The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/14/1993, 1 - CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAFT BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN ^1YUIIIIu `` THIS IS l (EW AGENDA REPORT MEEnNG DATE: �uMl ►�H��IIU�`� City Of SAn LUIS OBISPO September 14 199 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT RE"NUMBER: / FROM: Michael McCluskey, Public Works Dir PREPARED BY: Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner SUBJECT: Continued Consideration of the Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan CAO RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should adopt a resolution: A. Adopting the Bicycle Committee's recommended Bicycle Transportation Plan with additional amendments suggested by Staff. B. Approving the Negative Declaration for the Bicycle Transportation Plan (including specified mitigation). A. PREVIOUS COUNCIL REVIEW On August 31, 1993, the City Council held a public hearing to on the Bicycle Plan. Public Works staff and Richard Marshall (Chairman of the Bicycle Committee) made a presentation to the Council followed by testimony from 55 people. The public testimony portion of the hearing was closed and the Council continued the hearing to September 14, 1993 without comment. B. A SHORT STAFF RESPONSE TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY Bike lanes on Marsh Street vs. Pacific Street as a bicycle boulevard continued to be a hot topic along with bike lanes on Johnson Avenue. There was less testimony concerning the north Broad Street bicycle boulevard project than anticipated by staff. A few new topics were raised that warrant a brief response. 1. The "SLOW STREET" Concept: Berkeley uses a "slow street" design concept to better integrate bicycle traffic with vehicle traffic. The City should consider using this concept for Pacific Street (Source: Chamber of Commerce). Response: The slow street concept can significantly effect traffic speed. However, there is no need to slow traffic down on Pacific Street as speeds are already minimal. (If a bicycle boulevard was proposed for Marsh Street, then speed reduction measures might be appropriate.) Installing traffic flow diverters (either mid-block turn diverters or the "wiggle street" design) as used in Berkeley could be a viable means of creating a bicycle boulevard. They also result in some removal of on-street parking. 2. Delay Implementation Of Marsh Street Bike Lanes for One Year: the City should delay implementation of Marsh Street bike lanes for one year to allow for a full investigation of Pacific Street concepts (Source: Chamber of Commerce, BIA, Sierra Club). ��1 ��NIII pn i��ll city of San LUIS OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Response: One objective of the Bike Plan is to identify the most direct and convenient route for bicycle traffic in the downtown and make changes to that route to improve safety and attractiveness. Marsh Street is a more direct route than Pacific Street. It provides direct access to downtown destinations and connections to SLO High School and to streets (e.g. Chorro, Santa Rosa, Johnson, California) that link the downtown with north City areas. Staff believes that the City Council needs to give specific direction in identifying a bicycle route in the downtown -- eg. selecting either Marsh Street or Pacific Street. Improvements to Pacific Street will not make it more direct than Marsh Street. The essential question becomes: will improvements to Pacific Street make it more convenient than Marsh Street to such an extent that cyclists will be drawn to use Pacific and avoid Marsh? If the Council chooses Pacific Street as the preferred route, the challenge will be to design the bike boulevard in such a way to create that environment. Staff's analysis of bicycle boulevard options shows that it is physically feasible to establish a bicycle boulevard on Pacific Street. The costs of such a project can be significant. The impacts on on-street parking and area circulation can also be significant. Assuming an agreed-upon design can be developed for Pacific Street, its effectiveness in attracting bicyclists from Marsh Street will only be known after it is installed and monitored. The BIA, Chamber of Commerce and the Sierra Club have expressed the desire to design the bike boulevard using City staff as a resource. Staff feels that, if the Council identifies Pacific Street as the preferred route, staff should work with affected property owners and tenants, using the BIA, Chamber and Sierra Club as advisors and resources for review and input. 3. Future Traffic Levels on Marsh Street: the Consultant's analysis of Marsh Street turn pockets and required parking removal did not take into account future traffic levels caused by additional development (Source: BIA Parking Committee). Response: This is correct and as a result, the staff has asked ATE to evaluate intersection operations based on traffic growth on Marsh Street (10 to 40%) and on the cross streets (20 to 50%) as indicated by the citywide traffic model used to develop the draft Circulation Element. The Consultant's report is attached as Exhibit "A." The study concludes that: • Overall intersection operations would not be adversely affected by the proposed restriping project under buildout traffic volumes. • The turn pocket lengths recommended by the Consultant to handle existing traffic levels would continue to work under build out conditions; no additional parking would need to be removed. "Given the short cycle length the average number of through vehicles arriving per lane per cycle would be between 6 and 7, would ,111111IIII1I10111$ city of san Luis oBispo WhiMs COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT allow the 150-foot turn lanes to operate effectively with heavy turning movements." ♦ The Level of service at intersections on Marsh Street would deteriorate from LOS B to LOS C at some locations under either the proposed lane configuration or the existing lane configuration (i.e. no bike lanes). In effect, the traffic engineer's recommendations for turn pocket lengths is conservative for existing traffic conditions and realistic for future build-out conditions. 4. Use of Johnson Avenue Curb Parking by Payless/Scolari's Employees. The City Planning Commission approved the Payless Drug Store and Scolari's Market project with the assumption that spill over.employee parking demand would be met through the use of existing curb parking along Johnson Avenue. (Source: area resident.) Response. The Planning Commission approved a "mixed use parking reduction" of 33 parking spaces for the project (Resolution 5105-92). Finding #1 of the Commission's resolution states: "There is no evidence to indicate that this level of deficiency would result in poor on-site circulation or adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. In fact, there has been evidence presented at this and numerous other public hearings that residents of the surrounding neighborhood walk or ride bicycles to the site [emphasis added]." (The proposed bicycle lanes on Johnson Avenue will foster bicycle access to the project.) Also, the project sponsors were required to submit a trip reduction program that involves all project tenants that would reduce auto use by employees. An Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) goal of 1.5 was set. There is nothing in the Planning Commission's findings that identify the existence of existing curb parking as a rationale for approving the parking reduction. 5. Parking Removal on Osos Street: Removal of parking will have adverse effects on tenants of adjoining apartments. Parking limits will limit the marketability of area rental housing. (Source: property owner along Osos Street between Leff and Pismo Streets.) Response. The Bicycle Committee has recommended that parking be retained along Osos Street, that the travel lanes be striped at 10 feet and that a single four-foot northbound bike lane be installed on the outside of parking along the east side of Osos Street. A bicycle boulevard on Morro Street would provide for southbound cyclists. No parking would be removed on either street. 6. Closing Broad Street at Ramona Street. To reduce traffic impacts on Murray and Meniecke Street, the bicycle boulevard should be established on Broad Street by closing Broad just south of Ramona Street. (Source: area residents.) ��fl� ►IVIIIII�IiI��`I City of SAn LUIS OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Response. Through traffic that currently uses Broad-Murray-Chorro or Broad-Minecke- Chorro would be diverted to Foothill Boulevard. Southbound traffic levels would still increase on Chorro and Santa Rosa Streets. Northbound traffic impacts on Chorro Street would likely remain the same. Level of service at the Foothill-Broad intersection would improve while level of service at the Foothill-Chorro intersection would degrade. Local traffic from the neighborhood (and possibly some out-of-area traffic) would use the cross streets (e.g. Murray Streets and streets south of it), Broad, Serrano Drive, Palomar and Ramona Drives to access the Lucky Shopping Center (to avoid busy intersections on Foothill Boulevard. Traffic levels on these connecting streets would increase. In sum, traffic levels on Broad Street, Murray and Minecke Streets and Ramona Street (east of Palomar) would decrease while also meeting environmental standards recommended by the draft Circulation Element. It is unknown whether traffic levels on Serrano or Palomar Drives would meet or exceed standards for "local streets." Traffic increases on these streets would probably be noticeable to area residents. The closure of Broad at Ramona mitigates part of the impacts on the cross streets but may not fully mitigate Chorro Street traffic and introduces neighborhood traffic to Serrano Drive and Palomar and Ramona (west of Palomar). The City Council should determine that: A. The level of traffic diversion caused by this alternative is not a significant adverse effect and support this option; or B. The level of traffic diversion caused by the Bicycle Committee's alternative is not a significant environmental effect and support the Committee's recommendation; or C. Traffic diversion caused by either bike boulevard option is a significant environmental effect and identify a specific mitigation measure. C. A SHORT LIST OF DECISIONS Staff suggests that the City Council discuss and make a specific decisions concerning the following elements of the Bicycle Plan. After deciding on the following, the Council should approve a resolution (Exhibit 1 of August 31 agenda report) adopting the Bicycle Transportation Plan. Focused Decisions 1. Marsh Street Bicycle Lanes vs. Pacific Street Bicycle Boulevard. 2. Johnson Avenue bicycle lanes. �� ►��hlll � �� ► city of Santis OBlspo Wjj�%I�II COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 3. Environmental Determination: Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard and Mitigation Options. 4. Bicycle Committee Recommendation #4: Establishing a Long-Term Goal of Bike Lanes on All Arterial Streets. Council to support staff recommendations on the remaining 22 amendments to draft plan; 5. Other specific items raised by Council Members. ATTACBAlENTS Level of Service Analysis of Marsh Street (Associated Transportation Engineers, August 30, 1993) 5 Coordinate slonale end reduce cycle length =_ dill �`��'• 1 \�� .. �... a �... 4 Aad .tree ►'- _rl;t:t turn leci . .._ { . -- IMI ► �l � r I . I � , . C ke Intersection down to . — Choke intersection down 3 foot travel.way .through, :;to 32 foot travel way. In ersectton.otf seta. _ - 'Add 4.way stop control A d textured walk.. 'and .textured crosswalks I ' IIIc 11.111 ! 11 Proposed Closure �ocatlon i \ / Ada :;• I�`" textured crosswalks . . . ..... .. . .. . . . Flgqre . city Of -NEAR TERM RECOMMENDED Sah LUIS OBISPO IMPROVEMENTS o,misd..unotlo ..o,aoo•UnU"oawo,e.d.a.&W Broad—Murray Area I1 . • " ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS- 1 DD NGINEERS.100 N. Hope Avenue, Suite 4, Sarna Barbara, CA 93110 • FAX (805) 682-8509 • (805) 68/7-4418 Maynard Keith Franklin,P.E. D lJ 15 Robert L.Faris,P.E. D Richard L.Pool,P.E. Scott A.Schell AUG 3 19% CITY PUBLIC�ORK$/I(SJTOj IES August 30, 1993 ATE #93015_01.L02 Mr. Terry Sanville City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department 955 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR THE MARSH STREET RESTRIPING PROJECT, CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA The following letter presents the results of Associated Transportation Engineers' (ATE) level of service (LOS) analysis for the Marsh Street Restriping Project. This report incorporates and updates the findings of our previous analysis completed for existing traffic conditions(ATE letter dated February 18, 1993) and includes an additional analysis of the restriping project assuming buildout traffic volumes. BACKGROUND The Marsh Street Restriping Project entails restriping the downtown one-way section of Marsh Street from the existing configuration of three through lanes to two lanes with bike lanes on each side of the street. The existing geometrics at the Marsh Street intersection approaches would also be modified. ATE analyzed the effects of the restriping project at the following three intersections identified by the City. Study Intersections 1. Marsh Street/Santa Rosa Street 2. Marsh Street/Chorro Street 3. Marsh Street/Broad Street Engineering • Planning . Parking . Signal Systems . Impact Reports . Bikeways * Transit Mr. Terry Sanville Page 2 August 30, 1993 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE City staff provided ATE with 1992 Noon and P.M. peak hour turning movement volumes, signal timing data, as well as existing and proposed geometrics and lane widths for each of the three study intersections. For the buildout analysis, City staff also provided traffic model growth factors,which were applied to the existing traffic volumes in order to develop future intersection volume forecasts. Figure 1 (see attachments) illustrates the growth factors which were used to forecast buildout traffic volumes. Levels of service for the three signalized intersections were calculated using a computer software program published by the Federal Highway Administration. This software program emulates the signalized intersection level of service methodology outlined in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).' Worksheets showing the level of service calculations are attached for reference. For the existing geometric scenario, the following lane configurations were assumed for the Marsh Street approaches at Chorro Street and Broad Street: a through-plus-left-tum lane, a through lane, and a through-plus-right-tum lane. The existing geometric configuration assumed at the Santa Rosa Street intersection includes a left-tum lane, a through-plus-left-tum lane and a through-plus-right-tum lane. The proposed lane configurations assumed for the Marsh Street approaches at Chotro and Broad Streets include a separate left-tum lane, two through lanes, and a separate right-tum lane. Pursuant to City staff's request, two lane configuration scenarios were analyzed for Marsh Street at Santa Rosa Street. The first Marsh Street lane configuration, termed Geometrics A, assumes dual left-tum lanes, a through lane, and a through-plus-right-tum lane. The second Marsh Street lane configuration,termed Geometrics B,assumes one left-tum lane,one shared left-through lane, one through lane, and one right-tum lane. Existing intersection signal timing data provided by the City was used in calculating levels of service for both the existing and proposed geometric scenarios. Table 1 lists the average vehicle delay and corresponding levels of service for the three study intersections assuming the existing and proposed geometrics under existing traffic conditions. It should be noted that the values presented in Table 1 are slightly different than the levels of service listed in our February 18, 1993 report due to adjustments made regarding the amount of parking available adjacent to the intersections. Table 2 lists the same information assuriting buildout volumes. ' Hiahway Capacity Manual, Highway Research Board Special Report 209,Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1985. �`O Mr. Terry Sanville Page 3 August 30, 1993 Table 1 Existing Volumes Levels of Service with Existing and Proposed Geometries Noon Peak Hodr IOS�a P.lut. Peak .... LOS(a) d Proposed nbersectiou Oeometncs Geometncs ;eometrics Geometrus Marsh SL/Santa Rosa St 8.4 secJLOS B — 9.0 sec./LOS B — Geometrics A — 7.4 sec4WS B — 7.7 sec./LOS B Geometries B — 8.0 secJLOS B — 8.4 secJLOS B Marsh St/Chorro SL 7.9 secJWS B 7.8 sec./LOS B 7.8 sec./LOS B 8.1 sec./LOS B Marsh St/Broad St. 7.5 sec./LOS B 83 sec./LOS B 7.4 sec./LOS B 8.0 sec./LOS B (a)LOS values differ slightly from 2/18/93 report due to adjustments in adjacem paddng availability. The data presented in Table 1 indicate that overall intersection operations would not be adversely affected by the proposed restriping project, assuming existing traffic volumes. Vehicle delays and intersection levels of service would remain well within the LOS B range with the proposed restriping modifications. The operation of several intersections would, in fact improve slightly with the revised geometric configurations. Table 2 Buildout Volumes Levels of Service with Existing and Proposed Geometries �ionn Peak LOS ` P.M Peak Hots L05; lmstmg proposed; Eaeshog Purposed intersection +Gebntetncs ! rGeometrka Georaetrice Geameta3cs Marsh SL/Santa Rosa St. 163 sec./LOS C — 22.3 sec./LOS C Geometrics A — 8.9 secJLOS B — 10.1 sec./LOS B Geometries B — 9.9 sec./LOS B — 11.4 sec./LOS B Marsh St/C.'h0ao St 8.9 sec./LOS B 9.0 sec./LOS B 8.8 secJWS B 9S sec./LOS B Marsh SL/Broad SL 8.1 secJLOS B 9.0 secJLOS B 8.1 sec./LOS B 8.8 secJLOS B �-9 Mr. Terry Sanville Page 4 August 30, 1993 The data presented in Table 2 indicate that overall intersection operations would not be adversely affected by the proposed restriping project with the projected buildout traffic volumes. Vehicle delays and intersection levels of service would remain within the LOS B range with the proposed rest riping modifications. Should the existing striping on Marsh Street remain in place with the addition of buildout volumes, the intersection of Marsh Street/Santa Rosa Street would degrade to LOS C during both the Noon (16.3 second delay) and P.M. (22.3 second delay) peak hour periods. The intersection would operate in the LOS B range during the Noon and P.M. peak hour periods with Geometrics A or B. ADEQUACY OF TURN POCKET LENGTHS ATE also analyzed the adequacy of the left- and right-turn pocket lengths proposed under the new striping plan, and determined recommended minimum pocket lengths. Table 3 lists the recommended tum pocket lengths at each of the three intersections. A discussion of the storage lengths is provided following the table. Table 3 Marsh Street Turn Pocket Lengths to uIntersectomutg Bru'ldont Existing 8wldont Marsh St./Santa Rosa St. Geometrics A - Left 686 960 150 feet 150 feet Geometrics A - Through+Right 207 308 100 feet 100 feet Geometrics B - Left 686 960 150 feet 150 feet Geometrics B -Right 25 35 65 feet 65 feet Marsh St./Choiro St. Proposed Geometrics - Left (a) 179 215 150 feet 150 feet Proposed Geometrics - Right 68 82 100 feet 100 feet Marsh StJBroad St. Proposed Geometrics - Left (a) 90 99 100 feet 100 feet Proposed Geometrics - Right 139 153 100 feet 100 feet (a) Pocket lengths differ from 2/18/93 report due to typographical error which reversed recommendations for Chorro Street and Broad Street. NO Mr. Terry Sanville Page 5 August 30, 1993 The maximum pocket lengths recommended for the Marsh Street intersections under both the existing and buildout scenarios were set at 150 feet because of the rather short cycle lengths used by the City in this area. Given the short cycle lengths, the average number of through vehicles arriving per lane per cycle would be between 6 and 7,which would allow the 150-foot tum lanes to operate effectively with heavy turning movements. Marsh Street/Santa Rosa Street: Given the heavy left-tum volumes experienced on the Marsh Street approach (686 vehicles existing and 960 vehicles future),the left-tum lane proposed under Geometrics A should be lengthened to a minimum of 150 feet. The through-plus-right-tum lane proposed under Geometrics A should be lengthened to a minimum of 100 feet. Tum pockets with shorter lengths would greatly reduce the capacity of the lanes as vehicles queuing in the center two lanes would effectively preclude their use. If Geometrics B are implemented,the left-tum lane would require a minimum length of 150 feet. The right-tum lane would operate acceptably with the proposed length of 65 feet given the low volume of right-turns (both existing and buildout conditions). Marsh Street/Chorro Street: The existing Noon peak hour left-tum volume on Marsh Street is 179 vehicles and the buildout left-turn volume is forecast at 215 vehicles. It is therefore recommended that the left-tum pocket be striped with a minimum length of 150-feet. The right- tum lane should also be extended to a minimum length of 100 feet to be more functional under existing conditions, as well as accommodate traffic growth associated with buildout. Marsh Street/Broad Street: It is recommended that the left-tum lane on Marsh Street be extended to a minimum length of 100 feet to be more functional under existing conditions, as well as accommodate traffic growth. The right-tum lane should also be striped with a minimum length of 100 feet. The maximum pocket lengths recommended for the Marsh Street intersections under both the existing and buildout scenarios were set at 150 feet because of the rather short cycle lengths used by the City in this area. Given the short cycle lengths, the average number of cars arriving per cycle would be between 6 and 7, which would allow 150-foot turn lanes to operate effectively. If the tum pocket lengths discussed above are found to be ineffective after implementation, they may be lengthened in the future, at the cost of on-street parking spaces. It should be noted that these minimum lengths have been recommended in order to provide more effective capacity for the lanes, as their use will be influenced by vehicles queuing in the adjacent through lanes. Lastly, it is noted that additional on-street parking space removal may be required to provide efficient traffic operations as traffic grows in the future. /-It Mr. Terry Sanville Page 6 August 30, 1993 This concludes our analysis and report on the Marsh Street Restriping Project. Please call me if you have any questions regarding the findings of the report. Associated Transportation Engineers Scott A. Schell, AICP Principal Transportation Planner SAS/JAH/DLD:wp Attachments: Figure 1 - Buildout Traffic Growth Factors Level of Service Calculation Worksheets S •20% SANTA ROSA STREET .40% 0 a OSOS STREET _ •40% CHORRO STREET 0 N BROAD STREET .40% � m I � o Lu ' Lu N NIPOMO STREET x cn x FIGURE O ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS t DON.Hooe Avenue.Suite a,Santa Barbera.CA 93110•(8053687-441 a TRAFFIC MODEL GROWTH FACTORS HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 08-27-1993 Associated Transportation. Engineers, Inc. ------------------------------- Streets: (N-S) Santa Rosa Street (E-W) Marsh Street Analyst: JAH File Name: 01ONNX.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 NOON Comment: Existing Geometrics with Existing ( 1992) Volumes ----------------------------------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- - ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 2 < 1 1 2 > 1 < Volumes 159 26 187 369 637 388 25 PHF or PK15 0. 95 0 .95 0 . 95 0 .95 0 . 95 0. 95 0 . 95 Lane Width 11. 0 10 . 0 10.0 15 . 0 11. 0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (YIN) Y 3 (YIN) N (YIN) Y 20 Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) Y 11 . 8 s (YIN) Y 17 .9 s (YIN) Y 15 . 6 s Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 8 0 2 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2 Assign Perm 0 0 0 Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds * Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 22P Green 22P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3. 0 Lost Time 3. 0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB TR 1409 3203 0 . 14 0.44 6 . 3 B 6 .3 B SB L 590 1342 0 . 33 0 .44 7 . 1 B 8 .0 B T 729 1657 _ 0 .53 0 .44 8. 4 B EB L 1587 3607 0 .42 0 .44 7.4 B 9 .0 B LTR 603 1371 0.72 0 .44 11.5 B Intersection Delay = 8.4 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0 .624 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- i-t HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 08-27-1993 Associated Transportation Engineers, Inc . ------------------------------------ Streets: (N-S) Santa Rosa Street (E-W) Marsh Street Analyst: JAH File Name: 01ONNA.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 NOON Comment: Proposed Geometrics A with Existing ( 1992) Volumes -------------------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 2 < 1 1 2 2 < Volumes 159 26 187 369 637 388 25 PHF or PK15 0 . 95 0 .95 0 . 95 0. 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0 .95 Lane Width 11.0 10 .0 10. 0 12 . 0 11 .0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (YIN) Y 3 (YIN) N (YIN) N Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) Y 12 .5 s (YIN) Y 17 . 1 s (YIN) Y 15 . 6 s Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 8 0 2 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 10 -1 Prop. Prot. -3 -3 -3 Assign Perm 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds * Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 22P Green 22P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3 . 0 Lost Time 3 .0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB TR 1409 3203 0. 14 0.44 6 . 3 B 6 . 3 B SB L 590 1342 _ 0 . 33 0 .44 7 . 1 B 8 . 0 B T 729 1657 0 .53 0 .44 8 .4 B EB L 1443 3279 0 .47 0 .44 7 . 7 B 7 .4 B TR 1508 3428 0 . 30 0 .44 6 . 9 B Intersection Delay = 7 .4 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0 . 499 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 08-27-1993 Associated Transportation Engineers, Inc . Streets: (N-S) Santa Rosa Street (E-W) Marsh Street Analyst: JAH File Name: O1ONNB.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 NOON Comment: Proposed Geometrics B with Existing ( 1992) Volumes ------------------------------------------------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 2 < 1 1 2 > 1 1 Volumes 159 26 187 369 637 388 25 PHF or PK15 0. 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0 .95 0.95 0. 95 Lane Width 11. 0 10. 0 10 .0 12 . 0 11. 0 12 . 0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (YIN) Y 3 (YIN) N (YIN) N Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) Y 9 . 8 s (YIN) Y 17 .3 s (YIN) Y 15. 6 s Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 8 0 2 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 10 -1 Prop. Prot. -3 -3 -3 Assign Perm 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right g * Peds Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 22P Green 22P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3. 0 Lost Time 3 .0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/cg/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB TR 1409 3203 0. 14 0.44 6 .3 B 6 . 3 B SB L 590 1342 0. 33 0.44 7 . 1 B 8.0 B T 729 1657 0.53 0 .44 8.4 B EB L 1443 3279 0.42 0. 44 7 .4 B 8. 3 B LT 755 1716 0. 63 0. 44 9 .4 B R 667 1515 0. 04 0. 44 6 . 1 B Intersection Delay = 8 .0 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.581 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 08-27-1993 Associated Transportation Engineers, Inc. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Streets: (N-S) Santa Rosa Street (E-W) Marsh Street Analyst: JAH ' File Name: 010PMX.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 P.M. Comment: Existing Geometrics with Existing ( 1992) Volumes ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R . L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 2 < 1 1 2 > 1 < Volumes 150 25 174 418 686 414 25 PHF or PK15 0. 95 0.95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0. 95 0. 95 Lane Width 11. 0 10. 0 10 . 0 15 . 0 11. 0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (YIN) Y 3 (YIN) N (YIN) Y 20 Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) Y 11. 8 s (YIN) Y 17 . 9 s (YIN) Y 15. 6 s Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 8 0 2 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2 Assign Perm 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds * Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 22P Green 22P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3. 0 Lost Time 3. 0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB TR 1409 3203 0 .13 0 .44 6 . 3 B 6 . 3 B SB L 596 1355 0 . 31 0.44 7 .0 B 8 .5 B T 729 1657 0. 60 0.44 9 . 1 B EB L 1587 3607 0.45 0.44 7. 6 B 9. 7 B LTR 604 1372 0.76 0 .44 12 .9 B Intersection Delay = 9 .0 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0 .683 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.,1 7 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 08-27-1993 Associated Transportation Engineers, Inc . Streets: (N-S) Santa Rosa Street (E-W) Marsh Street Analyst: JAH File Name: 010PMA.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 P.M. Comment: Proposed Geometrics A with Existing ( 1992) Volumes Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 2 < 1 1 2 2 < Volumes 150 25 174 418 686 414 25 PHF or PK15 0. 95 0. 95 0 . 95 0.95 0 .95 0. 95 0. 95 Lane Width 11 . 0 10. 0 10.0 12 . 0 11. 0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (YIN) Y 3 (YIN) N (YIN) N Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) Y 12.5 s (YIN) Y 17 . 1 s (YIN) Y 15 . 6 s Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 8 0 2 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2 Assign Perm 0 0 .0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left * . Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds * Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 22P Green 22P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3 . 0 Lost Time 3 . 0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #5 #1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB TR 1409 3203 0. 13 0. 44 6 .3 B 6 . 3 B SB L 596 1355 0. 31 0 . 44 7 . 0 B 8 .5 B T 729 1657 0. 60 0 .44 9 . 1 B EB L 1443 3279 0.50 0.44 7 . 9 B 7 .5 B TR 1509 3430 0.32 0.44 7 . 0 B Intersection Delay = 7 . 7 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0 .552 ------------------=---------------------------------------------------- 1 �/0 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 08-27-1993 Associated Transportation Engineers, Inc . Streets: (N-S) Santa Rosa Street (E-W) Marsh Street Analyst: JAH File Name: 010PMB.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 P.M. Comment: Proposed Geometrics B with Existing ( 1992) Volumes ---------------------------------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 2 < 1 1 2 > 1 1 Volumes 150 25 174 418 686 414 25 PHF or PK15 0. 95 0. 95 0 . 95 0 .95 0. 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 Lane Width 11 . 0 10 . 0 10 . 0 12 . 0 11 . 0 12 . 0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (YIN) Y 3 (YIN) N (YIN) N Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) Y 9 . 8 s (YIN) Y 17 . 3 s (YIN) Y 15. 6 s Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 8 0 2 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 10 -1 Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2 Assign Perm 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds * Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 22P Green 22P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3 .•0 Lost Time 3 .0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #5 #1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat V/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB TR 1409 3203 0 . 13 0 .44 6 .3 . B 6 . 3 B SB L 596 13550. 31 0 .44 7 . 0 B 8 .5 B T 729 1657 _ 0. 60 0 .44 9 . 1 B EB L 1443 3279 0.45 0.44 7 . 6 B 8 . 6 B LT 755 1716 0. 67 0. 44 10 . 1 B R 667 1515 0 . 04 0 . 44 6 . 1 B Intersection Delay = 8. 4 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0 . 638 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-19 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 08-27-1993 Associated Transportation Engineers, Inc . --------------------------------------- Streets: (N-S) Santa Rosa Street (E-W) Marsh Street Analyst: DLD File Name: 011NNX.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 NOON Comment: Existing Geometrics with Buildout Volumes Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T. R L T R L T R --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 2 < 1 1 2 > 1 < Volumes 191 31 262 517 892 543 35 PHF or PK15 0 . 95 0. 95 0 . 95 0 .95 0 .95 0.95 0 . 95 Lane Width 11 . 0 10 . 0 10.0 15.0 11. 0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (YIN) Y 3 (YIN) N (YIN) Y 20 Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) Y 11. 8 s (YIN) Y 17 . 9 s (YIN) Y 15 . 6 s Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 10 0 3 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2 Assign Perm 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds * Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 22P Green 22P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3. 0 Lost Time 3 .0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB TR 1410 3205 0 . 17 0 .44 6 .4 B 6 .4 B SB L 569 1294 _ 0 . 48 0. 44 8. 1 B 10.6 B T 729 1657 0.75 0.44 11. 8 B EB L 1587 3607 0.59 0.44 8.5 B 20.8 C LTR 603 1371 1 . 00 0.44 40.0 D Intersection Delay = 16 . 3 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0 .875 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- AX HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 08-27-1993 Associated Transportation Engineers, Inc . ---------------------------------------- -- Streets : (N-S) Santa Rosa Street (E-W) Marsh Street Analyst: DLD File Name: 011NNA.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 NOON Comment: Proposed Geometrics A with Buildout Volumes ---------------------------------------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 2 < 1 1 2 2 < Volumes 191 31 262 517 892 543 35 PHF or PK15 0. 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0. 95 0.95 0. 95 Lane Width 11. 0 10 . 0 10 . 0 12 . 0 11. 0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (YIN) Y 3 (YIN) N (YIN) N Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) Y 12 . 5 s (YIN) Y 17 . 1 s (YIN) Y 15 . 6 s Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 10 0 3 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 10 -1 Prop. Prot. -3 -3 -3 Assign Perm 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds * Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 22P Green 22P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3. 0 Lost Time 3 . 0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB TR 1410 3205 0 . 17 0.44 6 .4 B 6 .4 B SB L 569 1294 0 .48 0 .44 8. 1 B 10 . 6 B T 729 1657 0 .75 0 .44 11. 8 B EB L 1443 3279 0. 65 0.44 9 . 1 B 8.4 B TR 1508 3428 0 .42 0 .44 7 . 4 B Intersection Delay = 8 . 9 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0 . 698 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- /-./ HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 08-27-1993 Associated Transportation Engineers, Inc. Streets: (N' S) Santa Rosa Street (E-W) Marsh Street Analyst: DLD File Name: 011NNB.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 NOON Comment: Proposed Geometrics B with Buildout Volumes Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----. ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 2 < 1 1 2 > 1 1 Volumes 191 31 262 517 892 543 35 PHF or PK15 0. 95 0. 95 0 .95 0.95 0 . 95 0.95 0 . 95 Lane Width 11 . 0 10. 0 10. 0 12 . 0 11.0 12 .0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (YIN) Y 3 (YIN) N (YIN) N Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) Y 9 .8 s (YIN) Y 17 . 3 s (YIN) Y 15 . 6 s Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 10 0 3 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 Prop. Prot. -3 -3 -3 Assign Perm 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds * Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right * Peds t Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 22P Green 22P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3 . 0 Lost Time 3 . 0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 --=-------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB TR 1410 3205 0. 17 0.44 6 .4 B 6 .4 B SB L 569 1294 _ 0.48 0 .44 8. 1 B 10. 6 B T 729 1657 0.75 0.44 11. 8 B EB L 1443 3279 0. 65 0 .44 9 . 1. B 10 . 0 B LT 761 1729 0. 75 0 .44 11.8 B R 667 1515 0. 05 0.44 6 . 1 B Intersection Delay = 9 .9 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0. 749 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 08-27-1993 Associated Transportation Engineers, Inc. -------------------------------------- Streets: (N-S) Santa Rosa Street (E-W) Marsh Street Analyst: DLD File Name: 011PMX.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 P.M. Comment: Existing Geometrics with Buildout volumes -------------------------------------------------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 2 < 1 1 2 > 1 < Volumes 180 30 244 585 960 580 35 PHF or PK15 0. 95 0.95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 Lane Width 11 . 0 10 . 0 10 . 0 15 . 0 11 . 0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (YIN) Y 3 (YIN) N (YIN) Y 20 Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) Y 11 . 8 s (YIN) Y 17 . 9 s (YIN) Y 15 . 6 s Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 10 0 3 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2 Assign Perm 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds * Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 22P Green 22P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3 . 0 Lost Time 3 . 0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB TR 1410 3204 0. 16 0 .44 6 .4 B 6 .4 B SB L 577 1311 _ 0.45 0 .44 7 . 8 B 13 .5 B T 729 1657 0. 84 0 .44 15. 8 C EB L 1587 3607 0. 64 0.44 8.9 B 29 . 0 D LTR 604 1372 1 . 07 0.44 60. 6 F Intersection Delay = 22 . 3 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 .0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0. 957 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- �•�3 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 08-27-1993 Associated Transportation Engineers, Inc . Streets: (N-S) Santa Rosa Street (E-W) Marsh Street Analyst: DLD File Name: 011PMA.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 P.M. Comment: Proposed Geometrics A with Buildout Volumes ____________________---------------------------- ----- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 2 < 1 1 2 2 < Volumes 180 30 244 585 960 580 35 PHF or PK15 0 .95 0. 95 0.95 0 .95 0.95 0. 95 0 . 95 Lane Width 11. 0 10. 0 10.0 12 . 0 11. 0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (Y/N) Y 3 (Y/N) N (Y/N) N Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (Y/N) Y 12 . 5 s (Y/N) Y 17 . 1 s (Y/N) Y 15. 6 s Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 10 0 3 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2 Assign Perm 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds * Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 22P Green 22P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3 . 0 Lost Time 3 .0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #5 #1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB TR 1410 3204 0. 16 0.44 6 .4 B 6 .4 B SB L 577 1311 _ 0.45 0.44 7 .8 B 13.5 B T 729 1657 0. 84 0. 44 15 . 8 C EB L 1443 3279 0. 70 0. 44 9 .7 B 8. 8 B TR 1509 3430 0.45 0. 44 7 .6 B Intersection Delay = 10. 1 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0. 773 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 08-27-1993 . . Associated Transportation Engineers, Inc. ------------------------------------------- Streets: (N-S) Santa Rosa Street . (E-W) Marsh Street Analyst: DLD File Name: 011PMB.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 P.M. Comment: Proposed Geometrics B with Buildout Volumes Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 2 < 1 1 2 > 1 1 Volumes 180 30 244 585 960 580 35 PHF or PK15 0 .95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0. 95 0. 95 0 .95 Lane Width 11 . 0 10 . 0 10 .0 12 . 0 11. 0 12 .0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (YIN) Y 3 (YIN) N (YIN) N Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) Y 9 . 8 s (YIN) Y 17 . 3 s (YIN) Y 15 . 6 s Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 10 0 3 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 Prop. Prot. -3 -3 -3 Assign Perm • 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right g * Peds Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 22P Green 22P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3 .0 Lost Time 3 . 0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #5 #1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB TR 1410 3204 0 . 16 0.44 6 .4 B 6 .4 B SB L 577 1311 - 0 .45 0 .44 7 . 8 B 13 . 5 B. T 729 1657 0 . 84 0 .44 15 . 8 C EB L 1443 3279 0 .70 0.44 9 .7 B 11. 1 B LT 761 1729 0. 80 0.44 13. 6 B R 667 1515 0. 05 0 .44 6 . 1 B Intersection Delay = 11 . 4 sec/veh Intersection LOS = E Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0 .824 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-as HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 08-27-1993 Associated Transportation Engineers, Inc. Streets : (N-S) Chorro Street (E-W) Marsh Street Analyst: JAH File Name: 020NNX.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 NOON Comment: Existing Geometrics with Existing ( 1992 ) Volumes ----------------------------------------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 > 3 < volumes 142 87 131 158 179 929 68 PHF or PK15 0 . 95 0. 95 0. 95 0 . 95 0 .95 0 . 95 0 . 95 Lane Width 8 .0 10. 0 8 . 0 12 .0 1.1. 0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (YIN) Y 10 (YIN) Y 10 (YIN) Y 20 Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) Y 17 . 3 s (YIN) Y 15 . 9 s (YIN) Y 15 . 3 s Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 3 0 10 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2 Assign Perm 0 .0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds * Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 21P Green 23P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3. 0 Lost Time 3 .0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #5 #1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB T 651 1550 0 . 23 0.42 7 . 1 B 7 . 0 B R 503 1197 0 . 18 0. 42 6 . 9 B SB L 456 1086 0 . 30 0 .42 7 .4 B 7 . 3 B T 636 1515 0 . 26 0 . 42 7 . 2 B EB LTR 2185 4750 0 . 62 0. 46 8 . 1 B 8 . 1 B Intersection Delay = 7 . 9 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0 . 467 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 08-27-1993 Associated Transportation Engineers, Inc . ------------------- Streets: (N-S) Chorro Street (E-W) Marsh Street Analyst: JAH File Name: 020NNP.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 NOON Comment: Proposed Geometrics with Existing ( 1992) Volumes -------------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R --- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 • 1 1 1 2 1 Volumes 142 87 131 158 179 932 68 PHF or PK15 0.95 0. 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0. 95 0 . 95 0. 95 Lane Width 8 .0 10.0 8 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 11 . 0 12 . 0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (YIN) Y 10 (YIN) Y 10 (YIN) N Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) Y 12 . 5 s (YIN) Y 17 . 0 s (YIN) Y 15 . 3 s Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 3 0 30 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2 Assign Perm 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds * Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 21P Green 23P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3 . 0 Lost Time 3.0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #5 #1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB T 651 1550 0 .23 0 .42 7 . 1 B 7 . 0 B R 503 1197 0 . 18 0 .42 6 . 9 B SB L 456 1086 0 . 30 0 .42 7 . 4 B 7 . 3 B T 636 1515 0.26 0 .42 7. 2 B EB L 779 1693 0.24 0 . 46 6 . 3 B 8 . 1 B T 1590 3457 0 . 65 0 .46 8 . 6 B R 697 1515 0. 06 0 . 46 5. 7 B Intersection Delay = 7 . 8 sec/veh Intersection. LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c (x) = 0.483 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1•o2 7 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 08-27-1993 Associated Transportation Engineers, Inc. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Streets : (N-S) Chorro Street (E-W) Marsh Street Analyst: JAH File Name: 020PMX.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 P.M. Comment: Existing Geometrics with Existing ( 1992) Volumes ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 > 3 < Volumes 194 97 123 142 148 968 45 PHF or PK15 0 .95 0. 95 0 . 95 0.95 0 . 95 0. 95 0 . 95 Lane Width 8 . 0 10. 0 8 . 0 12 . 0 11. 0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (YIN) Y 10 (YIN) Y 10 (YIN) Y 20 Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) Y 17 . 3 s (YIN) Y 15 . 9 s (YIN) Y 15 . 3 s Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 7 0 9 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2 Assign Perm 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds * Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 21P Green 23P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3 . 0 Lost Time 3 . 0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #5 #1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB T 651 1550 0 . 31 0 .42 7 .5 B 7. 3 B R 503 1197 _ 0. 19 0 .4.2 7 .0 B SB L 413 983 0.31 0 .42 7 .5 B 7 .3 B T 636 1515 0.23 0 .42 7 . 1 B EB LTR 2194 4769 0. 61 0.46 8 . 1 B 8 . 1 B Intersection Delay = 7 . 8 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.467 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- �g HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 08-27-1993 Associated Transportation Engineers, .Inc . Streets: (N-S) Chorro Street (E-W) Marsh Street Analyst: JAH File Name: 020PMP.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 P.M. Comment: Proposed Geometrics with Existing ( 1992) Volumes ---------------------------------------------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Volumes 194 97 123 142 148 968 45 PHF or PK15 0 .95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0. 95 0. 95 0. 95 Lane Width 8. 0 10 . 0 8 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 11 . 0 12 . 0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (YIN) Y 10 (YIN) Y 10 (YIN) N Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) Y 12 . 5 s (YIN) Y 17 . 0 s (YIN) Y 15 . 3 s Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 7 0 20 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2 Assign Perm 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds * Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 21P Green 23P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3 . 0 Lost Time 3 .0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #5 #1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB T 651 1550 0 . 31 0.42 7 .5 B 7 . 3 B R 503 1197 - 0. 19 0.42 7 .0 B SB L 413 983 0 . 31 0.42 7 .5 B 7 . 3 B T 636 1515 0 . 23 0.42 7 . 1 B EB L 779 1693 0 . 20 0.46 6 . 1 B 8 .4 B T 1590 3457 0 . 67 0.46 8 .8 B R 697 1515 0 . 04 0.46 5 .6 B Intersection Delay = 8. 1 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.501 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 08-27-1993 Associated Transportation Engineers, Inc. ------------------------------- Streets: (N-S) Chorro Street (E-W) Marsh Street Analyst: DLD File Name: 021NNX.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 NOON Comment: Existing Geometrics with Buildout Volumes ------------------------------------------ Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 > 3 < Volumes 199 122 170 205 215 1118 82 PHF or PK15 0 .95 0. 95 0. 95 0.95 0 . 95 0. 95 0 . 95 Lane Width 8. 0 10. 0 8 . 0 12 .0 11.0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (YIN) Y 10 (YIN) Y 1.0 (YIN) Y 20 Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) Y 17 . 3 s (YIN) Y 15. 9 s (YIN) Y 15..3 s Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 4 0 12 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Prop. Prot. -3 -3 -3 Assign Perm 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds * Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 21P Green 23P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3.0 Lost Time 3. 0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #5 #1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB T 651 1550 0. 32 0 .42 7 .5 B 7 .4 B R 503 1197 0.25 0.42 7 .2 B SB L 389 926 0.46 0 .42 8.6 B 8.0 B T 636 1515 0. 34 0.42 7 .6 B EB LTR 2185 4750 0. 74 0 .46 9.4 B 9 .4 B Intersection Delay = 8 . 9 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0. 608 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- /-30 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 08-27-1993 . Associated Transportation Engineers, Inc. -------------------------------------- Streets: (N-S) Chorro Street (E-W) Marsh Street Analyst: DLD File Name: 021NNP.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 NOON Comment: Proposed Geometrics with Buildout Volumes -------------------------------------------------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Volumes 199 122 170 205 215 1118 82 PHF or PK15 0. 95 0.95 0.95 0. 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 Lane Width 8 . 0 10. 0 8. 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 11 .0 12 . 0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (Y/N) Y 10 (Y/N) Y 10 (Y/N) N Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (Y/N) Y 12 .5 s (Y/N) Y 17 . 0 s (Y/N) Y 15 . 3 s Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 4 0 12 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2 Assign Perm 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds * Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 21P Green 23P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3. 0 Lost Time 3 .0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #5 #1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB T 651 1550 0 . 32 0 .42 7 .5 B 7 .4 B R 503 1197 _ 0 .25 0 .42 7 .2 B SB L 389 926 0 .46 0.42 8. 6 B 8 . 0 B T 636 1515 0 . 34 0 .42 7 . 6 B EB L 779 1693 0.29 0.46 6 .5 B 9 .6 B T 1590 3457 0 .78 0 .46 10.4 B R 697 1515 0 . 10 0 .46 5. 8 B Intersection Delay = 9 . 0 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0 . 626 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- /-3/ HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 08-27-1993 Associated Transportation Engineers, Inc . Streets : (N-S) Chorro Street (E-W) Marsh Street Analyst: DLD File Name: 021PMX.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 P.M. Comment: Existing Geometrics with Buildout Volumes -------------- --- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- No. -No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 > 3 < Volumes 272 136 160 185 178 1162 54 PHF or PK15 0. 95 0 . 95 0. 95 0 .95 0. 95 0. 95 0. 95 Lane Width 8. 0 10. 0 8. 0 12 .0 11.0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (YIN) Y 10 (YIN) Y 10 (YIN) Y 20 Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) Y 17 . 3 s (YIN) Y 15 .9 s (YIN) Y 15. 3 s Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 10 0 11 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2 Assign Perm 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds * Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 21P Green 23P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3 . 0 Lost Time 3 .0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #5 #1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB T 651 1550 0 .44 0 .42 8.2 B 7 . 9 B R 503 1197 - 0 . 26 0 .42 7 .3 B SB L 331 788 0 .51 0 . 42 9 .2 B 8. 3 B T 636 1515 0 . 31 0 . 42 7 .4 B EB LTR 2194 4770 0 . 73 0 . 46 9 .2 B 9 .2 B Intersection Delay = 8 . 8 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0 .624 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- /-3Z HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 08-27-1993 Associated Transportation Engineers, Inc . ------------------------------------- Streets: (N-S) Chorro Street (E-W) Marsh Street Analyst: DLD File Name: 021PMP.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 P.M. Comment: Proposed Geometrics with Buildout Volumes ---------------------------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Volumes 272 136 160 185 178 1162 54 PHF or PK15 0. 95 0. 95 0 .95 0. 95 0 .95 0 . 95 0 .95 Lane Width 8. 0 10. 0 8 .0 12 . 0 12 .0 11 . 0 12 . 0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 '2 2 2 2 Parking (YIN) Y 10 (YIN) Y 10 (YIN) N Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) Y 12 .5 s (YIN) Y 17 . 0 s (YIN) Y 15 . 3 s Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 10 0 11 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2 Assign Perm 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds * Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds EB Right NB Right FIB Right SB Right Green 21P Green 23P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3. 0 Lost Time 3 . 0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #5 #1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat V/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB T 651 1550 0.44 0.42 8 .2 B 7 ..9 B R 503 1197 _ 0 .26 0 . 42 7 . 3 B SB L 331 788 0. 51 0.42 9 . 2 B 8 . 3 B T 636 1515 0 . 31 0.42 7 .4 B EB L 779 1693 0 . 24 0.46 6 .3 B 10. 3 B T 1590 3457 0. 81 0.46 11 . 1 B R 697 1515 0. 06 0 .46 5 . 7 B Intersection Delay = 9 . 5 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0 . 664 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- /-33 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 08-27-1993 Associated Transportation Engineers, Inc. Streets:' (N-S) Broad Street (E-W) Marsh Street Analyst:* JAH File Name: 030NNX.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 NOON Comment: Existing Geometrics with Existing ( 1992) Volumes ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T . R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 > 3 1 Volumes 228 155 86 214 90 903 139 PHF or PK15 0. 95 0. 95 0. 95 0 .95 0 .95 0 .95 0 . 95 Lane Width 10.0 12. 0 10 . 0 10 . 0 10 .0 12 . 0 Grade 0 0 ' 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (YIN) Y 5 (YIN) Y 5 (YIN) Y 20 Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) Y 16 .5 s (YIN) Y 18. 0 s (YIN) Y 15 .5 s Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 7 0 9 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2, .Assign Perm 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds * Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 22P Green 22P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3 . 0 Lost Time 3. 0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #5 #1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB T 729 1657 0.33 0 .44 7. 1 B 7 . 0 B R 583 1325 0 .27 0.44 6 . 8 B SB L 393 894 0 .23 0 .44 6. 7 B 7 . 1 B T 638 1450 0 . 35 0.44 7.2 B EB LT 2178 4949 0 .53 0.44 8. 0 B 7 . 8 B R 533 1212 0. 26 0 .44 6. 8 B Intersection Delay = 7 .5 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6. 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0 . 441 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- /x I HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 08-27-1993 Associated Transportation Engineers, Inc . -------------------------------------- Streets: (N-S) Broad Street (E-W) Marsh Street Analyst: JAH File Name: 030NNP.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 NOON Comment: Proposed Geometrics with Existing ( 1992) Volumes Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Volumes 228 155 86 214 90 903 139 PHF or PK15 0.95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0. 95 0. 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 Lane Width 10. 0 12 . 0 10 . 0 10. 0 12 . 0 10. 0 12 . 0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (Y/N) Y 5 (Y/N) Y 5 (Y/N) N Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (Y/N) Y 12 .0 s (Y/N) Y 16 . 5 s (Y/N) Y 15 .5 s Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 25 0 70 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2 Assign Perm 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right g * Peds Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 22P Green 22P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3 .0 Lost Time 3. 0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #5 #1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB T 729 1657 0. 33 0.44 7 . 1 B 6 . 9 B R 583 1325 _ 0. 23 0.44 6 .7 B SB L 407 926 0.22 0.44 6 .7 B 7 . 0 B T 638 1450 0 . 35 0'.44 7 .2 B EB L 745 1693 0. 13 0. 44 6 .3 B 9 . 0 B T 1459 3315 0. 68 0.44 9 .5 B R 667 1515 0 . 11 0 . 44 6 . 3 B Intersection Delay = 8 . 3 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.519 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- /-3S HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 08-27-1993 Associated Transportation Engineers, Inc. Streets: (N-S) Broad Street (E-W) Marsh Street Analyst: JAH File Name: 030PMX.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 P.M. Comment: Existing Geometrics with Existing (1992) Volumes ------------------------------------------------- -------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T . R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 > 3 1 Volumes 212 226 77 213 69 840 108 PHF or PK15 0 . 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0. 95 0. 95 0 . 95 Lane Width 10. 0 12 . 0 10 . 0 10 .0 10 .0 12 . 0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (YIN) Y 5 (YIN) Y 5 (YIN) Y 20 Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) Y 16 .5 s (YIN) Y 18 . 0 s (YIN) Y 15 .5 s Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 30 0 29 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2 Assign Perm 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds * Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 22P Green 22P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3. 0 Lost Time 3 . 0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #5 #1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB T 729 1657 0.31 0.44 7 . 0 B 7 . 1 B R 583 1325 _ 0 .35 0.44 7 .2 B SB L 369 839 0.22 0.44 6 .6 B 7 . 0 B T 638 1450 0. 35 0.44 7 .2 B EB LT 2179 4953 0.48 0.44 7 .7 B 7 . 6 B R 533 1212 0. 16 0.44 6 . 4 B Intersection Delay = 7 .4 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0 .418 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- /-36 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 08-27-1993 Associated Transportation Engineers, Inc . --------------------------------------------- Streets: (N-S) Broad Street (E-W) Marsh Street Analyst: JAH File Name: 030PMP.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 P.M. Comment: Proposed Geometrics with Existing ( 1992 ) Volumes Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---= ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Volumes 212 226 77 213 69 840 108 PHF or PK15 0 . 95 0.95 0. 95 0. 95 0. 95 0. 95 0 . 95 Lane Width 10. 0 12 . 0 10 . 0 10 . 0 12 . 0 10. 0 12 . 0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (Y/N) Y 5 (Y/N) Y 5 (Y/N) N Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (Y/N) Y 12 . 0 s (Y/N) Y 16 .5 s (Y/N) Y 15 . 5 s Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 30 0 50 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2 Assign Perm 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 F NB Left EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds * Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 22P Green 22P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3. 0 Lost Time 3 .0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #5 #1 -------------------------------------------=--------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB T 729 1657 0. 31 0.44 7 . 0 B 7 . 1 B R 583 1325 - 0. 35 0 .44 7 .2 B SB L 369 839 0. 22 0 .44 6 . 6 B 7 . 0 B T 638 1450 0 . 35 0 .44 7 .2 B EB L 745 1693 0. 10 0 .44 6 .2 B 8 . 6 B T 1459 3315 0 . 64 0.44 8 . 9 B R 667 1515 0. 09 0 .44 6 . 2 B Intersection Delay = 8 . 0 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 .0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0. 495 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY _ 08-27-1993 Associated Transportation Engineers, Inc . --------------------------- Streets: (N-S) Broad Street (E-W) Marsh Street Analyst: DLD File Name: 031NNX.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 NOON Comment: Existing Geometrics with Buildout Volumes -------------------------------------------------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 > 3 1 Volumes 342 233 120 300 99 993 153 PHF or PR15 0 .95 0 . 95 0.95 0.95 0 .95 0. 95 0. 95 Lane Width 10 . 0 12. 0 10 . 0 10 .0 10 . 0 12 .0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (YIN) Y 5 (YIN) Y 5 (YIN) Y 20 Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) Y 16 .5 s (YIN) Y 18 . 0 s (YIN) Y 15 . 5 s Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 38 0 40 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2 Assign Perm 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds * Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 22P Green 22P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3 .0 Lost Time 3. 0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #5 #1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB T 729 1657 0.49 0.44 8 . 1 B 7 .7 B R 583 1325 _ 0. 35 0.44 7 .2 B SB L 274 622 0. 46 0.44 8 .4 B 8 . 2 B T 638 1450 0.50 0.44 8 . 1 B EB LT 2178 4949 0.58 0 .44 8 .3 B 8 .2 B R 533 1212 0. 22 0.44 6 .6 B Intersection Delay = 8 . 1 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0 .538 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ��JO HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 08-27-1993 Associated Transportation Engineers, Inc . Streets: (N-S) Broad Street E-W . Marsh Street Analyst: DLD File Name: 031NNP.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 NOON Comment: Proposed Geometrics with Buildout Volumes ---------------------------------------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Volumes 342 233 120 300 99 993 153 PHF or PK15 0 . 95 0 .95 0. 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 0 . 95 Lane Width 10 . 0 12 .0 10. 0 10 . 0 12 . 0 10.0 12 .0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (YIN) Y 5 (YIN) Y 5 (YIN) N Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) Y 12 .0 s (YIN) Y 16 . 5 s (YIN) Y 15 . 5 s Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 38 0 40 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2 Assign Perm 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds * Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 22P Green 22P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3 .0 Lost Time 3 . 0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #5 #1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB T 729 1657 0.49 0 .44 8 . 1 B 7 .7 B R 583 1325 0 . 35 0 .44 7 .2 B SB L 274 622 0 .46 0.44 8 .4 B 8 .2 B T 638 1450 0.50 0 .44 8 . 1 B EB L 745 1693 0 . 14 0.44 6 .4 B 9. 8 B T 1459 3315 0.75 0 . 44 10 .5 B R 667 1515 0 . 18 0 .44 6 .5 B Intersection Delay = 9 . 0 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0 . 624 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 08-27-1993 Associated Transportation Engineers, Inc . Streets: (N-S) Broad Street (E-W) Marsh Street Analyst: DLD File Name: 031PMX.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 P.M. Comment: Existing Geometrics with Buildout Volumes ------------------------------ Northbound Southbound Eastbound westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 > 3 1 Volumes 318 339 108 298 76 924 119 PHF or PK15 0. 95 0.95 0 . 95 0. 95 0.95 0 . 95 0 .95 Lane Width 10. 0 12 .0 10 . 0 10. 0 10.0 12 . 0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (YIN) Y 5 (YIN) Y 5 (YIN) Y 20 Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) Y 16 .5 s (YIN) Y 18. 0 s (YIN) Y 15 .5 s Arr Type 3 3 3' 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 45 0 32 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2 Assign Perm 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds * Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 22P Green 22P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3 . 0 Lost Time 3 . 0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #5 #1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB T 729 1657 0 .46 0 .44 7. 8 B 8.2 B R 583 1325 - 0 .53 0 .44 8.5 B SB L 221 502 0 . 52 0 .44 9.4 B 8 .5 B T 638 1450 0 .49 0.44 8. 1 B EB LT 2179 4953 0.53 0.44 8.0 B 7 .9 B R 533 1212 0. 17 0 .44 6 .5 B Intersection Delay = 8 . 1 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.532 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- /-YD HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 08-27-1993 Associated Transportation Engineers, Inc . Streets: (N-S) Broad Street (E-W) Marsh Street Analyst: DLD File Name: 031PMP.HC9 Area Type: Other 8-27-93 P.M. Comment: Proposed Geometrics with Buildout Volumes ------------------------------------------------ -- ---------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Volumes 318 339 108 298 76 924 119 PHF or PK15 0. 95 0.95 0 . 95 0 .95 0. 95 0.95 0 . 95 Lane Width 10. 0 12 .0 10 . 0 10 . 0 12 . 0 10. 0 12 . 0 Grade 0 0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (YIN) Y 5 (YIN) Y 5 (YIN) N Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) Y 12 . 0 s (YIN) Y 16 .5 s (YIN) Y 15 . 5 s Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR vols 45 0 32 Prop. Share -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Prop. Prot. -2 -2 -2 Assign Perm 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NB Left EB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds SB Left * WB Left Thru * Thru Right Right Peds * Peds EB Right NB Right WB Right SB Right Green 22P Green 22P Yellow/A-R 3 Yellow/A-R 3 Lost Time 3. 0 Lost Time 3 . 0 Cycle Length: 50 secs Phase combination order: #5 #1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS ----- ---- ------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- --- NB T 729 1657 0.46 0 .44 7 . 8 B 8 .2 B R 583 1325 _ 0 .53 0 .44 8.5 B SB L 221 502 0 . 52 0 .44 9 .4 B 8. 5 B T 638 1450 0 .49 0 . 44 8. 1 B EB L 745 1693 0 . 11 0 . 44 6. 3 B 9 .2 B T 1459 3315 0 .70 0.44 9 . 7 B R 667 1515 0 . 14 0 . 44 6 . 3 B Intersection Delay = 8 . 8 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6 . 0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0. 616 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- /-W DATE G 43 AGENDA ITEM!# September 3, 1993 COUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR CAO ❑ FIN DIR ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF Honorable Mayor Peg Pinard TTORNEYRIN DIR City of San Luis Obispo fCA LERKlORICi ❑ POLICE CHF Post Office Box 8100 ❑ MGMTTFJ-.M ❑ RECDIR San Luis Obispo, CA 94303-8100 ❑ CREAD FILE 17 UTILDIR ❑ PERS DIR Dear Mayor Pinard: We would like to take this opportunity to .once again express our thanks and congratulations to you and all of the City Council Members for your hard work and dedication to date in overseeing the development of the Bicycle Transportation Plan. We of course would also like to urge you to approve what we feel is and excellent plan. As I mentioned during the public hearing on August 31, this bicycle plan represents a tremendous opportunity for the City to provide very real incentives for citizens to substitute bicycle travel for car travel - a possibility that in our opinion benefits the entire community. We use bicycles almost exclusively for our regional (within 15 miles)transit needsv and find that even though we are very experienced cyclists - having cycle toured much of the U.S., Europe and Southeast Asia - there are parts of San Luis Obispo that we are not comfortable riding on. Johnson , Broad, Marsh, and Orcutt come to mind immediately. We are most concerned not only with encouraging those potential cyclists that may fear riding in dangerous conditions, but with preventing serious accidents such as the death that occurred on Johnson Avenue. As a member of the Sierra Club's Alternative Transportation Task Force (ATTF), I must also urge you to accept the Pacific Street "alternative" - as agreed to by the ATTF, BIA and Chamber of Commerce - only after adopting and agreeing to delay the Marsh Street plan. This will reflect the agreement reached between . the ATTF, BIA and Chamber. I am very excited by the fact that these three groups will be working together on this project, but also wish to ensure that should the Pacific Street plan not come to fruition, Marsh Street will be implemented in a timely manner. Thanks for your consideration, and once again congratulations on a .tremendous Bicycle Transportation Plan. Sincerely, Mark Wilson Sheila Wilson 1044 Islay SEP 3 San Luis Obispo SAN LUIS Qt3la Q. CA MEQ_-,IG AGENDA DATE- 9-Z�ITEM ## SIERRA CLUB SANTA LUCIA CHAPTER IOVLO IM 1993 COUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR 6 September, 1993 e?CAO EJ FIN DIR ►I p ICAO ❑ FIRECHIEF ErATIORNEY l�!On San Luis Obispo City Council eCLERIVORIG ❑ POLICE CHF 990 Palm Street ❑ IUGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93403-8100 ❑ C READ FU_. ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ P=Rs� DIR Dear Councilmember, The Alternative Transportation Task Force (ATTF) is writing to you to clarify our position on Marsh Street bicycle lanes. At the Council meeting on August 31st, Richard Ferris, who claims to be the BL4 Parking Committee Co-Chair, handed out literature and made statements as a BL4 representative that were derogatory of staff and the Bicycle Committee. Much of the information in the pamphlet he handed out is untrue. The ATTF formed a coalition with the Chamber of Commerce and the BL4 in the hope of bettering our relationship with the business community and involving them in bicycle planning in.San Luis Obispo. Our agreement was that we would jointly ask for a delay in implementation of the Marsh Street Plan to give the coalition time to come up with a plan for Pacific Street that would be acceptable to all parties (City Staff and the Bicycle Committee included). The statements made by the BIA on August 31st in no way reflect the position of the ATTF or of the coalition. We are embarassed by the BL4's bashing of staff and the Bicycle Committee, and by the BIA's apparent inability to control the "loose cannons" in their organization. The position of the ATTF is as follows: 1. The ATTF thinks the plan for bike lanes on Marsh Street is an excellent one 2. Staff and the Bicycle Committee are to be commended for a job well done. gy g 1993 5 o 'SPO,cP . . To explore. en/or, and protect the nonnn's sernlcc resourr,•c . . . SNS L�' (2) 3. The ATTF is asking you to approve the bike lanes on Marsh Street. 4. The ATTF, as a member of the coalition, is asking for a delay in the implementation of the Marsh Street Plan, for up to one year, while the coalition, working with Staff and the Bicycle Committee, tries to come up with a plan for Pacific Street. Pre-approval of the Marsh Street Plan is necessary to keep everyone's "feet to the fire" and working in good faith on a plan for Pacific.We hope that on September 14th, you will approve the Marsh Street bicycle lanes and delay implementation long enough for the coalition to work together on a plan for Pacific Street. Sincerely i at Veesart ierra Club Alternative Transportation Task Force 1570 Hansen Lane ' San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 cc: BIA Chamber of Commerce MEETING AGENDA Dear Mayor and Councilpe,�ons, D. 9 ITEM # .-7Z— A vast majority of S.L.O. supports A bike plan and promoting alternate transportation. PLEASE HELP OUNCIL O CDD DIR S.L.O. BE MORE BICYCLE FRIEN Acro FINDIR env DIR IAF EDUCATE & SAFEGU e oRN� O POLICE CHF REC DIR SO WE CAN BE A BICYCLE TOWN TO BE 103 READ ILS O UTtLDIR O PERS DIR No real education/training programs or funding are in the current plan. We DESPERATELY need bicycle + safety and bicycle promotional education in all the ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS in S.L.O.! There are NO ongoing bicycle education programs in grade K-9 of S.L.O. (Neither educators nor grammer school principals were consulted in formulating this bike plan) In 3-5,years an aggressive education program,teaching the virtues of bike riding, rules of the road and safety will do more good and create more bike riders than any amount of street painting. We have the funds and ability to do both yet we are NOT doing the most important. The S.L.O. Police Department cannot be expected to use its tightened budget to offer an expanded bicycle program if the bicycle advocates and city staff bicycle advocates are not perceptive enough to see and fund its need! OUR KIDS PAINTING IDEAS IN THE MINDS OF OUR CHILDREN IS BETTER THAN JUST PAINTING LINES ON STREETS We can get the best 'Bang for our Buck" by looking at the priorities of the bicycle plan objectively Why spend: -131,000 to rubberize rail crossings, yet only 7,000 for both bicycle education & promotion literature. -12.000 for Bike Festivals, but nothing for the S.L.O.P.D.to assign an officer for bicycle education and safety training. -40,000 for a half time Public Works Staff Member, but nothing for an educator to teach our kids the merits of cycling. If JUST THIS$40,000 was used for education and training(by funding a full time bicycleEducator/Trainer/Promoter), the benefits to alternate transportation by developing more bicycle riders would be greater than that which will be created by spending the balance of over 2.000 000 on bike lanes and facilities. HOW CAN OUR LOCAL BIKE RIDERS BE EXPECTED TO OBEY TRAFFIC LAWS AND TO RIDE SAFELY WHEN THERE IS VIRTUALLY NO SERIOUS EDUCATIONAL TRAINING IN SAFETY, THE RULES OF THE ROAD, OR ON THE BENIFIT OF CYCLING FOR OUR COMMUNITY? DO NOT APPROVE THE CURRENT BICYCLE PLAN! The bike plan is mostly excellent, but selection, makeup and staff.dominance of the bike committee tainted the final results. Appoint a broader community based committee to finish the plan. THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER S.L.O. WILL HAVE A BIKE PLAN, BUT IS THIS THE BEST BIKE PLAN WE CAN EASILY GET! . AIDE SAFE & RIDE SMA - RT - RIDE MORE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION-Richard W. Ferris: Parent,Retail Manager&20+yr.resident-1477 Oceanaire. 11. 4 AGENDA FrEMI® 3580 Sueldo Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 COUNCIL „�„AO ❑ CDD DIR 'P�S/� ❑ FIN DIR ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF Friday, September 10, 1993 ATTORNEY VPIVDlti CLEPJMRIG ❑ POLICE CHF Councilman Dave Romero ❑ MGMT TFf.1q L] REC DIR EMUMMUNIM- San Luis Obispo City Council ❑ C READ FILE ❑ unL DIR P.O. BOX 8100 .��_ ❑ PERS DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Honorable Dave Romero: Dear Dave....I know you are away until Tuesday morning (9-14) so I took this means of letting you know some thoughts I have about the Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan-Staff Report which will be discussed that night. The Sierra Club and Chamber and BIA are so pleased to be united in our efforts regarding the several options. However, Staff report erred in citing our desire to design the bike boulevard as expressed on page 1-2, 1 4. On the contrary, our request was for Council to direct Staff to design, but not to leave the groups out of the input. Also, on page 1-1, B-1. "Response" specifies that there is no need to slow traffic on Pacific. We feel that is short-sighted in light of the fact that the "slow street" on Pacific would be a "through street" and the stops on either side would be turned to reflect that. In this case, there indeed would be a need to have a traffic-calming design. We still feel most strongly about retaining a Bicycle Committee, but reviewing and adjusting the makeup of the Committee to reflect a more reasonable representation of some business interests. Thanks so much for your consideration and for serving our community! Appreciatively, �a� Wanda Strassburg SEP 1 1999 crry COUNCIL 805 543.61.12 1.800 266.SOUR fax 805 543.12 79 MEET'N ADEN A SATE ITEM # 112 Broad Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 September 3, 199 COUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR Re: Bike Plan dCAO ❑ FIN DIR VACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF City COUnCII 1- eATTORNEY R PwDIR 990 Palm Street 3 r; `0.0 ' CrCLERK(ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF S( § ° �3�•� ❑ MGbiTTEAL1 ❑ RECDIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 1� CITY CCU::CI� [. ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR Stat LL'eS ., FC, j flf Fw� ❑ PERSD;R Dear Council Members: At the last minute I was unable to attend the Aug. 31 bike plan hearing, and therefore am submitting this correspondence in lieu of testimony. I support the plan. I would love to get around town on my Schwinn Tiger, but I will not under current circumstances because I do not feel safe. The plan is a beginning blueprint-- but only a beginning -- towards providing the sort of safety that many of us require before parking our cars semi-permanently and turning to our bikes. (I recently celebrated the 30th anniversary of my release from a hospital after a long stay due to bodily impact with a moving auto, and the beginning of 6 more months with wheelchairs and crutches, so you can understand, perhaps, my sensitivity about safety.) Some comments about specifics: 1. Johnson Avenue underpass. Personally, I feel the two narrow-seeming lanes shooting downhill and into the underpass (northbound) are hazardous for cars, not to mention impossible for bikes. My opinion is that auto safety would be improved by having only one traffic lane along this stretch. The bonus would be ability to provide a bike lane from part of the existing second traffic lane. There's only one traffic lane each way further north on Johnson, so what's the big deal if the single lane starts a block sooner? 2. Downtown. To attract bikers downtown, bike lanes must be continue through and into the core. A bike lane on Pacific may be fine for cross-town commuters, but it does nothing for bikers who want or need to be downtown. Having to ride in the traffic lanes on Marsh and Higuera is dangerous. Loss of a car lane on Marsh Street isn't going to strangle downtown. I urge you to vote for that, or some other alternate that provides lanes downtown. 3. Broad Street Bike Boulevard. This, of course, would be in front of my home. I su000rt it. I anticipate considerable inconvenience, given the blockage of the street within a few feet of my property, and I anticipate much more traffic coming down Serrano, which impacts me with noise and lights shining through my house more heavily than it impacts anyone else since Serrano dead ends in front of my house. But I feel I can live with this personal inconvenience because we need to try the bike boulevard idea and find out if it works for this city. Some ideas, however: A. Rather than block Broad at Murray or Serrano (the two options studied by the committee), I.believe a better option may be to block it just south of Ramona, for the following reasons: a. This extends the boulevard an extra block, rather than have it (pointlessly) end mid-point. b. It eliminates concerns from the cross streets (Meinecke and Murray) about possible increased traffic flow around the blocked portion of Broad. c. It directs through traffic from Ramona back to Foothill, where it belongs, rather than through the neighborhood. If the city would get its damned stupid traffic light timing on Foothill fixed so cars on Schmidt, Page 1 the arterial don't get so many and such long red lights, once on Foothill, there would be a disincentive for cars to turn right on Chorro, and who knows, maybe this solution would work to Chorro's advantage as well! (Logical signal timing would be long greens on Foothill, and long reds/short greens for Chorro traffic. As it is, traffic often sits in ALL directions while nothing at all moves. Stupid! Stupid!) DKS said years ago the city should fix its Foothill light timing. Why hasn't it? B. I find it annoying that staff once again attempts to advance its own tiresome agenda, by playing off Broad against Chorro vis-a-vis through traffic. This has been going on for 20 years, 'and its staff's way to keep any improvements from ever happening. Note that years ago the council directed that bulbouts and pavement design improvements be made at Broad/Meinecke, Chorro/Meinecke and Chorro/Lincoln, and those items were budgeted. Under the guise of implementing CEQA, staff has blocked those improvements ever since. In contrast to staff's idea of how to deal with possible impacts on Chorro, here are mine: a. Implement signal changes as described above. A long wait for a green light turning left from Chorro onto Foothill would help discourage through traffic if combined with blockage of Broad at Ramona, and improvement of traffic flow on Santa Rosa-Foothill arterial route. b. The people of Chorro deserve speed control mechanisms. Install stop signs at Mission and Center or Mountain View. Consider installation of speed humps comparable to those on Broad. In conclusion, regarding the Broad Street Bike Boulevard: In the 1960s, one of the first bike lanes in the City of Davis was installed in front of my family's home, and we were proud of its presence there. I would be equally proud to live along this city's first bike boulevard. Establishing the bike commute infrastructure today is the key to making the hoped for modal shift actually happen during future years. Adopting and implementing this plan is an Important investment in our community's future. Sincerely, Richard Schmid Schmidt, Page 2 - - L TING AGENDA DATE '�'�" ITEM # e'COUeCIL p.CDD DIR PKCAO ❑ FIN DIR September 3, 1993 1eACA0 ❑ FIRE CHIEF ErATTORNEY gr PW Dirt eCLERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ I iGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL Din Bill Roalman, Vice Mayor ❑ PEF;SDIR City of San Luis Obispo Post Office Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 94303-8100 Dear Vice Mayor Roalman: We would like to take this opportunity to once again express our thanks and congratulations to you and all of the City Council Members for your hard work and dedication to date in overseeing the development of the Bicycle Transportation Plan. We of course would also like to urge you to approve what we feel is and excellent plan. As I mentioned during the public hearing on August 31, this bicycle plan represents a tremendous opportunity for the City to provide very real incentives for citizens to substitute bicycle travel for car travel - a possibility that in our opinion benefits the entire community. We use bicycles almost exclusively for our regional (within 15 miles)transit needs¢ and find that even though we are very experienced cyclists - having cycle toured much of the U.S. , Europe and Southeast Asia - there are parts of San Luis Obispo that we are not comfortable riding on. Johnson , Broad, Marsh, and Orcutt come to mind immediately. We are most concerned not only with encouraging those potential . cyclists that may fear riding in dangerous conditions, but with preventing serious accidents such as the death that occurred on Johnson Avenue. As a member of the Sierra Club's Alternative Transportation Task Force (ATTF) , I must also urge you to accept the Pacific Street "alternative" - as agreed to by the ATTF, BIA and Chamber of Commerce - only after adopting and agreeing to delay the Marsh Street plan. This will reflect the agreement reached between the ATTF, BIA and Chamber. I am very excited by the fact that these three groups will be working together on this project, but also wish to ensure that should the Pacific Street plan not come to fruition, Marsh Street will be implemented in a timely manner. Thanks for your consideration, and once again congratulations on a tremendous Bicycle Transportation Plan. Sincerely, v L_. c t' L , SEP 7 1993 Mark Wilson CITY COUNICIL Sheila Wilson SAN I-UhS QElSFO, CA 1044 Islay San Luis Obispo _ 'EfIAGENDA A A-2.1ITEM # 1416 San Luis Drive Suite D San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 September 5, 1993 has P Pinard ft d �.: :.i V �:.W City Council SEP 9 1993 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 � ciCOUNCIL HuUIs oslsao, ca Dear Mayor Pinard: 'Ibank you for allowing me to speak at the last Council meeting regarding bike lanes on Johnson Avenue. I want to follow up briefly on what I said and reiterate my opposition to bike lanes between San Luis Drive and Buchon. • With the proposed bike plan, cyclists coming down Johnson would have to cross a lane of fast-moving traffic at the point where Johnson splits off into San Luis Drive. Currently cyclists are pointed directly down San Luis Drive where they don't have to cross any traffic. • A bike lane in "Me Chute" won't add any physical protection to cyclists. It is only a line which can easily be crossed by motorists who misjudge their speed coming down the hill. This happens quite frequently. • A bike lane in "The Chute" will only encourage local children, inexperienced riders and high school students to enter a narrow corridor which has poor visibility and deceptively sharp turns. Two serious bike accidents have occurred here recently in which inexperienced riders lost control of their bikes. One died, the other was found unconscious in the bushes by my neighbor. I would like to invite you to take a walking tour with me of "'The Chute." I can show you where accidents have occurred in the past and point out the conditions that make this stretch of Johnson inherently dangerous. Please call me at 544-8722 day or evening. I11 be happy to arrange a time to meet that will it your schedule. Sincerely, COUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR CAO ❑ FIN DIR ACRO ❑ FIRE CHIEF 2d*okjer LERMnTTORNEYv DIR a O POLICE CHF ❑ c�rrTF.M O REO DIR O C READ FIE O UTIL DIR 0 PERS DIR `71NG AGENDA SB Management woE ITEM ® September 3 , 1993 �COUh:CIL ❑ CDD DIR �PA ❑ FIN DIR ❑4.CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF TIL Mayor Peg Pinard �TTOpN ( l"J Dlil City of San Luis Obispo E?OCLERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF P. O. Box 8100 ❑ MGMTTEANI ❑ REC DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 ❑ C AD 07 O UU-17- j! ❑ PERS DIR Dear Mayor Pinard: �^ I know how much paperwork you must have to go through daily, so I'll be as brief as possible. Regarding the S.L.O. Bicycle Plan: I Almost everyone at the 9/31/93 hearing was in favor of the plan. II The main problems folks had were: A. Johnson Street loss of parking and danger to cyclists. B. Loss of one lane of Marsh Street and more parking spaces lost. III Looks like an easy solution: Compromise A. Use San Luis Drive, railroad side, instead of Johnson. B. Do the one-way Pacific and one-way Pismo Street idea. IV If the only strong disagreements on this entire plan are those two areas, why not use alternate routes - make them as good as you can and get on with it. V Please consider the fact that more education is needed for: A. Young folks B. All bicyclists _ SEP j0 $ ,JJ.. . . .contd. U1 I'Y COU i;i;l u Sf,N LUTE U"I5 ^" CA Post Office Box 12837 • San Luis Obispo. Catilornia 93406 (805)543-9214 . FAX.(805)5439243 Mayor Peg Pinard 9/3/93 Page two . . . C. All motorists Thus, more dollars need to be budgeted. If everyone's concerns are important, then this is a solution that answers them for the majority of the citizens of San Luis Obispo. Sincerely, Michael Hesser MH/sm MEET1.� ,,.AGENDA DATE �� ITEM # Attached is a list submitted by Randy Vollmer of people from the Johnson Avenue neighborhood who are requesting that parking not be taken away from their homes. This is a partial list of those who would like to see the traffic slowed down on Johnson and have the Council consider providing a bike lane by removing a travel lane, similar to what was done on Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Vollmer has started organizing his neighborhood and would like the Council to consider his request. ,PAUhC:L :CO3POLICE D DIR of CRO DIR ��CAO E CHIEF RECEIVED ff TTORNEY DIR CLERKCP.IG CHF SEP 1 1993 ❑ r�rcn�rrEF � DIR ❑ READ FILE L DIRCITY CLERK �:, S DIR SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA �PjvtJ i 1Ce�i� vo�cr-- . Sl.0 Ecco 5Z4 >—Jq- '7 SEP ' 1993 SAN�'�C081SP0, CA (vr7 2 �rls�►-� � i ns� l.�nt,�j'�e (�des