.

A shared-use path is proposed around the roundabout to
allow safe and comfortable travel for all modes. For more advanced bicyclists that prefer to ride in a shared travel lane, bike ramps are provided at all intersection legs to allow bicyclists to ramp down from the separated bikeway into the circulating lanes. Crosswalks may be raised and pedestrian refuge islands shorten crossing distances and allow active users to cross one direction of travel at a time.

The City has received HSIP funding to
implement high visibility crosswalk markings
and RRFBs across Sacramento Avenue at
Simon Terrace. The Plan recommends adding
a high visibility crosswalk and cross-bike
across Simon Terrace to increase motorist
visibility of active users.

SIMON TERRACE
HSIP PROJECT:

PEDESTRIAN REFUGE
New sidewalks along the
entire northside of the
segment are proposed,
and filling gaps on the
northside will improve
connectivity throughout
the corridor.

A directional Class IV
bikeway separated from
vehicle trac by a
landscaped bu
er will
continue along both sides
of the corridor, providing
comfortable, dedicated
space for bicyclists.

Where ever possible, mature trees
in the existing right-of-way will be
retained to preserve the existing
tree canopy. Sidewalks may need
to meander around existing trees
in some locations.

The City’s Mobility Action Plan (MAP) proposed a mobility hub at the northeast corner of Je
erson Blvd / Kegle Dr, a
recommendation that is carried over in this Plan. The mobility hub will interface with the shared-use path around the
roundabout and the pedestrian-scale design of the hub, and a landscaped plaza will contribute to community streetscape. The street edges along all four corners of the intersection provide a placemaking and activation opportunity to create a social hub at the location. Micro-mobility options will support first- and last-mile trips between key destinations in the community and the nearby transit stops along the corridor.

Todhunter Ave
Jefferson Blvd
951
CENTRAL AREA - SEGMENT 4

JEFFERSON BLVD / KEGLE DR TO DOUGLAS ST
A trac signal is planned to
address future operational needs
at Douglas Street. The Plan
proposes high visibility crosswalk
and cross-bike markings to
facilitate safe travel to the
destinations to the north of the
corridor and the proposed Class I
shared-use facility through
Elkhorn Plaza to the east.
851 SAC AVE

PLANNED MIXED USE

DEVELOPMENT

PLANNED

MIXED USE
Eight-foot sidewalks are recommended
between Je
erson Boulevard and Douglas
Street. While the raised cycle track is at
sidewalk grade, the wide pedestrian
walkway is separated from the Class IV
bikeway by a two-foot paved bu
er to
further separate bicylist and pedestrian
trac and contribute to a more
pedestrian-scale environment.

The proposed 8-foot, directional Class IV
bikeways, separated from trac with a
landscaped bu
er, continue along the
segment to provide low stress bicycling
connectivity.

The proposed mobility hub at the
northeast corner of Je
erson Boulevard /
Kegle Drive will provide additional mobility
options and activate the community space
in this area with micro-mobility options, a
landscaped plaza, and placemaking
opportunities on all corners, as pictured in
the roundabout conceptual design on the
previous page. The mobility hub may
include a bus stop on the southside curb
after coordination with YoloTD.

The proposed improvements will serve the residential
and commercial uses in the planned mixed use
devlopment project at the currently vacant site at 851
Sacramento Avenue. The five-story mixed use
development will include a 445 residential units, as
well as live/work units along the building frontage
with direct access to the sidewalk along Sacramento
Avenue, and one-story retail building on the western
side of the property. The ground floor retail and
live/work units will provide a placemaking
opportunity to activate the area as a community
space that is integrated with the multimodal mobility
and green space options along the corridor. This
private development project is dependent on the
developer to move forward.

A slightly wider landscaped median,
which varies between 14 and 20 feet in
width is proposed along this segment.

The wide median provides ample room
for shade trees and narrows the
roadway width to create a more
pedestrian-scale environment. The
eight-foot landscaped bu
er separating
the Class IV bikeway from the vehicle
travel lanes also continues through this
segment, providing additional room for
green space, shade trees and
stormwater management opportunities.

New crossing locations are proposed at the east end of the Riverbend Shopping Plaza and at the entrance to the 850 on the Avenue apartment complex. Both are proposed to include a median refuge and high visibility crosswalks across
Sacramento Avenue, as well as a high visibility crosswalk and cross-bike markings across the minor approaches. The
crossing at the apartment complex is proposed to include a RRFB. Both crossings will provide new crossing opportunities, increase motorist visibility of bicyclists and pedestrians and make crossing Sacramento Avenue easier and less stressful.

The existing transit stop in front of
the apartment complex would be
altered to allow the Class IV
bikeway to traverse behind the bus
pullout in a bicycle and pedestrian
mixing zone with high visibility
conflict and crossing markings to
address bicylcle and pedestrian
conflict. The location of this stop
may be moved to the mobility hub
after coordination with YoloTD.

Riverbend
Shopping Plaza
952
CENTRAL AREA - SEGMENT 5

DOUGLAS ST TO CALIFORNIA ST
Most constrained area
735 SAC AVE

PLANNED MIXED USE

DEVELOPMENT

PLANNED EV

CHARGING

STATION SITE
Elkhorn Plaza provides a multi-faceted opportunity to activate the area as a community social node with green space and mobility improvements. Coupled with the electric vehicle (EV) charging station planned at the park, the Class I shared use path from Douglas St to Reuter Dr provides a recreational pathway through Elkhorn Plaza for people walking, biking, and rolling. The 25-foot landscaped bu er
between the path and the roadway not only provides separation from vehicle trac, but reimagines the existing neighborhood green space, where existing trees are proposed to remain. The area is also identified as a potential mobility hub location, enhanced by improved pedestrian and bicycle crossings at each end of the park.

The bu
ered Class II bike lane on the north side
of the corridor provides bicyclists the option to
ride on the roadway, if preferred, catering to
di
erent cyclist needs and comfort levels. On
the south side, the directional Class IV bikeway
continues east.

The planned mixed use development provides a placemaking opportunity for edge activation, where 8-foot sidewalks and 6-foot directional Class IV bikeway is recommended. The sidewalk and bikeway are separated by a 2-foot concrete bikeway and the Class IV bikeway is separated by an 8-foot landscpaed bu er. The
five-story multifamily building will include 196 residential units with neighborhood commercial on the eastern side of the property. Residential units will be accessed via porches along Sacramento Avenue, providing an opportunity to activate the space and integrate with the proposed mobility and streetscape improvements at Elkhorn Plaza. This private development project is dependent on the developer to move forward.

Crossing improvements at Reuter Drive,
including a high visibility crosswalk, crossbike
and an RRFB across Sacramento Avenue, as
well as a crosswalk and green bicycle conflict
markings provide improved connectivity
between the improvements proposed at
Elkhorn Plaza and the bicycle and pedestrian
facilities and planned development on the
south side of the corridor.

East of Reuter Drive, the existing right-of-way
begins to narrow. On the south side of the
corridor, the proposed sidewalk reduces from
eight to six feet, but the eight-foot landscaped
median continues. On the north side, the 6-foot
Class IV bikeway is separated from trac by a
2-foot paved curb that widens as it approaches
Reuter Drive in the eastbound direction to
support a protected bikeway crossing.

High visibility
crosswalks and
conflict markings
are proposed
across 8th St and
California Street
to improve
motorist visibility
of active users.

Just before Sacramento Avenue
begins to curve southwest of
California Street, the right-of-way is
more constrained than any other
corridor location, predominantly
due to the railway right-of-way to
the south. A two-foot concrete
bu
er replaces the landscaped
bu
er proposed along other
segments to accommodate the
narrowing roadway. The thinner
bu
er allows for maintaining
appropriate sidewalk, vehicle and
bike lane widths while still
providing physical separation
between the vehicles and active
users. Due to the constraints, the
sidewalk and bike lanes narrow to
five feet, while the vehicle lanes
narrow to 10 feet.

Sidewalks and Class IV bikeways
separated from vehicle trac by a
landscaped bu
er are proposed to
extend to 5th and C Streets, where
the improvements recommended in
this Plan intersect with several
planned transportation projects.

Conceptual View
of Elkhorn Plaza
Social Node and
Mobility Hub
FUTURE CONNECTION:

CLARKSBURG BRANCH

LINE TRAIL
The City is currently undertaking a
grant application to assist in
funding a rails-to-trails conversion
that will connect from 8th and
Sacramento Streets to Clarksburg.

The Clarksburg Branch Line Trail
(CBLT) would provide a new
connection over the railroad to the
Broderick Neighborhood and
Washington District.
953
EASTERN AREA - SEGMENT 6
CALIFORNIA ST TO 2ND ST
The City has received HSIP funding to
implement high visibility crosswalk
markings and RRFB across Sacramento
Avenue, as well as a high visibility
crosswalk across 6th Street. Due to the
at-grade sidewalk level bike lane
recommended in the Plan, the curb
extension will need to be redesigned and
reconstructed. This Plan also recommends
adding cross-bike markings across 6th
Street to increase motorist visibility of
active users and facilitate safe and
comfortable connection between
proposed facilities on either side.

The eastern area, or segment 6 of the corridor, is at
the intersection of several transformational projects
planned by the City of West Sacramento and partner
agencies, which are at various stages of the planning
process. Overall, the improvements proposed by the
Plan seek to maintain consistency with previously
planned improvements, while recognizing
opportunities for more green space, sustainability and
community streetscape enhancements and to further
improve multimodal recommendations and as each of
the projects concurrently progress. The Plan
recommends some improvements and/or upgrades to
planned projects as proposed in this area, as
described in the call outs on this page.

The 5th Street Road Diet project includes
planned Class II bike lanes and conflict
markings with green paint from the
northbound approach to the intersection
of C and 5th Streets to the southbound
approach to 5th Street and Fountain Dr.

The Plan recommends upgrading the
Class II green bike lanes on the north and
southbound approaches to the 5th and C
Street intersection to separated bike
lanes to connect to the proposed
protected intersection concept.

The I Street Bridge
Replacement Project will
include the construction of a
new bridge north of the
existing I Street bridge,
which will connect to the
Sacramento Railyards. In the
future, a new bicycle and
pedestrian-only bridge will
replace the existing I Street
bridge alignment, as shown
in the graphic on the bottom
right side of the page.

The C Street planned improvements include transportation facility upgrades from the eastbound approach to the
intersection of 5th and C Streets to the connections with the future I Street bridge realignment and bicycle and pedestrian only bridge proposed at the east end of the corridor.

Improvements include bicycle boxes at intersection approaches, green bike lanes in the eastbound direction, and parking protected bike lanes in the westbound directionbetween 4th and 3rd Streets, as well as roadway widening and restriping.

Construction of an 18-unit, three story mutlifamily project began in October 2023. Construction is expected to be
completed at the end of 2024.

Planned redevelopment of the existing aluminum building to create a market-café.The project will include substantial renovations to the existing building including build-out of a full restaurant kitchen, bar and indoor seating area, and improvements to the parking area including a potential
outdoor bar and seating along 5th and C Streets.

I STREET
BRIDGE

REALIGNMENT

FUTURE BICYCLE &

PEDESTRIAN-ONLY
BRIDGE
5TH STREET

ROAD DIET

PLANNED

IMPROVEMENTS
The mobility hub identified in
the MAP provides multimodal
mobility, placemaking and
green space opportunities.

The protected intersection at 5th and C Streets is
intended to improve safety and reduce conflicts
between motorists and active users, by providing
dedicated and clearly marked space for bikes,
pedestrians and cars. Concrete separation between the
bikeway and vehicle lane prevents drivers from merging
into the bicycle lane to turn and makings bicyclists more visible to drivers making right turns. Corner islands
reduce vehicular turning radii and turning speeds and
creates a bike queue area after the crosswalk, where
bikes can wait to cross the intersection. The space
between the vehicle lane and the crossbike creates a
motorist waiting zone where vehicles can wait before
turning across the bike’s path of travel, as well as while through-trac passes, alleviating pressure to turn
quickly. Pedestrian islands reduces crossing distances for pedestrians, resulting in shorter, safer crossings for
people walking. Green conflict markings support
protected intersections by increasing visibility of
bicyclists for turning vehicles.
6TH STREET
HSIP PROJECT:

CURB EXTENSIONS

C STREET

PLANNED

IMPROVEMENTS
Sidewalks and Class IV bikeways
separated from vehicle trac by a
landscaped bu
er are proposed to
extend to 5th and C Streets, where
the improvements recommended
in this Plan intersect with several
planned transportation projects.
219-221 5TH ST RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
& 422 C ST MARKET CAFE REDEVELOPMENT
5th St
954
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 108
This page was intentionally left blank.
955
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 109
7 Evaluation
This chapter presents an evaluation of the proposed improvement concept. Using the guidance from the Caltrans Corridor Planning Process Guide (February 2020), including the Smart Mobility Framework, proposed improvement concepts were analyzed to ensure a holistic improvement concept that maximizes future implementation and funding opportunities through competitive grant programs.

Analyses conducted as part of the existing conditions assessment were repeated for the proposed improvement scenario to assess the expected benefits associated with various metrics. Calculated benefits include recommendations proposed by the City's HSIP project in addition to countermeasures recommended by this Plan.

Evaluations included in this chapter include:
» Safety Improvement & Gap Closure
» Improvement in Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) & Neighborhood Connectivity
» Intersection Level of Service (LOS)
» Benefit to Disadvantaged Communities
» Community Support
» Benefit-cost of the corridor concept
956
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 110

SAFETY & GAP CLOSURE BENEFITS

SAFETY BENEFITS
Jurisdictions should take a safe systems approach when
implementing infrastructure improvements intended to improve safety on their roadways. A safe systems approach to roadway design focuses on minimizing the risk of fatality or injury for all road users while considering the possibility and likelihood of human error that often cause collisions, examining likely collision types and severity, and emphasizing the importance of considering the safety of vulnerable road users. A component of this approach is anticipating future safety challenges before they occur based on evaluation of recent historical collision data and known safety countermeasures proven to reduce the likelihood of future collisions.

This type of forward thinking about improving safety is vital to ensuring jurisdictions have the best chance at proactively managing future crashes.

Figure 36 shows the crash reduction factors (CRF) associated with improvements proposed along the corridor, at intersections and along segments. CRFs estimate the potential of a safety improvement to reduce crash rates. CRFs can apply to all crashes, only bicycle and pedestrian crashes, or other specific conditions such as time of day.

Table 11 shows, by intersection and segment location, the safety improvements (or countermeasures) associated with the crash reduction factors shown in Figure 36. Additional detail on how safety improvements were calculated is provided in the Benefit-Cost Analysis section.

Table 11 Safety Improvements
Improvement Type Location #
Convert Signalized Intersection to Roundabout 1, 10
Install High Visibility Crosswalk and Cross-Bike
Markings 2, 5, 6, 13, 14
Install High Visibility Crosswalk Markings, Median
Refuge Island and RRFBs
3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 15,
S4-1, S4-2
Improve Retroreflective Back Plates on Signal
Hardware, Implement Leading Pedestrian Interval &
Upgrade Crossings 7, 8, 16
Install Class IV Separated Bikeways S1, S2, S3, S4, S5
Install Sidewalk S1, S2, S3, S4, S5
Install Class I Shared-Use Path S5
Install Buffered Bike Lanes S5
Install Segment Lighting S5
Figure 36 Safety Countermeasure Reduction Factors
957
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 111

GAP AND BARRIER CLOSURE BENEFITS
From top to bottom, the figures to the right show sidewalk gap closures, as well as crossing improvements and recommended bicycle facilities, which will close gaps and address high stress barriers to connectivity.

Sidewalks are recommended throughout the corridor where gaps in the sidewalk network currently exist. Six-foot sidewalks are recommended west of Kegle Drive and East of 8th Street.

Eight-foot sidewalks are proposed between Kegle Drive and 8th Street, in addition to a recommended 14-foot Class I facility through Elkhorn Plaza to provide a parklike feel for which the community voiced support.

Pedestrian crossing improvements are recommended along
most Sacramento Avenue crossings, which will result in LTS 1 crossing opportunities. Crossing improvements include onethrough four-way high visibility crossings, pedestrian refuge islands, and RRFBs. The proposed recommendations shorten crossing distance, increase pedestrian visibility, and make walking and bicycling along and across Sacramento Avenue safer and more comfortable.

Protected bicycle facilities are prioritized throughout the corridor. Eight-foot Class IV bikeways with an 8-foot landscape buffer are proposed between Harbor Boulevard and Kegle Drive.

Six-foot elevated Class IV bikeways with a buffer between the sidewalk are proposed between Kegle Drive and 6th Street. The bicycle facility is effectively a Class I facility shared with pedestrians, but the delineated bicycle markings, as well as the separation between pedestrian and bicycle traffic, reduces conflict between people walking and bicycling. The Class I shared use path proposed along Elkhorn Plaza is open for bicycle travel, but an on-street, 6-foot buffered Class II is also recommended along this segment for commuters.

Figure 37 Sidewalk Gap Closure
Figure 38 Intersection Crossing Improvements
Figure 39 Bicycle Improvements
958
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 112

LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS &

CONNECTIVITY BENEFIT
The figures to the right show the bicycle level of traffic stress (LTS) expected following implementation of the proposed improvement concept presented in Chapter 3 of the Draft Plan.

For more information on the LTS methodology, see Chapter 3 of the Draft Plan.

As shown, the improved condition provides low-stress
connectivity throughout the corridor where high stress
segments, approaches and crossings created barriers to
connectivity in the existing condition.

LTS on corridor segments improves to LTS 1 following
implementation of Class IV separated bikeways, or cycle tracks along the entirety of the corridor and a Class I shared-use path through Elkhorn Plaza. The cycle tracks are separated from vehicular traffic with a combination of landscaped and stamped concrete treatments. Additionally, the cycle tracks are a raised concept, placing bicyclists at sidewalk-level.

Left-turn lane approaches that were previously LTS 3 or 4 are addressed by installing new two-stage turn maneuvers at multiple intersections, where bicyclists are directed to cross at enhanced crossing locations instead of at left-turn pocket locations. Right-turn pockets at Harbor Blvd, and Jefferson Boulevard / Kegle Drive are addressed by the separated bicycle and pedestrian ramps proposed as part of the roundabout concepts at the two locations. A protected intersection concept at 5th and C Street improves LTS of both left- and right-turn approaches and the intersection crossing.

Figure 40 Improved Segment LTS
Figure 41 Improved Approach LTS
Figure 42 Improved Crossing LTS
959
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 113

VEHICULAR BENEFIT
Figure 43 shows the expected intersection Level of Service (LOS) (based on vehicular delay) in the future condition without the improvements proposed in the Plan, while Figure 44 shows the expected LOS in the future condition following the implementation of the proposed improvements presented in Chapter 6. For more information on LOS thresholds, see Chapter 3. Future traffic conditions were estimated by using an average growth factor for the corridor derived in coordination with the City to be consistent with anticipated General Plan buildout and regional growth.

As shown in Figure 43, the vehicular LOS in the future condition will be degraded in the PM peak hour at the intersections of Sacramento Avenue with Solano Street and Jefferson Boulevard / Kegle Drive, at LOS F and LOS E, respectively. It should be noted that the City’s General Plan sets a threshold for acceptable vehicular operations at LOS E. However, the intersection of Jefferson Boulevard / Kegle Drive will also experience queue spillbacks that contribute to poor air quality and driveway blockages.

As shown in Figure 44, following implementation of corridor improvements, LOS during both peak hours is anticipated to improve with implementation of the proposed roundabout intersections. The roundabouts proposed at the Harbor Boulevard and Jefferson Boulevard intersections will decrease vehicular delays, reducing corridor travel times and reducing emissions from traffic congestion and queues. The vehicular delays seen in the future condition without the proposed roundabout at the Jefferson Boulevard intersection would otherwise require intersection widening to accommodate future traffic at a similar level of performance for all users. Intersection widening along the corridor would conflict with the competing goals of this plan, which include reducing barriers to multimodal connectivity.

No improvements are recommended to address the LOS F condition during the PM peak hour at the Solano Street intersection. While this intersection could be signalized to address the anticipated LOS deficiency, this side-stopcontrolled intersection is not expected to meet peak hour signal warrants for signalization. A receiving outbound two-stage left turn lane would also help address operations but would conflict with the proposed installation of a mid-block crossing and RRFB through the HSIP funded project at this location. This intersection should be monitored as area traffic redistributes following implementation of the proposed HSIP-funded turn channelization and restrictions at Sunset Avenue. As conditions warrant, the City may consider options to address operational concerns through signalization, left turn access control, or other turn restrictions. Alternatively, the City may choose to seek City Council approval for an LOS threshold exemption at this location to accommodate the complete street improvements.

The intersection of Sacramento Avenue and 5th Street is anticipated to degrade from an LOS C to an LOS D condition during the PM peak hour with the implementation of the proposed protected intersection, which removes turn channelization on some movements in exchange for reduced crossing distances and reduced levels of traffic stress for pedestrians and cyclists.

LOS D conditions are considered acceptable per City standards during peak hours.

Figure 43 Future Intersection LOS without Project Improvements Figure 44 Future Intersection LOS with Project Improvements 960
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 114

DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY BENEFIT
Disadvantaged community (DAC) status can be measured based on a variety of criteria at the U.S. Census Tract level. The DAC status criteria examined in this Plan are consistent with the California Transportation Commission (CTC) 2023 Active Transportation Program Guidelines (Cycle 6) for identifying disadvantaged community status. While not an exhaustive list, the DAC criteria analyzed in this Plan include the following
» Median Household Income (MHI)
» CalEnviroScreen 4.0
» SACOG Environmental Justice Areas (Regional Definition) The DAC analysis included in the Plan was completed prior to the official release of the 2025 Active Transportation Program (Cycle 7).

Thus, Cycle 6 criteria were used. As the City seeks grant application funding to implement the improvements proposed in the Plan, the DAC analysis should be updated to reflect the most current program criteria, as appropriate.

As shown in Chapter 4: Existing Conditions, the entirety of the corridor area of interest is identified as a disadvantaged community based on one or more of the criteria listed above. The proposed corridor improvements would serve these disadvantaged populations by providing vital connectivity between existing and future local destinations to the north, south and along the corridor.

Grant funding applications for the Active Transportation Program assess DAC status based on project location and severity of the disadvantage. Project location assesses whether the project is located partially or fully within a DAC, while severity assesses the level of disadvantage per the criteria established by CTC Cycle 6 guidelines. As described in the Cycle 6 guidelines, a one through four points scale is ascribed based on the severity of the DAC.
12 Based on data U.S. Census Data Table B19013, 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year estimates. Statewide median income for this vintage is $75,235.

This criterion for determining DAC severity is described in further detail below for each of the measures of DAC included in the Plan. The DAC severity criteria for the Census Tracts along the corridor are also described by segment below.

SEVERITY CRITERIA
Median Household Income
Communities located within Census Tracts with a MHI of less than 80 percent of the statewide median, or less than $60,188.00 is considered disadvantaged.12 The number of points awarded for each level of severity is described below.
» 0 points: greater than 80 percent of the MHI, or greater than $60,188.00
» 1 point: between 75 percent and less than 80 percent of MHI, or between $56,426.25 and $60,188.00
» 2 points: between 70 percent and less than 75 percent of MHI, or between $52,664.50 through $56,426.24
» 3 points: between 65 percent and less than 70 percent of MHI, or between $48,902.75 through $52,664.49
» 4 points: less than 65 percent of MHI, or less than $48,902.75 CalEnviroScreen 4.0
CalEnviroScreen (CES) 4.0 results are reported on a scale of 0 to 100, with 90th percentile being the most disadvantaged and the 10th percentile being the least disadvantaged. In order to be considered disadvantaged based on CalEnviroScreen results under the Active Transportation Program Cycle 6 guidelines, a Census tract must be within the top 25 percent disadvantaged. The number of points awarded for each level of severity is described below.
961
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 115
» 0 points: above 25 percent most disadvantaged, or a CES score percentile of less than 75.
» 1 point: between 20 percent and 25 percent most
disadvantaged, or a CES score percentile of between 75 and

80. » 2 points: between 15 percent through less than 20 percent disadvantaged, or a CES score percentile of between 80 and

85. » 3 points: between 10 percent and less than 15 percent most disadvantaged, or a CES score percentile of between 85 and

90. » 4 points: less than 10 percent most disadvantaged, or a CES score percentile of between 90 and 100.

Regional Definition
If there is a regionally-adopted DAC definition, this can be used to assess DAC status. SACOG has a regional definition called Environmental Justice Areas, which considers a variety of factors such as: income status, minority status, DAC status identified by CES 3.0, as well as other vulnerabilities. A regional definition is ascribed zero or one points based on whether or not the community qualifies under that definition or not.

DAC SEVERITY BY SEGMENT
Table 12 shows the number of points a project in each segment would receive based on severity using the DAC criteria included in the Plan, per the 2023 Active Transportation Program Guidelines. As shown, assessing DAC severity based on MHI alone shows Segments four, five and six as the highest severity of disadvantage along the corridor, while segments one, two and three are somewhat disadvantaged based on income alone. When assessing DAC severity based on CES 4.0 results, segments one, two and three show the highest severity of disadvantage, followed by segments four, five and six, which are slightly less disadvantaged based on the CES results. The regional definition shows all six segments as disadvantaged, but the number of points received using this definition is lower.

Table 12 DAC Severity by Segment
Segment
Location
DAC Category
MHI CES 4.0 Regional
Definition
Segment 1 1 Point 4 Points 1 point
Segment 2 1 Point 4 Points 1 point
Segment 3 1 Point 4 Points 1 point
Segment 4 4 Points 3 points 1 point
Segment 5 4 Points 3 points 1 point
Segment 6 4 Points 3 points 1 point
962
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 116

COMMUNITY SUPPORT
At Workshop 1, a significant portion of participants indicated that they worked on Sacramento Avenue or used the Corridor to get to work (12 percent). A fourth of participants indicated that bicycling was their primary mode of transportation along or to and from the corridor.

Attendees of the workshop were also asked what vision they wanted to prioritize for the corridor, with participants showing interest in a community streetscape (pedestrian amenities, greenspace, wayfinding) a green accessible corridor (green infrastructure, multi-use paths, access to recreation), and a multimodal boulevard (micro-mobility, electric vehicle charging, multi-use facilities).

At the second Workshop 2, attendees were presented with a variety of pedestrian and bicycle design options along the corridor. Between Harbor Boulevard and Jefferson Boulevard/Kegle Drive, participants indicated equal interest both a shared use path where bicyclists and pedestrians would share the space, and a protected sidewalk and bikeway where the pedestrian and bicycle paths were distinguished from one another.

Attendees were asked what additional facilities should be included in the Plan, and respondents favored two-way and one-way bicycle lanes.

Participants also indicated an interest in an accessible green corridor that prioritizes tree coverage and green infrastructure, off street paths, and connections to riverfront trails.

With a strong interest in an improved pedestrian experience as well as an emphasis on bicycling and commuting, it was important to prioritize a network that addresses the needs of different road users. A separated, elevated cycle track with improved landscaping allows for commuters, families, and recreators to all enjoy Sacramento Avenue at their own pace, reduce conflict between road users and provide a parklike feel the community has prioritized throughout the engagement process. To address access to recreational facilities, a two-way, 2 2
1 0
1 2
3 Two-Way Bike Lanes One-way Bike Lanes Multi-use Path
Supportive
Comments
Two-way Protected Shared
Use Path
Protected Sidewalk and
Bikeway
of workshop participants worked on or near
Sacramento Avenue
of workshop participants bicycled on or to
Sacramento Avenue
Community Street Scape
Green Accessible Corridor
Multimodal Boulevard
963
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 117
elevated cycle track is recommended between Solano Street and Bryte Street to connect users to a future recreational trail.

To further prioritize community interest in a green corridor, the Plan proposes to elevate the existing green space at Elkhorn Plaza by recommending a bidirectional shared-use path, on-street buffered bicycle facilities, electric vehicle charging and improved crossings.

Eight attendees indicated support for the design concept for Elkhorn Plaza design. The concept continues to create space for commuters through the buffered Class II bicycle pathway while adding a shareduse path the community voiced support for.

At Jefferson Boulevard/Kegle Drive, attendees voiced support for a roundabout, although they had concerns about emergency vehicle access, proper signage, and future increases in traffic volume. The roundabouts proposed will be mountable for emergency vehicles and large trucks. Signage directing all road users how to navigate the roundabout is recommended as well. Roundabouts are designed to mitigate queuing at intersections; as traffic volumes increase, the roundabout will relieve wait times and keep traffic flowing, while also prioritizing bicycle and pedestrian safety.

At C Street and 5th Street, one participant commented that pedestrian and bicycle traffic should be protected at the intersection. Attendees also showed support for high visibility crosswalks and curb extensions throughout the corridor.

The community has indicated support for protected bicycle facilities throughout the community engagement process. In some segments of Sacramento Avenue, the roadway is narrower and requires alternatives to the landscaped buffers recommend throughout the rest of the corridor. Sidewalk level bike lanes with rolled curbs received support from the community, shown below, as well as parking protected bicycle lanes.
0 2
4 6
8 Roundabout Signalized
Intersection
High Visibility
Crosswalk
Curb Extension
Comments
Support Oppose Concern
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Sidewalk Level Bike Lane with
Rolled Curb from 6th St. to 8th St.

Parking Protected Bike Lanesfrom
3rd St. to 4th St.

Comments
Support Oppose Concern
964
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 118

BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS
In addition to the benefits discussed in previous sections, benefits that could be translated to a monetized value were also analyzed to complete a benefit-cost assessment. Many grant funding programs either require a benefit-cost assessment, or the grant application is seen as more competitive when a return on investment can be shown vis-à-vis a benefit-cost analysis.

The benefits expected to result from the recommended improvement concept are estimated based on various methodologies described in additional detail in this section. Benefits described here were monetized based on the societal cost information presented in the Caltrans 2020 Economic Parameters.

All project benefits are reported in annualized and projected 20-Year life cycle costs. To identify a benefit-cost ratio, the monetized benefits are divided by planning-level costs, reported in 2023 dollars. The benefit-cost ratio reflects a return-on-investment (ROI), which is important to consider when assessing project selection in competitive grant funding programs.

IMPROVEMENT COSTS
The cost estimates for the proposed corridor improvements are shown below by segment and the corridor as a whole. As shown in Table 13, the entire corridor is estimated to have a total cost of almost $57 million.

There are several projects along the Sacramento Avenue corridor that are already planned and programmed for funding by the City of West Sacramento. These projects include HSIP improvements at several intersections along the corridor, and the 5th Street Road Diet & C Street Improvements. HSIP projects are planned at the intersections of Sacramento Avenue with Sunset Avenue, Solano Street, and Simon Terrace, as well as C Street / 6th Street. The 5th Street Road Diet project extends north from C Street / 5th Street to Lighthouse Dr, while the C Street Improvements include recommendations east of C Street / 6th Street to the eastern end of the corridor study area. Costs associated with improvements recommended above may overlap with the costs associated with this Plan. Additional information on the overlap between previously planned projects and the improvement concepts recommended in this Plan can be found in Chapter 6: Improvement Concepts.

Detailed cost estimates are provided in the Appendix. Note that the Improvement costs presented in Table 13 do not include the utility undergrounding costs that are included in the detailed cost estimates provided in the Appendix. The utility undergrounding costs were not included for the purposes of the benefit-cost assessment, because this does not directly relate to benefits of complete street improvements, the improvements do not necessitate utility undergrounding, and the degree to which the City would be responsible for undergrounding is not entirely clear at this stage of the planning process.

Table 13 Improvement Costs
Corridor Location Cost Estimate
Segment 1 $14,438,000
Segment 2 $9,231,000
Segment 3 $18,960,000
Segment 4 $4,735,000
Segment 5 $4,770,000
Segment 6 $4,772,000
Entire Corridor $56,906,000
965
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 119

ESTIMATED BICYCLE BENEFITS
Based on research cited in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 552, Guidelines for Analysis of Investment in Bicycle Facilities, bicycle facilities proposed in the Plan may result in induced bicycling demand for new facilities among both existing and new bicyclists. The NCHRP 552 methodology describes an approach for estimating the induced demand associated with a given bicycle facility and translates the demand to the monetized benefit categories described below.
» Mobility Benefits represent the time cost associated with a shift to a new bicycle facility based on the time bicycle commuters are willing to spend to access an improved facility. » Health Benefits represent the annual per-capita health cost savings from physical activity benefits associated with a new bicycle facility.
» Recreation Benefits represent the time cost that new
bicyclists induced by a new bicycle facility are willing to spend on a typical recreation day.
» Decreased Auto Use Benefits represent the user cost
savings associated with reduced congestion and air pollution.

This analysis quantifies the induced bicycling demand expected to be associated with the proposed improvements and monetizes the annualized mobility, health, recreation and decreased auto use benefits provided by the projected induced bicycling demand at high, moderate, and low estimates based on Census population and commuter pattern data and average bicycling trip length estimates from 2021 Replica data. The methodology is based on several assumptions:
» Existing bicyclists near a new facility will shift from the existing nearby facility to the new facility.
» The new facility will result in an induced number of bicyclists as a function of the number of existing bicyclists, relative to 13 U.S. Census Bicycle Commute Mode Share Estimates, American Community Survey (ACS) 2021 5-Year Estimates, Table S0801 Commuting Characteristics By Sex the attractiveness of the proposed facility (i.e., Class I shareduse path vs. Class II bicycle lanes). » People are more likely to ride a bicycle if they live within 1.5 miles of a facility than if they live outside that distance.

The NCHRP 552 methodology suggests that existing bicycle commute mode share can be utilized to estimate the number of existing and future bicycle ridership based on low, moderate, and high likelihood multipliers and the population within 1.5-mile, 1-mile, and 0.5-mile buffers that surround a given bicycle facility. According to the NCHRP 522 research, the total rate of adult bicycling ranges from a low estimate, based on the Census bicycling commute mode share, to a high estimate, based on 0.6 percent plus three times the Census commute share.13
Moreover, the highest likelihood of a member of the population using the facility exists if they live within a 0.5-mile buffer around the facility.

Thus, demand is calculated at low, medium, and high estimates for the populations at each buffer distance. Each buffer area—at 0.5-, 1- and

1.5-mile distances from a proposed bicycle improvement is created using a network-based analysis in a GIS environment.

Based on the high-estimate likelihood multiplier, it is estimated that new bicycling trips induced by the improvements along Sacramento Avenue could include roughly 35,000 commute trips, almost 220,000 adult non-commute trips, and almost 5,000 trips by children annually.

The annual monetized benefits, as well as the 20-year life cycle benefits associated with induced bicycling demand is shown in Table 14.

Of the overall corridor bicycle benefits, approximately 20 percent is associated with Segment 3, while the remaining segments account for between 14 to 18 percent of the overall benefits.
966
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 120
Table 14 Induced Bicycling Demand Benefits
Annual Bicycle Facility
Benefits
Annualized
Monetized
Benefits
20 -Year
Benefits
Mobility Benefits
Separated Bikeway $560,457 $8,338,181
On-Street Bike Lane $124,289 $1,849,112
Health Benefits
High Estimate $77,581 $1,154,210
Moderate Estimate $40,406 $601,144
Low Estimate $39,299 $584,664
Recreation Benefits
High Estimate $1,944,826 $28,934,101
Moderate Estimate $884,765 $13,163,072
Low Estimate $853,178 $12,693,130
Decreased Auto Use Benefit $12,802 $190,465
Total Annual Benefits
High Estimate $2,719,955 $40,466,069
Moderate Estimate $1,622,720 $24,141,974
Low Estimate $1,590,025 $23,655,552

ESTIMATED SAFETY BENEFITS
Safety benefits associated with the improvements proposed by the Plan were estimated by calculating the expected reduction in collisions associated with improvements proposed along the corridor at locations with a history of collisions, using the methodology described in the Highway Safety Manual, 1st Edition (AASHTO 2010). Crash modification factors (CMFs) from the California Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) (version 1.6, April 2022) were utilized to estimate reduction in collisions. Because the LRSM states the CMF associated with converting an intersection to a roundabout varies, the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Analyzer published by Caltrans was used to estimate benefits for the two proposed roundabout locations. The following countermeasures from the LRSM were applied along the corridor:

NON-SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
» NS01: Add intersection lighting
» NS13: Install splitter-islands on the minor road approaches » NS14: Install raised median on approaches
» NS20PB: Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (signs and markings only)
» NS21PB: Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features)

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
» S02: Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
» S16: Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal) » S20PB: Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box)
» S21PB: Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI)

ROADWAY SEGMENTS
» R01: Add Segment Lighting
» R08: Install raised median
» R33PB: Install Separated Bike Lanes
» R34PB: Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway)
Because collision reduction and safety benefits can be calculated only where there is a history of collisions, some corridor locations did not result in a safety benefit and are not included here. Table 15 summarizes the applied countermeasures by corridor location that resulted in a monetized safety benefit at intersections and along segments, respectively. The total crashes, per location, and resulting monetized safety benefit are presented in Table 16 and for intersections and roadway segments. The safety benefit is presented in 20-year life-cycle benefit amounts.
967
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 121
Table 15 Safety Countermeasures Resulting in Benefit
Corridor Location
Countermeasure
1 2 3
Intersections
Harbor Blvd/Reed Ave S16 - -
Oak St NS01 NS20PB -
Sunset Ave NS13 - -
Solano Street NS14 - -
Yolo St (North Leg) NS20PB - -
Bryte Ave S02 S20PB S21PB
Todhunter Ave S02 S20PB S21PB
Simon Terrace NS01 NS14 NS21PB
Jefferson Blvd / Kegle Dr S16 - -
Douglas St NS21PB - -
Rueter Dr NS01 - -
6th St / C St NS01 NS21PB -
5th St / C St S02 S20PB S21PB
Segments
Harbor Blvd to Solano St R08 - -
Solano St to Todhunter Ave R08 - -
Todhunter Ave to Jefferson Blvd
/Kegle Dr R08 R33PB R34PB
Jefferson/Kegle Dr to Douglas St R08 R33PB R34PB
Douglas St to California St R01 - -
California St to 5th St & C St R01 - -
Table 16 Crash History & Safety Benefits
Corridor Location
Crashes (2017-21) Safety
All P & B Benefit
Intersections
Harbor Blvd/Reed Ave 32 - $15,503,847
Oak St 3 1 $103,790
Sunset Ave 5 - $472,800
Solano Street 8 - $325,300
Yolo St (North Leg) 4 1 $5,588
Bryte Ave 10 2 $254,608
Todhunter Ave 11 3 $5,270,048
Simon Terrace 5 2 $594,600
Jefferson Blvd / Kegle Dr 39 2 $18,925,920
Douglas St 9 2 $447,720
Rueter Dr 7 - $47,680
6th St / C St 8 1 $465,820
5th St / C St 15 2 $352,276
Total Safety Benefit $ 42,769,996
Segments
Harbor Blvd/Reed Ave 2 - $29,800
Oak St 3 - $120,700
Sunset Ave 6 2 $1,454,266
Solano Street 5 2 $1,496,178
Yolo St (North Leg) 2 - $223,860
Bryte Ave 10 - $41,720
Total Safety Benefit $ 3,366,524
968
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 122

ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL BENEFITS
Vehicular operations benefits associated with the proposed plan were based on AM and PM peak hour delay at study intersections. The savings between the No Build (future conditions without project) and Build conditions (future conditions with project) were used to estimate benefits. The cost per person hour of delay was based on the following societal cost parameters in which the 2020 Caltrans Economic Parameters were used as a base and then grown by one percent per year to 2023:
» Automobile: $18.33 per hour per person
» Truck: $32.96 per hour per person
» A weighed average rate was calculated using the corridor’s average two percent truck percentage:
» Blended: $18.08 per hour per person
» Benefits were calculated by converting average intersection delay per vehicle into hours of delay per person, assuming a vehicle occupancy rate of 1.15. Annualization was based on 260 working days. Benefits are summarized in Table 17 below.

Table 17 Operational Benefits
Scenario
Person Hours of Delay
No Build Build Savings
AM Peak 54 38 16
PM Peak 78 60 18
Combined Peak Hours 132 98 34
Annualized 34,275 25,430 8,845
Annual Benefit $159,961
20-Year Benefit $2,379,813
969
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 123

ESTIMATED AIR QUALITY / EMISSIONS BENEFITS
Air quality and emissions benefits were calculated for the two proposed roundabouts and the proposed bicycle facilities separately.

Emissions reduction benefits associated with the proposed roundabouts were calculated using outputs from Sidra traffic modelling software. The SB-1 Emissions Calculator, a component of the Cal-B/C Suite developed by Caltrans’ Transportation Economic Branch, was used to calculate the benefits associated with the proposed bicycle facilities.

Study corridor travel speed inputs were generated from Sidra to inform the emissions calculator. Study corridor VMT was estimated using existing and future ADT by segment, multiplied by segment length. The VMT reductions associated with the proposed bicycle facilities were calculated using NCHRP 552 bicycle mode shift methodology described in the Bicycle Benefits section, which were applied to the “plus project” scenario.

Table 18 presents the reductions in emissions and benefit associated with the proposed plan’s effect on VMT and travel delays along the corridor.

Table 18 Air Quality & Emissions Benefits
Emission
Emissions Reductions (in Short Tons) Emissions Reduction Benefit Value Annual 20-Years Annual 20-Years
CO (Carbon Monoxide) 0.543 10.861 $35.76 $715.28
CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) 375.331 7,506.629 $14,343.69 $286,873.77 NOX (Nitrous Oxides) 0.246 4.919 $3,004.56 $60,091.30
PM10 and PM2.5 (Particulate Matter) 0.006 0.126 $673.53 $13,470.53 SOX (Sulfur Oxides) 0.004 0.074 $192.57 $3,851.50
VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) 0.080 1.597 $73.34 $1,466.87 Total Emissions Benefit $18,323 $366,469
970
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 124

LIVABILITY BENEFITS (NON-MONETIZED)
In addition to the monetized benefits discussed previously, the improvements proposed as part of the Plan offer a variety of livability benefits associated with the implementation of street trees that are not directly monetizable. These are described in the sections below.

Street Trees
While street trees come at a cost with regards to maintenance, the benefits associated with street trees outweigh these costs. Street trees can improve safety, provide green infrastructure, storm mitigation, energy savings and health benefits, as well as provide economic benefits to a given neighborhood or a jurisdiction more broadly.

Research suggests that street trees can improve safety, reducing crashes and injuries on urban roadways. Features such as street trees and urban planters along a roadway have been found to be associated with a reduction in midblock crashes, with the crash reduction decreasing between 5 and 20 percent. “While the cause for these reductions is not clear, the author suggests that the presence of a welldefined roadside edge may be leading drivers to exercise greater caution.”14 Street trees physically separate vehicle and pedestrian spaces more clearly, creating a more defined street edge and assisting drivers in distinguishing the street from bicycling and walking areas.

Speed reduction and more context-appropriate urban traffic speeds have been found to be associated with treed streets. Traffic speed reductions of between 5 and 15 mph have been found to be associated with a well-developed tree canopy, contributing to a safer, more walkable, and bikeable environment.

The “urban heat island” effect is known to occur when natural land cover is replaced by concentrations of pavement, building, and other surface types that absorb and retain heat. “This effect increases energy costs, air pollution levels, and heat-related illness and mortality. “15 Temperature rises of between three and seven degrees, which result in 14 Dumbaugh, Eric (2005) “Safe streets, livable streets.” Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 71, No. 3, pp 283–300
15 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Green Infrastructure. “Reduce Urban Heat Island Effect,”
energy cost increases and the presence of ozone and other harmful gases.

Shade provided by street trees reduces energy costs by up to 35 percent. Moreover, California studies have shown that tree shade can extend the life of street surfaces by up to 60 percent, reducing maintenance costs over time. This is due to the reduction in daily temperature fluctuations between heating and cooling pavement and concrete, which cause damaging expansion and contraction of street surfaces.

Street trees can provide health, environmental and stormwater benefits. Trees provide health and environmental benefits by converting the pollutants associated with vehicle exhaust, which contribute to poor air quality, and health and climate impacts, into oxygen. “A single urban street tree converts enough carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide to meet the oxygen needs of two people for a full year.”16 Street trees can reduce stormwater runoff and flooding, and when properly designed, landscaped areas can serve as stormwater management areas, or bioswales.

The presence of street trees can also provide economic development benefits, such as increased property values and retail sales. According to the U.S. Forest Service, “the presence of street trees increases adjacent home values by an average of $13,000,” while the National Main Street Center asserts “that a good tree canopy can increase retail sales by 12 cents on the dollar in large cities and 9 cents on the dollar in smaller ones”17
16, 17 AARP Livability Fact Sheets - Street Trees, AARP Livable Communities | Walkable and Livable Communities Institute, 2014.
971
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 125

BENEFIT-COST RESULTS
Based on the results of the benefit assessment and the monetization of the benefits, a total corridor benefit for the proposed plan was calculated at more than $90 million. Using the planning-level cost estimates for the proposed improvements, and the total monetized benefits, a benefit/cost ratio of 1.58 was calculated. This demonstrates a positive return on investment for the proposed corridor plan.

The total corridor benefit and benefit-cost ratio is shown in Table 19.

BENEFIT-COST BY SEGMENT
The benefit-cost by corridor segment is shown in Table 20. The benefitcost results by segment do not account for air quality or emissions benefits, which are calculated on a corridor basis only.

Table 19 Corridor Benefit-Cost
Benefit Type Annualized Benefit 20-Year Benefit
Bicycle Mode Shift $2,719,955 $40,466,069
Operations/Delay $159,961 $2,379,813
Safety - $46,136,520
Air Quality/Emissions $18,323 $366,469
Total Benefit $2,898,240 $89,348,871
Total Cost $56,906,000
Benefit-Cost Ratio 1.57
Table 20 Benefit-Cost by Segment
Benefit Type
Segment Location
Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4 Segment 5 Segment 6 Bicycle Mode Shift $6,722,887 $6,217,455 $7,944,935 $5,563,031 $6,630,836 $7,386,925 Operations / Delay $1,126,539 $- $2,190,780 $(441,520) $- $(495,986) Safety $16,435,537 $5,650,943 $20,974,786 $1,943,898 $271,540 $859,816 Air Quality/Emissions $61,078 $61,078 $61,078 $61,078 $61,078 $61,078 Total Benefit $24,346,041 $11,929,476 $31,171,580 $7,126,487 $6,963,454 $7,811,834 Total Cost $14,438,000 $9,231,000 $18,960,000 $4,735,000 $4,770,000 $4,772,000 Benefit-Cost Ratio 1.69 1.29 1.64 1.51 1.46 1.64
972
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 126
8 Implementation & Prioritization

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
This chapter presents a strategy to implement the Sacramento Avenue design concepts and recommended projects outlined in Chapter 6.

Included are locations evaluated, criteria used to evaluate each location, and federal, state, and local funding opportunities that may fund implementation.

The intent of evaluating projects is to create a flexible matrix to guide implementation of improvements as compatible opportunities arise.

Over time as development occurs or funding sources issue calls for projects, this matrix can be used to evaluate remaining segments or improvements and continue to pursue implementation of the complete corridor.

CORRIDOR SUB-SEGMENTS
Sacramento Avenue was divided into three geographic areas based on surrounding lane use characteristics, which were then separated into segments, as described in Chapter 6. Evaluation criteria will be applied by segments. The average score for all segments in each phase will be used to determine the area score. The area with the highest score should be prioritized when considering implementation.

A. Western Area
» Segment 1 – Harbor Boulevard to Solano Street
» Segment 2 – Solano Street to Todhunter Avenue
» Segment 3 – Todhunter Avenue to Jefferson Boulevard/Kegle Drive
B. Central Area
» Segment 4 – Jefferson Boulevard/Kegle Drive to Douglas Street
» Segment 5 – Douglas Steet to 6th Street
C. Eastern Area
» Segment 6 – California to 2nd Street

EVALUATION CRITERIA
Improvements proposed for Sacramento Avenue have been evaluated by segment and by improvement type to general an implementation matric design to support funding and construction.

Evaluation criteria are primarily aligned with the three goals outlined in Chapter 5 of this Plan. A fourth criteria evaluates deliverability of specific projects, weighing access to local funds, degree of delivery readiness, complexity, and opportunities for partnerships.

For each criterion, a score of 0, 1, or 2, was awarded, typically these scores mean:
» A score of 0 indicates the segment is not likely to impact the criterion.
» A score of 1 indicates the segment is expected to have a moderate impact on the criterion.
» A score of 2 indicates the segment is expected to have a significant impact on the criterion.

Additional information on evaluation criteria and analyses that informed scoring is provided on subsequent pages. The evaluation matrix provides scores for these metrics by segment and sub-segment. 973
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 127

GREEN CORRIDOR
Implement active transportation green infrastructure
» Successfully integrating landscaping into roadway facilities that support active transportation.

Implement infrastructure for storm water management
» Incorporate green infrastructure to address storm water management and roadway runoff.

Create connections to recreation and river front trails » Create pathways to future recreation connections and
prioritize a park-like feel within the corridor for recreators to access.

Provide shade along the corridor
» Create a canopy with native and drought tolerant trees to combat the heat island effect.

COMMUNITY STREETSCAPE
Improve commercial opportunities Improve retail and dining opportunities with cohesive built form character zones.

Enhance pedestrian experience
» Enhance the experience along and across the corridor with pedestrian scale and oriented design.

Provide active transportation amenities to improve comfort in public spaces
» Create clearly defined public spaces at key locations along the corridor through inviting streetscapes with a variety of amenities, such as seating, water fountains, landscape, and art.

Support community identity through placemaking improvements. » Foster civic identity and community pride through
placemaking.

MULTIMODAL BOULEVARD
Integrate mobility hubs along the corridor
» Integrate mobility hubs along the corridor, consistent with the Mobility Action Plan, to increase accessibility and convenience of mobility options.

Implement accessible multimodal infrastructure to support transit and shared mobility
» Support access to transit and shared-mobility services with continuous and universally accessible multimodal
infrastructure that accommodates a wide range of users.

Close gaps in the pedestrian network
» Provide continuous walkways, close network gaps, and provide frequent, well- designed pedestrian crossings that provide access to local destinations.

Lower LTS for bicyclists through physically separated bike infrastructure » Provide comfortable bicycle infrastructure that lowers LTS and encourages a wide range of users to bike. Provide
physical separation between bicyclists and motor vehicles via painted buffers and/or vertical elements.

Improve pedestrian and bicycle safety at intersections and crossings » Improve bicyclist and pedestrian safety by enhancing visibility at intersections and creating easily navigable dedicated paths of travel. Improvements include recommendations that aim to lower collision risk.

DELIVERABILITY
Suitability for external funding sources
» Projects with a high potential for competitive grant eligibility such those that provide benefits to higher severity DACs and safe routes to school connections.
974
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 128
Ease of project delivery
» Projects well-understood to be within existing public right-ofway and that pose minimal utility conflicts.

Cost Effectiveness
» Projects or project components that have a higher benefit to cost ratio demonstrate return on investment and are more likely to be funded.

Are well suited for partnerships
» Projects or project components that are well suited for publicprivate partnerships and/or multi-agency partnerships. 975
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 129
This page was intentionally left blank.
976
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 130
Overall Scores
Table 21 below shows the overall scores for each area and sub-segment based on each of the criterion listed above.

Overall scores for each sub-segment are the sum of the four evaluation criteria scores. Overall scores for each area are the averages of their respective sub-segment scores. Overall scores are listed below:
» Western Area: 24
» Central Area: 28
» Eastern Area: 22
While these average scores were somewhat close, the Central Area and its sub-segment, Segment 5, scored slightly higher than other segments.

Table 21 Overall Scores
Green CorridorImplement green infrastructure to support active transportationImplement green infrastructure for storm water managementCreate connections to recreation and river front trailsProvide shade using native and drought-tolerant treesMultimodal BoulevardIntegrate mobility hubs along the corridorAdd accessible multimodal facilities to support transit/shared mobility Close gaps in the pedestrian networkLower LTS through physically separated bike infrastructureImprove pedestrian/bicycle safety at intersections and crossingsCommunity StreetscapeImprove commercial opportunitiesEnhance pedestrian experience with pedestrian oriented designProvide amenities to improve comfort in public spacesSupport community identity through place makingDeliverability Suitability for external funding sourcesEase of project deliveryCost EffectivenessWell-suited for partnerships Overall Score
Western Area 6 2 2 1 2 8 1 2 2 2 2 5 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 24 Segment 1 – Harbor Boulevard to Solano Street 6 2 2 0 2 8 0 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 20 Segment 2– Solano Street to Todhunter Avenue 5 1 1 2 1 9 2 2 2 2 1 7 1 2 2 2 6 2 2 1 1 27 Segment 3 – Todhunter Avenue to Jefferson Boulevard/Kegle Drive 6 2 2 0 2 8 0 2 2 2 2 5 1 2 0 2 5 1 1 2 1 24 Central Area 6 2 2 1 2 9 2 2 2 2 1 8 2 2 2 2 6 1 2 1 2 28 Segment 4 – Jefferson Boulevard/Kegle Drive to Douglas Street 5 2 1 0 2 8 2 2 2 2 1 8 2 2 2 2 6 1 2 1 2 27 Segment 5 – Douglas Street to California Street 6 1 2 2 1 9 2 2 2 2 1 8 2 2 2 2 5 1 1 1 2 28 Eastern Area 2 0 0 2 0 7 2 1 1 1 2 7 1 2 2 2 6 1 2 2 1 22 Segment 6 – California Street to 2nd Street 2 0 0 2 0 7 2 1 1 1 2 7 1 2 2 2 6 1 2 2 1 22 977
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 131

VMT-WEIGHTED SCORES
While the overall scores provided in the previous table offer a helpful comparison of segments across the corridor, these scores do not account for the variation in area and segment length and traffic volume on a given day.

Although the recommended improvements serve to address the priorities and opportunities unique to each segment, a VMT-based weighting methodology was developed to adjust the relative benefit of each segment in proportion to its length and average daily traffic (ADT). Segment length and estimated existing traffic volumes on each segment were used to calculate the average VMT, which is a suitable proxy for assessing the relative level of traffic stress and exposure, safety and access associated with each segment.

As shown in Table 22 below, a proportional “weight” relative to the entire corridor was established based on each segment’s length, ADT, and average VMT. This weighting was applied to the overall scores reported in Table 21 to calculate a VMT-weighted score.

Table 22 VMT-Weighted Scores Overall Unweighted Score Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Segment Length (mi) Averaged Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)Weighting FactorVMT-Weighted Score Western Area 24 14,464 1.00 14,464 0.63 15.0
Segment 1 – Harbor Boulevard to Solano Street 20 14,464 0.30 4,339 0.19 3.8 Segment 2– Solano Street to Todhunter Avenue 27 14,464 0.35 5,062 0.22 6.0 Segment 3 – Todhunter Avenue to Jefferson Boulevard/Kegle Drive 24 14,464 0.35 5,062 0.22 5.3 Central Area 28 7,840 0.75 5,880 0.26 7.2
Segment 4 – Jefferson Boulevard/Kegle Drive to Douglas Street 27 7,840 0.35 2,744 0.12 3.4 Segment 5 – Douglas Street to California Street 28 7,840 0.40 3,136 0.14 3.8 Eastern Area 22 10,100 0.25 2,525 0.11 2.4
Segment 6 – California Street to 2nd Street 22 10,100 0.25 2,525 0.11 2.4 978
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 132

FUNDING SOURCES

STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
The Active Transportation Program funds projects that aim to increase the proportion of trips accomplished by walking and biking, increase the safety and mobility of non-motorized users, advance efforts of regional agencies to achieve GHG reduction goals, enhance public health, provide a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of users including disadvantaged communities, and more.

The ATP was created by Senate Bill 99 and annually receives $123 million from a combination of state and federal funds. As of 2017 following the passage of SB 1 (the Road Repair and Accountability Program), $100 million is directed annually from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to the ATP. Funding recipients are not required to provide matching funds. Funding cycles and application for the ATP open every two years. The call for Cycle 7 ATP applications begins March 21st, 2024, and applications are due June 17, 2024.

Projects that score highly on pedestrian collision reduction, community support, and disadvantaged community benefit are likely to be competitive for funding through the ATP. The ATP funds five project types, including:
» Infrastructure projects
» Plans
» Non-infrastructure (NI) projects (education and encouragement programs)
» Infrastructure and NI combination projects (capital projects with an educational component)
» Quick-build projects (temporary capital projects with low to moderate costs that last from one to five years)

AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM
The Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program funds land-use, housing, transportation, and land preservation projects to support infill and compact development that reduce GHG emissions. The program assists project areas by providing grants and/or loans, or any combination thereof, that will achieve GHG emissions reductions and benefit Disadvantaged Communities through increasing accessibility of affordable housing, employment centers, and key destinations via lowcarbon transportation resulting in fewer vehicle miles traveled through shortened or reduced trip length or mode shift from single occupancy vehicle use to transit, bicycling, or walking. The three Project Area types include:
» Transit Oriented Development Project Areas
» Integrated Connectivity Project Areas
» Rural Innovation Project Areas
The program allocates funds annually and is on its eighth funding cycle, for which applications are due in March 2024. The maximum AHSC Program loan or grant award or combination thereof is $50 million with a minimum award of at least $10 million in all Project Area types.

The “Road Repair and Accountability Act” of 2017 (SB 1) invests $54 billion over a decade to repair roads, improve traffic safety, and expand public transit systems across California, with funds split equally between state and local investments.

SB 1 directs $100 million annually to the ATP to fund infrastructure projects, program implementation, and plan development to increase bicycling and walking. SB1 funds come to the City either directly or through one of several competitive programs. SB1 also created the Local Partnership Program (LPP), which continuously appropriates $200 million annually from the Road maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to local and regional transportation agencies that have sought and received voter approval of taxes or that have imposed fees, which taxes or fees are dedicated solely for transportation improvements, to improve active transportation, aging infrastructure, road conditions, and other benefits.

HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-Stateowned roads and roads on tribal land. The HSIP requires a data-driven, 979
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 133
strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads with a focus on performance.

Projects that score highly on safety and collision reduction and have a high benefit cost ratio are likely to be competitive for funding through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).

To apply for HSIP funding, an agency must prepare a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) or an LRSP equivalent, like a comprehensive safety action plan through the Safe Streets and Roads for All Program, a Systemic Safety Analysis Report, or a Vision Zero Action Plam. An LRSP provides a framework for organizing stakeholders to identify, analyze, and prioritize roadway safety improvements on local and rural roads. Funding is no longer available for the Local Road Safety Plan, but funding for equivalents is still available.

SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL PROGRAM
The Safe Street and Roads for All (SS4A) Program funds safety projects, safety planning, and demonstration activities driven at the local level to improve safety and help prevent deaths and serious injuries on the nation’s roadways.

Two types of grants are available through SS4A:
» Planning and demonstration grants that can be used to develop a comprehensive safety action plan or supplemental planning/demonstration activities that inform the development of a new or existing Action Plan. The Department encourages including demonstration activities in an application.
» Implementation grants that can be used on infrastructure, behavioral, and/or operational activities. In order to receive implementation grant funding, a jurisdiction must have an adopted safety action plan, and the projects for which a jurisdiction is seeking funding must be included in the action plan.

SS4A has $5 billion in appropriated funds to be awarded over five years, between 2022 and 2026. Over $3 billion is available for future funding rounds. The third funding cycle opened in February 2024. The City was awarded funding for a planning grant in the 2023 cycle and is underway with developing a Comprehensive Safety Action Plan.

SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING GRANTS
Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants are available to communities for planning, study, and design work to identify and evaluate projects, including conducting outreach or improving pilot projects. Communities are typically required to provide an 11.47 percent local match, with staff time or in-kind donations eligible to be used towards the match.

Funding for Sustainable Transportation Planning grants are awarded annually. Over the last three years, funding for projects ranged between $21.5 million to $41.6 million per year, with an addition $12.5 million in Sustainable Communities Formula grants to further their Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.

Three types of grants are available through this program, including sustainable communities grants, strategic partnerships grants, and climate adaptation planning grants.

RECONNECTING COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS PROGRAM
The Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods (RCN) Program combines two Federal funding opportunities: the Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP) and the Neighborhood Access and Equity (NAE) Program. Both programs address transportation barriers that have negatively impacted connectivity and access to resources in disadvantaged communities.

The RCN Program will allocate $1 billion over 5 years between 2022 and 2026. Each year, around $50 million is available for planning and technical assistance grants, and $150 million for capital construction grants. There are three grant types available through the RCN Program:

RCP Planning Grants, RCP Capital Construction Grants, and NAE Community Planning, Capital Construction, and Regional Partnership Challenge Grants. The maximum award for RCP Community Planning Grants is 80 percent, with a 20 percent minimum recipient match. The maximum award for RCP Capital Construction Grants is 50 percent, with a 20 percent minimum recipient match and opportunity to fund the rest with other federal moneys. The maximum award for NAE Grants is 80 percent, with a 20 percent minimum recipient match, unless the community is disadvantaged or underserved, for which the local match requirement is waived.
980
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 134
Funding supports planning grants and capital construction grants, as well as technical assistance, to restore community connectivity through the removal, retrofit, mitigation, or replacement of eligible transportation infrastructure facilities, including active transportation improvements.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM The Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program (ATIIP) is a new competitive grant program created by the BIL to construct projects to provide safe and connected active transportation facilities in active transportation networks or active transportation spines. In 2023, FHWA received $45 million in funding for ATIIP from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (Pub. L. 117-328), the first funds appropriated for this program.

Two types of grants are available through ATIIP:
» Planning and Design Grants can be used to develop plans for active transportation networks and active transportation spines.

Projects seeking Planning and Design grants must have
planning and design costs of at least $100,000 to be eligible. » Construction Grants can be used to construct projects to provide safe and connected active transportation facilities in an active transportation network or active transportation spine.

Projects seeking Construction grants must have total costs of at least $15 million to be eligible.

The maximum award of the ATIIP grant is 80 percent of the total project cost with a 20 percent minimum recipient match, except for eligible projects serving communities with a poverty rate of over 40 percent based on the majority of census tracts served by the eligible project, the local match may be waived.

PROMOTING RESILIENT OPERATIONS FOR TRANSFORMATIVE, EFFICIENT, AND

COST-SAVING TRANSPORTATION (PROTECT) GRANTS
The BIL includes $8.7 billion over 5 years (2022-2026) to create the PROTECT discretionary grant program with the purpose of helping local agencies improve the resiliency of their on-system transportation infrastructure. The program provides Federal funding to projects to help communities address vulnerabilities due to weather, natural disasters, and climate change. The program also provides funds to plan transportation improvements and emergency response strategies to address those vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities the program addresses include, but are not limited to, current and future weather events, increasing frequency and magnitude of natural disasters, and changing climate conditions, including sea level rise. PROTECT grants include resilience improvement grants, community resilience and evacuation route grants, and at-risk coastal infrastructure grants. The PROTECT program funds are distributed Federally and by formula and competitive grants.

CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT (CMAQ) PROGRAM The BIL allocates $13.2 billion over 5 years to the CMAQ program. The CMAQ Program funds state and local projects that support the goals of the Clean Air Act and that aim to reduce vehicle emissions and congestion. Eligible applicants include state and local governments that have projects in areas both currently or formerly identified by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as non-attainment or maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and/or other particulate matter. The program includes funding for electric vehicles and charging stations, diesel engine replacements and retrofits, transit improvements, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, shared micromobility projects and more. Additional goals the CMAQ Program supports include improving access to transportation services, safety, and application of new technologies.

EXTREME HEAT AND COMMUNITY RESILIENCE PROGRAM
The Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program is a new state grant program that funds and supports local, regional, and tribal efforts to reduce the impacts of extreme heat. The Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program coordinates the state’s efforts to address extreme heat and the urban heat island effect.

The program will fund projects including, but not limited to the creation of extreme heat action plans, providing mechanical or natural shade, increasing building and surface reflectance, providing passive or lowenergy cooling strategies, and promoting evaporative cooling. 981
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 135

POTENTIAL FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES
As of December 2023, the programs below have not yet been renewed for another funding cycle but may be relevant in the future.

Clean California Local Grant Program
The Clean California Local Grant Program funds projects that beautify and improve local streets and roads, tribal lands, parks, pathways, and transit centers. The program aims to fund projects that reduce waste and debris within public rights of way, parks, transit centers, etc., enhances and beautifies public spaces, mitigate the heat island effect, enhance public health, cultural connection, and placemaking, and advance equity for underserved communities.

Sustainable Transportation Equity Project
The Sustainable Transportation Equity Project (STEP) funds projects that increase transportation equity by addressing community-identified transportation needs and increasing access to key destinations and services without increasing GHG emission and vehicle miles traveled.

LOCAL AND REGIONAL PROGRAMS

REGIONAL ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (ATP)
The Regional ATP program provides funding to plans and project for a few agencies, including SACOG, that increase walking and biking trips, increase safety and mobility of non-motorized users, advance regional active transportational and greenhouse gas reduction goals, enhance public health, provide equitable benefits for disadvantaged communities, and more. Eligible projects must meet State ATP requirements and be consistent with the MTP/SCS. Specific bicycle and pedestrian projects included in the Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) for EDCTC or PCTPA are also eligible.

The regional ATP awards funds every two years, allocating $17.3 million in 2023 for pedestrian and bicycle projects. The next round of funding for the Regional ATP will likely open in Summer 2024. Funding recipients are required to provide at least 11.47 percent of non-ATP funding for selected projects.

LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS
Local transportation funds (LTF) are county funds derived from a ¼ cent of the general sales tax collected statewide. The State Board of Equalization, based on sales tax collected in each county, returns the general sales tax revenues to each county’s LTF. Each county then apportions the LTF funds within the country based on population.

CITY SALES TAX MEASURES
There are four separate one-quarter cent sales tax measures approved by West Sacramento voters over the last 20 years that support a variety of municipal programs and projects related to public safety. Community development, capital improvements and community innovation. These include Measures N, E, K (Formerly Measure J), and V. Of these measures. Each measure is associated with annual revenue of between $4 million and $5 million and allows for year-to-year rollover of unused funds. Measure V is the only measure with an expiration date, which is March 31, 2033, while the other three measures are permanent. There are different use categories associated with each measure, and projects must submit sufficient justification and nexus between the project and the sales tax measure.

TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
Measure G
Effective in 2012, Measure G is a property tax measure created to direct revenue the City received from the dissolution of its Redevelopment Agency to continue funding community investment projects such as streets, bridges, transportation, parks, and public infrastructure.

The City implements Measure G funding using criteria consistent with the City's Community Investment Action Plan, prioritizing a project's potential to leverage outside public and private funding, realize increases in long-term City revenues (e.g., sales and use tax, property tax, transient occupancy tax), facilitates the development of the City's General Plan, and more. The City conducts an assessment against these criteria before recommending this funding source for projects.
982
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 136
Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District No. 1 (EIFD No. 1) In 2017, West Sacramento was the first city in California to establish an EIFD, which is a return to utilizing tax increment financing to foster economic development. EIFD No.1 consists of fourteen subareas within the City representing 4,144 acres, or 25 percent of the City, where current and future development is expected. EIFD No.1 is an important tool for the City to continue its efforts to transition many areas of the City from heavy industrial use to mixed-use areas that celebrate the City’s waterfront location, to enhance the City’s transportation network, and enhance the quality of public facilities for residents, businesses, and visitors. EIFD No.1 will be funded from property tax increment, a portion of existing Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) revenues that are generated by growth within EIFD No.1 and allocated to the City.

Projects funded from EIFD No. 1 will be consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan 2035 which provides a vision for how the City will grow and change in the future. The expenditure of EIFD No. 1 revenues would provide community-wide benefits while incorporating public investment goals defined in the Infrastructure Finance Plan. To implement the General Plan 2035, it is anticipated that EIFD No. 1 expenditures will be used on projects that have community-wide benefit in implementation of master plans, specific plans, capital projects (including the City’s 5-year Capital Improvement Plan budgets), development agreements, and development projects.

IMPACT FEES
Traffic Impact Fees
West Sacramento’s traffic impact fee collects funds from new development in the City to fund regional transportation improvements that result from the traffic generated by the new development. The Traffic Impact Fee Program is currently supported by the 2005 Traffic Impact Fee Study, which identified and estimated the cost of 26 capital improvement program projects to mitigate future traffic impacts.

A focus on “regional improvement” may leave a funding gap for projects of local/community significance, such as neighborhood streets that provide connections to key destinations and improve health through increased traffic safety, physical activity, and social connections. Many California cities use development impact fees to support projects that offset the transportation impacts of new development within the community, along with projects that may be considered regional transportation improvements. These projects may include complete street improvements, or neighborhood walkway and crossing improvements near schools along the city’s corridor network. As the City of West Sacramento updates their traffic impact fee in the future, the City may consider how projects like this might fit into the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Program.

Citywide VMT Mitigation Fee Program
On June 28, 2023, the West Sacramento City Council approved a budget to initiate development of a Citywide VMT Mitigation Fee Program. The program will determine fees based on how a project will affect changes in VMT. The program will also allow for the pooling of development mitigation contributions to pay for larger and more effective VMT reduction strategies that are not feasible for individual projects.

The VMT mitigation fee will be developed in collaboration with updates to the 2005 Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) and 2006 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines in cooperation among the Finance, Economic Development & Housing, Community Development, and Capital Projects Departments. VMT Mitigation Fees could be used for implementing complete street improvements if those improvements conclusively demonstrate reduction of VMT. It would be highly dependent upon the location, surrounding land uses, and extent of the improvements needed to ensure cost/benefit.

The City of Los Angeles established a Transportation Impact Assessment Fee in 2019, authorized by the Coastal Transportation Corridor Specific Plan and West Los Angeles Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Specific Plan, to fund transportation improvements that reduce VMT per capita, enhance multimodal connectivity, and increase transportation options. These improvements may be physical infrastructure or programmatic.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program is a flexible federal funding program that provides communities with resources to address a wide range of unique community needs. These funds are provided through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 983
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 137
Development (HUD). These funds are allocated to the State annually and can be used for capital projects that remove barriers to accessibility. The City of West Sacramento became a CDBG entitlement jurisdiction in 2016 and receives an annual allocation of CDBG funds directly from HUD.

IMPLEMENTATION OPPORTUNITIES
Implementation opportunities include CEQA streamlining, coordination between development projects and construction, and study of utility and form-based code to align projects proposed as part of the Plan with infill housing opportunities and minimize construction impacts over time.

This is discussed in further detail in the sections below.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The City anticipates that the Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan (Plan) will be exempt from CEQA under SB 922 Statutory Exemption as written into CEQA Statute Section 21080.20 (Transportation Plans, Pedestrian Plans, and Bicycle Transportation Plans). The Plan is an active transportation plan with a key focus on expanding access and connectivity for non-vehicular modes of transportation.

The Plan’s Corridor Strategies and Concept Design provide safer and more comfortable transportation options, including walking, biking, and rolling for people of all ages and abilities. Per SB 922 and CEQA Statute Section 21080.20(a)(3), individual projects that are part of the active transportation plan or pedestrian plan remain subject to the requirements of CEQA unless those projects are exempt by another provision of law. Subsequent individual projects may be evaluated for statutory or categorical CEQA exemption under sections including (but not limited to):
» CEQA Statute Section 21080.19 (Restriping of Streets or Highways; Application of Division),
» CEQA Statute Section 21080.25(b):
(1) Pedestrian and bicycle facilities that improve safety, access, or mobility, including new facilities, within the public right-ofway. (2) Projects that improve customer information and wayfinding for transit riders, bicyclists, or pedestrians within the public right-of-way.
(3) Transit prioritization projects.
(7) The maintenance, repair, relocation, replacement, or removal of any utility infrastructure associated with a project identified in paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive.
(8) A project that consists exclusively of a combination of any of the components of a project identified in paragraphs (1) to (7), inclusive.
» CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities)
» CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 (Replacement or
Reconstruction)
» CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land) Implementation of Plan would result in improved safety for both nonvehicular and vehicular modes of transportation. Anticipated benefits include but are not limited to substantial crash reduction factors, improved pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and crossing safety, improved bicycle level of stress scores, improved vehicle operations through the corridor with associated air quality and greenhouse gas reductions, and overall reduction in VMT. The Plan would not increase the vehicle capacity of Sacramento Avenue or otherwise result in increased vehicle use of the corridor.

UTILITY AND FORM-BASED CODE STUDY
As part of a recent Green Means Go grant awarded to the City of West Sacramento, the city is proactively studying utility infrastructure along Sacramento Avenue to minimize the impacts of construction over time.

This grant effort provides the opportunity to accelerate production of infill and affordable housing, which includes reviewing the regulatory environment, including zoning code and assessing opportunities for form-based code. Also, as part of this effort, the city is mapping underground and overhead utilities and assessing infrastructure needs needed to support additional housing development.
984
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan | 138

DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
As development occurs, the city should look for opportunities to construct the improvements recommended by the Plan to reduce construction costs and maximize benefits.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
The Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan marks the beginning of creating a safe, connected corridor for all road users to enjoy.

Additional approvals, updates to planning documents and securing funding sources are required before this Plan can be implemented and made a reality. Some improvements may be prioritized over others, as more opportunities arise. Although this is not an exhaustive list, some action items toward implementation include the following:
» Seek opportunities to complete environmental clearance for the corridor project (anticipated CEQA document is IS/MND). » Include recommendations from this Plan in the City’s Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Master Plan.
» Include recommendations from this Plan in the Washington Specific Plan Update.
» Continue utility and form-based code study as part of Green Means Go grant effort.
» Seek funding through competitive grant programs, regional partnerships, and developer contributions.

Moreover, additional analysis and study may be necessary to assess feasibility of the proposed improvements as the City moves forward with implementation of the Plan, including but not limited to:
» Detailed life-cycle cost analysis and/or economic impact analysis, consistent with funding sources the City decides to pursue.
» Study feasibility, including funding, design, construction, and maintenance of pocket park identified at pocket park
opportunity site.
» Estimate cost of maintenance of landscaping elements in relation to myriad livability benefits identified in the Plan. » Further coordinate with Fire Department on fire access needs, as needed.
» Further coordinate with Caltrans on proposed truck route changes.
» Continued coordination with YoloTD on bus routes and stops. » Continued coordination on utility undergrounding to determine appropriate design changes.
985

SACRAMENTO AVENUE

COMPLETE STREET PLAN

FINAL PLAN APPENDIX
SEPTEMBER 2024
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 1 986
Appendix A: LOS Methodology and
Synchro Worksheets

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS PARAMETERS &

METHODOLOGIES
The following section outlines the analysis parameters and methodologies used in Plan to quantify vehicular operations for the analysis scenarios studied.

STUDY FACILITIES AND TIME PERIODS

STUDY INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
Traffic operations were measured by Level of Service (LOS) at key intersections selected for vehicle operations analysis, including:

1. Sacramento Ave/Reed Ave/Harbor Boulevard

2. Sacramento Avenue/Solano Street

3. Sacramento Avenue/Bryte Avenue

4. Sacramento Avenue/Todhunter Avenue

5. Sacramento Avenue/Kegle Drive

6. Sacramento Avenue/Douglas Street

7. Sacramento Avenue/Reuter Drive

8. Sacramento Avenue/C Street/6th Street

9. C Street/5th Street

10. C Street/3rd Street

STUDY PERIODS
Weekday AM and PM peak hours were analyzed for the study intersections.

ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
The study intersections were analyzed for the following analysis periods:
» Existing Year 2020
» Forecast No Build (20 percent growth without project
improvements)
» Forecast Build (20 percent growth with project improvements)

LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGIES
Traffic operations are quantified through the determination of “Level of Service” (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions, whereby a letter grade “A” through “F” is assigned to an intersection, representing progressively worsening traffic operations as determined by vehicle delay or congestion. LOS “A” represents free-flow operating conditions and LOS “F” represents overcapacity conditions. These LOS letters correspond to numerical ranges of delay. Levels of Service were calculated for all study intersection control types using the methods documented in the Transportation Research Board Publication Highway Capacity Manual, Sixth Edition (HCM 6).

INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
The Synchro 11 (Trafficware) software program was used to implement the HCM 6 analysis methodologies to evaluate AM and PM peak hour conditions. Synchro 11 has the capability to produce results based on HCM 2000, HCM 2010, HCM 6, or Synchro methodologies, and takes into account intersection signal timing and queuing constraints when calculating delay, the corresponding delay, and queue lengths.

Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 2 987
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) will be calculated for all control types using the methods documented in HCM 6.

For signalized intersections and roundabouts, a LOS determination is based on the calculated averaged delay for all approaches and movements. For two-way or side-street stop-controlled (TWSC) intersections, a LOS determination is based upon the calculated average delay for all movements of the worst performing approach. The vehicular-based LOS criteria for different types of intersection controls are presented in Table 1.

Roundabout intersection operations analysis was conducted using SIDRA software. The model that will be used in the analysis is the Akcelik M3 roundabout analysis model.

AGENCY LOS GUIDELINES AND POLICIES
The City’s General Plan Mobility Element includes the following policies pertaining to LOS.

M-3.2 Vehicular Level of Service
For planning purposes, the City shall endeavor to maintain a vehicular Level of Service “C” on all streets within the City, except at intersections and on roadway segments within one-quarter mile of a freeway interchange or bridge crossing of the Deep Water Ship Channel, barge canal, or Sacramento River, where a Level of Service “D” shall be deemed acceptable, and within pedestrian oriented, high-density, mixed-use areas, such as the Pioneer Bluff and Stone Lock Reuse Master Plan area, Bridge District Specific Plan area, Washington District Specific Plan area, and Sacramento Avenue and West Capitol Avenue corridors east of Harbor Boulevard, where a vehicular Level of Service “E” shall be deemed acceptable. (RDR)
M-3.3 Level of Service Flexibility
The City shall, on a case-by-case basis, allow for lower vehicle level of service if other transportation goals (i.e., creation of complete streets) will be met; other modes (i.e., walking, bicycling, and public transit) would be negatively impacted by improvements required to maintain the vehicular LOS; or the land use context warrants deviation. Exceptions to the vehicular level of service operating goals shall require the approval of the City Council. (RDR)
Per policy M-3.2, all study intersections use LOS E as the threshold for acceptable conditions as Sacramento Avenue and the Washington District Specific Area are pedestrian oriented, high-density, mixed-use area. Policy M-3.3 does allow flexibility in determining the LOS threshold within the context of meeting other transportation goals, such as complete streets, which is a goal of this plan; however, exceptions to the LOS thresholds stated in Policy M-3.2 require approval from City Council.

For the purposes of this analysis, a Target of LOS E was used to determine acceptable traffic conditions.

Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 3 988
Table 1 Intersection level of Service Criteria
Level
of
Service
Type
of
Flow
Delay Maneuverability Stopped Delay/Vehicle
(seconds)
Signalized/
Roundabou
t
SideStreet/AllWay Stop
A
Stable Flow
Very slight delay. Progression is very
favorable, with most vehicles arriving
during the green phase not stopping at
all.

Turning movements are
easily made, and nearly all
drivers find freedom of
operation.
<10.0 <10.0
B
Stable Flow
Good progression and/or short cycle
lengths. More vehicles stop than for
LOS A, causing higher levels of average
delay.

Vehicle platoons are
formed. Many drivers
begin to feel somewhat
restricted within groups of
vehicles.
>10.0 and <20.0 >10.0 and <15.0
C
Stable Flow
Higher delays resulting from fair
progression and/or longer cycle
lengths. Individual cycle failures may
begin to appear at this level. The
number of vehicles stopping is
significant, although many still pass
through the intersection without
stopping.

Back-ups may develop
behind turning vehicles.

Most drivers feel
somewhat restricted
>20.0 and <35.0 >15.0 and <25.0
D
Approaching Unstable Flow
The Influence of congestion becomes
more noticeable. Longer delays may
result from some combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle
lengths, or high volume-to-capacity
ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the
proportion of vehicles not stopping
declines. Individual cycle failures are
noticeable.

Maneuverability is
severely limited during
short periods due to
temporary back-ups.
>35.0 and <55.0 >25.0 and <35.0
E
Unstable Flow
Generally considered to be the limit of
acceptable delay. Indicative of poor
progression, long cycle lengths, and
high volume-to-capacity ratios.

Individual cycle failures are frequent
occurrences.

There are typically long
queues of vehicles waiting
upstream of the
intersection.
>55.0 and <80.0 >35.0 and <50.0
F
Forced Flow
Generally considered to be
unacceptable to most drivers. Often
occurs with over saturation. May also
occur at high volume-to-capacity
ratios. There are many individual cycle
failures. Poor progression and long
cycle lengths may also be major
contributing factors.

Jammed conditions. Backups from other locations
restrict or prevent
movement. Volumes may
vary widely, depending
principally on the
downstream back-up
conditions.
>80.0 >50.0
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 4 989
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary AM
1: Harbor Blvd & Reed Ave Existing
Sacramento Corridor-AM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 30 373 301 254 404 5 117 97 188 20 99 Future Volume (veh/h) 5 30 373 301 254 404 5 117 97 188 20 99 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 32 393 61 267 425 4 123 102 58 21 104 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 124 688 306 587 1060 10 513 458 388 88 468
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.29 0.29 0.15 0.24 0.24 0.05 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1578 3456 3606 34 3456 1870 1585 1781 3216 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 32 393 61 267 209 220 123 102 58 21 57 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1578 1728 1777 1863 1728 1870 1585 1781 1777 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.0 5.8 1.9 4.0 5.5 5.5 1.8 2.5 1.7 0.7 1.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.0 5.8 1.9 4.0 5.5 5.5 1.8 2.5 1.7 0.7 1.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 124 688 306 587 522 548 513 458 388 88 259 V/C Ratio(X) 0.26 0.57 0.20 0.46 0.40 0.40 0.24 0.22 0.15 0.24 0.22 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 766 2202 977 1189 1560 1635 1189 1448 1228 766 1437 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 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 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.6 21.2 19.7 21.7 16.4 16.4 21.8 17.5 17.2 26.6 21.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 2.2 0.6 1.5 1.9 2.0 0.7 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.4 21.5 19.8 22.1 16.6 16.6 21.9 17.8 17.4 27.1 22.4 LnGrp LOS C C B C B B C B B C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 486 696 283 137
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.6 18.7 19.5 23.1
Approach LOS C B B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.1 14.8 8.5 21.7 7.4 20.5 14.4 15.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 6.3 4.5 4.6 4.5 6.3 4.5 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 47.0 25.0 51.0 25.0 45.0 20.0 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.8 3.7 3.0 7.5 2.7 4.5 6.0 7.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.8 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.9 0.6 1.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.

Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 5 990
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary AM
1: Harbor Blvd & Reed Ave Existing
Sacramento Corridor-AM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 39
Future Volume (veh/h) 39
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 12
Peak Hour Factor 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2
Cap, veh/h 53
Arrive On Green 0.15
Sat Flow, veh/h 365
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 59
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1805
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.7
Prop In Lane 0.20
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 263
V/C Ratio(X) 0.23
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1460
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.4
LnGrp LOS C
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assigned Phs
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 6 991
HCM 6th TWSC AM
2: Sacramento Ave & Solano St Existing
Sacramento Corridor-AM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 18 584 1 0 614 9 2 0 1 14 0 23
Future Vol, veh/h 18 584 1 0 614 9 2 0 1 14 0 23
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 2 0 3 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 70 - - - - - - - - 0 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 19 608 1 0 640 9 2 0 1 15 0 24
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 651 0 0 612 0 0 971 1301 308 989 - 328 Stage 1 - - - - - - 650 650 - 647 - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 321 651 - 342 - -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 - 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 - -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 - 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 931 - - 963 - - 207 160 688 201 0 668 Stage 1 - - - - - - 424 463 - 426 0 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 665 463 - 646 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 929 - - 960 - - 196 156 686 197 - 666 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 196 156 - 197 - -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 414 452 - 417 - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 640 462 - 632 - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 19.2 16.6

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 257 929 - - 960 - - 350
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.012 0.02 - - - - - 0.11
HCM Control Delay (s) 19.2 9 - - 0 - - 16.6
HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.4
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 7 992
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary AM
3: Sacramento Ave & Bryte Ave Existing
Sacramento Corridor-AM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 108 474 0 0 499 92 0 0 0 80 0 117 Future Volume (veh/h) 108 474 0 0 499 92 0 0 0 80 0 117 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 115 504 0 0 531 83 0 0 0 85 0 57
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, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 297 2039 0 4 984 153 0 398 0 286 30 129
Arrive On Green 0.17 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 0 1781 3067 477 0 1870 0 763 140 605 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 115 504 0 0 307 307 0 0 0 142 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 0 1781 1777 1768 0 1870 0 1508 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 3.3 0.0 0.0 6.6 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 3.3 0.0 0.0 6.6 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.40
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 297 2039 0 4 570 567 0 398 0 445 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.39 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 768 4599 0 576 2300 2288 0 1521 0 1348 0 0 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 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.2 4.9 0.0 0.0 12.9 12.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.7 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.5 5.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.9 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A A A B B A A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 619 614 0 142
Approach Delay, s/veh 7.3 13.9 0.0 15.9
Approach LOS A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 0.0 31.9 14.5 11.7 20.2 14.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.3 4.6 4.0 5.3 * 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 60.0 37.7 20.0 60.0 * 38 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 0.0 5.3 0.0 4.7 8.6 5.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.1 4.9 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.1
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 8 993
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary AM
4: Sacramento Ave & Todhunter Ave Existing
Sacramento Corridor-AM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 82 455 7 10 445 105 19 21 38 147 13 129 Future Volume (veh/h) 82 455 7 10 445 105 19 21 38 147 13 129 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 92 511 7 11 500 98 21 24 10 165 15 110 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 184 1500 21 35 988 192 245 258 89 337 52 166 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.42 0.42 0.02 0.33 0.33 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3588 49 1781 2950 575 482 881 303 747 178 565 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 92 253 265 11 300 298 55 0 0 290 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1860 1781 1777 1748 1666 0 0 1491 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 4.6 4.6 0.3 6.5 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.3 4.6 4.6 0.3 6.5 6.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.33 0.38 0.18 0.57 0.38
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 184 743 778 35 595 585 592 0 0 554 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.50 0.34 0.34 0.31 0.50 0.51 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 669 1223 1281 669 1223 1204 1168 0 0 1438 0 0 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 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.3 9.5 9.5 23.2 12.8 12.8 12.4 0.0 0.0 14.7 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 0.6 0.6 4.9 1.4 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.9 1.4 1.5 0.2 2.2 2.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.4 10.0 10.0 28.0 14.2 14.2 12.4 0.0 0.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C B B C B B B A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 610 609 55 290
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.9 14.5 12.4 15.5
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s5.0 24.9 18.0 8.9 20.9 18.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s18.0 33.0 43.0 18.0 33.0 32.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s2.3 6.6 10.0 4.3 8.6 3.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.8 2.1 0.2 6.8 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.6
HCM 6th LOS B
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 9 994
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary AM
5: Jefferson Blvd/Kegle Dr & Sacramento Ave Existing
Sacramento Corridor-AM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 61 177 420 92 151 15 293 211 116 11 292 110 Future Volume (veh/h) 61 177 420 92 151 15 293 211 116 11 292 110 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 69 199 0 103 170 2 329 237 60 12 328 113 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 145 269 169 294 242 376 928 767 42 408 141
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.14 0.00 0.09 0.16 0.16 0.21 0.50 0.50 0.02 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1540 1781 1870 1546 1781 1324 456 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 69 199 0 103 170 2 329 237 60 12 0 441 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1540 1781 1870 1546 1781 0 1780 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.8 7.6 0.0 4.1 6.3 0.1 13.3 5.4 1.5 0.5 0.0 17.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.8 7.6 0.0 4.1 6.3 0.1 13.3 5.4 1.5 0.5 0.0 17.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.26
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 145 269 169 294 242 376 928 767 42 0 549 V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.74 0.61 0.58 0.01 0.87 0.26 0.08 0.29 0.00 0.80 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 478 728 359 854 703 478 1105 913 837 0 1051 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.7 30.5 0.0 32.4 29.1 26.5 28.4 10.8 9.8 35.7 0.0 23.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 4.0 0.0 1.3 2.2 0.0 13.7 0.2 0.1 3.6 0.0 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/ln1.2 3.5 0.0 1.8 2.9 0.0 6.7 2.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 7.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.6 34.5 0.0 33.7 31.3 26.5 42.1 11.0 9.9 39.4 0.0 27.0 LnGrp LOS C C C C C D B A D A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 268 275 626 453
Approach Delay, s/veh 34.3 32.2 27.3 27.4
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s19.7 28.0 10.1 16.7 5.8 42.0 11.1 15.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s20.0 44.0 20.0 34.0 35.0 44.0 15.0 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s15.3 19.0 4.8 8.3 2.5 7.4 6.1 9.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 3.4 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.9 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.3
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 10 995
HCM 6th TWSC AM
6: Sacramento Ave & Douglas St Existing
Sacramento Corridor-AM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 98 195 3 1 167 22 1 0 2 60 0 76
Future Vol, veh/h 98 195 3 1 167 22 1 0 2 60 0 76
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 78 - - - - - - - - 0 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 121 241 4 1 206 27 1 0 2 74 0 94
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 234 0 0 245 0 0 754 721 243 709 - 221 Stage 1 - - - - - - 485 485 - 223 - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 269 236 - 486 - -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 - 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 - -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 - 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1333 - - 1321 - - 326 353 796 349 0 819 Stage 1 - - - - - - 563 552 - 780 0 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 737 710 - 563 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1332 - - 1321 - - 268 320 796 323 - 818 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 268 320 - 323 - -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 512 502 - 708 - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 652 709 - 510 - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 2.6 0 12.6 16.2

HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 480 1332 - - 1321 - - 488
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 0.091 - - 0.001 - - 0.344
HCM Control Delay (s) 12.6 8 - - 7.7 0 - 16.2
HCM Lane LOS B A - - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.3 - - 0 - - 1.5
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 11 996
HCM 6th TWSC AM
7: Reuter Dr Existing
Sacramento Corridor-AM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement EBU EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 8 248 176 6 19 13
Future Vol, veh/h 1 8 248 176 6 19 13
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 2 0 0 2 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 1 9 279 198 7 21 15
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All - 207 0 - 0 501 204
Stage 1 - - - - - 204 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 297 -
Critical Hdwy - 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - 1364 - - - 530 837
Stage 1 - - - - - 830 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 754 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ -9 ~ -9 - - - 528 835
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - 528 -
Stage 1 - - - - - 828 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 752 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 11.2

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) + - - - 621
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - 0.058
HCM Control Delay (s) - - - - 11.2
HCM Lane LOS - - - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - - - 0.2
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 12 997
HCM 6th TWSC AM
8: 6th St Existing
Sacramento Corridor-AM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.8
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 257 160 26 47 19
Future Vol, veh/h 11 257 160 26 47 19
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 0 0 1 4 0
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 84 84 84 84 84 84
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 13 306 190 31 56 23
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 222 0 - 0 543 112
Stage 1 - - - - 207 -
Stage 2 - - - - 336 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.63 6.93
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.83 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.219 - - - 3.519 3.319
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1346 - - - 485 920
Stage 1 - - - - 808 -
Stage 2 - - - - 723 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1345 - - - 478 919
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 478 -
Stage 1 - - - - 797 -
Stage 2 - - - - 722 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 12.6

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1345 - - - 555
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 - - - 0.142
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 0 - - 12.6
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.5
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 13 998
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary AM
9: C St & 5th St Existing
Sacramento Corridor-AM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 197 105 108 118 55 59 109 106 122 218 9 Future Volume (veh/h) 5 197 105 108 118 55 59 109 106 122 218 9 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 6 229 122 126 137 64 69 127 123 142 253 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 257 504 258 257 792 352 257 339 296 257 665 26 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.22 0.22 0.14 0.22 0.22 0.14 0.19 0.19 0.14 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2261 1157 1781 3554 1581 1781 1777 1548 1781 3482 137 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 6 178 173 126 137 64 69 127 123 142 129 134 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1640 1781 1777 1581 1781 1777 1548 1781 1777 1842 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 4.8 5.1 3.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 3.5 3.9 4.1 3.5 3.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 4.8 5.1 3.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 3.5 3.9 4.1 3.5 3.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 257 396 366 257 792 352 257 339 296 257 339 352 V/C Ratio(X) 0.02 0.45 0.47 0.49 0.17 0.18 0.27 0.37 0.42 0.55 0.38 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 514 977 902 514 1955 870 514 993 866 514 993 1030 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 20.4 18.6 18.7 21.8 17.4 17.4 21.1 19.5 19.7 22.1 19.6 19.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 2.4 2.9 1.0 0.3 0.8 0.4 2.0 2.7 1.3 2.0 2.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 2.1 2.1 1.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.4 21.1 21.6 22.8 17.7 18.2 21.5 21.5 22.4 23.3 21.6 21.5 LnGrp LOS C C C C B B C C C C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 357 327 319 405
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.3 19.8 21.9 22.2
Approach LOS C B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.0 14.6 12.0 16.9 12.0 14.6 12.0 16.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 31.0 16.0 30.5 16.0 31.0 16.0 30.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.1 5.9 5.6 7.1 3.9 5.5 2.2 3.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 3.1 0.1 4.8 0.1 3.2 0.0 2.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.3
HCM 6th LOS C
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 14 999
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary AM
10: C St & 3rd St Existing
Sacramento Corridor-AM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 419 12 81 262 3 3 1 25 10 4 6
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 419 12 81 262 3 3 1 25 10 4 6
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 505 6 98 316 4 4 1 0 12 5 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 5 905 750 154 1258 16 241 16 91 268 98 0
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.09 0.68 0.68 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1549 1781 1842 23 1104 276 1585 1353 1795 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 505 6 98 0 320 5 0 0 13 4 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1549 1781 0 1866 1380 0 1585 1446 1617 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 7.0 0.1 1.9 0.0 2.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 7.0 0.1 1.9 0.0 2.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 0.80 1.00 0.94 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 5 905 750 154 0 1274 257 0 91 274 93 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.56 0.01 0.64 0.00 0.25 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 585 1792 1484 975 0 1788 1279 0 1215 904 814 0 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) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 6.7 4.9 16.1 0.0 2.2 16.4 0.0 0.0 16.3 16.3 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.0 2.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 8.6 4.9 17.8 0.0 2.6 16.4 0.0 0.0 16.4 16.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A B A A B A A B B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 511 418 5 17
Approach Delay, s/veh 8.6 6.2 16.4 16.5
Approach LOS A A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s7.3 22.7 6.6 0.0 29.9 6.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 5.0 4.5 4.1 5.0 * 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s20.0 35.0 28.0 12.0 35.0 * 18 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s3.9 9.0 2.2 0.0 4.4 2.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 8.5 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.7
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 15 1000
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary PM
1: Harbor Blvd & Reed Ave Existing
Sacramento Corridor-PM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3 52 592 263 256 415 6 230 162 382 57 207 Future Volume (veh/h) 3 52 592 263 256 415 6 230 162 382 57 207 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 56 637 107 275 446 5 247 174 87 61 223 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 172 927 405 511 1124 13 509 363 308 180 396
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.15 0.31 0.31 0.15 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1552 3456 3598 40 3456 1870 1585 1781 2672 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 56 637 107 275 220 231 247 174 87 61 146 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1552 1728 1777 1862 1728 1870 1585 1781 1777 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.0 10.9 3.7 5.0 6.5 6.5 4.4 5.6 3.1 2.1 5.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.0 10.9 3.7 5.0 6.5 6.5 4.4 5.6 3.1 2.1 5.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 172 927 405 511 555 581 509 363 308 180 263 V/C Ratio(X) 0.33 0.69 0.26 0.54 0.40 0.40 0.49 0.48 0.28 0.34 0.56 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 662 1903 831 1028 1348 1412 1028 1252 1061 662 1242 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 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 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.3 22.4 19.7 26.5 18.2 18.2 26.3 24.1 23.1 28.1 26.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.2 0.6 0.4 2.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 4.1 1.2 1.9 2.4 2.5 1.7 2.4 1.1 0.9 2.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.1 22.7 19.9 27.2 18.3 18.3 26.6 25.3 23.7 28.5 28.8 LnGrp LOS C C B C B B C C C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 800 726 508 354
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.8 21.7 25.6 28.9
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.4 16.3 11.0 25.6 11.3 19.4 14.4 22.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 6.3 4.5 4.6 4.5 6.3 4.5 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 47.0 25.0 51.0 25.0 45.0 20.0 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.4 7.4 4.0 8.5 4.1 7.6 7.0 12.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 2.3 0.1 1.6 0.1 1.6 0.6 2.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.

Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 16 1001
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary PM
1: Harbor Blvd & Reed Ave Existing
Sacramento Corridor-PM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 160
Future Volume (veh/h) 160
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 70
Peak Hour Factor 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2
Cap, veh/h 121
Arrive On Green 0.15
Sat Flow, veh/h 815
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 147
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1710
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.4
Prop In Lane 0.48
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 253
V/C Ratio(X) 0.58
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1196
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.2
LnGrp LOS C
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assigned Phs
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 17 1002
HCM 6th TWSC Existing
2: Sacramento Ave & Solano St PM Peak Hour
Sacramento Avenue Corridor Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 44 1033 1 1 696 27 0 0 0 19 0 21
Future Vol, veh/h 1 44 1033 1 1 696 27 0 0 0 19 0 21
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 009900000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - 70 -----------
Veh in Median Storage, # - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 1 46 1087 1 1 733 28 0 0 0 20 0 22
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 761 761 0 0 1097 0 0 1560 1954 553 1387 1940 381 Stage 1 - ------ 1191 1191 - 749 749 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - 369 763 - 638 1191 -
Critical Hdwy 6.44 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ------ 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ------ 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.52 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 472 847 - - 632 - - 76 63 477 102 65 617 Stage 1 - - - - - - - 199 259 - 370 417 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - 623 411 - 431 259 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 831 831 - - 627 - - 69 59 473 97 61 617 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - 69 59 - 97 61 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - 186 242 - 349 416 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - 599 410 - 407 242 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 0 0 32.2

HCM LOS A D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 831 - - 627 - - 174
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.057 - - 0.002 - - 0.242
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 9.6 - - 10.8 0 - 32.2
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B A - D
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.2 - - 0 - - 0.9
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 18 1003
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary PM
3: Sacramento Ave & Bryte Ave Existing
Sacramento Corridor-PM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 109 929 1 1 634 55 1 1 0 60 0 99 Future Volume (veh/h) 109 929 1 1 634 55 1 1 0 60 0 99
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 118 1010 1 1 689 55 1 1 0 65 0 37
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 287 1949 2 5 1253 100 226 189 0 268 25 100
Arrive On Green 0.16 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3643 4 1781 3323 265 637 1025 0 816 135 541 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 118 493 518 1 368 376 2 0 0 102 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1870 1781 1777 1812 1662 0 0 1492 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.0 8.9 8.9 0.0 8.2 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.0 8.9 8.9 0.0 8.2 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.15 0.50 0.00 0.64 0.36
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 287 951 1001 5 670 683 415 0 0 393 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.52 0.52 0.20 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 710 2126 2237 533 2126 2167 1309 0 0 1237 0 0 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 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.9 7.5 7.5 24.9 12.3 12.3 16.7 0.0 0.0 17.8 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.5 0.5 7.4 0.9 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 2.3 2.4 0.0 2.6 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.3 8.0 8.0 32.3 13.1 13.1 16.7 0.0 0.0 17.9 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A A C B B B A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1129 745 2 102
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.2 13.1 16.7 17.9
Approach LOS A B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.1 32.1 13.9 12.1 24.2 13.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.3 4.6 4.0 5.3 * 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 60.0 37.7 20.0 60.0 * 38 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 10.9 2.0 5.0 10.2 4.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 9.4 0.0 0.1 6.2 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.1
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 19 1004
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary PM
4: Sacramento Ave & Todhunter Ave Existing
Sacramento Corridor-PM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 135 810 35 24 576 94 28 7 28 69 8 84 Future Volume (veh/h) 1 135 810 35 24 576 94 28 7 28 69 8 84 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 144 862 35 26 613 88 30 7 6 73 9 39 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, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 235 1679 68 77 1225 175 312 71 39 265 51 88
Arrive On Green 0.13 0.48 0.48 0.04 0.39 0.39 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3476 141 1781 3108 445 962 396 220 745 287 491 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 144 441 456 26 350 351 43 0 0 121 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1840 1781 1777 1776 1578 0 0 1522 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 7.5 7.5 0.6 6.5 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 7.5 7.5 0.6 6.5 6.5 0.9 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.25 0.70 0.14 0.60 0.32
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 235 858 889 77 700 700 422 0 0 404 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.51 0.51 0.34 0.50 0.50 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 732 1339 1387 732 1339 1339 1218 0 0 1589 0 0 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 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.9 7.8 7.8 20.3 10.0 10.0 15.1 0.0 0.0 15.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.6 1.0 1.0 2.5 1.2 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 2.0 2.0 0.3 2.0 2.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.5 8.8 8.8 22.9 11.2 11.2 15.2 0.0 0.0 16.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A A C B B B A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1041 727 43 121
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.4 11.6 15.2 16.3
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s5.9 26.0 11.8 9.8 22.2 11.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s18.0 33.0 43.0 18.0 33.0 32.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s2.6 9.5 4.9 5.3 8.5 2.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 10.5 0.8 0.3 8.1 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.3
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.

Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 20 1005
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary PM
5: Jefferson Blvd/Kegle Dr & Sacramento Ave Existing
Sacramento Corridor-PM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 157 322 423 161 270 17 345 260 164 18 188 93 Future Volume (veh/h) 157 322 423 161 270 17 345 260 164 18 188 93 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 159 325 0 163 273 4 348 263 69 18 190 80 Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 196 406 200 410 335 390 768 628 59 278 117
Arrive On Green 0.11 0.22 0.00 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.41 0.41 0.03 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1530 1781 1870 1529 1781 1239 522 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 159 325 0 163 273 4 348 263 69 18 0 270 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1530 1781 1870 1529 1781 0 1761 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.9 13.0 0.0 7.1 10.6 0.2 15.0 7.6 2.2 0.8 0.0 11.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.9 13.0 0.0 7.1 10.6 0.2 15.0 7.6 2.2 0.8 0.0 11.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.30
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 196 406 200 410 335 390 768 628 59 0 395 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.80 0.81 0.67 0.01 0.89 0.34 0.11 0.31 0.00 0.68 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 450 685 338 803 657 450 1040 850 788 0 979 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.4 29.4 0.0 34.3 28.3 24.2 30.0 16.0 14.4 37.4 0.0 28.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.0 3.7 0.0 3.1 2.3 0.0 17.9 0.3 0.1 2.9 0.0 2.5 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/ln3.0 5.9 0.0 3.1 4.8 0.1 7.9 3.0 0.7 0.4 0.0 4.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.4 33.1 0.0 37.4 30.5 24.2 47.9 16.3 14.5 40.3 0.0 30.6 LnGrp LOS D C D C C D B B D A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 484 440 680 288
Approach Delay, s/veh 34.5 33.0 32.3 31.2
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s21.3 22.8 12.7 22.3 6.6 37.5 12.9 22.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s20.0 44.0 20.0 34.0 35.0 44.0 15.0 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s17.0 13.1 8.9 12.6 2.8 9.6 9.1 15.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 2.2 0.1 1.8 0.0 2.1 0.1 1.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.9
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 21 1006
HCM 6th TWSC Existing
6: Sacramento Ave & Douglas St PM Peak Hour
Sacramento Avenue Corridor Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 122 370 0 0 322 22 0 0 0 23 0 104
Future Vol, veh/h 122 370 0 0 322 22 0 0 0 23 0 104
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 2 00002000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 78 ---------- -
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, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 136 411 0 0 358 24 0 0 0 26 0 116
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 384 0 0 411 0 0 1111 1067 411 1055 1055 372 Stage 1 - - - - - - 683 683 - 372 372 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 428 384 - 683 683 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1174 - - 1148 - - 186 222 641 204 226 674 Stage 1 - - - - - - 439 449 - 648 619 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 605 611 - 439 449 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1172 - - 1148 - - 140 196 641 185 199 673 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 140 196 - 185 199 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 388 397 - 572 618 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 501 610 - 388 397 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 2.1 0 0 16.4

HCM LOS A C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 1172 - - 1148 - - 455
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.116 ----- 0.31
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 8.5 - - 0 - - 16.4
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.4 - - 0 - - 1.3
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 22 1007
HCM 6th TWSC PM
7: Reuter Dr Existing
Sacramento Corridor-PM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 374 337 14 14 9
Future Vol, veh/h 16 374 337 14 14 9
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 2 0 0 2 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 18 411 370 15 15 10
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 387 0 - 0 827 380
Stage 1 - - - - 380 -
Stage 2 - - - - 447 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1171 - - - 341 667
Stage 1 - - - - 691 -
Stage 2 - - - - 644 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1169 - - - 335 666
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 335 -
Stage 1 - - - - 679 -
Stage 2 - - - - 643 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 14.2

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1169 - - - 416
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 - - - 0.061
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 0 - - 14.2
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.2
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 23 1008
HCM 6th TWSC PM
8: 6th St Existing
Sacramento Corridor-PM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement EBL EBT WBU WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 22 358 1 336 52 42 24
Future Vol, veh/h 22 358 1 336 52 42 24
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free 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 93 93 93 93 93 93 93
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 24 385 1 361 56 45 26
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 417 0 - - 0 824 209
Stage 1 - - - - - 391 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 433 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - - 6.63 6.93
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - 5.83 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.219 - - - - 3.519 3.319
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1140 - - - - 327 798
Stage 1 - - - - - 653 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 653 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1140 - - - - 318 798
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - 318 -
Stage 1 - - - - - 635 -
Stage 2 - - - - - 653 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 15.7

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1140 - - - 407
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.021 - - - 0.174
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 - - 15.7
HCM Lane LOS A A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.6
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 24 1009
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary PM
9: C St & 5th St Existing
Sacramento Corridor-PM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 20 303 79 175 249 109 122 169 148 67 123 18 Future Volume (veh/h) 20 303 79 175 249 109 122 169 148 67 123 18 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 22 326 85 188 268 117 131 182 159 72 132 19 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 226 660 169 244 877 383 226 436 354 226 742 105 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.24 0.24 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.13 0.24 0.24 0.13 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2788 715 1781 3554 1551 1781 1835 1490 1781 3120 441 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 22 206 205 188 268 117 131 176 165 72 74 77 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1726 1781 1777 1551 1781 1777 1548 1781 1777 1784 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.7 6.3 6.5 6.4 3.9 3.9 4.4 5.3 5.7 2.3 2.1 2.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.7 6.3 6.5 6.4 3.9 3.9 4.4 5.3 5.7 2.3 2.1 2.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.25
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 226 421 409 244 877 383 226 422 368 226 422 424 V/C Ratio(X) 0.10 0.49 0.50 0.77 0.31 0.31 0.58 0.42 0.45 0.32 0.18 0.18 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 452 859 835 452 1719 750 452 874 761 452 874 877 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 24.3 20.8 20.8 26.3 19.3 19.3 25.9 20.3 20.5 25.0 19.1 19.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 2.7 2.9 3.5 0.6 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 2.8 2.8 2.9 1.6 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.5 23.5 23.8 29.8 19.9 20.7 27.5 22.2 23.0 25.6 19.7 19.7 LnGrp LOS C C C C B C C C C C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 433 573 472 223
Approach Delay, s/veh 23.7 23.3 24.0 21.6
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.0 19.0 12.6 19.4 12.0 19.0 12.0 20.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 31.0 16.0 30.5 16.0 31.0 16.0 30.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.3 7.7 8.4 8.5 6.4 4.2 2.7 5.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.3 0.2 5.5 0.1 1.7 0.0 5.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 25 1010
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary PM
10: C St & 3rd St Existing
Sacramento Corridor-PM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 7 458 45 45 505 17 13 2 92 5 3 4 Future Volume (veh/h) 7 458 45 45 505 17 13 2 92 5 3 4
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 0.95 0.96 0.97 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 7 487 24 48 537 17 14 2 10 5 3 0
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, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 17 876 722 93 921 29 323 35 197 341 224 0
Arrive On Green 0.01 0.47 0.47 0.05 0.51 0.51 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1541 1781 1802 57 1150 269 1514 1236 1805 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 7 487 24 48 0 554 16 0 10 5 3 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1541 1781 0 1859 1420 0 1514 1339 1617 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 7.3 0.3 1.0 0.0 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 7.3 0.3 1.0 0.0 8.1 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03 0.87 1.00 0.95 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 17 876 722 93 0 950 358 0 197 355 211 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.56 0.03 0.52 0.00 0.58 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 549 1682 1386 915 0 1671 1179 0 1089 828 764 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.2 7.4 5.6 18.0 0.0 6.6 14.8 0.0 14.8 14.8 14.7 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.9 2.0 0.1 1.7 0.0 2.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.1 2.5 0.1 0.4 0.0 2.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.1 9.4 5.7 19.6 0.0 8.7 14.9 0.0 15.0 14.8 14.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS D A A B A A B A B B B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 518 602 26 8
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.6 9.6 14.9 14.8
Approach LOS A A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s6.1 23.2 9.6 4.5 24.9 9.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 5.0 4.5 4.1 5.0 * 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s20.0 35.0 28.0 12.0 35.0 * 18 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s3.0 9.3 2.3 2.2 10.1 2.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.3 0.1 0.0 9.3 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.7
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 26 1011
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary AM
1: Harbor Blvd & Reed Ave Cumulative
Sacramento Corridor- Forecast AM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 35 450 360 305 485 5 140 115 225 25 120 Future Volume (veh/h) 5 35 450 360 305 485 5 140 115 225 25 120 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 37 474 123 321 511 4 147 121 97 26 126 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 136 745 331 565 1072 8 520 452 383 104 469
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.21 0.21 0.16 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.24 0.24 0.06 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1578 3456 3613 28 3456 1870 1585 1781 3129 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 37 474 123 321 251 264 147 121 97 26 71 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1578 1728 1777 1864 1728 1870 1585 1781 1777 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.2 7.4 4.1 5.2 7.1 7.1 2.3 3.2 3.0 0.8 2.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.2 7.4 4.1 5.2 7.1 7.1 2.3 3.2 3.0 0.8 2.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 136 745 331 565 527 553 520 452 383 104 266 V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.64 0.37 0.57 0.48 0.48 0.28 0.27 0.25 0.25 0.27 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 731 2100 933 1135 1488 1561 1135 1382 1171 731 1371 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 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 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.5 22.0 20.6 23.5 17.5 17.6 23.0 18.7 18.6 27.4 22.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 2.8 1.4 2.0 2.5 2.7 0.9 1.3 1.0 0.4 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.3 22.3 20.9 24.2 17.8 17.8 23.1 19.1 19.1 27.9 23.6 LnGrp LOS C C C C B B C B B C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 634 836 365 170
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.3 20.2 20.7 24.2
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.7 15.4 9.2 22.7 8.1 21.0 14.5 17.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 6.3 4.5 4.6 4.5 6.3 4.5 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 47.0 25.0 51.0 25.0 45.0 20.0 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.3 4.2 3.2 9.1 2.8 5.2 7.2 9.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 1.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.2 0.7 2.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.3
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.

Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 27 1012
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary AM
1: Harbor Blvd & Reed Ave Cumulative
Sacramento Corridor- Forecast AM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 45
Future Volume (veh/h) 45
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 18
Peak Hour Factor 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2
Cap, veh/h 66
Arrive On Green 0.15
Sat Flow, veh/h 439
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 73
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1791
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2
Prop In Lane 0.25
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 268
V/C Ratio(X) 0.27
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1382
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.6
LnGrp LOS C
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assigned Phs
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 28 1013
HCM 6th TWSC AM
2: Sacramento Ave & Solano St Cumulative
Sacramento Corridor- Forecast AM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 700 0 0 735 10 0 0 0 15 0 30
Future Vol, veh/h 20 700 0 0 735 10 0 0 0 15 0 30
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 2 0 3 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 70 - - - - - - - - 0 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 21 729 0 0 766 10 0 0 0 16 0 31
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 778 0 0 732 0 0 1158 1552 368 1180 - 391 Stage 1 - - - - - - 774 774 - 773 - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 384 778 - 407 - -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 - 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 - -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 - 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 834 - - 868 - - 151 112 629 146 0 608 Stage 1 - - - - - - 357 406 - 358 0 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 611 405 - 592 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 832 - - 866 - - 140 109 627 143 - 606 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 140 109 - 143 - -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 347 395 - 348 - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 579 404 - 577 - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 0 19.7

HCM LOS A C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 832 - - 866 - - 291
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.025 - - - - - 0.161
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 9.4 - - 0 - - 19.7
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.6
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 29 1014
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary AM
3: Sacramento Ave & Bryte Ave Cumulative
Sacramento Corridor- Forecast AM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 130 570 0 0 600 110 0 0 0 95 0 140 Future Volume (veh/h) 130 570 0 0 600 110 0 0 0 95 0 140 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 138 606 0 0 638 102 0 0 0 101 0 82 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, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 297 2128 0 3 1084 173 0 393 0 254 30 143
Arrive On Green 0.17 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 0 1781 3056 488 0 1870 0 696 141 679 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 138 606 0 0 371 369 0 0 0 183 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 0 1781 1777 1766 0 1870 0 1516 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.6 4.3 0.0 0.0 8.8 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.6 4.3 0.0 0.0 8.8 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.45
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 297 2128 0 3 630 626 0 393 0 426 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.46 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 689 4122 0 517 2061 2049 0 1363 0 1211 0 0 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 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.5 5.0 0.0 0.0 13.6 13.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.9 5.1 0.0 0.0 14.7 14.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.5 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A A A B B A A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 744 740 0 183
Approach Delay, s/veh 7.9 14.7 0.0 18.5
Approach LOS A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 0.0 36.3 15.5 12.6 23.6 15.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.3 4.6 4.0 5.3 * 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 60.0 37.7 20.0 60.0 * 38 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 0.0 6.3 0.0 5.6 10.8 7.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.1 6.2 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 30 1015
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary AM
4: Sacramento Ave & Todhunter Ave Cumulative
Sacramento Corridor- Forecast AM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 100 545 10 10 535 125 25 25 45 175 15 155 Future Volume (veh/h) 100 545 10 10 535 125 25 25 45 175 15 155 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 112 612 10 11 601 120 28 28 18 197 17 139 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 181 1546 25 35 1030 205 241 231 124 346 43 189 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.43 0.43 0.02 0.35 0.35 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3576 58 1781 2938 585 478 714 383 766 133 584 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 112 304 318 11 363 358 74 0 0 353 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1858 1781 1777 1746 1575 0 0 1483 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.5 6.7 6.7 0.4 9.6 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 6.7 6.7 0.4 9.6 9.6 1.7 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.34 0.38 0.24 0.56 0.39
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 181 768 803 35 623 612 596 0 0 578 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.40 0.40 0.31 0.58 0.58 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 557 1019 1065 557 1019 1001 946 0 0 1193 0 0 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 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.8 11.2 11.2 27.8 15.2 15.3 13.7 0.0 0.0 17.1 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.5 0.7 0.7 5.0 1.8 1.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.5 2.2 2.3 0.2 3.5 3.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.2 11.9 11.9 32.9 17.1 17.2 13.8 0.0 0.0 18.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C B B C B B B A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 734 732 74 353
Approach Delay, s/veh 14.4 17.4 13.8 18.1
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s5.1 29.8 22.6 9.8 25.1 22.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s18.0 33.0 43.0 18.0 33.0 32.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s2.4 8.7 14.0 5.5 11.6 3.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.0 2.6 0.2 7.9 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 31 1016
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary AM
5: Jefferson Blvd/Kegle Dr & Sacramento Ave Cumulative
Sacramento Corridor- Forecast AM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 75 210 505 110 180 20 350 255 140 15 350 130 Future Volume (veh/h) 75 210 505 110 180 20 350 255 140 15 350 130 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 84 236 0 124 202 7 393 287 87 17 393 135 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 137 296 155 315 259 386 990 818 55 454 156
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.16 0.00 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.22 0.53 0.53 0.03 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1541 1781 1870 1547 1781 1325 455 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 84 236 0 124 202 7 393 287 87 17 0 528 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1541 1781 1870 1547 1781 0 1780 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.2 11.2 0.0 6.3 9.3 0.4 20.0 7.9 2.6 0.9 0.0 25.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.2 11.2 0.0 6.3 9.3 0.4 20.0 7.9 2.6 0.9 0.0 25.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.26
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 137 296 155 315 259 386 990 818 55 0 610 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.80 0.80 0.64 0.03 1.02 0.29 0.11 0.31 0.00 0.86 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 386 588 290 690 568 386 990 818 676 0 849 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.3 37.4 0.0 41.3 35.8 32.0 36.1 12.1 10.8 43.7 0.0 28.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 4.9 0.0 3.6 2.6 0.1 50.2 0.2 0.1 3.2 0.0 7.4 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/ln1.9 5.3 0.0 2.9 4.3 0.1 13.6 3.0 0.8 0.4 0.0 11.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.9 42.3 0.0 45.0 38.4 32.1 86.3 12.3 10.9 46.9 0.0 35.7 LnGrp LOS D D D D C F B B D A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 320 333 767 545
Approach Delay, s/veh 42.5 40.7 50.1 36.1
Approach LOS D D D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s24.0 36.6 11.1 20.5 6.8 53.8 12.0 19.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s20.0 44.0 20.0 34.0 35.0 44.0 15.0 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s22.0 27.6 6.2 11.3 2.9 9.9 8.3 13.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.7 0.0 1.3 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 43.4
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 32 1017
HCM 6th TWSC AM
6: Sacramento Ave & Douglas St Cumulative
Sacramento Corridor- Forecast AM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 120 235 5 0 200 25 0 0 0 70 0 90
Future Vol, veh/h 120 235 5 0 200 25 0 0 0 70 0 90
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 78 - - - - - - - - 0 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 148 290 6 0 247 31 0 0 0 86 0 111
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 279 0 0 296 0 0 907 868 293 853 - 264 Stage 1 - - - - - - 589 589 - 264 - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 318 279 - 589 - -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 - 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 - -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 - 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1284 - - 1265 - - 257 290 746 279 0 775 Stage 1 - - - - - - 494 495 - 741 0 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 693 680 - 494 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1283 - - 1265 - - 201 256 746 254 - 774 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 201 256 - 254 - -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 437 438 - 655 - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 594 679 - 437 - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 2.7 0 0 21.8

HCM LOS A C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 1283 - - 1265 - - 408
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.115 - - - - - 0.484
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 8.2 - - 0 - - 21.8
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.4 - - 0 - - 2.6
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 33 1018
HCM 6th TWSC AM
7: Reuter Dr Cumulative
Sacramento Corridor- Forecast AM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 300 210 5 25 15
Future Vol, veh/h 10 300 210 5 25 15
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 2 0 0 2 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 11 337 236 6 28 17
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 244 0 - 0 600 241
Stage 1 - - - - 241 -
Stage 2 - - - - 359 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1322 - - - 464 798
Stage 1 - - - - 799 -
Stage 2 - - - - 707 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1319 - - - 458 796
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 458 -
Stage 1 - - - - 791 -
Stage 2 - - - - 706 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 12.2

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1319 - - - 545
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - - - 0.082
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 - - 12.2
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.3
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 34 1019
HCM 6th TWSC AM
8: 6th St Cumulative
Sacramento Corridor- Forecast AM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 310 190 30 55 25
Future Vol, veh/h 15 310 190 30 55 25
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 0 0 1 4 0
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 84 84 84 84 84 84
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 18 369 226 36 65 30
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 263 0 - 0 654 132
Stage 1 - - - - 245 -
Stage 2 - - - - 409 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.63 6.93
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.83 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.219 - - - 3.519 3.319
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1300 - - - 415 894
Stage 1 - - - - 774 -
Stage 2 - - - - 670 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1299 - - - 407 893
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 407 -
Stage 1 - - - - 760 -
Stage 2 - - - - 669 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 0 14.1

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1299 - - - 490
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 - - - 0.194
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 - - 14.1
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.7
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 35 1020
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary AM
9: C St & 5th St Cumulative
Sacramento Corridor- Forecast AM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 235 125 130 140 65 70 130 125 145 260 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 5 235 125 130 140 65 70 130 125 145 260 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 6 273 145 151 163 76 81 151 145 169 302 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 241 553 284 241 870 387 241 365 318 241 715 28 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.14 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2256 1161 1781 3554 1581 1781 1777 1550 1781 3481 138 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 6 213 205 151 163 76 81 151 145 169 154 160 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1640 1781 1777 1581 1781 1777 1550 1781 1777 1842 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 6.1 6.4 4.7 2.1 2.3 2.4 4.4 4.9 5.4 4.4 4.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 6.1 6.4 4.7 2.1 2.3 2.4 4.4 4.9 5.4 4.4 4.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 241 435 402 241 870 387 241 365 318 241 365 378 V/C Ratio(X) 0.02 0.49 0.51 0.63 0.19 0.20 0.34 0.41 0.46 0.70 0.42 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 482 917 846 482 1833 816 482 932 812 482 932 966 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 22.2 19.2 19.3 24.2 17.7 17.7 23.2 20.4 20.6 24.4 20.4 20.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 2.6 3.1 1.8 0.3 0.8 0.6 2.2 2.9 2.5 2.2 2.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 2.7 2.6 2.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.9 1.8 2.2 1.9 2.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.2 21.8 22.3 26.0 18.0 18.5 23.7 22.6 23.5 26.9 22.7 22.6 LnGrp LOS C C C C B B C C C C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 424 390 377 483
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.0 21.2 23.2 24.2
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.0 16.1 12.0 19.0 12.0 16.1 12.0 19.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 31.0 16.0 30.5 16.0 31.0 16.0 30.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 6.9 6.7 8.4 4.4 6.5 2.2 4.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 3.7 0.2 5.6 0.1 3.9 0.0 3.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.7
HCM 6th LOS C
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 36 1021
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary AM
10: C St & 3rd St Cumulative
Sacramento Corridor- Forecast AM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 505 15 95 315 5 5 0 30 10 5 5
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 505 15 95 315 5 5 0 30 10 5 5
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.97 0.97 0.98 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 608 10 114 380 6 6 0 6 12 6 -1
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 4 977 810 157 1301 21 260 0 98 305 398 0
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.09 0.71 0.71 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1549 1781 1836 29 1367 0 1545 1218 1906 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 608 10 114 0 386 6 0 6 13 4 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1549 1781 0 1865 1367 0 1545 1422 1617 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 9.6 0.1 2.6 0.0 3.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 9.6 0.1 2.6 0.0 3.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 4 977 810 157 0 1321 260 0 98 0 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.62 0.01 0.73 0.00 0.29 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 512 1569 1300 854 0 1564 1090 0 1037 0 0 0 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) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 7.0 4.8 18.5 0.0 2.2 18.4 0.0 18.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 2.4 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.0 3.2 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 9.4 4.8 21.0 0.0 2.7 18.4 0.0 18.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A C A A B A B A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 618 500 12 17
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.3 6.8 18.6 0.0
Approach LOS A A B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s7.8 26.8 7.2 0.0 34.6 7.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 5.0 4.5 4.1 5.0 * 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s20.0 35.0 28.0 12.0 35.0 * 18 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s4.6 11.6 2.2 0.0 5.2 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 10.1 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.2
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 37 1022
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary PM
1: Harbor Blvd & Reed Ave Cumulative
Sacramento Corridor- Forecast PM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 60 710 315 305 500 5 275 195 460 70 250 Future Volume (veh/h) 5 60 710 315 305 500 5 275 195 460 70 250 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 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 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 65 763 163 328 538 4 296 210 171 75 269 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 178 1031 451 468 1178 9 468 370 314 190 428
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.14 0.33 0.33 0.14 0.20 0.20 0.11 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1553 3456 3614 27 3456 1870 1585 1781 2530 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 65 763 163 328 264 278 296 210 171 75 187 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1553 1728 1777 1865 1728 1870 1585 1781 1777 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 14.3 6.1 6.7 8.7 8.7 6.0 7.5 7.2 2.9 7.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 14.3 6.1 6.7 8.7 8.7 6.0 7.5 7.2 2.9 7.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 178 1031 451 468 579 608 468 370 314 190 300 V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.74 0.36 0.70 0.46 0.46 0.63 0.57 0.55 0.40 0.62 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 604 1735 758 937 1229 1290 937 1142 968 604 1133 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 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 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.0 23.6 20.7 30.4 19.7 19.7 30.1 26.7 26.6 30.7 28.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 0.4 0.2 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.5 1.6 1.8 0.5 2.5 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 5.5 2.1 2.7 3.3 3.4 2.4 3.3 2.7 1.2 3.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.9 24.0 20.9 31.9 19.9 19.9 30.7 28.4 28.4 31.2 31.0 LnGrp LOS C C C C B B C C C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 991 870 677 446
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.1 24.4 29.4 31.2
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.5 18.8 11.9 28.6 12.3 20.9 14.5 26.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 6.3 4.5 4.6 4.5 6.3 4.5 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 47.0 25.0 51.0 25.0 45.0 20.0 36.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.0 9.5 4.5 10.7 4.9 9.5 8.7 16.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 3.0 0.1 1.9 0.1 2.3 0.7 3.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.

Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 38 1023
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary PM
1: Harbor Blvd & Reed Ave Cumulative
Sacramento Corridor- Forecast PM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 190
Future Volume (veh/h) 190
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 102
Peak Hour Factor 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2
Cap, veh/h 158
Arrive On Green 0.17
Sat Flow, veh/h 934
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 184
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1687
Q Serve(g_s), s 7.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.5
Prop In Lane 0.55
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 285
V/C Ratio(X) 0.65
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1076
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.9
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.5
LnGrp LOS C
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assigned Phs
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 39 1024
HCM 6th TWSC PM
2: Sacramento Ave & Solano St Cumulative
Sacramento Corridor- Forecast PM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 55 1240 0 0 835 30 0 0 0 25 0 25
Future Vol, veh/h 55 1240 0 0 835 30 0 0 0 25 0 25
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 70 - - - - - - - - 0 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 58 1305 0 0 879 32 0 0 0 26 0 26
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 911 0 0 1314 0 0 1870 2341 662 1664 - 456 Stage 1 - - - - - - 1430 1430 - 895 - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 440 911 - 769 - -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 - 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 - -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 - 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 743 - - 522 - - 44 36 404 63 0 551
Stage 1 - - - - - - 141 199 - 302 0 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 566 351 - 360 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 743 - - 518 - - 39 33 401 59 - 551
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 39 33 - 59 - -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 129 182 - 278 - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 539 351 - 332 - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 0 0 67.6

HCM LOS A F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 743 - - 518 - - 107
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.078 - - - - - 0.492
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 10.3 - - 0 - - 67.6
HCM Lane LOS A B - - A - - F
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.3 - - 0 - - 2.2
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 40 1025
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary PM
3: Sacramento Ave & Bryte Ave Cumulative
Sacramento Corridor- Forecast PM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 130 1115 0 0 760 65 0 0 0 70 0 120 Future Volume (veh/h) 130 1115 0 0 760 65 0 0 0 70 0 120 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 141 1212 0 0 826 66 0 0 0 76 0 59
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 280 2270 0 3 1364 109 0 349 0 231 26 123
Arrive On Green 0.16 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 0 1781 3323 266 0 1870 0 707 140 658 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 141 1212 0 0 442 450 0 0 0 135 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 0 1781 1777 1812 0 1870 0 1505 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.1 10.6 0.0 0.0 11.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 10.6 0.0 0.0 11.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.44
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 280 2270 0 3 730 744 0 349 0 380 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.50 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 629 3766 0 472 1883 1920 0 1246 0 1100 0 0 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 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.8 5.6 0.0 0.0 13.1 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 2.2 0.0 0.0 3.7 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.3 5.8 0.0 0.0 14.1 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.7 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A A A B B A A A C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1353 892 0 135
Approach Delay, s/veh 7.6 14.1 0.0 20.7
Approach LOS A B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 0.0 41.5 15.2 12.9 28.5 15.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.3 4.6 4.0 5.3 * 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 60.0 37.7 20.0 60.0 * 38 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 0.0 12.6 0.0 6.1 13.0 6.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.1 7.9 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.7
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 41 1026
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary PM
4: Sacramento Ave & Todhunter Ave Cumulative
Sacramento Corridor- Forecast PM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 160 970 40 30 690 115 35 10 35 85 10 100 Future Volume (veh/h) 160 970 40 30 690 115 35 10 35 85 10 100 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 0.99 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 170 1032 41 32 734 110 37 11 13 90 11 56 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, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 229 1750 70 90 1312 197 271 82 64 247 48 100 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.50 0.50 0.05 0.42 0.42 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3480 138 1781 3087 462 833 446 346 712 262 540 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 170 527 546 32 422 422 61 0 0 157 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1841 1781 1777 1773 1625 0 0 1515 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.5 10.3 10.3 0.9 8.8 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.5 10.3 10.3 0.9 8.8 8.8 1.4 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.26 0.61 0.21 0.57 0.36
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 229 894 926 90 755 753 418 0 0 395 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.59 0.59 0.36 0.56 0.56 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 651 1191 1234 651 1191 1188 1092 0 0 1408 0 0 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 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.7 8.6 8.6 22.6 10.7 10.7 16.9 0.0 0.0 18.1 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.7 1.3 1.3 2.4 1.4 1.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.9 2.9 3.0 0.4 2.8 2.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.4 10.0 9.9 25.0 12.1 12.1 17.1 0.0 0.0 18.8 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A A C B B B A A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1243 876 61 157
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.1 12.5 17.1 18.8
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s6.5 29.7 13.1 10.3 25.8 13.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.0 4.9 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s18.0 33.0 43.0 18.0 33.0 32.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s2.9 12.3 6.5 6.5 10.8 3.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 11.8 1.0 0.3 9.6 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.8
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.

Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 42 1027
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary PM
5: Jefferson Blvd/Kegle Dr & Sacramento Ave Cumulative
Sacramento Corridor- Forecast PM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 190 385 510 195 325 20 415 310 195 20 225 110 Future Volume (veh/h) 190 385 510 195 325 20 415 310 195 20 225 110 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 192 389 0 197 328 7 419 313 100 20 227 97 Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 225 445 229 450 369 367 774 633 61 299 128
Arrive On Green 0.13 0.24 0.00 0.13 0.24 0.24 0.21 0.41 0.41 0.03 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1532 1781 1870 1529 1781 1233 527 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 192 389 0 197 328 7 419 313 100 20 0 324 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1532 1781 1870 1529 1781 0 1760 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.3 19.4 0.0 10.5 15.7 0.3 20.0 11.5 4.0 1.1 0.0 16.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.3 19.4 0.0 10.5 15.7 0.3 20.0 11.5 4.0 1.1 0.0 16.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.30
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 225 445 229 450 369 367 774 633 61 0 426 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.87 0.86 0.73 0.02 1.14 0.40 0.16 0.33 0.00 0.76 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 367 558 275 654 536 367 847 692 641 0 797 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.6 35.6 0.0 41.5 34.0 28.2 38.6 20.1 17.9 45.8 0.0 34.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.3 12.1 0.0 17.9 2.8 0.0 91.9 0.4 0.1 3.1 0.0 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/ln4.7 10.0 0.0 5.7 7.3 0.1 17.7 4.8 1.4 0.5 0.0 7.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.9 47.7 0.0 59.3 36.8 28.2 130.5 20.5 18.0 48.9 0.0 37.6 LnGrp LOS D D E D C F C B D A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 581 532 832 344
Approach Delay, s/veh 47.4 45.0 75.6 38.3
Approach LOS D D E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s24.0 28.5 16.3 28.4 7.3 45.2 16.5 28.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s20.0 44.0 20.0 34.0 35.0 44.0 15.0 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s22.0 18.6 12.3 17.7 3.1 13.5 12.5 21.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.6 0.1 2.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 1.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 55.7
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 43 1028
HCM 6th TWSC PM
6: Sacramento Ave & Douglas St Cumulative
Sacramento Corridor- Forecast PM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 145 445 0 0 385 25 0 0 0 30 0 125
Future Vol, veh/h 145 445 0 0 385 25 0 0 0 30 0 125
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 78 - - - - - - - - 0 - -
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, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 161 494 0 0 428 28 0 0 0 33 0 139
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 458 0 0 494 0 0 1328 1274 494 1260 - 444 Stage 1 - - - - - - 816 816 - 444 - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 512 458 - 816 - -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 - 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 - -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 - 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1103 - - 1070 - - 132 167 575 147 0 614 Stage 1 - - - - - - 371 391 - 593 0 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 545 567 - 371 0 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1101 - - 1070 - - 91 142 575 130 - 613 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 91 142 - 130 - -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 317 334 - 505 - -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 422 566 - 317 - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 2.2 0 0 24.1

HCM LOS A C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 1101 - - 1070 - - 357
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.146 - - - - - 0.482
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 8.8 - - 0 - - 24.1
HCM Lane LOS A A - - A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.5 - - 0 - - 2.5
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 44 1029
HCM 6th TWSC PM
7: Reuter Dr Cumulative
Sacramento Corridor- Forecast PM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 450 405 15 15 10
Future Vol, veh/h 20 450 405 15 15 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 2 0 0 2 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 22 495 445 16 16 11
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 463 0 - 0 994 455
Stage 1 - - - - 455 -
Stage 2 - - - - 539 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1098 - - - 272 605
Stage 1 - - - - 639 -
Stage 2 - - - - 585 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1096 - - - 265 604
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 265 -
Stage 1 - - - - 625 -
Stage 2 - - - - 584 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 0 16.4

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1096 - - - 342
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.02 - - - 0.08
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.4 0 - - 16.4
HCM Lane LOS A A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.3
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 45 1030
HCM 6th TWSC PM
8: 6th St Cumulative
Sacramento Corridor- Forecast PM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.8
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 25 430 405 60 50 30
Future Vol, veh/h 25 430 405 60 50 30
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
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 93 93 93 93 93 93
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 27 462 435 65 54 32
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 500 0 - 0 984 250
Stage 1 - - - - 468 -
Stage 2 - - - - 516 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.63 6.93
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.83 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.219 - - - 3.519 3.319
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1062 - - - 260 751
Stage 1 - - - - 597 -
Stage 2 - - - - 598 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1062 - - - 251 751
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 251 -
Stage 1 - - - - 577 -
Stage 2 - - - - 598 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0 19.4

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1062 - - - 335
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.025 - - - 0.257
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 0 - - 19.4
HCM Lane LOS A A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 1
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 46 1031
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary PM
9: C St & 5th St Cumulative
Sacramento Corridor- Forecast PM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 25 365 95 210 300 130 145 205 180 80 150 20 Future Volume (veh/h) 25 365 95 210 300 130 145 205 180 80 150 20 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 27 392 102 226 323 140 156 220 194 86 161 22 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 200 704 181 274 1046 457 205 452 376 200 774 104 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.15 0.29 0.29 0.12 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2787 716 1781 3554 1554 1781 1813 1509 1781 3143 422 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 27 248 246 226 323 140 156 215 199 86 90 93 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1726 1781 1777 1554 1781 1777 1545 1781 1777 1788 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.0 8.6 8.8 8.8 5.0 5.0 6.0 7.4 7.9 3.2 2.9 2.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.0 8.6 8.8 8.8 5.0 5.0 6.0 7.4 7.9 3.2 2.9 2.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.24
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 200 449 436 274 1046 457 205 443 385 200 438 441 V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 0.55 0.56 0.82 0.31 0.31 0.76 0.49 0.52 0.43 0.21 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 400 761 739 400 1522 666 400 774 673 400 774 779 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 28.5 23.1 23.2 29.2 19.5 19.5 30.5 22.8 23.0 29.5 21.3 21.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 3.2 3.5 7.2 0.5 1.2 3.9 2.4 3.1 1.0 0.7 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 3.9 3.9 4.2 2.1 1.9 2.7 3.2 3.0 1.4 1.2 1.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.7 26.4 26.7 36.4 20.0 20.6 34.5 25.2 26.1 30.5 22.0 22.0 LnGrp LOS C C C D C C C C C C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 521 689 570 269
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.6 25.5 28.1 24.7
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.0 21.7 15.0 22.5 12.2 21.5 12.0 25.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 31.0 16.0 30.5 16.0 31.0 16.0 30.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.2 9.9 10.8 10.8 8.0 4.9 3.0 7.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 5.1 0.2 6.3 0.2 2.1 0.0 6.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 47 1032
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary PM
10: C St & 3rd St Cumulative
Sacramento Corridor- Forecast PM Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 550 55 55 605 20 15 0 110 5 5 5 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 550 55 55 605 20 15 0 110 5 5 5 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.93 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 585 35 59 644 20 16 0 29 5 5 1
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, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 25 930 767 103 976 30 349 0 216 279 249 53
Arrive On Green 0.01 0.50 0.50 0.06 0.54 0.54 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1542 1781 1803 56 1325 0 1519 977 1748 369 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 11 585 35 59 0 664 16 0 29 7 0 4
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1542 1781 0 1859 1325 0 1519 1490 0 1604 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 10.3 0.5 1.5 0.0 11.5 0.5 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 10.3 0.5 1.5 0.0 11.5 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.23
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 25 930 767 103 0 1006 349 0 216 352 0 229 V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.63 0.05 0.57 0.00 0.66 0.05 0.00 0.13 0.02 0.00 0.02 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 475 1455 1199 792 0 1446 995 0 945 738 0 656 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.0 8.3 5.8 20.6 0.0 7.4 16.8 0.0 16.9 16.6 0.0 16.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.2 2.5 0.1 1.8 0.0 2.7 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.2 3.7 0.1 0.6 0.0 3.9 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.2 10.8 5.9 22.5 0.0 10.1 16.9 0.0 17.3 16.6 0.0 16.6 LnGrp LOS C B A C A B B A B B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 631 723 45 11
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.9 11.1 17.1 16.6
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s6.7 27.4 10.9 4.7 29.3 10.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 5.0 4.5 4.1 5.0 * 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s20.0 35.0 28.0 12.0 35.0 * 18 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s3.5 12.3 2.8 2.3 13.5 2.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 9.7 0.2 0.0 10.6 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 48 1033

LANE SUMMARY
Site: 101 [Cumulative AM (Site Folder: Harbor and Sac Ave )] New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Lane Use and Performance
DEMAND
FLOWS
95% BACK OF
Cap. QUEUE
Deg.

Satn
Lane
Util.

Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Lane
Config
Lane
Length
Cap.

Adj.

Prob.

Block.
[ Total HV ] [ Veh Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec ft ft % %
South: NB Harbor Boulevard
Lane 1d 268 3.0 858 0.313 100 7.7 LOS A 1.3 32.9 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 237 3.0 890 0.266 100 6.8 LOS A 1.1 27.3 Short 100 0.0 NA Approach 505 3.0 0.313 7.3 LOS A 1.3 32.9
East: WB Sac Avenue
Lane 1 418 3.0 1041 0.402 100 7.8 LOS A 2.1 52.5 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Lane 2d 418 3.0 1041 0.402 100 7.8 LOS A 2.1 52.5 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 837 3.0 0.402 7.8 LOS A 2.1 52.5
North: SB Harbor Boulevard
Lane 1d 153 3.0 582 0.262 100 9.7 LOS A 0.9 23.9 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 47 3.0 771 0.061 100 5.3 LOS A 0.2 5.3 Short 100 0.0 NA Approach 200 3.0 0.262 8.6 LOS A 0.9 23.9
West: EB Reed Avenue
Lane 1d 516 3.0 885 0.583 100 12.5 LOS B 5.0 129.0 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 379 3.0 884 0.428 100 9.2 LOS A 2.4 60.7 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 895 3.0 0.583 11.1 LOS B 5.0 129.0
Intersectio
n
2437 3.0 0.583 9.0 LOS A 5.0 129.0
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

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

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

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

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

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

Queue Model: HCM Queue Formula.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity: Traditional M1.

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. d Dominant lane on roundabout approach
Approach Lane Flows (veh/h)
South: NB Harbor Boulevard
Mov. L2 T1 R2 Total %HV
Cap.
veh/h
Deg.

Satn
v/c
Lane
Util.
%
Prob.

SL Ov.
%
Ov.

Lane
No.

From S
To Exit: W N E
Lane 1 147 121 - 268 3.0 858 0.313 100 NA NA
Lane 2 - - 237 237 3.0 890 0.266 100 0.0 1
Approach 147 121 237 505 3.0 0.313
East: WB Sac Avenue
Mov. L2 T1 R2 Total %HV
Cap.
veh/h
Deg.

Satn
v/c
Lane
Util.
%
Prob.

SL Ov.
%
Ov.

Lane
No.

From E
To Exit: S W N
Lane 1 321 97 - 418 3.0 1041 0.402 100 NA NA
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 49 1034
Lane 2 - 413 5 418 3.0 1041 0.402 100 NA NA
Approach 321 511 5 837 3.0 0.402
North: SB Harbor Boulevard
Mov. L2 T1 R2 Total %HV
Cap.
veh/h
Deg.

Satn
v/c
Lane
Util.
%
Prob.

SL Ov.
%
Ov.

Lane
No.

From N
To Exit: E S W
Lane 1 26 126 - 153 3.0 582 0.262 100 NA NA
Lane 2 - - 47 47 3.0 771 0.061 100 0.0 1
Approach 26 126 47 200 3.0 0.262
West: EB Reed Avenue
Mov. U L2 T1 R2 Total %HV
Cap.
veh/h
Deg.

Satn
v/c
Lane
Util.
%
Prob.

SL Ov.
%
Ov.

Lane
No.

From W
To Exit: W N E S
Lane 1 5 37 474 - 516 3.0 885 0.583 100 NA NA
Lane 2 - - - 379 379 3.0 884 0.428 100 NA NA
Approach 5 37 474 379 895 3.0 0.583
Total %HV Deg.Satn (v/c)
Intersection 2437 3.0 0.583
Lane flow rates given in this report are based on the arrival flow rates subject to upstream capacity constraint where applicable.

Merge Analysis
Exit
Lane
Number
Short
Lane
Length
Percent
Opng in
Lane
Opposing
Flow Rate
Critical
Gap
Follow-up
Headway
Lane
Flow
Rate
Capacity Deg.

Satn
Min.

Delay
Merge
Delay
ft %veh/h pcu/h sec sec veh/h veh/h v/c sec sec
South Exit: NB Harbor Boulevard
Merge Type: Not Applied
Full Length Lane 1 Merge Analysis not applied.

East Exit: WB Sac Avenue
Merge Type: Not Applied
Full Length Lane 1 Merge Analysis not applied.

Full Length Lane 2 Merge Analysis not applied.

North Exit: SB Harbor Boulevard
Merge Type: Not Applied
Full Length Lane 1 Merge Analysis not applied.

West Exit: EB Reed Avenue
Merge Type: Not Applied
Full Length Lane 1 Merge Analysis not applied.

Full Length Lane 2 Merge Analysis not applied.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.0 | Copyright © 2000-2020 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: GHD INC. | Licence: NETWORK / Enterprise | Processed: Wednesday, November 29, 2023 3:04:10 PM Project: \\ghdnet\ghd\US\Sacramento - 2200 21st\Projects\561\12587734\Tech\05 - Analysis\05_Concept Development \01_RoundaboutFeasibility&Exhibits\a_Roundabout Feasibility\sidra.sip9 Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 50 1035

LANE SUMMARY
Site: 101 [Future AM (Site Folder: Jefferson Intersection)] New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Lane Use and Performance
DEMAND
FLOWS
95% BACK OF
Cap. QUEUE
Deg.

Satn
Lane
Util.

Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Lane
Config
Lane
Length
Cap.

Adj.

Prob.

Block.
[ Total HV ] [ Veh Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec ft ft % %
South: NB Jefferson
Lane 1 380 3.0 1021 0.372 100 12.0 LOS B 2.8 72.9 Short 200 0.0 NA Lane 2d 429 3.0 1245 0.345 100 5.9 LOS A 2.7 69.9 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 810 3.0 0.372 8.8 LOS A 2.8 72.9
East: WB Sac
Lane 1 120 3.0 576 0.208 100 13.9 LOS B 1.0 24.4 Short 200 0.0 NA Lane 2d 217 3.0 733 0.296 100 7.6 LOS A 1.5 38.3 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 337 3.0 0.296 9.8 LOS A 1.5 38.3
North: SB Jefferson
Lane 1d 538 3.0 761 0.707 100 12.0 LOS B 6.3 161.5 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 538 3.0 0.707 12.0 LOS B 6.3 161.5
West: EB Sac
Lane 1d 310 3.0 1107 0.280 100 7.9 LOS A 2.1 52.6 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 549 3.0 1124 0.489 100 6.7 LOS A 4.1 104.7 Short 200 0.0 NA Approach 859 3.0 0.489 7.1 LOS A 4.1 104.7
Intersectio
n
2543 3.0 0.707 9.0 LOS A 6.3 161.5
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections.

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

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

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

Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard.

Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Geometric Delay is included).

Queue Model: HCM Queue Formula.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. d Dominant lane on roundabout approach
Approach Lane Flows (veh/h)
South: NB Jefferson
Mov. L2 T1 R2 Total %HV
Cap.
veh/h
Deg.

Satn
v/c
Lane
Util.
%
Prob.

SL Ov.
%
Ov.

Lane
No.

From S
To Exit: W N E
Lane 1 380 - - 380 3.0 1021 0.372 100 0.0 2
Lane 2 - 277 152 429 3.0 1245 0.345 100 NA NA
Approach 380 277 152 810 3.0 0.372
East: WB Sac
Mov. L2 T1 R2 Total %HV
Cap.
veh/h
Deg.

Satn
v/c
Lane
Util.
%
Prob.

SL Ov.
%
Ov.

Lane
No.

From E
To Exit: S W N
Lane 1 120 - - 120 3.0 576 0.208 100 0.0 2
Lane 2 - 196 22 217 3.0 733 0.296 100 NA NA
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 51 1036
Approach 120 196 22 337 3.0 0.296
North: SB Jefferson
Mov. L2 T1 R2 Total %HV
Cap.
veh/h
Deg.

Satn
v/c
Lane
Util.
%
Prob.

SL Ov.
%
Ov.

Lane
No.

From N
To Exit: E S W
Lane 1 16 380 141 538 3.0 761 0.707 100 NA NA
Approach 16 380 141 538 3.0 0.707
West: EB Sac
Mov. L2 T1 R2 Total %HV
Cap.
veh/h
Deg.

Satn
v/c
Lane
Util.
%
Prob.

SL Ov.
%
Ov.

Lane
No.

From W
To Exit: N E S
Lane 1 82 228 - 310 3.0 1107 0.280 100 NA NA
Lane 2 - - 549 549 3.0 1124 0.489 100 0.0 1
Approach 82 228 549 859 3.0 0.489
Total %HV Deg.Satn (v/c)
Intersection 2543 3.0 0.707
Lane flow rates given in this report are based on the arrival flow rates subject to upstream capacity constraint where applicable.

Merge Analysis
Exit
Lane
Number
Short
Lane
Length
Percent
Opng in
Lane
Opposing
Flow Rate
Critical
Gap
Follow-up
Headway
Lane
Flow
Rate
Capacity Deg.

Satn
Min.

Delay
Merge
Delay
ft %veh/h pcu/h sec sec veh/h veh/h v/c sec sec
South Exit: NB Jefferson
Merge Type: Not Applied
Full Length Lane 1 Merge Analysis not applied.

East Exit: WB Sac
Merge Type: Not Applied
Full Length Lane 1 Merge Analysis not applied.

North Exit: SB Jefferson
Merge Type: Not Applied
Full Length Lane 1 Merge Analysis not applied.

West Exit: EB Sac
Merge Type: Not Applied
Full Length Lane 1 Merge Analysis not applied.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.0 | Copyright © 2000-2020 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: GHD INC. | Licence: NETWORK / Enterprise | Processed: Friday, September 01, 2023 1:30:49 PM Project: \\ghdnet\ghd\US\Sacramento - 2200 21st\Projects\561\12587734\Tech\05 - Analysis\d_Roundabout Feasibility\sidra.sip9 Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 52 1037
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Cumulative Build 9: C St & 5th St AM
Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 235 125 130 140 65 70 130 125 145 260 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 5 235 125 130 140 65 70 130 125 145 260 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 6 273 145 151 163 76 81 151 145 169 302 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 189 346 184 198 371 173 189 213 204 215 467 19 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.30 0.30 0.11 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.12 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1143 607 1781 1205 562 1781 861 826 1781 1784 71 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 6 0 418 151 0 239 81 0 296 169 0 314 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1750 1781 0 1767 1781 0 1687 1781 0 1855 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 0.0 16.5 6.2 0.0 8.2 3.2 0.0 12.1 7.0 0.0 11.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 0.0 16.5 6.2 0.0 8.2 3.2 0.0 12.1 7.0 0.0 11.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.35 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.49 1.00 0.04
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 189 0 530 198 0 544 189 0 417 215 0 486 V/C Ratio(X) 0.03 0.00 0.79 0.76 0.00 0.44 0.43 0.00 0.71 0.79 0.00 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 377 0 706 377 0 713 377 0 692 377 0 761 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.3 0.0 24.1 32.6 0.0 20.9 31.7 0.0 26.0 32.3 0.0 24.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 8.4 4.2 0.0 1.7 1.1 0.0 6.4 4.3 0.0 4.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.0 7.8 2.9 0.0 3.5 1.4 0.0 5.3 3.1 0.0 5.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.4 0.0 32.5 36.8 0.0 22.6 32.7 0.0 32.4 36.6 0.0 28.9 LnGrp LOS C A C D A C C A C D A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 424 390 377 483
Approach Delay, s/veh 32.5 28.1 32.4 31.6
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.1 22.7 12.4 27.4 12.0 23.8 12.0 27.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 31.0 16.0 30.5 16.0 31.0 16.0 30.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.0 14.1 8.2 18.5 5.2 13.4 2.2 10.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 3.3 0.2 4.2 0.1 3.5 0.0 3.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 53 1038

LANE SUMMARY
Site: 101 [Cumulative PM (Site Folder: Harbor and Sac Ave )] New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Lane Use and Performance
DEMAND
FLOWS
95% BACK OF
Cap. QUEUE
Deg.

Satn
Lane
Util.

Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Lane
Config
Lane
Length
Cap.

Adj.

Prob.

Block.
[ Total HV ] [ Veh Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec ft ft % %
South: NB Harbor Boulevard
Lane 1d 505 3.0 622 0.812 100 30.0 LOS D 8.5 218.1 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 495 3.0 662 0.748 100 23.5 LOS C 7.0 178.7 Short 100 0.0 NA Approach 1000 3.0 0.812 26.8 LOS D 8.5 218.1
East: WB Sac Avenue
Lane 1 435 3.0 804 0.542 100 12.3 LOS B 3.9 100.4 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Lane 2d 435 3.0 804 0.542 100 12.3 LOS B 3.9 100.4 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 871 3.0 0.542 12.3 LOS B 3.9 100.4
North: SB Harbor Boulevard
Lane 1d 344 3.0 496 0.693 100 25.5 LOS D 4.5 115.1 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 204 3.0 662 0.309 100 9.4 LOS A 1.2 31.0 Short 100 0.0 NA Approach 548 3.0 0.693 19.5 LOS C 4.5 115.1
West: EB Reed Avenue
Lane 1 586 3.0 734 0.798 100 25.3 LOS D 10.2 261.5 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Lane 2d 586 3.0 734 0.798 100 25.3 LOS D 10.2 261.5 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 1172 3.0 0.798 25.3 LOS D 10.2 261.5
Intersectio
n
3591 3.0 0.812 21.7 LOS C 10.2 261.5
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

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

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

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

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

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

Queue Model: HCM Queue Formula.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity: Traditional M1.

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. d Dominant lane on roundabout approach
Approach Lane Flows (veh/h)
South: NB Harbor Boulevard
Mov. L2 T1 R2 Total %HV
Cap.
veh/h
Deg.

Satn
v/c
Lane
Util.
%
Prob.

SL Ov.
%
Ov.

Lane
No.

From S
To Exit: W N E
Lane 1 296 210 - 505 3.0 622 0.812 100 NA NA
Lane 2 - - 495 495 3.0 662 0.748 100 26.3 1
Approach 296 210 495 1000 3.0 0.812
East: WB Sac Avenue
Mov. L2 T1 R2 Total %HV
Cap.
veh/h
Deg.

Satn
v/c
Lane
Util.
%
Prob.

SL Ov.
%
Ov.

Lane
No.

From E
To Exit: S W N
Lane 1 328 108 - 435 3.0 804 0.542 100 NA NA
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 54 1039
Lane 2 - 430 5 435 3.0 804 0.542 100 NA NA
Approach 328 538 5 871 3.0 0.542
North: SB Harbor Boulevard
Mov. L2 T1 R2 Total %HV
Cap.
veh/h
Deg.

Satn
v/c
Lane
Util.
%
Prob.

SL Ov.
%
Ov.

Lane
No.

From N
To Exit: E S W
Lane 1 75 269 - 344 3.0 496 0.693 100 NA NA
Lane 2 - - 204 204 3.0 662 0.309 100 0.0 1
Approach 75 269 204 548 3.0 0.693
West: EB Reed Avenue
Mov. U L2 T1 R2 Total %HV
Cap.
veh/h
Deg.

Satn
v/c
Lane
Util.
%
Prob.

SL Ov.
%
Ov.

Lane
No.

From W
To Exit: W N E S
Lane 1 5 65 516 - 586 3.0 734 0.798 100 NA NA
Lane 2 - - 247 339 586 3.0 734 0.798 100 NA NA
Approach 5 65 763 339 1172 3.0 0.798
Total %HV Deg.Satn (v/c)
Intersection 3591 3.0 0.812
Lane flow rates given in this report are based on the arrival flow rates subject to upstream capacity constraint where applicable.

Merge Analysis
Exit
Lane
Number
Short
Lane
Length
Percent
Opng in
Lane
Opposing
Flow Rate
Critical
Gap
Follow-up
Headway
Lane
Flow
Rate
Capacity Deg.

Satn
Min.

Delay
Merge
Delay
ft %veh/h pcu/h sec sec veh/h veh/h v/c sec sec
South Exit: NB Harbor Boulevard
Merge Type: Not Applied
Full Length Lane 1 Merge Analysis not applied.

East Exit: WB Sac Avenue
Merge Type: Not Applied
Full Length Lane 1 Merge Analysis not applied.

Full Length Lane 2 Merge Analysis not applied.

North Exit: SB Harbor Boulevard
Merge Type: Not Applied
Full Length Lane 1 Merge Analysis not applied.

West Exit: EB Reed Avenue
Merge Type: Not Applied
Full Length Lane 1 Merge Analysis not applied.

Full Length Lane 2 Merge Analysis not applied.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.0 | Copyright © 2000-2020 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: GHD INC. | Licence: NETWORK / Enterprise | Processed: Wednesday, November 29, 2023 3:01:08 PM Project: \\ghdnet\ghd\US\Sacramento - 2200 21st\Projects\561\12587734\Tech\05 - Analysis\05_Concept Development \01_RoundaboutFeasibility&Exhibits\a_Roundabout Feasibility\sidra.sip9 Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 55 1040

LANE SUMMARY
Site: 101 [Future PM (Site Folder: Jefferson Intersection)] New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Lane Use and Performance
DEMAND
FLOWS
95% BACK OF
Cap. QUEUE
Deg.

Satn
Lane
Util.

Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Lane
Config
Lane
Length
Cap.

Adj.

Prob.

Block.
[ Total HV ] [ Veh Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec ft ft % %
South: NB Jefferson
Lane 1 419 3.0 740 0.566 100 17.2 LOS B 5.6 144.1 Short 200 0.0 NA Lane 2d 510 3.0 963 0.530 100 9.0 LOS A 5.3 135.8 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 929 3.0 0.566 12.7 LOS B 5.6 144.1
East: WB Sac
Lane 1 197 3.0 478 0.412 100 16.2 LOS B 2.2 57.5 Short 200 0.0 NA Lane 2d 348 3.0 616 0.566 100 10.8 LOS B 3.9 99.6 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 545 3.0 0.566 12.7 LOS B 3.9 99.6
North: SB Jefferson
Lane 1d 359 3.0 633 0.566 100 11.6 LOS B 3.9 99.9 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 359 3.0 0.566 11.6 LOS B 3.9 99.9
West: EB Sac
Lane 1d 581 3.0 1200 0.484 100 8.3 LOS A 3.9 98.6 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 515 3.0 1220 0.422 100 6.1 LOS A 3.2 81.4 Short 200 0.0 NA Approach 1096 3.0 0.484 7.3 LOS A 3.9 98.6
Intersectio
n
2929 3.0 0.566 10.5 LOS B 5.6 144.1
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections.

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

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

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

Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard.

Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Geometric Delay is included).

Queue Model: HCM Queue Formula.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D).

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. d Dominant lane on roundabout approach
Approach Lane Flows (veh/h)
South: NB Jefferson
Mov. L2 T1 R2 Total %HV
Cap.
veh/h
Deg.

Satn
v/c
Lane
Util.
%
Prob.

SL Ov.
%
Ov.

Lane
No.

From S
To Exit: W N E
Lane 1 419 - - 419 3.0 740 0.566 100 0.0 2
Lane 2 - 313 197 510 3.0 963 0.530 100 NA NA
Approach 419 313 197 929 3.0 0.566
East: WB Sac
Mov. L2 T1 R2 Total %HV
Cap.
veh/h
Deg.

Satn
v/c
Lane
Util.
%
Prob.

SL Ov.
%
Ov.

Lane
No.

From E
To Exit: S W N
Lane 1 197 - - 197 3.0 478 0.412 100 0.0 2
Lane 2 - 328 20 348 3.0 616 0.566 100 NA NA
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 56 1041
Approach 197 328 20 545 3.0 0.566
North: SB Jefferson
Mov. L2 T1 R2 Total %HV
Cap.
veh/h
Deg.

Satn
v/c
Lane
Util.
%
Prob.

SL Ov.
%
Ov.

Lane
No.

From N
To Exit: E S W
Lane 1 20 227 111 359 3.0 633 0.566 100 NA NA
Approach 20 227 111 359 3.0 0.566
West: EB Sac
Mov. L2 T1 R2 Total %HV
Cap.
veh/h
Deg.

Satn
v/c
Lane
Util.
%
Prob.

SL Ov.
%
Ov.

Lane
No.

From W
To Exit: N E S
Lane 1 192 389 - 581 3.0 1200 0.484 100 NA NA
Lane 2 - - 515 515 3.0 1220 0.422 100 0.0 1
Approach 192 389 515 1096 3.0 0.484
Total %HV Deg.Satn (v/c)
Intersection 2929 3.0 0.566
Lane flow rates given in this report are based on the arrival flow rates subject to upstream capacity constraint where applicable.

Merge Analysis
Exit
Lane
Number
Short
Lane
Length
Percent
Opng in
Lane
Opposing
Flow Rate
Critical
Gap
Follow-up
Headway
Lane
Flow
Rate
Capacity Deg.

Satn
Min.

Delay
Merge
Delay
ft %veh/h pcu/h sec sec veh/h veh/h v/c sec sec
South Exit: NB Jefferson
Merge Type: Not Applied
Full Length Lane 1 Merge Analysis not applied.

East Exit: WB Sac
Merge Type: Not Applied
Full Length Lane 1 Merge Analysis not applied.

North Exit: SB Jefferson
Merge Type: Not Applied
Full Length Lane 1 Merge Analysis not applied.

West Exit: EB Sac
Merge Type: Not Applied
Full Length Lane 1 Merge Analysis not applied.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.0 | Copyright © 2000-2020 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: GHD INC. | Licence: NETWORK / Enterprise | Processed: Friday, September 01, 2023 1:34:41 PM Project: \\ghdnet\ghd\US\Sacramento - 2200 21st\Projects\561\12587734\Tech\05 - Analysis\d_Roundabout Feasibility\sidra.sip9 Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 57 1042
HCM 6th TWSC Cumulative Build
8: 6th St PM
Synchro 11 Report
GHD
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.8
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 25 430 405 60 50 30
Future Vol, veh/h 25 430 405 60 50 30
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0000
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 93 93 93 93 93 93
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2222
Mvmt Flow 27 462 435 65 54 32
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 500 0 - 0 984 468
Stage 1 - - - - 468 -
Stage 2 - - - - 516 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1064 - - - 275 595
Stage 1 - - - - 630 -
Stage 2 - - - - 599 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1064 - - - 266 595
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 266 -
Stage 1 - - - - 609 -
Stage 2 - - - - 599 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0 19.4

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1064 - - - 336
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.025 - - - 0.256
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 0 - - 19.4
HCM Lane LOS A A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 1
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 58 1043
Appendix B: Intersection Traffic
Count Data
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 59 1044
ID: 22-070243-001 Day:

City: West Sacramento Date:

AM 39 99 20 0 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 160 207 57 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0000 0 605
0 415 0 404
503 00 256 0 254
30 0 52 0 TEV 1932 0 2785 0 000
373 0 592 0 PHF 0.95 0.93
301 0 263 0 0000

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 230 162 382 PM
NOON 0000 NOON
AM 0 117 97 188 AM
0 NONE
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 220
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Harbor Blvd & Reed Ave/Sacramento Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Harbor Blvd Thursday
SOUTHBOUND 11/17/2022

PEAK HOURS
3:00 PM - 06:00 PM
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM 132 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM

COUNT PERIODS
NONE
1031 0 581
Totals (AM) 726 Total Bikes (AM)
Reed Ave/Sacramento Ave

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
Reed Ave/Sacramento Ave
565 0 808

CONTROL
Signalized
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 654

NORTHBOUND
Harbor Blvd
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)

AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
0 0
0 0
0 0
40 120
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 10 000 0
1 2
1 1
4 0
110
002
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 2
0 3
0 0
010
100
6 415
263 256
592
52 16020757
230162382
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
5 404
301 254
373
30 399920
11797188
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 60 1045
ID: 22-070243-002 Day:

City: West Sacramento Date:

AM 23 0 14 0 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 21 0 19 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0000 0 27 0 9
0 696 0 614
001 00 100
18 0 44 0 TEV 1266 0 1844 0 000
584 0 1033 0 PHF 0.96 0.95
101 0 0000

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0100 PM
NOON 0000 NOON
AM 0201 AM
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 1

NORTHBOUND
Solano St
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)
NONE
1052 0 599
Totals (AM) 2 Total Bikes (AM)
Sacramento Ave

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
Sacramento Ave
639 0 719

CONTROL
1-Way Stop(SB)
0 NONE
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 71
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Solano St & Sacramento Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Solano St Thursday
SOUTHBOUND 11/17/2022

PEAK HOURS
3:00 PM - 06:00 PM
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM 27 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM

COUNT PERIODS

AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
0 0
1 0
0 0
50 210
4 0
0 0
0 0
0 00 020 0
1 5
0 1
7 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 5
0 0
1 0
000
000
27 696
1 1
1033
44 21019
100
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
9 614
1 0
584
18 23014
201
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 61 1046
ID: 22-070243-003 Day:

City: West Sacramento Date:

AM 117 0 80 0 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 98 0 64 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0000 0 59 0 92
0 645 0 499
000 00 000
108 0 107 0 TEV 1370 0 1878 0 000
474 0 903 0 PHF 0.94 0.92
001 0 0000

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0100 PM
NOON 0000 NOON
AM 0000 AM
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 0

NORTHBOUND
Bryte Ave
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)
NONE
967 0 554
Totals (AM) 1 Total Bikes (AM)
Sacramento Ave

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
Sacramento Ave
616 0 744

CONTROL
Signalized
0 NONE
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM 166
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Bryte Ave & Sacramento Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Bryte Ave Thursday
SOUTHBOUND 11/17/2022

PEAK HOURS
3:00 PM - 06:00 PM
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM 200 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM

COUNT PERIODS

AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
0 0
0 0
0 1
40 310
4 0
0 3
0 0
1 00 000 1
1 4
0 0
6 2
001
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 2
0 0
3 1
100
000
59 645
1 0
903
107
98064
100
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
92 499
0 0
474
108
117080
000
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 62 1047
ID: 22-070243-004 Day:

City: West Sacramento Date:

AM 129 13 147 0 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 84 8 69 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0000 0 94 0 105
0 576 0 445
001 00 24 0 10
82 0 132 0 TEV 1471 0 1874 0 000
455 0 789 0 PHF 0.89 0.94
7 0 34 0 0000

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 28 7 28 PM
NOON 0000 NOON
AM 0 19 21 38 AM
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 30

NORTHBOUND
Todhunter Ave/Sierra Pl
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)
NONE
886 0 640
Totals (AM) 66 Total Bikes (AM)
Sacramento Ave

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
Sacramento Ave
593 0 689

CONTROL
Signalized
0 NONE
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 233
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Todhunter Ave/Sierra Pl & Sacramento Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Todhunter Ave/Sierra Pl Thursday
SOUTHBOUND 11/17/2022

PEAK HOURS
3:00 PM - 06:00 PM
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM 208 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM

COUNT PERIODS

AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
1 0
2 3
0 3
30 120
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 10 110 0
1 3
2 0
6 0
000
200
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 2
0 0
3 0
000
000
94 576
34 24
789
132
84869
28728
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
105
445
7 10
455
82 12913147
192138
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 63 1048
ID: 22-070243-005 Day:

City: West Sacramento Date:

AM 110 292 11 0 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 93 188 18 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0000 0 17 0 15
0 270 0 151
000 00 161 0 92
61 0 154 0 TEV 1949 0 2403 0 000
177 0 317 0 PHF 0.89 0.99
420 0 416 0 0000

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 345 260 164 PM
NOON 0000 NOON
AM 0 293 211 116 AM
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 804

NORTHBOUND
Kegle Dr/Jefferson Blvd
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)
NONE
499 0 304
Totals (AM) 765 Total Bikes (AM)
Sacramento Ave

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
Sacramento Ave
554 0 708

CONTROL
Signalized
0 NONE
04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 431
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Kegle Dr/Jefferson Blvd & Sacramento Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Kegle Dr/Jefferson Blvd Thursday
SOUTHBOUND 11/17/2022

PEAK HOURS
3:00 PM - 06:00 PM
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM 287 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM

COUNT PERIODS

AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
1 0
1 0
0 0
10 110
0 6
0 1
3 0
2 20 100 3
0 1
2 1
4 1
010
321
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 1
3 0
1 0
010
110
17 270
416 161
317
154
9318818
345260164
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
15 151
420 92
177
61 11029211
293211116
Sacramento Avenue Complete Street Plan Appendix | Page 64 1049
ID: 22-070243-006 Day: