Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8b. Authorization to Advertise 2026 Roadway Sealing Project, Specification No. 2000617 Item 7b Department: Public Works Cost Center: 9501 For Agenda of: 5/5/2026 Placement: Public Hearing Estimated Time: 90 min FROM: Aaron Floyd, Public Works & Utilities Director Prepared By: Bobby Browning, Engineer III and Luke Schwartz, Transportation Manager SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE 2026 ROADWAY SEALING PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 2000617 RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the project plans and special provisions for the 2026 Roadway Sealing Project, Specification Number 2000617; and, 2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids for the 2026 Roadway Sealing Project; and, 3. Authorize the City Manager to award the construction contract for the 2026 Roadway Sealing Project pursuant to Section 3.24.190 of the Municipal Code for the bid total, if the lowest responsible bid is within the Publicly Disclosed Funding Limit of $3,932,000; and, 4. Appropriate $236,542 from the unreserved SB1 Fund balance to the project; and, 5. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment C) entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, Authorizing Appropriation of $236,542 from unreserved SB1 Fund Balance to support the 2026 Roadway Sealing Project, Specification Number 2000617; and, 6. Authorize the Finance Director to make the following transfers to the 2026 Roadway Sealing Project Account (2000617): a. Transfer $62,000 of Capital Outlay LRM from Bridge Maintenance (2000029); and, b. Transfer $100,000 of Capital Outlay LRM from the Traffic Maintenance and Replacement Project Account (No. 2001003); and, c. Transfer $150,000 from Completed Projects; and, 7. Authorize the City Engineer to approve Contract Change Orders up to the available project budget, including any amendments authorized by the City Manager . REPORT-IN-BRIEF Following the City of San Luis Obispo's (City) Pavement Management Plan (PMP), staff recommends advertisement of the 2026 Roadway Sealing Project (“Project”) to provide maintenance and striping improvements to the streets shown in Attachment A. Pavement maintenance projects often involve complete removal and replacement of roadway striping and pavement markings, which provides excellent opportunities to incorporate planned safety and complete street improvements as part of these larger Page 255 of 412 Item 7b roadway maintenance efforts. The 2026 Roadway Sealing Project will implement several street modifications from the City’s adopted Active Transportation Plan (ATP) to improve safety and mobility for all road users. These strategies include design elements intended to improve pedestrian crossing safety, increase separation between bicyclists and motor vehicle traffic, and measures to calm traffic and reduce speeds on certain streets. This Project will be funded in Fiscal Year 2026 -27. Allocated funds per the recommendations of this staff report are anticipated to be sufficient for this project. The Project will be advertised during the late spring, and construction is planned to begin in the late summer. POLICY CONTEXT On May 17, 2022, Council approved a Purchasing Policy Update to the Financial Management Manual that required Council approval for Public Projects that cost over $200,000. Implementation of the Project aligns directly with several City plans, policies and goals, including the application of various elements identified in the City’s 2021 Active Transportation Plan (ATP) aimed at improving walking and bicycling infrastructure, as well as transportation safety improvements identified in the City’s Draft Vision Zero Action Plan1. Additionally, the project contributes to the Major City Goal of Infrastructure and Sustainable Transportation. The project also supports the ongoing maintenance of City streets as outlined in the Pavement Management Plan. DISCUSSION Background The 2026 Roadway Sealing Project (the “Project”) continues implementation of the City’s Pavement Management Plan, an ongoing effort to maintain and extend the useful life of the City’s roadways. The Pavement Management Plan, originally adopted in 1998, establishes nine zones (“Pavement Management Areas”) within the City. The City’s annual sealing projects typically alternate between roadway sealing on local and collector streets within two Pavement Management Areas in one year and then focusing on arterial street work in the second year, thereby alternating between neighborhood areas and arterials biennially to maintain the over 140 miles of City-owned roadways in a state of good repair. This year’s pavement maintenance project will focus on slurry sealing local streets in Pavement Management Areas 2 and 3. The Project also includes pavement maintenance and restriping on other roadways that were either (a) scheduled previously, but deferred due to construction conflicts, or (b) collector or arterials streets not scheduled for pavement maintenance, but with road markings that are badly faded and in need of restriping. The Additive Alternative A of the project includes only the following: 1 The Vision Zero Action Plan is currently in draft form and scheduled for final review and potential adoption by the City Council on May 19, 2026. Visit the City’s Traffic Safety (Vision Zero) Website for more information on the Action Plan and traffic safety data. Page 256 of 412 Item 7b 1. Slurry seal on South Broad Street from Tank Farm Road to Farmhouse Lane 2. New thermoplastic striping with no change to the current striping configuration. The project plans and special provisions are structured with a Base Bid and one Bid Additive Alternative A to maximize the scope of work that can be completed within available funding. The strategy is to award the construction contract with the Base Bid and Additive Alternative A as funding will all ow, up to the Publicly Disclosed Funding amount of $3,932,000 in compliance with Public Contract Code Section 20103.8(c). If the lowest responsive total bid is in excess of the Publicly Disclosed Funding Amount but the Base Bid is within the funding amount, then the Base Bid will be recommended for award without the Additive Alternative. Figure 1 below illustrates the streets included in the 2026 Roadway Sealing Project, while a larger-size map is provided as Attachment A. Figure 1: 2026 Roadway Sealing Project Map Design Details While the Project is focused on prioritizing essential maintenance by slurry sealing and restriping select streets, staff has incorporated additional design elements where feasible Page 257 of 412 Item 7b and as funding allows to advance the City’s traffic safety, active transportation, and neighborhood traffic management goals. These additional design elements are summarized further below. All Streets All streets within the Project limits will incorporate elements such as the addition of high visibility “ladder style” crosswalk markings at all existing and newly proposed pedestrian crosswalks. The project will also add red curb paint and/or “NO PARKING” signage to “daylight” crosswalks, with a focus on priority intersections near schools and parks, along arterial and collector streets, on designated neighborhood greenways, and in areas with high pedestrian activity. In addition, all existing traffic calming features that currently exist within the project limits will be retained. Mill Street Neighborhood Greenway Mill Street is identified in the ATP as a Tier 1 (highest priority) project, with a recommendation to establish a neighborhood greenway from Chorro Street to Grand Avenue. There will be no impacts to existing parking. This greenway will improve walking and bicycling access between downtown, the North Chorro Greenway, the Morro (Bill Roalman) Greenway, the Railroad Safety Trail, and Cal Poly. A portion of this greenway was implemented on Mill Street between Pepper Street and Grand Avenue as part of the 2024 Sealing Project. The 2026 Roadway Sealing Project will complete the remaining segment between Chorro and Pepper Streets, and include the following improvements:  Greenway guide signage and pavement markings  Pedestrian crossing warning signage, striped corner bulbouts, and daylighting at Mill/Morro intersection  Striping refinements at the intersection of Mill Street and Santa Rosa Street to improve turning maneuverability for SLO Transit buses  Additional on-street ADA parking stalls  Installation of an all-way stop at the intersection of Mill Street and Toro Street, replacing the existing pilot neighborhood traffic circle (see more discussion below)  Installation of speed cushions to reduce vehicle speeds (see below for further discussion) Figure 2: Example Images of Neighborhood Greenway Markings and Guide Signs Page 258 of 412 Item 7b Mill Street and Toro Street Intersection Configuration A temporary neighborhood traffic circle was installed as a pilot project at the intersection of Mill Street and Toro Street (see Figure 3 below) using temporary materials in late 2024 to address safety concerns reported by th e community. Prior to installation, there were two reported crashes at this intersection in the past 10 years. In addition, frequent close calls had been reported and confirmed via in-person observations by staff, typically involving drivers on Toro Street (who have a stop sign) failing to yield right-of-way to Mill Street traffic and pedestrians. Since installation of the circle, there have been no reported crashes and no significant impacts to transit or emergency vehicle access . Staff have, however, received feedback from community members expressing the following concerns: a) Unattractive aesthetics of the temporary materials b) Continued pattern of illegal turns and right-of-way violations, despite the traffic circle. While traffic circles have effectively reduced speeding and conflicts at other intersections in the city, staff are proposing to replace the pilot traffic circle at this location with all‑way stop control and high‑visibility crosswalk markings. This recommendation is based on current observations, analysis of traffic conditions, public input, and consideration of aesthetics within the Mill Street Historic District. Although the intersection does not meet all‑way stop warrants based solely on traffic volumes or collision history, the level of pedestrian and bicycle activity across Mill Street combined with documented close calls and observed user behavior provides adequate engineering justification consistent with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices . This recommendation reflects the application of engineering judgment in a context with high multimodal activity and is not intended to establish a blanket precedent for locations that do not present similar conditions. This proposal is also aligned with the recommendations of the City’s Active Transportation Committee and most public comments received on this topic. (See Figure 3: Existing Neighborhood Traffic Circle at Mill/Toro to be Replaced with All-Way Stop Control Page 259 of 412 Item 7b “Previous Advisory Body Approval” section later in this report for further discussion on ATC input). Mill Street Speed Cushions In addition to the elements described above on Mill Street, staff recommends installation of speed cushions to address speeding concerns and improve comfort for people driving, walking, and bicycling. While existing traffic volumes on Mill Street are suitable for a low‑stress shared street environment, prevailing vehicle speeds range from 25 -30 mph, exceeding the City’s General Plan and ATP targets for a residential collector serving as a neighborhood greenway (20-25 mph). Speed cushions are similar to speed humps or tables but include wheel cutouts that reduce impacts to fire trucks, ambulances, and buses, making them appropriate for streets like Mill that serve as primary emergency response and transit routes. Staff propose installing the cushions using pre‑formed rubber bolt‑down materials, which will provide consistent control of the cushion shape and configuration while allowing adjustments based on performance and feedback from emergency services and transit providers. These speed cushions will be installed under a separate contract after sealing is complete to allow greater flexibility in scheduling and refinement as needed. Because these elements are not included in the current bid package, the proposed locations of these speed cushions are shown on a separate exhibit shown in Attachment D. Figure 4: Example Image of Speed Cushions Page 260 of 412 Item 7b Johnson Avenue Johnson Avenue between Buchon Street and Bishop Street is identified in the ATP as a Tier 2 (medium priority) active transportation corridor, with long term plans to implement protected bike lanes. The ATP notes, however, that achieving this may require roadway widening or removal of existing auto travel lanes, requiring further feasibility analysis. During early planning for the 2026 Roadway Sealing Project, staff evaluated whether protected bike lanes could be incorporated on Johnson Avenue, or whether buffered bike lanes could be added as an interim step to increase separation from traffic and support future protected facilities if current project funding cannot accommodate them. While a few short segments, such as the block between Buchon Street and San Luis Drive , have adequate width for buffered bike lanes, most of the corridor does not have sufficient right of way to provide buffered or protected lanes without widening the roadway or removing one or more existing travel lanes. Staff also note that some residents have advocated for a road diet on Johnson Avenue for reasons beyond bicycle improvements, including a desire to accommodate on-street parking, bus loading, commercial deliveries, or to calm traffic and improve overall roadway safety. Because widening Johnson Avenue is not feasib le at this time, staff prepared a traffic operations analysis to evaluate whether lane removal (a “road diet”) could be a viable option to reallocate roadway width. This preliminary analysis assessed auto Level of Service (LOS) and projected vehicle queueing to compare the following scenarios: 1. Existing Road Configuration 2. Full Road Diet (Remove one travel lane in both the northbound and southbound directions) 3. Partial Road Diet (Remove one northbound travel lane only) 4. Partial Road Diet (Remove one southbound travel lane only) Analysis details and findings are documented in the Johnson Avenue Traffic Operations Analysis Memo (Attachment B). Based on current traffic analysis, all road diet scenarios are projected to increase congestion, with LOS and vehicle queueing that would not meet the City’s adopted performance standards. Under each scenario, one or more key intersections along Johnson Avenue are expected to operate below the City’s minimum LOS standard of D, with some approaches potentially experiencing LOS F conditions, resulting in increased delays and queueing. While these findings do not support implementation of a road diet at this time, the concept could be revisited in the future as part of a more comprehensive corridor study that evaluates updated traffic conditions, potential intersection improvements, and broader multimodal design options. Furthermore, the San Luis Obispo Fire Department has expressed concerns regarding a road diet on this portion of Johnson Avenue, citing the potential for impacts to emergency Page 261 of 412 Item 7b response, particularly for access to French Hospital Medical Center. The corridor’s function as an evacuation route further limits the feasibility of reducing vehicle capacity. For all these reasons provided above, staff are not recommending implementation of a road diet on this segment of Johnson Avenue at this time. Note that staff’s recommendations differ from those of the Active Transportation Committee, which is discussed later in this report. This conclusion does not preclude revisiting bicycle facility improvements on Johnson Avenue in the future as part of a larger capital project. Potential options may include roadway widening or pairing a road diet with capacity improvements at intersection bottlenecks, such as converting signals to roundabouts. Advancing the planned Flora-Fixilini Neighborhood Greenway as a future capital project may also provide an alternative low-stress route for improving pedestrian and bicycle access parallel to Johnson Avenue. These potential options would require significant financial investment and are not currently incorporated into the City’s 10 -year Capital Improvement Plan; future inclusion as part of the Financial Planning process could require deferring or modifying planned programs and projects. While roadway reconfiguration is not recommended currently, staff are proposing incremental improvements as part of the 2026 Roadway Sealing Project, including: 1. Buffered bike lanes at limited locations where width allows 2. High-visibility crosswalks 3. Green bike lane conflict markings and enhanced warning signage to increase visibility of pedestrians and cyclists 4. Installation of radar speed feedback signs in both directions to reduce vehicle speeds. Staff recommends that any future consideration of a road diet on Johnson Avenue include additional analysis using updated traffic data, evaluation of future year traffic operations, and more detailed assessment of potential impacts to emergency response and evacuation. See the Alternatives section at the end of this report for further discussion of next steps if the Council prefers to support the ATC’s recommendation to continue exploring a road diet on Johnson Avenue. Orcutt Road Orcutt Road between Broad Street and Laurel Lane is identified in the City’s Active Transportation Plan as a Tier 2 (medium‑priority) corridor with long‑term plans to implement protected bike lanes. Although Orcutt Road is not scheduled for slurry sealing as part of the 2026 Roadway Sealing Project, it will be restriped with the following elements: 1. Add high-visibility crosswalk markings 2. Install striped bike lane buffers, and slight reduction in vehicle traffic lane widths to reduce illegal speeds 3. Green bike lane markings through conflicts at intersections and driveways 4. Addition of a bicycle left turn box at westbound Orcutt approaching Broad Street Page 262 of 412 Item 7b 5. Striping improvements near the Orcutt at-grade UPRR rail crossing as requested by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) 6. Installation of rubber median curbs between Sacramento Drive and the existing raised concrete median near the UPRR tracks (requested by UPRR to reduce illegal mid-block crossings). A permanent landscaped median extension could be recommended as a future project. San Luis Drive San Luis Drive between Johnson Avenue and California Boulevard is identified in the City’s Active Transportation Plan as a Tier 3 (lower-priority) corridor with long-term plans to install protected bike lanes and intersection control improvements. Implementing protected facilities would require removal of on-street parking on at least one side of the street, which would necessitate a more comprehensive public outreach process involving San Luis Obispo High School representatives, students and families, and nearby residents. The current scope and funding for the 2026 Roadway Sealing Project does not support installation and maintenance of vertical bikeway elements or other higher -cost improvements. Proposed improvements include: 1. Install high-visibility crosswalks and additional school crossing warning signage 2. Narrowing of vehicle travel lane widths with the addition of striped bike lane buffers 3. Installation of a few flex posts along the southbound bike lane approaching Johnson Avenue to discourage illegal parking near the high school entrance 4. Add a southbound bicycle box at Johnson Avenue 5. Green bike lane markings at intersections and driveway conflict areas 6. Modified northbound striping between Johnson Avenue and the high school driveway to improve visibility and reduce conflicts where the bike lane shifts position If the Council and community members would like to explore more substantive improvements for San Luis Drive, staff would recommend that this be considered as a potential funding request at a future financial planning cycle and begin with a more focused corridor study and safe routes to school plan for San Luis High School . Page 263 of 412 Item 7b Pavement Area 2 Figure 5: Pavement Management Area 2 Boundary Pavement Area 2 includes a series of neighborhood streets near Sinsheimer Elementary School where staff are proposing targeted traffic calming, pedestrian safety, and striping improvements to address speeding concerns and enhance multimodal comfort. Improvements include: 1. Safe routes to school enhancements along Augusta Street, including striped bulbouts at the Augusta Street and Bishop Street intersection, green-colored sharrow bike route markings, new/refreshed school zone warning and speed limit signs, high-visibility crosswalk markings. 2. Install two new speed cushions on Augusta between Sinsheimer Elementary and Laurel Lane, which implemented a planned Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) request. (As with Mill Street, speed cushions will be installed following completion of sealing project via separate construction contract). 3. Addition of one new speed cushion on Sydney Street between Johnson and Augusta, as requested via a current NTM application, which will reduce illegal speeding on priority walking route to Sinsheimer Elementary. 4. Red curb paint installation for “daylighting” at crosswalks near Sinsheimer Elementary. 5. Add edge stripes and a centerline stripe on Ella Street to the narrow roadway and encourage lower speeds, which advances a current NTM request for Ella Street. The City’s Active Transportation Plan (See Attachment A of ATP for project lists) identifies several Tier 3 (low priority) bikeway improvements within Pavement Area 2, which are not recommended for advancement with the 2026 Roadway Sealing Project, for the following reasons: 1. Flora-Fixilini Neighborhood Greenway – This future neighborhood greenway would designate a priority walking/bicycle route along Fixilini and Flora Streets, providing Page 264 of 412 Item 7b a parallel low-stress pedestrian and bicycle route to Johnson Avenue between Southwood and SLO High School. There is currently a gap in connectivity between Fixilini and Flora Streets—to provide a proper connection, a shared-use path is proposed to be constructed through the County’s property adjacent to the newly constructed County Probation Building; however, this is not feasible at this time. The environmental approval for the County’s Campus Redevelopment Phase 1 (the Probation Building) establishes a commitment to construct this path with Phase 2 of the Campus Redevelopment, which does not yet have a confirmed schedule. Until then, an informal, partially unpaved pedestrian route will be retained through the County’s property, but this does not preclude the need for a proper path in the future. 2. Ella-Ruth-Iris Neighborhood Greenway – Requires construction of shared-use path along Union Pacific Railroad UPRR property between Jennifer Street bridge and Iris Street to avoid steep grades. 3. Bishop Street Bike Lanes – Requires removal of on-street parking fronting Terrace Hill and has limited utility without planned extension of Bishop S treet to Roundhouse Street over UPRR tracks. These projects would remain in the ATP for future development. Pavement Area 3 Figure 6: Pavement Management Area 3 Boundary Pavement Area 3 includes a mixture of neighborhood streets west of Broad Street and along Tank Farm Road east of Broad Street. Improvements include: 1. Implement the Meadow Park Neighborhood Greenway east of Broad Street, following the Mutsuhito Avenue, Victoria Avenue, and Woodbridge Street alignment (Tier 3 ATP project) with installation of greenway pavement markings and guide signage. (The remaining portion of the Meadow Park Greenway extending west of Broad Street is anticipated to be implemented through upcoming Page 265 of 412 Item 7b capital projects, including the Higuera Complete Streets Project and the South Street and King Street Crossing). 2. Installation of red curb paint for “daylighting” at intersections near Meadow Park, Islay Park and French Park, and at access points to the off -street trail system in neighborhoods south of Tank Farm Road. 3. Installation of sharrows to delineate the Poinsettia/Fuller bike route per the ATP. 4. High-visibility crosswalk markings at the Poinsettia Drive and Fuller Road intersection near French Park. South Broad Street (Tank Farm to Southern City Limit) South Broad Street between Tank Farm Road and the southern city limit is identified in the City’s Active Transportation Plan as a Tier 1, or high‑priority, corridor with long‑term plans to implement protected bike lanes. The corridor is also identified in the City’s Vision Zero Plan as part of the High‑Injury Network due to its history of severe injury collisions, with future recommendations to install raised medians, a future signal or roundabout at Farmhouse Lane, new sidewalks, lighting, and protected bike lanes. As part of the 2026 Roadway Sealing Project, South Broad Street is identified for roadway maintenance, with the base bid including crack sealing, and a bid additive alternative featuring slurry seal and full corridor restriping. Based on current estimates, staff does not expect existing funding to be sufficient to fund this additive alternative; however, staff is including this in the bid package to confirm expected costs and with hopes that bids will come in at a level that allows advancing this work. Staff has incorporated minor enhancements in the current plans that could be reasonably advanced with the roadway restriping work if there is sufficient funding to advance the bid additive alternative scope at this time, including slight reductions in vehicle lane widths to increase existing bike lane buffer widths where feasible, and installation of green bike lane markings through intersection conflict areas. It should also be noted that left‑turn access restrictions are planned at the intersection of Broad Street and Aerovista to eliminate left turns from Aerovista onto Broad. These turn restrictions are intended to address a history of severe broadside collisions and while reflected in the current bid additive alternative plans, these improvements will be advanced this summer as a stand-alone safety project, separate from the 2026 Roadway Slurry Project. Left-turn access in to Aerovista from Broad Street will be retained, while drivers turning left out to northbound Broad Street wil l be required to re-route to the signal at Aero Drive. Potential impacts to the Aero Drive intersection have been evaluated and additional left -turn demand from these re-routed trips will not result in degradation to intersection levels of service or queueing. While implementation of more substantive improvements identified in the ATP and Draft Vision Zero Action Plan, such as addition of protected bike lanes, raised medians, new sidewalks, or new signals/roundabouts are no t feasible currently due to funding constraints, the corridor remains a priority for future improvements. As the Council is likely aware, the City is initiating planning efforts this spring to advance a corridor study for the South Broad Street Corridor, covering limits from High Street south to the southern city limits (near Farmhouse Lane). This separate planning effort, partially funded by a federal Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant, will guide plans for near - and long-term engineering recommendations for this corridor to improve safety, and will also direct low- Page 266 of 412 Item 7b cost, quick-build safety improvements along the segment of Broad between South Street and Orcutt Road. A separate item will come before the City Council this spring in late May or early June with more information on this project. South Street South Street is identified in the Active Transportation Plan as a Tier 1, or high‑priority, corridor with plans to pursue protected bike lanes in the future. Although South Street is not scheduled for pavement maintenance this year and is proposed for striping only as part of the 2026 Roadway Sealing Project base bid, staff recommends minor refinements to the eastbound bike lane striping. These include adding striped bike lane buffers where width allows. The proposed layout shifts the bike lane to the curbside and adds a striped buffer between vehicle traffic and the bike lane in areas where on‑street parking is already prohibited. Previous Council or Advisory Body Action The City’s Active Transportation Committee (ATC) reviewed draft Project plans on January 15, 2026. The committee expressed general support for the draft design measures, and provided the following specific focused recommendations to staff and the City Council for consideration: 1. Support for adding speed cushions on Mill Street and converting the Mill Street and Toro intersection to all-way stop control with enhanced crosswalks. 2. Support for the two speed cushions initially proposed for Augusta Street, and recommendation to add speed cushion(s) on Sydney St reet between Johnson and Augusta, as requested by neighbors. 3. Recommend that staff investigate a more robust signalization, or possible roundabout at San Luis Drive and California Boulevard intersection through future budget recommendations, and Safe Routes to School efforts. 4. The Committee recommends a road-diet down to one lane for room for a buffered bike lane along Johnson Avenue, between San Luis Drive and Bishop Street. The current proposed project plans reflect the ATC’s recommendations, except for Johnson Avenue. As previously described in this report, the plans for Johnson Avenue do not include a road diet at this time. The ATC staff report and minutes from this meeting are available in the City’s website. Staff also presented draft project plans to the City’s Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) on March 11, 2026. Although there are no improvements within the scope of this sealing project that are specifically focused on transit access or operations, the committee expressed support for feasible pedestrian access enhancements near transit stops. These include the proposed intersection daylighting locations and the pedestrian crosswalk markings included in the project. The MTC staff report for this item is available on the City’s website. Page 267 of 412 Item 7b Public Engagement The January 2026 ATC meeting included advanced notification efforts to encourage input and attendance from the broader community. Prior to the meeting, news releases were published inviting interested community members to participate. In addition, mailers were sent to residents on Mill Street and Augusta Street, where proposed street design changes included new traffic calming measures and intersection control modifications. The March 2026 MTC meeting was also open to the public. Following the ATC and MTC meetings, staff sent follow‑up mailers to property owners and residents on Mill Street to inform stakeholders of the final recommendations for traffic calming and the Mill Street and Toro Street intersection configuration. Pre‑paid ballots were also mailed to properties along Augusta and Sydney Streets to gauge support for the proposed traffic calming measures. Staff has since received a substantial number of ballots, with strong support for the proposed treatments: 78 percent (94 ballots returned) in favor on Augusta Street and 84 percent (19 ballots returned) in favor on Sydney Street. This project is included in the SLO in Motion campaign, which provides updated information to the community on current and upcoming construction projects in the public right‑of‑way. Updated project information has been maintained throughout the planning and design phase at www.slocity.org/sloinmotion. Project information has also been shared via social media and direct mailers. CONCURRENCE This project has been reviewed and has concurrence from the Public Works Department and Fire Department. Project plans were also reviewed with SLO Transit operators and design refinements have been incorporated to retain/improve transit vehicle operations , where feasible. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Project qualifies for an Exemption to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) because the Project consists of the repair and maintenance of existing roadways, and minimally disruptive surface improvements within an existing built urban environment (pavement markings, sign posts, etc.). A Notice of Exemption will be filed through the Community Development Department upon Council approval of the project. FISCAL IMPACT Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2026-2027 Funding Identified: Yes Page 268 of 412 Item 7b Fiscal Analysis: Funding Sources Total Budget Available Current Funding Request Remaining Balance Annual Ongoing Cost 2026 Roadway Sealing CIP Account (2000617) $4,302,858 $4,302,858 $0 N/A Capital Outlay - LRM (Traffic Maintenance and Replacement 2001003-00) $108,221.40 $100,000.00 $8,221.40 N/A Capital Outlay - LRM (Bridge Maintenance 1000029-00) $102,113.70 $62,000.00 $40,113.70 N/A Other: SB1 Fund $236,542.00 $236,542.00 $0 N/A Completed Projects $559,812.30 $150,000 $409,812.3 N/A Total $5,309,547 $4,851,400.00 $458,148 N/A Page 269 of 412 Item 7b The 2026 Roadway Sealing Project bid plans and specifications are structured with a Base Bid and one Additive Alternatives, with Additive Alternative A representing work on Broad Street south of Tank Farm. The strategy is to award the construction contract with the Base Bid and Additive Alternative A up to the Publicly Disclosed amount of $3,932,000 in compliance with Public Contract Code Section 20103.8(c). The total project cost is estimated at $4,851,400, including direct construction costs and contingencies, as well as related soft costs (construction engineering support, materials testing, etc.). Excluding the Bid Additive Alternatives, the total Base Bid project cost is $4,286,394 (construction, contingency and soft costs). The 2026 Roadway Sealing Project is recommended for award prior to the start of the new fiscal year, with construction beginning after July 1, 2026, when FY 2026 ‑27 funds become available. If full funding is not available, only the portion of work that can be supported within the approved budget will be awarded. Staff recommends advertising the project now rather than waiting for the start of FY 2026‑27 to enable construction to begin during the late summer to help minimize impacts on the traveling public. Starting construction earlier than fall will allow school areas to be prioritized before they’re in session. Any school areas noted in the project specials that are in session during construction will require work time restriction s. Construction will not begin until sufficient funding is confirmed to support total project costs. Actual costs will be known once bids are received. ALTERNATIVES 1. Deny the approval to advertise the project. City Council could choose to deny authorization to advertise this project at this time. This action would delay scheduled road maintenance, which could result in increased future costs due to construction cost escalation and further deterioration of pavement and road markings. 2. Pursue further analysis, outreach, and design for a potential road concept on Johnson Avenue. The City Council may choose to direct staff to further evaluate the potential for a road diet between San Luis Drive and Bishop Street, as recommended by the Active Transportation Committee (ATC). Should the Council wish to pursue this alternative, staff would need additional time to conduct expanded public outreach, coordinate with local emergency services, refine technical analyses (such as a Traffic Operations Analysis and a Project‑Specific Evacuation Study), prepare more detailed design concepts for a road diet, and return to both the ATC and the City Council for final design and policy guidance before moving forward with construction. Given current limited staffing resources available support new initiatives, these additional tasks would be expected to require approximately 12-18 months and may necessitate supplemental funding for consultant support to advance technical studies and design work. Page 270 of 412 Item 7b If the Council selects this alternative, staff recommends authorizing release of the 2026 Roadway Sealing Project for construction advertisement with the Johnson Avenue plans removed from the scope of work, delegating authority to the City Engineer to approve amended plans and specifications. Staff would then return to the Council with updated recommendations and refined design options for a potential road diet on Johnson Avenue, most likely for inclusion in the 2027 Paving Project. Staff also invites any specific policy direction the Council would like prioritized in a road diet concept, such as dedicating available width to increase on‑street parking, enhancing bicycle facilities, or other desired design outcomes. ATTACHMENTS A. 2026 Roadway Sealing Project Vicinity Map B. Johnson Traffic Operations Memo 20260402 C. Resolution D. New Speed Cushion Locations Page 271 of 412 Page 272 of 412 South Street B r o a d S t r e e t Orcutt Road Bisho p S t r e e t J o h n s o n A v e n u e Mill S t r e e t C h o r r o S t r e e t San L u i s D r i v e Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map Legend BASE: Crack Seal ALT: Slurry & Stripe BASE: Striping Only BASE: Slurry BASE: Fog Seal & Stripe Slurry & Stripe 3 2 Page 273 of 412 Page 274 of 412 Johnson Avenue Road Diet Traffic Operations Analysis 1 TECHNIAL MEMORANDUM Date: March 31, 2026 TO: Project File FROM: William Ring, Transportation Planner-Engineer VIA: Luke Schwartz, P.E., Transportation Manager SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS FOR JOHNSON AVENUE ROAD DIET (SAN LUIS DRIVE TO BISHOP STREET) INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memorandum is to document the operational analysis and design considerations associated with potential traffic lane reductions (“road diet”) on Johnson Avenue from San Luis Drive to Bishop Street. This analysis was prepared to evaluate the potential impacts to traffic operations associated with removing one or multiple motor vehicle lanes on Johnson Avenue to provide width for other features, such as buffered/protected bike lanes, a wider center turn lane, on-street parking, or simply to encourage slower speeds and fewer conflicts points. This is a high-level evaluation that includes analysis of operations at the four (4) signalized intersections on this segment (San Luis Drive, Lizzie Street, Ella Street, and Bishop Street) and analysis of road segment travel times and speeds. Traffic volumes used in this analysis are based on counts collected in 2022, which are the most current data available in this corridor. EXISTING CONDITIONS Johnson Avenue between Bishop Street and San Luis Drive currently operates as a four-lane undivided arterial, consisting of two travel lanes in each direction, striped Class II bicycle lanes in each direction, a continuous two-way left-turn lane between Fixlini and San Luis Drive, and dedicated left turn lanes at each intersection. The total curb-to-curb width within this segment is approximately 60 feet. The posted speed limit is 35 mph (prevailing speeds are 38 mph) and existing weekday traffic volumes range from apx. 15,000 to 16,000 vehicles per day. Peak period volumes are typically higher in the northbound direction in the AM and higher in the southbound direction in the PM, with slightly higher total daily volume and highest peak hourly volume in the southbound direction. The corridor serves as a key north-south connection within the City network, providing access to residential neighborhoods, commercial businesses, San Luis Obispo High School, and French Hospital Medical Center. Over the most recent 5-year period where crash data is available (2020- 2024), there have been 26 total crashes reported on the segment of Johnson Avenue from San Luis Drive to Bishop Street, including 0 severe injury crashes, 2 crashes involving bicyclists and Page 275 of 412 Johnson Avenue Road Diet Traffic Operations Analysis 2 0 crashes involving pedestrians. As presented in the Draft Vision Zero Action Plan, this segment of Johnson Avenue is not designated as part of the City’s High-Injury Network, nor do any intersections or road segments along this stretch rank among the top “hot spot” locations for higher-than-average crash rates. A representative cross section of the existing lane configuration is shown below in Figure 1. Figure 1: Existing Typical Cross-Section ROAD DIET ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Three road diet alternatives were evaluated for the purpose of this analysis: 1. Road Diet (Both Directions) – Remove one motor vehicle lane in northbound and southbound directions 2. Road Diet (Northbound Only) – Remove one motor vehicle lane in the northbound direction only 3. Road Diet (Southbound Only) – Remove one motor vehicle lane in the southbound direction only The roadway width gained from removing one through lane in each direction could allow for installation of buffered or protected bike lanes and/or potential to add on-street parking—if on- street parking were to be proposed, buffered bike lanes stripes could be provided, but there would be insufficient width for vertical bikeway protection. The northbound-only road diet alternative would remove one of the two northbound through lanes, while maintaining two through lanes in the southbound direction and a continuous center turn lane. The southbound-only road diet alternative would remove one of the two southbound through lanes, while maintaining two through lanes in the northbound direction and a continuous center turn lane. With either of these two partial road diet alternatives alternatives, the roadway width could be repurposed to provide buffered or protected bicycle lanes in each direction. Conceptual cross sections showing potential configurations for these alternatives are shown Figures 2A-4 below—note that specific design details and cross section widths are shown for reference purposes only and could be subject to further design refinement. Page 276 of 412 Johnson Avenue Road Diet Traffic Operations Analysis 3 Figure 2A: Full Road Diet Example Typical Cross-Section (No-Parking) Figure 2B: Full Road Diet Example Typical Cross-Section with Parking Figure 3: Northbound Only Road Diet Example Typical Cross-Section Page 277 of 412 Johnson Avenue Road Diet Traffic Operations Analysis 4 Figure 4: Southbound Only Road Diet Example Typical Cross-Section *Note – While vertical bikeway elements are shown in several cross section alternatives above, addition of bikeway vertical elements may not be feasible within current funding limits and would require further evaluation with City emergency services and maintenance staff. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Traffic operations were evaluated consistent with City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines using the methodologies of the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Existing AM and PM peak hour volumes were analyzed and compared to projected operations under the potential road diet scenarios using HCM methods using Synchro 11 analysis software. Detailed output tables are provided as attachments to this report. Intersection vehicle delay and Level of Service (LOS) were evaluated for each scenario and compared to the adopted performance thresholds established in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element. In addition, intersection 95th percentile vehicle queues1 were compared to available storage lengths and roadway link distances, and roadway segment travel times and speeds were estimated. Level of Service is a qualitative metric used in transportation engineering to measure and describe performance of transportation facilities. Level of Service grades range from “A” to “F” and represent the quality of traffic flow based on congestion when evaluating motor vehicle performance. LOS “A” reflects free-flow conditions, while LOS “F” represents severe congestion and excessive delay, with demand exceeding roadway capacity. The Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan establishes a minimum LOS standard of “D” or better for all routes outside of the downtown area. For the purposes of this analysis, delays were evaluated at each signalized intersection along the Johnson Avenue corridor between San Luis Drive and Bishop for each approach and for the overall intersection average under existing conditions and under each of the road diet scenarios. A level of service deficiency would be triggered where intersection delays increase at a location already operating at LOS E or worse, where design changes cause intersections Levels of Service 1 The 95th percentile queue is the queue length (measured in feet or number of vehicles) that has only a 5% probability of being exceeded during a given analysis period. It is a traffic engineering metric used to design turn pockets, design traffic signal timing, and evaluate impacts of roadway design changes or land use projects. Page 278 of 412 Johnson Avenue Road Diet Traffic Operations Analysis 5 to deteriorate from acceptable (LOS D or better) to unacceptable (LOS E or F), or where intersection 95th percentile queues would extend beyond available left-turn pocket storage or spill back into the nearest upstream intersection. Attachment 1 summarizes intersection delays and level of service, while Attachment 2 summarizes intersection queuing results. Attachment 3 summarizes the arterial road segment analysis. OPERATIONS ANALYSIS FINDINGS Under existing conditions, all intersections operate at with an overall grade of LOS “C” or better during both peak periods, with the exception of Johnson and Ella during the AM peak, which currently operates at LOS “E.” It is worth noting that at both the Lizzie Street and Ella Street intersections, some individual side street approaches currently operate below LOS “D” during existing peak hour conditions. The deficient movement varies by peak period and does not necessarily occur in the same direction during both the AM and PM peaks. Under all road diet scenarios evaluated, study intersections experience increased delay during both the AM and PM peak hours. Based on the analysis results, one or more intersections would operate below the City’s minimum LOS “D” standard on an overall basis, and several individual approaches would decrease operations significantly, with the worst operating at LOS “F” and experiencing substantial delay. In practical terms, this would result in some side-street movements experiencing delays approaching or exceeding five minutes to clear the intersection. Queue lengths during the AM and PM peak hours were also evaluated. Under existing conditions, queues are generally contained within available turn lane storage, and through movements do not spill back into upstream intersections. Under the road diet configurations, 95th percentile queues increase significantly due to reduced directional capacity. As a result, queues would exceed available turn bay storage and would spill back into upstream intersections. At some locations, actual queues could be longer than predicted using this software analysis model. For example, in certain scenarios, queues on Johnson Avenue would spill back into multiple upstream signalized intersections—the this queue spillback would increase delays and queues at the adjacent upstream intersection further, but would not be fully captured in this software modeling. in these instances, actual queue lengths may extend further than predicted by the software modeling. In addition, during AM and PM bell times at SLO High School, queues from the school often spill back to Johnson Avenue, which could further increase queues and delays upstream. A few specific examples of what drivers may experience during peak commute periods with implementation of a road diet:  Johnson & Lizzie Intersection – During AM peak, increase in overall intersection delay of 45 seconds/vehicle and eastbound approach delay exceeding 200 seconds/vehicle. Peak northbound queues increase by 400 feet, nearly spilling back to the upstream Ella Street intersection.  Johnson & Ella Intersection – During AM peak, increase in overall intersection delay of over 2 minutes (125 seconds) per vehicle and the northbound approach delay exceeds 300 seconds/vehicle (5+ minute delay). During AM peak, northbound approach peak Page 279 of 412 Johnson Avenue Road Diet Traffic Operations Analysis 6 queues increase to >1,000 feet, nearly spilling back to the upstream Bishop Street intersection. During the PM peak, southbound approach peak queues increase to >1,000 feet, through the upstream Lizzie Street intersection. In addition to individual intersection analysis for delay and queueing, an arterial segment analysis was conducted to evaluate potential changes to segment travel times and speeds along Johnson Avenue between Bishop Street and San Luis Drive with a potential road diet. Results indicate that under a full road diet scenario, northbound travel times in the AM peak increase by over 60%, while southbound travel times in the PM peak increase by over 100%. Average speeds in both directions are reduced to under 10 mph during peak periods. Similar trends are observed under the directional road diet scenarios. Under the northbound-only configuration, northbound AM peak travel times increase by over 40%, while under the southbound-only configuration, southbound PM peak travel times increase by over 100%. While no traffic operations models can perfectly predict traffic operations changes from street redesign projects, staff has observed real-word instances of significant traffic congestion, delays, and queuing on this portion of Johnson Avenue during peak commute periods when construction work has required temporarily closing traffic lanes. These observations would support the general results from the modeling analysis predicting significant traffic congestion with a road diet. EMERGENCY RESPONSE CONSIDERATIONS In addition to the above operational analysis, City Transportation Engineering staff discussed the potential for a road diet on Johnson Avenue with the San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLO Fire). SLO Fire expressed concerns that the added congestion resulting from a road die could impact emergency response along this segment of Johnson Avenue, which is identified as a primary cross-town emergency response route, with particular sensitivity to increasing delays accessing the French Hospital Medical Center. Increased congestion and queue spillback under the road diet configurations could increase emergency response times, especially during peak travel periods. While emergency vehicle preemption (EVP) equipment could help minimize some disruption to emergency vehicle response (all intersections within this study area have existing EVP equipment, except Johnson/Bishop), this remains a concern for City emergency response representatives. Furthermore, the neighborhoods surrounding the Johnson Avenue corridor, including the neighborhoods to the north near SLO High School, are designated by Cal Fire as “high” and “very high” fire hazard severity zones, which highlights the importance of Johnson Avenue to serve as a likely emergency evacuation route in the case of a large wildfire. Significant reductions in vehicle throughput capacity may affect the corridor’s ability to accommodate peak demand during a potential evacuation. Further evaluation would be necessary to fully assess potential impacts to emergency response operations and evacuation performance prior to implementation of any roadway reconfiguration. CONCLUSIONS Based on the operational analysis conducted for Johnson Avenue between Bishop Street and San Luis Drive, none of the road diet alternatives evaluated are recommended at this time. While the proposed configurations could allow for enhanced bicycle facilities, addition of on-street Page 280 of 412 Johnson Avenue Road Diet Traffic Operations Analysis 7 parking, or potential for reduced speeds and intersection conflicts, or other multimodal improvements, all scenarios result in increased delays, degraded Level of Service, and extended queue lengths during peak hour conditions that would exceed the City’s adopted policy thresholds. Under the road diet alternatives, one or more intersections would operate below the City’s adopted LOS “D” standard on an overall basis, and multiple individual approaches would experience extensive delay, including LOS “F” conditions in certain cases. In addition, 95th percentile queues would exceed available storage lengths and spill back into upstream intersections, disrupting corridor progression and reducing operational reliability. This evaluation was conducted at a preliminary level of detail using traffic counts collected in 2022, which represent the most recent data available for this corridor. The analysis reflects current traffic volumes only and does not incorporate projected future growth. Given the operational deficiencies identified under current conditions, it is reasonable to expect that future increases in traffic volumes would further exacerbate delay and queue impacts under any of the road diet configurations. Emergency access and evacuation considerations further reinforce these findings. Increased congestion and queue spillback may impede emergency vehicle response to French Hospital Medical Center and could affect the corridor’s function as an evacuation route serving adjacent high fire risk areas. For these reasons, implementation of a full road diet, northbound- only road diet, or southbound-only road diet on this segment of Johnson Avenue is not recommended by staff at this time without further study. If further consideration for a road diet configuration is desired, it is recommended that additional traffic operations analysis be conducted using new traffic count data and including future year scenarios and an early afternoon peak hour during the SLO High School afternoon bell time. Future analysis should also consider multimodal level of service, preparation of a detailed emergency evacuation study to evaluate potential impacts on evacuation clearance times. Attachments: 1. Intersection Delay & Level of Service Summary 2. Intersection Queuing Results Summary 3. Arterial Segment Analysis 4. Synchro Analysis Calculation Worksheets Page 281 of 412 Intersection Vehicle Delays & Levels of Service (LOS) AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Delay (s) / LOS Delay (s) / LOS Delay (s) / LOS Delay (s) / LOS Delay (s) / LOS Delay (s) / LOS Delay (s) / LOS Delay (s) / LOS Johnson & San Luis Drive NB SB WB Overall 13.1 B 23.0 C 33.6 C 20.5 C 4.7 A 13.8 B 29.4 C 15.5 B 15.8 B 24.3 C 53.3 D 25.6 C 19.6 B 17.7 B 35.4 D 24.4 C 7.2 A 23.0 C 49.3 D 20.6 C 4.6 A 15.9 B 34.9 C 17.9 B 40.0 D 25.8 C 56.1 E 37.5 D 3.6 A 18.7 B 37.9 D 19.2 B Johnson & Lizzie NB SB EB WB Overall 29.1 C 22.4 C 41.0 D 85.7 F 34.0 C 24.9 C 7.8 A 116.7 F 23.3 C 22.4 C 123.4 F 31.7 C 52.8 D 133.3 F 89.5 F 26.3 C 14.5 B 158.2 F 28.3 C 28.6 C 91.4 F 34.9 C 58.8 E 159.6 F 78.6 E 12.6 B 6.3 A 203.9 F 33.3 C 21.6 C 3.4 A 11.4 B 58.8 E 159.3 F 27.0 C 1.8 A 9.2 A 203.9 F 33.3 C 18.0 B Johnson & Ella NB SB EB WB Overall 59.6 E 47.4 D 205.4 F 38.0 D 63.9 E 39.6 D 15.0 B 113.0 F 70.9 E 33.8 C 328.6 F 3.3 A 231.5 F 41.0 D 189.6 F 225.2 F 61.2 E 101.8 F 63.0 E 111.9 F 230.3 F 0.9 A 275.9 F 46.0 D 140.0 F 12.4 B 96.3 F 130.5 F 84.5 F 75.3 E 11.0 B 92.3 F 275.9 F 46.0 D 60.8 E 35.4 D 31.9 C 130.5 F 84.5 F 44.6 D Johnson & Bishop NB SB EB WB Overall 15.6 B 46.6 D 38.5 D 31.8 C 29.2 C 8.3 A 35.5 D 33.3 C 31.7 C 27.2 C 37.8 D 70.4 E 47.6 D 38.9 D 50.4 D 46.3 D 11.4 B 38.2 D 37.6 D 28.5 C 41.0 D 79.1 E 53.2 D 42.9 D 55.8 E 10.2 B 49.8 D 43.0 D 41.5 D 36.8 D 49.5 D 3.7 A 52.5 D 42.8 D 33.0 C 8.5 A 34.1 C 43.2 D 43.4 D 29.9 C Road Diet (SB Only) NOTES: 1) All road diet scenarios assume optimized signal timings with a maximum cycle length of 120 seconds. 2) Locations highlighed red where intersection levels of service (LOS) would exceed the City's adopted performance thresholds of LOS D or better. 3) Analysis results based on the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition, calculated using Synchro Analysis software. 4) Traffic volumes based on the most recent traffic count data availabe, collected in 2022. Results are based on high-level modeling approach, actual results are likely to be worse. Intersection Road Diet (NB Only)Existing Conditions Road Diet (Both Directions) Approach Attachment 1 - Intersection Delay & Level of Service Summary Page 282 of 412 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Queue Queue Queue Queue Queue Queue Queue Queue Johnson & San Luis Drive NBT NBR SBL SBT WBL WBR 337' 0' 182' 252' 152' - 70' 0' 41' 204' 131' - m244' m0' 203' 291' 300' 38' m188' m0' 46' 290' 229' <25' m260' m0' 210' 249' 203' - 175' 0' 49' 255' 158' - 178' 0' 219' 323' 317' 39' 100' 0' 49' 324' 244' <25' Johnson & Lizzie NBL NBT SBL SBT EBL/T EBR WBL/T WBR <25' 294' 127' 188' 32' 0' 46' 0' <25' 187' m62' 182' 62' 0' <25' 25' m15' 489' m225' 435' 39' 0' 58' <25' m9' 585' m65' 466' 71' 0' <25' <25' m<25' 329' m253' 177' 42' 0' 62' <25' m8' 228' m115' 164' 80' 0' <25' 29' m<25' 62' m149' 194' 43' 0' 64' 0' m<25' 86' m72' 473' 80' 0' <25' <25' Johnson & Ella NBL NBT SBL SBT EBL/T EBR WBL/T WBR 57' 346' <25' 284' 94' 0' <25' 0' 41' 203' <25' 446' 81' 0' 32' 0' m36' m1016' m<25' 795' 100' 0' <25' 0' m37' 622' m<25' 1087' 77' 0' 31' 0' m38' 1017' m<25' 269' 110' 0' <25' 0' m39' 552' m<25' 398' 87' 0' 36' 0' 82' 132' m<25' 774' 110' 0' <25' 0' m40' 211' m<25' 1094' 87' 0' 36' 0' Johnson & Bishop NBL NBT SBL SBT EB WBL/T WBR <25' 238' 143' 160' 142' <25' 0' <25' 110' 34' 180' <25' 47' 0' 31' 587' m233' <25' 172' 28' 0' <25' 284' m<25' m114' 29' 54' 0' <25' 615' 249' 250' 190' 31' 0' <25' 254' m<25' <25' 38' 62' 0' 35' 275' 130' 34' 185' 31' 0' <25' 106' m<25' m26' 38' 62' 0' NOTES: 1) All road diet scenarios assume signal timings have been optimized with a maximum of 120 second cycle length. 2) Queuing results reflect 95th percentile queues. The 95th percentile queue is a standard metric used in traffic engineering for street design and traffic impact analyses. This represents the estimated peak queue length (measured in feet) that has a 5% probability of being exceeded during a peak hour analysis period. In the results above, traffic volumes exceed capacity at several locations and traffic analysis models may not accurately estimate peak queue lenghts -- actual queue lengths may exceed these values at times during peak periods. 3) Locations highlighed red where 95th percentile queues exceed existing turn lane storage or where through lane queues would spill back and block the nearest upstream intersection. 4) 25' was used as the minimum queue length due to engineering best practice considering 25 feet the equivalent of one car length. 5) The letter "m" is used to denote intersection movements that are metered by the upstream signal. Results are based on high-level modeling approach, actual results are likely to be worse. Intersection Existing Conditions Road Diet (Both Directions) Road Diet (NB Only) Road Diet (SB Only) Movement Attachment 2 - Intersection Queuing Results Summary Page 283 of 412 Cooridor Travel Times and Arterial Speed Travel Time (s) Arterial Speed (mph) Travel Time (s) Arterial Speed (mph) Travel Time (s) Arterial Speed (mph) Travel Time (s) Arterial Speed (mph) Travel Time (s) Arterial Speed (mph) Travel Time (s) Arterial Speed (mph) Travel Time (s) Arterial Speed (mph) Travel Time (s) Arterial Speed (mph) Northbound 150.4 13.1 117.3 16.8 250.7 7.7 139 14 212.5 9.1 123.7 15.6 120.6 16 114.1 16.9 Southbound 153.7 19.8 160.1 19 157.9 19.1 334.3 9 143.3 21.0 147.7 20.4 154.5 19.5 324.4 9.3 PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak NOTES: 1) All road diet scenarios assume signal timings have been optimized with a maximum of 120 second cycle length. Results are based on high-level modeling approach, actual results are likely to be worse. Direction Existing Conditions Road Diet (Both Directions) Road Diet (NB Only) Road Diet (SB Only) AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak Attachment 3 - Arterial Segment Analysis Page 284 of 412 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2025 Existing AM Peak 64: Johnson & San Luis Drive Existing Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 1 Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 285 132 459 512 188 591 Future Volume (vph) 285 132 459 512 188 591 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.98 1.00 Frt 0.953 0.850 Flt Protected 0.967 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot)3285 0 1863 1583 1770 1863 Flt Permitted 0.967 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm)3281 0 1863 1550 1763 1863 Satd. Flow (RTOR)79 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)1 11 7 7 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)3 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.75 0.75 0.71 0.71 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 509 0 612 683 265 832 Turn Type Prot NA custom Prot NA Protected Phases 4 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 Detector Phase 4 6 6 2 4 5 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s)27.0 28.0 8.0 10.0 Total Split (s)27.0 46.0 23.0 69.0 Total Split (%)28.1% 47.9% 24.0% 71.9% Yellow Time (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All-Red Time (s)1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize?Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max Act Effct Green (s)20.2 45.2 96.0 17.5 66.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.47 1.00 0.18 0.70 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.70 0.44 0.82 0.64 Control Delay 33.6 26.8 0.9 58.7 11.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 33.6 26.8 0.9 58.7 11.6 LOS C C A E B Approach Delay 33.6 13.1 23.0 Approach LOS C B C Queue Length 50th (ft) 120 310 0 154 272 Queue Length 95th (ft) 152 337 0 182 252 Internal Link Dist (ft) 395 560 537 Turn Bay Length (ft)450 Base Capacity (vph) 847 877 1548 350 1295 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Attachment 4 - Synchro Analysis Calculation Worksheets Page 285 of 412 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2025 Existing AM Peak 64: Johnson & San Luis Drive Existing Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 2 Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Reduced v/c Ratio 0.60 0.70 0.44 0.76 0.64 Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 96 Actuated Cycle Length: 96 Offset: 66 (69%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.82 Intersection Signal Delay: 20.5 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 64: Johnson & San Luis Drive Page 286 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Existing AM Peak 65: Johnson & Lizzie Existing Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 22 2 5 49 0 124 10 840 102 120 629 128 Future Volume (veh/h) 22 2 5 49 0 124 10 840 102 120 629 128 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 26 2 6 100 0 253 14 1183 144 141 740 151 Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 77 3 432 80 0 438 119 1454 176 173 1429 291 Arrive On Green 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.28 0.07 0.46 0.46 0.10 0.49 0.49 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 12 1556 0 0 1578 1781 3172 385 1781 2923 596 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 28 0 6 100 0 253 14 661 666 141 450 441 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 12 0 1556 0 0 1578 1781 1777 1780 1781 1777 1742 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 12.4 0.7 28.9 29.2 7.0 15.6 15.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.0 0.0 0.3 25.0 0.0 12.4 0.7 28.9 29.2 7.0 15.6 15.6 Prop In Lane 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.34 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 80 0 432 80 0 438 119 814 816 173 869 852 V/C Ratio(X) 0.35 0.00 0.01 1.25 0.00 0.58 0.12 0.81 0.82 0.81 0.52 0.52 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 80 0 432 80 0 438 119 814 816 198 869 852 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.71 0.71 0.71 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.2 0.0 23.6 45.0 0.0 28.0 39.5 21.0 21.1 39.8 15.7 15.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.6 0.0 0.0 182.0 0.0 1.9 0.4 7.8 8.0 14.9 1.6 1.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 0.1 5.8 0.0 4.8 0.3 12.7 12.9 3.7 6.3 6.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.7 0.0 23.6 227.0 0.0 29.8 39.9 28.8 29.1 54.8 17.3 17.3 LnGrp LOS D A C F A CDCCDBB Approach Vol, veh/h 34 353 1341 1032 Approach Delay, s/veh 41.0 85.7 29.1 22.4 Approach LOS D F C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.8 46.2 30.0 11.0 49.0 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 40.0 25.0 6.0 44.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.0 31.2 27.0 2.7 17.6 27.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.0 HCM 6th LOS C Page 287 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Existing AM Peak 66: Johnson & Ella Existing Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 81 0 38 7 0 16 36 787 3 1 591 60 Future Volume (veh/h) 81 0 38 7 0 16 36 787 3 1 591 60 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 95 0 45 11 0 25 49 1078 4 1 768 78 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.77 0.77 0.77 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 69 0 363 69 0 359 599 1117 4 565 936 95 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.34 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 0 1575 0 0 1557 1781 3630 13 1781 3245 329 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 95 0 45 11 0 25 49 528 554 1 420 426 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 0 1575 0 0 1557 1781 1777 1867 1781 1777 1798 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.0 30.4 30.4 0.0 22.9 23.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 24.0 0.0 2.4 24.0 0.0 1.3 2.0 30.4 30.4 0.0 22.9 23.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.18 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 69 0 363 69 0 359 599 547 574 565 513 519 V/C Ratio(X) 1.37 0.00 0.12 0.16 0.00 0.07 0.08 0.97 0.97 0.00 0.82 0.82 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 69 0 363 69 0 359 599 547 574 565 513 519 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.94 0.94 0.94 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.0 0.0 31.7 52.0 0.0 31.3 23.5 35.4 35.4 24.2 34.5 34.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 235.6 0.0 0.2 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 26.2 25.4 0.0 13.0 12.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.8 16.6 17.4 0.0 11.4 11.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 287.6 0.0 31.8 53.1 0.0 31.4 23.6 61.7 60.9 24.3 47.5 47.4 LnGrp LOS F A C D A C C E E C D D Approach Vol, veh/h 140 36 1131 847 Approach Delay, s/veh 205.4 38.0 59.6 47.4 Approach LOS F D E D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 40.0 35.0 29.0 38.0 37.0 29.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 30.0 24.0 4.0 32.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.0 25.0 26.0 2.0 32.4 26.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 63.9 HCM 6th LOS E Page 288 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Existing AM Peak 67: Johnson & Bishop Existing Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 132 6 18 17 1 32 16 669 68 148 400 74 Future Volume (veh/h) 132 6 18 17 1 32 16 669 68 148 400 74 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 155 7 21 24 1 45 24 999 101 185 500 92 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.80 0.80 0.80 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 265 11 26 338 13 278 778 1787 181 222 665 122 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.44 0.55 0.55 0.12 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 1087 60 149 1476 71 1572 1781 3247 328 1781 2996 548 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 183 0 0 25 0 45 24 546 554 185 296 296 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1295 0 0 1547 0 1572 1781 1777 1798 1781 1777 1767 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.7 18.2 18.2 9.2 14.1 14.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.6 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 2.2 0.7 18.2 18.2 9.2 14.1 14.3 Prop In Lane 0.85 0.11 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.31 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 302 0 0 351 0 278 778 978 990 222 394 392 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.16 0.03 0.56 0.56 0.83 0.75 0.76 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 468 0 0 502 0 449 778 978 990 294 888 884 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.93 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.5 0.0 0.0 31.3 0.0 31.8 14.6 13.3 13.3 38.9 33.0 33.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.3 2.3 13.4 11.5 11.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.3 7.2 7.2 4.8 7.1 7.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.5 0.0 0.0 31.4 0.0 32.0 14.7 15.6 15.6 52.3 44.6 45.0 LnGrp LOS D A A C A C B B B D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 183 70 1124 777 Approach Delay, s/veh 38.5 31.8 15.6 46.6 Approach LOS D C B D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.3 55.6 20.1 45.2 25.7 20.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 * 5.5 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 35.5 27.0 5.0 * 46 26.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.2 20.2 14.6 2.7 16.3 4.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 6.6 0.5 0.0 3.9 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.2 HCM 6th LOS C Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Page 289 of 412 Arterial Level of Service 2025 Existing AM Peak Existing Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 1 Arterial Level of Service: NB Johnson Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Bishop III 35 3.8 19.7 23.5 0.03 4.0 F Ella III 35 31.6 15.7 47.3 0.26 20.1 C Lizzie III 35 17.3 18.4 35.7 0.14 13.6 E San Luis Drive III 30 17.1 26.8 43.9 0.12 9.9 F Total III 69.8 80.6 150.4 0.55 13.1 E Arterial Level of Service: SB Johnson Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS San Luis Drive III 28 41.4 11.6 53.0 0.33 22.1 C Lizzie III 30 17.1 6.6 23.7 0.12 18.4 C Ella III 35 17.3 18.0 35.3 0.14 13.8 E Bishop III 35 31.6 10.1 41.7 0.26 22.8 C Total III 107.4 46.3 153.7 0.85 19.8 C Page 290 of 412 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2025 Existing PM Peak 64: Johnson & San Luis Drive Existing Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 1 Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 355 129 424 364 29 462 Future Volume (vph) 355 129 424 364 29 462 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.98 1.00 Frt 0.960 0.850 Flt Protected 0.965 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 3313 0 1863 1583 1770 1863 Flt Permitted 0.965 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3309 0 1863 1552 1763 1863 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 70 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 11 7 7 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.63 0.88 0.88 0.77 0.77 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 768 0 482 414 38 600 Turn Type Prot NA custom Prot NA Protected Phases 4 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 Detector Phase 4 6 6 2 4 5 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 27.0 28.0 8.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 29.0 41.0 10.0 51.0 Total Split (%) 36.3% 51.3% 12.5% 63.8% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max Act Effct Green (s) 22.8 42.2 80.0 5.9 48.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.53 1.00 0.07 0.60 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.49 0.27 0.29 0.53 Control Delay 29.4 8.5 0.4 41.2 12.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 29.4 8.5 0.4 41.2 12.1 LOS C A A D B Approach Delay 29.4 4.7 13.8 Approach LOS C A B Queue Length 50th (ft) 157 182 0 18 172 Queue Length 95th (ft) 131 70 0 41 204 Internal Link Dist (ft) 395 560 537 Turn Bay Length (ft) 450 Base Capacity (vph) 1083 983 1546 132 1123 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Page 291 of 412 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2025 Existing PM Peak 64: Johnson & San Luis Drive Existing Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 2 Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Reduced v/c Ratio 0.71 0.49 0.27 0.29 0.53 Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 80 Actuated Cycle Length: 80 Offset: 16 (20%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.77 Intersection Signal Delay: 15.5 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 64: Johnson & San Luis Drive Page 292 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Existing PM Peak 65: Johnson & Lizzie Existing Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 71 0 18 13 0 75 4 669 23 74 723 36 Future Volume (veh/h) 71 0 18 13 0 75 4 669 23 74 723 36 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 92 0 23 16 0 95 5 892 31 80 786 39 Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 90 0 486 90 0 493 134 1355 47 200 1462 73 Arrive On Green 0.31 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.31 0.08 0.39 0.39 0.23 0.85 0.85 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 0 1557 0 0 1579 1781 3497 122 1781 3440 171 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 92 0 23 16 0 95 5 453 470 80 406 419 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 0 1557 0 0 1579 1781 1777 1841 1781 1777 1833 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.2 16.8 16.8 3.1 5.0 5.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.0 0.0 0.8 25.0 0.0 3.5 0.2 16.8 16.8 3.1 5.0 5.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.09 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 90 0 486 90 0 493 134 689 713 200 755 779 V/C Ratio(X) 1.02 0.00 0.05 0.18 0.00 0.19 0.04 0.66 0.66 0.40 0.54 0.54 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 90 0 486 90 0 493 134 689 713 200 755 779 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.69 0.69 0.69 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.0 0.0 19.2 40.0 0.0 20.1 34.3 20.1 20.1 28.7 3.8 3.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 101.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.1 4.7 4.6 0.9 1.9 1.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 1.3 0.1 7.3 7.5 1.3 1.5 1.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 141.0 0.0 19.2 40.9 0.0 20.3 34.4 24.9 24.7 29.6 5.7 5.7 LnGrp LOS F A B D A CCCCCAA Approach Vol, veh/h 115 111 928 905 Approach Delay, s/veh 116.7 23.3 24.9 7.8 Approach LOS F C C A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.0 36.0 30.0 11.0 39.0 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.0 31.0 25.0 6.0 34.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.1 18.8 27.0 2.2 7.1 27.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.7 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.4 HCM 6th LOS C Page 293 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Existing PM Peak 66: Johnson & Ella Existing Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 77 0 83 24 2 8 23 505 4 2 750 84 Future Volume (veh/h) 77 0 83 24 2 8 23 505 4 2 750 84 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 90 0 97 55 5 18 24 521 4 3 1000 112 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.75 0.75 0.75 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 77 0 402 73 4 398 35 845 6 625 1815 203 Arrive On Green 0.26 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.02 0.23 0.23 0.35 0.57 0.57 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 0 1576 0 14 1558 1781 3612 28 1781 3211 360 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 90 0 97 60 0 18 24 256 269 3 553 559 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 0 1576 14 0 1558 1781 1777 1863 1781 1777 1794 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.3 12.1 12.1 0.1 18.5 18.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 24.0 0.0 4.6 24.0 0.0 0.8 1.3 12.1 12.1 0.1 18.5 18.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.20 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 77 0 402 77 0 398 35 416 436 625 1004 1014 V/C Ratio(X) 1.17 0.00 0.24 0.78 0.00 0.05 0.68 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.55 0.55 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 77 0 402 77 0 398 76 416 436 625 1004 1014 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.0 0.0 27.8 45.6 0.0 26.4 45.8 32.2 32.2 19.8 12.9 12.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 157.6 0.0 0.3 38.7 0.0 0.0 19.6 6.4 6.1 0.0 2.1 2.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.1 0.0 1.8 2.2 0.0 0.3 0.7 5.8 6.0 0.0 7.2 7.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 204.6 0.0 28.1 84.3 0.0 26.4 65.4 38.6 38.3 19.8 15.0 15.0 LnGrp LOS F A C F A C E D D B B B Approach Vol, veh/h 187 78 549 1115 Approach Delay, s/veh 113.0 70.9 39.6 15.0 Approach LOS F E D B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.9 58.1 29.0 38.0 27.0 29.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 22.0 24.0 4.0 22.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 20.5 26.0 2.1 14.1 26.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 33.8 HCM 6th LOS C Page 294 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Existing PM Peak 67: Johnson & Bishop Existing Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 87 0 28 55 2 157 9 410 18 24 646 87 Future Volume (veh/h) 87 0 28 55 2 157 9 410 18 24 646 87 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 123 0 39 93 3 266 10 461 20 25 680 92 Peak Hour Factor 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 223 11 49 384 11 340 568 2058 89 38 873 118 Arrive On Green 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.32 0.59 0.59 0.02 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 668 50 227 1371 51 1574 1781 3465 150 1781 3143 425 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 162 0 0 96 0 266 10 236 245 25 384 388 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 945 0 0 1422 0 1574 1781 1777 1838 1781 1777 1791 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.8 0.3 5.0 5.0 1.1 15.9 16.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 12.8 0.3 5.0 5.0 1.1 15.9 16.0 Prop In Lane 0.76 0.24 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.24 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 283 0 0 396 0 340 568 1056 1092 38 494 498 V/C Ratio(X) 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.78 0.02 0.22 0.22 0.66 0.78 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 457 0 0 597 0 571 568 1056 1092 178 722 728 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 0.71 0.71 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.5 0.0 0.0 26.3 0.0 29.6 18.7 7.6 7.6 38.9 26.6 26.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 12.9 8.4 8.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.1 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 5.1 0.1 1.7 1.8 0.6 7.5 7.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.3 0.0 0.0 26.7 0.0 33.6 18.7 8.1 8.1 51.8 35.0 35.0 LnGrp LOS C A A C A C B A A D C C Approach Vol, veh/h 162 362 491 797 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.3 31.7 8.3 35.5 Approach LOS C C A D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.7 53.0 21.3 31.0 27.7 21.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 * 5.5 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 29.5 29.0 5.0 * 33 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 7.0 16.0 2.3 18.0 14.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.9 0.6 0.0 4.3 1.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.2 HCM 6th LOS C Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Page 295 of 412 Arterial Level of Service 2025 Existing PM Peak Existing Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 1 Arterial Level of Service: NB Johnson Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Bishop III 35 3.8 7.7 11.5 0.03 8.2 F Ella III 35 31.6 19.5 51.1 0.26 18.6 C Lizzie III 35 17.3 11.8 29.1 0.14 16.7 D San Luis Drive III 30 17.1 8.5 25.6 0.12 17.0 D Total III 69.8 47.5 117.3 0.55 16.8 D Arterial Level of Service: SB Johnson Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS San Luis Drive III 28 41.4 12.1 53.5 0.33 21.9 C Lizzie III 30 17.1 5.1 22.2 0.12 19.7 C Ella III 35 17.3 28.6 45.9 0.14 10.6 E Bishop III 35 31.6 6.9 38.5 0.26 24.7 B Total III 107.4 52.7 160.1 0.85 19.0 C Page 296 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 AM Peak 64: Johnson & San Luis Drive Full Road Diet Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 285 132 459 512 188 591 Future Volume (veh/h) 285 132 459 512 188 591 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 348 161 612 683 265 832 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.75 0.75 0.71 0.71 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222 Cap, veh/h 388 345 929 764 298 1310 Arrive On Green 0.22 0.22 0.66 0.66 0.17 0.70 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1870 1539 1781 1870 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 348 161 612 683 265 832 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1870 1539 1781 1870 Q Serve(g_s), s 20.9 9.7 21.6 40.5 16.0 26.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 20.9 9.7 21.6 40.5 16.0 26.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 388 345 929 764 298 1310 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.47 0.66 0.89 0.89 0.64 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 453 403 929 764 356 1310 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.09 0.09 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.8 37.4 13.1 16.3 44.8 8.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.4 1.0 0.3 1.7 20.5 2.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 11.1 8.9 7.2 11.2 8.8 10.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 60.2 38.4 13.4 18.0 65.3 11.3 LnGrp LOS E D BBEB Approach Vol, veh/h 509 1295 1097 Approach Delay, s/veh 53.3 15.8 24.3 Approach LOS D B C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 82.0 28.0 22.4 59.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 73.0 28.0 22.0 47.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 28.4 22.9 18.0 42.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 8.9 1.1 0.4 3.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.6 HCM 6th LOS C Page 297 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 AM Peak 65: Johnson & Lizzie Full Road Diet Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 22 2 5 49 0 124 10 840 102 120 629 128 Future Volume (veh/h) 22 2 5 49 0 124 10 840 102 120 629 128 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 26 2 6 100 0 253 14 1183 144 141 740 151 Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 63 3 348 65 0 357 97 932 113 113 872 178 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 12 1532 0 0 1571 1781 1627 198 1781 1499 306 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 28 0 6 100 0 253 14 0 1327 141 0 891 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 12 0 1532 0 0 1571 1781 0 1825 1781 0 1805 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 16.3 0.8 0.0 57.9 7.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.0 0.0 0.3 25.0 0.0 16.3 0.8 0.0 57.9 7.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 66 0 348 65 0 357 97 0 1045 113 0 1050 V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.00 0.02 1.53 0.00 0.71 0.14 0.00 1.27 1.24 0.00 0.85 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 66 0 348 65 0 357 97 0 1045 113 0 1050 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.64 0.00 0.64 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.7 0.0 33.0 55.0 0.0 39.1 46.7 0.0 0.0 48.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.3 0.0 0.0 300.4 0.0 6.3 0.2 0.0 124.2 148.1 0.0 5.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.0 0.1 7.3 0.0 6.9 0.3 0.0 36.1 7.6 0.0 1.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 57.0 0.0 33.0 355.4 0.0 45.5 46.9 0.0 124.2 196.1 0.0 5.7 LnGrp LOS E A C F A D D A F F A A Approach Vol, veh/h 34 353 1341 1032 Approach Delay, s/veh 52.8 133.3 123.4 31.7 Approach LOS D F F C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.0 68.0 30.0 11.0 69.0 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 63.0 25.0 6.0 64.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.0 59.9 27.0 2.8 2.0 27.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 89.5 HCM 6th LOS F Page 298 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 AM Peak 66: Johnson & Ella Full Road Diet Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 81 0 38 7 0 16 36 787 3 1 591 60 Future Volume (veh/h) 81 0 38 7 0 16 36 787 3 1 591 60 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 95 0 45 11 0 25 49 1078 4 1 768 78 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.77 0.77 0.77 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 65 0 343 65 0 335 63 643 2 534 1016 103 Arrive On Green 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.04 0.35 0.35 0.60 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 0 1574 0 0 1537 1781 1862 7 1781 1665 169 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 95 0 45 11 0 25 49 0 1082 1 0 846 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 0 1574 0 0 1537 1781 0 1869 1781 0 1835 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.4 3.0 0.0 38.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 24.0 0.0 2.5 24.0 0.0 1.4 3.0 0.0 38.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.09 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 65 0 343 65 0 335 63 0 646 534 0 1119 V/C Ratio(X) 1.45 0.00 0.13 0.17 0.00 0.07 0.78 0.00 1.68 0.00 0.00 0.76 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 65 0 343 65 0 335 65 0 646 534 0 1119 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.69 0.00 0.69 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.0 0.0 34.6 55.0 0.0 34.2 52.6 0.0 36.0 15.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 269.7 0.0 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.1 5.3 0.0 304.9 0.0 0.0 3.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.7 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.5 1.4 0.0 71.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 324.7 0.0 34.8 56.2 0.0 34.3 58.0 0.0 340.9 15.4 0.0 3.3 LnGrp LOS F A C E A C E A F B A A Approach Vol, veh/h 140 36 1131 847 Approach Delay, s/veh 231.5 41.0 328.6 3.3 Approach LOS F D F A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.9 72.1 29.0 38.0 43.0 29.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 38.0 24.0 4.0 38.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.0 2.0 26.0 2.0 40.0 26.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 189.6 HCM 6th LOS F Page 299 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 AM Peak 67: Johnson & Bishop Full Road Diet Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 132 6 18 17 1 32 16 669 68 148 400 74 Future Volume (veh/h) 132 6 18 17 1 32 16 669 68 148 400 74 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.96 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 155 7 21 24 1 45 24 999 101 185 500 92 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.80 0.80 0.80 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 244 8 25 317 12 267 617 1040 105 146 532 98 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.35 0.62 0.62 0.16 0.69 0.69 Sat Flow, veh/h 1076 49 146 1480 70 1562 1781 1665 168 1781 1536 283 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 183 0 0 25 0 45 24 0 1100 185 0 592 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1270 0 0 1550 0 1562 1781 0 1834 1781 0 1818 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 1.0 0.0 61.9 9.0 0.0 31.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.7 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 2.7 1.0 0.0 61.9 9.0 0.0 31.6 Prop In Lane 0.85 0.11 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.16 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 278 0 0 329 0 267 617 0 1145 146 0 629 V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.17 0.04 0.00 0.96 1.27 0.00 0.94 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 380 0 0 432 0 383 617 0 1145 146 0 1066 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.56 0.00 0.56 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.0 0.0 0.0 38.4 0.0 38.9 23.8 0.0 19.4 46.0 0.0 15.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 18.7 147.9 0.0 15.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.1 0.4 0.0 29.0 9.6 0.0 8.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.6 0.0 0.0 38.5 0.0 39.2 23.8 0.0 38.1 193.9 0.0 31.8 LnGrp LOS D A A D A D C A D F A C Approach Vol, veh/h 183 70 1124 777 Approach Delay, s/veh 47.6 38.9 37.8 70.4 Approach LOS D D D E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.0 74.2 22.8 43.6 43.6 22.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 * 5.5 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.0 60.5 27.0 5.0 * 65 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.0 63.9 17.7 3.0 33.6 4.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 4.5 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 50.4 HCM 6th LOS D Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Page 300 of 412 Arterial Level of Service 2025 AM Peak Full Road Diet Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 1 Arterial Level of Service: NB Johnson Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Bishop III 35 3.8 81.3 85.1 0.03 1.1 F Ella III 35 31.6 20.3 51.9 0.26 18.3 C Lizzie III 35 18.0 65.0 83.0 0.14 6.1 F San Luis Drive III 30 15.3 15.4 30.7 0.11 12.7 E Total III 68.7 182.0 250.7 0.54 7.7 F Arterial Level of Service: SB Johnson Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS San Luis Drive III 28 41.4 13.6 55.0 0.33 21.3 C Lizzie III 30 15.3 9.3 24.6 0.11 15.9 D Ella III 35 18.0 24.3 42.3 0.14 11.9 E Bishop III 35 31.6 4.4 36.0 0.26 26.3 B Total III 106.3 51.6 157.9 0.84 19.1 C Page 301 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 PM Peak 64: Johnson & San Luis Drive Full Road Diet Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 355 129 424 364 29 462 Future Volume (veh/h) 355 129 424 364 29 462 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 563 205 482 414 38 600 Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.63 0.88 0.88 0.77 0.77 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222 Cap, veh/h 624 556 861 708 79 1028 Arrive On Green 0.35 0.35 0.46 0.46 0.04 0.55 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1870 1538 1781 1870 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 563 205 482 414 38 600 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1870 1538 1781 1870 Q Serve(g_s), s 27.0 8.7 16.9 17.9 1.9 19.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 27.0 8.7 16.9 17.9 1.9 19.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 624 556 861 708 79 1028 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.37 0.56 0.58 0.48 0.58 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 752 669 861 708 79 1028 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.61 0.61 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.8 21.8 17.6 17.9 42.0 13.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.5 0.4 1.6 2.2 4.4 2.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 13.2 8.5 7.3 6.4 0.9 8.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.2 22.2 19.2 20.1 46.4 15.9 LnGrp LOS D C B C D B Approach Vol, veh/h 768 896 638 Approach Delay, s/veh 35.4 19.6 17.7 Approach LOS D B B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 54.5 35.5 8.0 46.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 43.0 38.0 4.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 21.2 29.0 3.9 19.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.6 2.5 0.0 4.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.4 HCM 6th LOS C Page 302 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 PM Peak 65: Johnson & Lizzie Full Road Diet Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 71 0 18 13 0 75 4 669 23 74 723 36 Future Volume (veh/h) 71 0 18 13 0 75 4 669 23 74 723 36 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 92 0 23 16 0 95 5 892 31 80 786 39 Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 80 0 427 80 0 437 119 893 31 103 862 43 Arrive On Green 0.28 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.28 0.13 1.00 1.00 0.12 0.98 0.98 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 0 1536 0 0 1574 1781 1794 62 1781 1764 88 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 92 0 23 16 0 95 5 0 923 80 0 825 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 0 1536 0 0 1574 1781 0 1856 1781 0 1852 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.2 0.0 35.0 3.9 0.0 8.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.0 0.0 1.0 25.0 0.0 4.2 0.2 0.0 35.0 3.9 0.0 8.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.05 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 80 0 427 80 0 437 119 0 924 103 0 905 V/C Ratio(X) 1.15 0.00 0.05 0.20 0.00 0.22 0.04 0.00 1.00 0.78 0.00 0.91 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 80 0 427 80 0 437 119 0 924 119 0 905 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.79 0.00 0.79 0.61 0.00 0.61 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.0 0.0 23.8 45.0 0.0 25.0 36.5 0.0 0.2 39.3 0.0 0.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 146.8 0.0 0.1 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 26.0 15.9 0.0 10.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 1.6 0.1 0.0 6.8 2.1 0.0 2.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 191.8 0.0 23.9 46.2 0.0 25.2 36.6 0.0 26.2 55.1 0.0 10.6 LnGrp LOS F A C D A C D A C E A B Approach Vol, veh/h 115 111 928 905 Approach Delay, s/veh 158.2 28.3 26.3 14.5 Approach LOS F C C B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.2 49.8 30.0 11.0 49.0 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 44.0 25.0 6.0 44.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.9 37.0 27.0 2.2 10.2 27.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.6 HCM 6th LOS C Page 303 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 PM Peak 66: Johnson & Ella Full Road Diet Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 77 0 83 24 2 8 23 505 4 2 750 84 Future Volume (veh/h) 77 0 83 24 2 8 23 505 4 2 750 84 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 90 0 97 55 5 18 24 521 4 3 1000 112 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.75 0.75 0.75 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 80 0 420 77 4 411 36 370 3 653 900 101 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.02 0.20 0.20 0.73 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 0 1576 0 14 1540 1781 1852 14 1781 1647 184 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 90 0 97 60 0 18 24 0 525 3 0 1112 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 0 1576 14 0 1540 1781 0 1867 1781 0 1831 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.2 0.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 49.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 24.0 0.0 4.3 24.0 0.0 0.8 1.2 0.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 49.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.10 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 80 0 420 80 0 411 36 0 373 653 0 1001 V/C Ratio(X) 1.12 0.00 0.23 0.75 0.00 0.04 0.67 0.00 1.41 0.00 0.00 1.11 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 80 0 420 80 0 411 79 0 373 653 0 1001 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.89 0.00 0.89 0.78 0.00 0.78 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.0 0.0 25.8 43.5 0.0 24.5 43.8 0.0 36.0 7.6 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 138.5 0.0 0.3 31.1 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.0 196.6 0.0 0.0 61.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.9 0.0 1.6 2.0 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 28.3 0.0 0.0 17.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 183.5 0.0 26.1 74.6 0.0 24.5 61.5 0.0 232.6 7.6 0.0 61.4 LnGrp LOS F A C E A C E A F A A F Approach Vol, veh/h 187 78 549 1115 Approach Delay, s/veh 101.8 63.0 225.2 61.2 Approach LOS F E F E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.8 54.2 29.0 38.0 23.0 29.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 18.0 24.0 4.0 18.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 51.2 26.0 2.0 20.0 26.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 111.9 HCM 6th LOS F Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. Page 304 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 PM Peak 67: Johnson & Bishop Full Road Diet Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 87 0 28 55 2 157 9 410 18 24 646 87 Future Volume (veh/h) 87 0 28 55 2 157 9 410 18 24 646 87 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 123 0 39 93 3 266 10 461 20 25 680 92 Peak Hour Factor 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 210 10 47 368 11 332 18 534 23 571 1013 137 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.01 0.30 0.30 0.32 0.63 0.63 Sat Flow, veh/h 657 45 223 1367 50 1566 1781 1775 77 1781 1612 218 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 162 0 0 96 0 266 10 0 481 25 0 772 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 925 0 0 1417 0 1566 1781 0 1853 1781 0 1830 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 0.5 0.0 22.1 0.9 0.0 24.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.1 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 14.5 0.5 0.0 22.1 0.9 0.0 24.4 Prop In Lane 0.76 0.24 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.12 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 266 0 0 379 0 332 18 0 558 571 0 1150 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.80 0.57 0.00 0.86 0.04 0.00 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 371 0 0 500 0 470 79 0 916 571 0 1150 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.09 0.00 0.09 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 33.7 44.4 0.0 29.7 21.1 0.0 10.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 6.5 26.0 0.0 16.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.6 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 6.1 0.3 0.0 11.8 0.4 0.0 8.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.2 0.0 0.0 30.3 0.0 40.2 70.4 0.0 45.8 21.1 0.0 11.0 LnGrp LOS D A A C A D E A D C A B Approach Vol, veh/h 162 362 491 797 Approach Delay, s/veh 38.2 37.6 46.3 11.4 Approach LOS D D D B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 34.3 32.6 23.1 4.9 62.0 23.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 * 45 27.0 4.0 45.5 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 24.1 18.1 2.5 26.4 16.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.0 0.5 0.0 5.6 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.5 HCM 6th LOS C Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Page 305 of 412 Arterial Level of Service 2025 PM Peak Full Road Diet Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 1 Arterial Level of Service: NB Johnson Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Bishop III 35 3.8 10.2 14.0 0.03 6.8 F Ella III 35 31.6 30.3 61.9 0.26 15.3 D Lizzie III 35 18.0 16.1 34.1 0.14 14.8 D San Luis Drive III 30 15.3 13.7 29.0 0.11 13.5 E Total III 68.7 70.3 139.0 0.54 14.0 E Arterial Level of Service: SB Johnson Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS San Luis Drive III 28 41.4 19.7 61.1 0.33 19.2 C Lizzie III 30 15.3 10.2 25.5 0.11 15.3 D Ella III 35 18.0 192.0 210.0 0.14 2.4 F Bishop III 35 31.6 6.1 37.7 0.26 25.1 B Total III 106.3 228.0 334.3 0.84 9.0 F Page 306 of 412 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2025 AM Peak 64: Johnson & San Luis Drive Road Diet NB Only Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 1 Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 285 132 459 512 188 591 Future Volume (vph) 285 132 459 512 188 591 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.98 0.98 1.00 Frt 0.953 0.850 Flt Protected 0.967 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 3280 0 1863 1583 1770 1863 Flt Permitted 0.967 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3274 0 1863 1546 1761 1863 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 60 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 11 7 7 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.75 0.75 0.71 0.71 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 509 0 612 683 265 832 Turn Type Prot NA custom Prot NA Protected Phases 4 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 Detector Phase 4 6 6 2 4 5 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 27.0 28.0 8.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 28.0 60.0 32.0 92.0 Total Split (%) 23.3% 50.0% 26.7% 76.7% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max Act Effct Green (s) 22.4 62.1 120.0 22.6 88.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.52 1.00 0.19 0.74 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.64 0.44 0.80 0.61 Control Delay 49.2 13.2 0.3 63.8 10.0 Queue Delay 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 49.2 15.0 0.3 63.8 10.0 LOS D BAEB Approach Delay 49.2 7.2 23.0 Approach LOS D A C Queue Length 50th (ft) 169 268 0 197 282 Queue Length 95th (ft) 203 m260 m0 210 249 Internal Link Dist (ft) 395 494 537 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 450 Base Capacity (vph) 704 963 1538 413 1375 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 198 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0000 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0000 Page 307 of 412 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2025 AM Peak 64: Johnson & San Luis Drive Road Diet NB Only Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 2 Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Reduced v/c Ratio 0.72 0.80 0.44 0.64 0.61 Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 33 (28%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 80 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.80 Intersection Signal Delay: 20.6 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. Splits and Phases: 64: Johnson & San Luis Drive Page 308 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 AM Peak 65: Johnson & Lizzie Road Diet NB Only Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 22 2 5 49 0 124 10 840 102 120 629 128 Future Volume (veh/h) 22 2 5 49 0 124 10 840 102 120 629 128 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 26 2 6 100 0 253 14 1183 144 141 740 151 Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 58 2 319 60 0 327 89 990 121 104 1803 368 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 12 1530 0 0 1570 1781 1627 198 1781 2924 596 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 28 0 6 100 0 253 14 0 1327 141 450 441 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 12 0 1530 0 0 1570 1781 0 1825 1781 1777 1744 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 18.3 0.9 0.0 71.2 7.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.0 0.0 0.4 25.0 0.0 18.3 0.9 0.0 71.2 7.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.34 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 60 0 319 60 0 327 89 0 1111 104 1096 1075 V/C Ratio(X) 0.46 0.00 0.02 1.67 0.00 0.77 0.16 0.00 1.19 1.36 0.41 0.41 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 60 0 319 60 0 327 89 0 1111 104 1096 1075 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.43 0.00 0.43 0.69 0.69 0.69 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.9 0.0 37.8 60.0 0.0 44.8 51.7 0.0 0.0 53.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.5 0.0 0.0 362.1 0.0 11.0 0.3 0.0 91.8 197.6 0.8 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.0 0.1 7.9 0.0 8.1 0.4 0.0 28.3 8.6 0.2 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.3 0.0 37.8 422.1 0.0 55.8 52.0 0.0 91.8 250.6 0.8 0.8 LnGrp LOS E A D F A E D A F F A A Approach Vol, veh/h 34 353 1341 1032 Approach Delay, s/veh 58.8 159.6 91.4 34.9 Approach LOS E F F C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.0 78.0 30.0 11.0 79.0 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 73.0 25.0 6.0 74.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.0 73.2 27.0 2.9 2.0 27.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 78.6 HCM 6th LOS E Page 309 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 AM Peak 66: Johnson & Ella Road Diet NB Only Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 81 0 38 7 0 16 36 787 3 1 591 60 Future Volume (veh/h) 81 0 38 7 0 16 36 787 3 1 591 60 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 95 0 45 11 0 25 49 1078 4 1 768 78 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.77 0.77 0.77 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 60 0 315 60 0 307 63 745 3 490 2077 211 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.04 0.40 0.40 0.55 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 0 1573 0 0 1536 1781 1862 7 1781 3248 330 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 95 0 45 11 0 25 49 0 1082 1 420 426 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 0 1573 0 0 1536 1781 0 1869 1781 1777 1801 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 1.6 3.3 0.0 48.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 24.0 0.0 2.8 24.0 0.0 1.6 3.3 0.0 48.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.18 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 60 0 315 60 0 307 63 0 747 490 1136 1152 V/C Ratio(X) 1.58 0.00 0.14 0.18 0.00 0.08 0.77 0.00 1.45 0.00 0.37 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 60 0 315 60 0 307 119 0 747 490 1136 1152 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.95 0.95 0.95 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 60.0 0.0 39.5 60.0 0.0 39.0 57.4 0.0 36.0 19.6 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 327.7 0.0 0.2 1.4 0.0 0.1 1.9 0.0 202.1 0.0 0.9 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.3 0.0 1.1 0.4 0.0 0.6 1.5 0.0 63.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 387.7 0.0 39.7 61.4 0.0 39.1 59.3 0.0 238.1 19.6 0.9 0.9 LnGrp LOS F A D E A D E A F B A A Approach Vol, veh/h 140 36 1131 847 Approach Delay, s/veh 275.9 46.0 230.3 0.9 Approach LOS F D F A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.3 81.7 29.0 38.0 53.0 29.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 44.0 24.0 4.0 48.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.3 2.0 26.0 2.0 50.0 26.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 140.0 HCM 6th LOS F Page 310 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 AM Peak 67: Johnson & Bishop Road Diet NB Only Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 132 6 18 17 1 32 16 669 68 148 400 74 Future Volume (veh/h) 132 6 18 17 1 32 16 669 68 148 400 74 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 155 7 21 24 1 45 24 999 101 185 500 92 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.80 0.80 0.80 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 235 8 24 308 12 261 881 1033 104 178 639 117 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.49 0.62 0.62 0.07 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 1075 49 146 1489 70 1561 1781 1665 168 1781 2995 548 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 183 0 0 25 0 45 24 0 1100 185 296 296 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1269 0 0 1559 0 1561 1781 0 1834 1781 1777 1767 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.8 0.0 68.3 12.0 19.3 19.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.1 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 3.0 0.8 0.0 68.3 12.0 19.3 19.4 Prop In Lane 0.85 0.11 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.31 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 268 0 0 320 0 261 881 0 1137 178 379 377 V/C Ratio(X) 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.17 0.03 0.00 0.97 1.04 0.78 0.79 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 347 0 0 400 0 351 881 0 1137 178 1103 1097 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.93 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.5 0.0 0.0 42.3 0.0 42.8 15.5 0.0 21.6 56.0 48.7 48.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 19.9 75.5 13.8 14.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.2 0.3 0.0 32.5 9.3 10.3 10.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 53.2 0.0 0.0 42.4 0.0 43.1 15.6 0.0 41.5 131.5 62.5 63.1 LnGrp LOS D A A D A D B A D F E E Approach Vol, veh/h 183 70 1124 777 Approach Delay, s/veh 53.2 42.9 41.0 79.1 Approach LOS D D D E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.0 79.9 24.1 64.8 31.1 24.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 * 5.5 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 67.5 27.0 5.0 * 75 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.0 70.3 19.1 2.8 21.4 5.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 4.1 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 55.8 HCM 6th LOS E Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Page 311 of 412 Arterial Level of Service 2025 AM Peak Road Diet NB Only Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 1 Arterial Level of Service: NB Johnson Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Bishop III 35 3.8 66.0 69.8 0.03 1.4 F Ella III 35 31.6 15.7 47.3 0.26 20.0 C Lizzie III 35 17.6 49.3 66.9 0.14 7.4 F San Luis Drive III 30 15.3 13.2 28.5 0.11 13.7 E Total III 68.3 144.2 212.5 0.54 9.1 F Arterial Level of Service: SB Johnson Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS San Luis Drive III 28 41.4 10.0 51.4 0.33 22.8 C Lizzie III 30 15.3 4.9 20.2 0.11 19.4 C Ella III 35 17.6 10.7 28.3 0.14 17.5 D Bishop III 35 31.6 11.8 43.4 0.26 21.8 C Total III 105.9 37.4 143.3 0.84 21.0 C Page 312 of 412 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2025 PM Peak 64: Johnson & San Luis Drive Road Diet NB Only Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 1 Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 355 129 424 364 29 462 Future Volume (vph) 355 129 424 364 29 462 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.98 1.00 Frt 0.960 0.850 Flt Protected 0.965 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 3309 0 1863 1583 1770 1863 Flt Permitted 0.965 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 3304 0 1863 1549 1761 1863 Satd. Flow (RTOR) 59 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 11 7 7 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.63 0.88 0.88 0.77 0.77 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 768 0 482 414 38 600 Turn Type Prot NA custom Prot NA Protected Phases 4 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 6 2 4 Detector Phase 4 6 6 2 4 5 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 27.0 28.0 8.0 10.0 Total Split (s) 38.0 52.0 10.0 62.0 Total Split (%) 38.0% 52.0% 10.0% 62.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max Act Effct Green (s) 29.0 55.5 100.0 6.5 62.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.56 1.00 0.06 0.62 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.47 0.27 0.33 0.52 Control Delay 34.9 8.1 0.3 52.8 13.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 34.9 8.3 0.3 52.8 13.6 LOS C A A D B Approach Delay 34.9 4.6 15.9 Approach LOS C A B Queue Length 50th (ft) 209 155 0 23 203 Queue Length 95th (ft) 158 175 0 49 255 Internal Link Dist (ft) 395 494 537 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 450 Base Capacity (vph) 1164 1033 1533 116 1154 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 121 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0000 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0000 Page 313 of 412 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 2025 PM Peak 64: Johnson & San Luis Drive Road Diet NB Only Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 2 Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Reduced v/c Ratio 0.66 0.53 0.27 0.33 0.52 Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 100 Actuated Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 24 (24%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBT, Start of Yellow Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.77 Intersection Signal Delay: 17.9 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 64: Johnson & San Luis Drive Page 314 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 PM Peak 65: Johnson & Lizzie Road Diet NB Only Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 71 0 18 13 0 75 4 669 23 74 723 36 Future Volume (veh/h) 71 0 18 13 0 75 4 669 23 74 723 36 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 92 0 23 16 0 95 5 892 31 80 786 39 Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 72 0 383 72 0 393 107 969 34 107 1858 92 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.12 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 0 1534 0 0 1572 1781 1794 62 1781 3440 171 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 92 0 23 16 0 95 5 0 923 80 406 419 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 0 1534 0 0 1572 1781 0 1856 1781 1777 1834 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.0 0.0 1.1 25.0 0.0 4.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.09 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 72 0 383 72 0 393 107 0 1002 107 959 990 V/C Ratio(X) 1.28 0.00 0.06 0.22 0.00 0.24 0.05 0.00 0.92 0.75 0.42 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 72 0 383 72 0 393 107 0 1002 107 959 990 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.80 0.00 0.80 0.70 0.70 0.70 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.0 0.0 28.6 50.0 0.0 29.9 41.5 0.0 0.0 43.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 197.7 0.0 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 12.4 18.3 1.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.7 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 1.8 0.1 0.0 3.5 2.4 0.3 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 247.7 0.0 28.6 51.5 0.0 30.2 41.6 0.0 12.4 61.6 1.0 0.9 LnGrp LOS F A C D A C D ABEAA Approach Vol, veh/h 115 111 928 905 Approach Delay, s/veh 203.9 33.3 12.6 6.3 Approach LOS F C B A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 59.0 30.0 11.0 59.0 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 54.0 25.0 6.0 54.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.3 2.0 27.0 2.2 2.0 27.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.6 HCM 6th LOS C Page 315 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 PM Peak 66: Johnson & Ella Road Diet NB Only Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 77 0 83 24 2 8 23 505 4 2 750 84 Future Volume (veh/h) 77 0 83 24 2 8 23 505 4 2 750 84 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 90 0 97 55 5 18 24 521 4 3 1000 112 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.75 0.75 0.75 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 72 0 378 69 3 369 588 1124 9 6 898 101 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.33 0.61 0.61 0.01 0.56 0.56 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 0 1575 0 14 1539 1781 1853 14 1781 3209 359 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 90 0 97 60 0 18 24 0 525 3 554 558 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 0 1575 14 0 1539 1781 0 1867 1781 1777 1791 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 15.4 0.2 28.0 28.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 24.0 0.0 5.0 24.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 15.4 0.2 28.0 28.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.20 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 72 0 378 72 0 369 588 0 1133 6 498 501 V/C Ratio(X) 1.25 0.00 0.26 0.83 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.46 0.53 1.11 1.11 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 72 0 378 72 0 369 588 0 1133 71 498 501 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.89 0.00 0.89 0.96 0.96 0.96 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.0 0.0 30.8 48.6 0.0 29.2 22.8 0.0 10.8 49.6 22.0 22.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 187.5 0.0 0.4 52.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.2 57.4 74.1 74.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.6 0.0 1.9 2.6 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 6.1 0.2 17.0 17.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 237.5 0.0 31.1 101.0 0.0 29.3 22.8 0.0 12.0 107.0 96.1 96.3 LnGrp LOS F A C F A C C A B F F F Approach Vol, veh/h 187 78 549 1115 Approach Delay, s/veh 130.5 84.5 12.4 96.3 Approach LOS F F B F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 38.0 33.0 29.0 5.3 65.7 29.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 28.0 24.0 4.0 28.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 30.0 26.0 2.2 17.4 26.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 75.3 HCM 6th LOS E Page 316 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 PM Peak 67: Johnson & Bishop Road Diet NB Only Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 87 0 28 55 2 157 9 410 18 24 646 87 Future Volume (veh/h) 87 0 28 55 2 157 9 410 18 24 646 87 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 123 0 39 93 3 266 10 461 20 25 680 92 Peak Hour Factor 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 200 9 46 357 10 327 635 1130 49 36 896 121 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.36 0.64 0.64 0.01 0.09 0.09 Sat Flow, veh/h 655 41 221 1371 50 1566 1781 1777 77 1781 3143 425 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 162 0 0 96 0 266 10 0 481 25 384 388 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 916 0 0 1421 0 1566 1781 0 1854 1781 1777 1791 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.2 0.4 0.0 12.7 1.4 21.1 21.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 16.2 0.4 0.0 12.7 1.4 21.1 21.1 Prop In Lane 0.76 0.24 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.24 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 254 0 0 367 0 327 635 0 1180 36 507 511 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.81 0.02 0.00 0.41 0.70 0.76 0.76 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 375 0 0 507 0 485 635 0 1180 125 915 922 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.70 0.70 0.70 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.4 0.0 0.0 33.6 0.0 37.7 20.8 0.0 8.9 49.4 41.9 42.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 16.0 7.3 7.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.1 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 6.8 0.2 0.0 4.9 0.8 11.0 11.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.0 0.0 0.0 33.9 0.0 44.2 20.8 0.0 10.0 65.4 49.2 49.3 LnGrp LOS D A A C A D C A A E D D Approach Vol, veh/h 162 362 491 797 Approach Delay, s/veh 43.0 41.5 10.2 49.8 Approach LOS D D B D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.0 69.1 24.9 41.1 34.0 24.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 * 5.5 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 48.5 31.0 4.0 * 52 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.4 14.7 20.0 2.4 23.1 18.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.4 0.5 0.0 5.4 1.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 36.8 HCM 6th LOS D Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Page 317 of 412 Arterial Level of Service 2025 PM Peak Road Diet NB Only Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 1 Arterial Level of Service: NB Johnson Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Bishop III 35 3.8 8.5 12.3 0.03 7.7 F Ella III 35 31.6 25.9 57.5 0.26 16.5 D Lizzie III 35 17.6 12.9 30.5 0.14 16.2 D San Luis Drive III 30 15.3 8.1 23.4 0.11 16.7 D Total III 68.3 55.4 123.7 0.54 15.6 D Arterial Level of Service: SB Johnson Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS San Luis Drive III 28 41.4 13.6 55.0 0.33 21.3 C Lizzie III 30 15.3 4.1 19.4 0.11 20.2 C Ella III 35 17.6 22.9 40.5 0.14 12.2 E Bishop III 35 31.6 1.2 32.8 0.26 28.9 B Total III 105.9 41.8 147.7 0.84 20.4 C Page 318 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 AM Peak 64: Johnson & San Luis Drive Road Diet SB Only Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 285 132 459 512 188 591 Future Volume (veh/h) 285 132 459 512 188 591 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 348 161 612 683 265 832 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.75 0.75 0.71 0.71 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222 Cap, veh/h 388 345 950 781 296 1323 Arrive On Green 0.22 0.22 0.34 0.34 0.17 0.71 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1870 1539 1781 1870 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 348 161 612 683 265 832 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1870 1539 1781 1870 Q Serve(g_s), s 22.8 10.6 33.2 50.0 17.5 28.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 22.8 10.6 33.2 50.0 17.5 28.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 388 345 950 781 296 1323 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.47 0.64 0.87 0.90 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 475 423 950 781 356 1323 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.76 0.76 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.6 40.8 30.4 36.0 49.0 9.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 17.1 1.0 2.6 10.3 21.5 2.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 11.9 9.7 16.4 21.7 9.6 11.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62.7 41.8 33.0 46.3 70.5 11.5 LnGrp LOS E D C D E B Approach Vol, veh/h 509 1295 1097 Approach Delay, s/veh 56.1 40.0 25.8 Approach LOS E D C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 89.9 30.1 23.9 65.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 79.0 32.0 24.0 51.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 30.2 24.8 19.5 52.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 9.0 1.4 0.4 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.5 HCM 6th LOS D Page 319 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 AM Peak 65: Johnson & Lizzie Road Diet SB Only Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 22 2 5 49 0 124 10 840 102 120 629 128 Future Volume (veh/h) 22 2 5 49 0 124 10 840 102 120 629 128 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 26 2 6 100 0 253 14 1183 144 141 740 151 Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 58 2 319 60 0 328 89 1818 221 167 925 189 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.19 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 12 1530 0 0 1576 1781 3174 385 1781 1499 306 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 28 0 6 100 0 253 14 660 667 141 0 891 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 12 0 1530 0 0 1576 1781 1777 1783 1781 0 1805 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.0 0.0 0.4 25.0 0.0 18.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 60 0 319 60 0 328 89 1018 1021 167 0 1113 V/C Ratio(X) 0.46 0.00 0.02 1.67 0.00 0.77 0.16 0.65 0.65 0.84 0.00 0.80 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 60 0 319 60 0 328 89 1018 1021 252 0 1113 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.65 0.00 0.65 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.9 0.0 37.8 60.0 0.0 44.8 51.7 0.0 0.0 47.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.5 0.0 0.0 362.1 0.0 10.7 0.7 2.9 2.9 10.1 0.0 4.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 0.0 0.1 7.9 0.0 8.1 0.4 0.8 0.8 4.2 0.0 1.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.3 0.0 37.8 422.1 0.0 55.5 52.4 2.9 2.9 58.0 0.0 4.0 LnGrp LOS E A D F A E D AAEAA Approach Vol, veh/h 34 353 1341 1032 Approach Delay, s/veh 58.8 159.3 3.4 11.4 Approach LOS E F A B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.3 73.7 30.0 11.0 79.0 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.0 63.0 25.0 6.0 74.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.2 2.0 27.0 2.9 2.0 27.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 13.7 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.0 HCM 6th LOS C Page 320 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 AM Peak 66: Johnson & Ella Road Diet SB Only Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 81 0 38 7 0 16 36 787 3 1 591 60 Future Volume (veh/h) 81 0 38 7 0 16 36 787 3 1 591 60 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 95 0 45 11 0 25 49 1078 4 1 768 78 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.77 0.77 0.77 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 60 0 315 60 0 311 490 2447 9 2 666 68 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.28 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.80 0.80 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 0 1573 0 0 1556 1781 3631 13 1781 1665 169 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 95 0 45 11 0 25 49 528 554 1 0 846 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 0 1573 0 0 1556 1781 1777 1867 1781 0 1834 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 1.6 2.5 16.5 16.5 0.1 0.0 48.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 24.0 0.0 2.8 24.0 0.0 1.6 2.5 16.5 16.5 0.1 0.0 48.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.09 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 60 0 315 60 0 311 490 1197 1258 2 0 734 V/C Ratio(X) 1.58 0.00 0.14 0.18 0.00 0.08 0.10 0.44 0.44 0.51 0.00 1.15 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 60 0 315 60 0 311 490 1197 1258 59 0 734 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.71 0.00 0.71 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 60.0 0.0 39.5 60.0 0.0 39.0 32.4 9.1 9.1 59.8 0.0 12.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 327.7 0.0 0.2 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.9 102.2 0.0 80.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.3 0.0 1.1 0.4 0.0 0.6 1.1 6.2 6.5 0.1 0.0 21.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 387.7 0.0 39.7 61.4 0.0 39.1 32.5 10.1 10.0 162.0 0.0 92.3 LnGrp LOS F A D E A D C B B F A F Approach Vol, veh/h 140 36 1131 847 Approach Delay, s/veh 275.9 46.0 11.0 92.3 Approach LOS F D B F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 38.0 53.0 29.0 5.1 85.9 29.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 48.0 24.0 4.0 48.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 50.0 26.0 2.1 18.5 26.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 60.8 HCM 6th LOS E Page 321 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 AM Peak 67: Johnson & Bishop Road Diet SB Only Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 132 6 18 17 1 32 16 669 68 148 400 74 Future Volume (veh/h) 132 6 18 17 1 32 16 669 68 148 400 74 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.96 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 155 7 21 24 1 45 24 999 101 185 500 92 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.80 0.80 0.80 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 236 8 24 307 12 263 33 1172 118 617 1078 198 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.02 0.36 0.36 0.69 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1078 49 146 1484 70 1571 1781 3245 328 1781 1536 283 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 183 0 0 25 0 45 24 547 553 185 0 592 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1273 0 0 1553 0 1571 1781 1777 1796 1781 0 1819 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 1.6 34.1 34.1 4.8 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.1 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 2.9 1.6 34.1 34.1 4.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.85 0.11 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.16 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 269 0 0 319 0 263 33 642 649 617 0 1276 V/C Ratio(X) 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.17 0.73 0.85 0.85 0.30 0.00 0.46 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 371 0 0 422 0 380 89 807 816 617 0 1276 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.65 0.00 0.65 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.5 0.0 0.0 42.2 0.0 42.8 58.6 35.4 35.4 12.8 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 26.8 13.4 13.4 0.2 0.0 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.2 1.0 16.8 16.9 1.7 0.0 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.5 0.0 0.0 42.3 0.0 43.1 85.4 48.8 48.7 13.0 0.0 0.8 LnGrp LOS D A A D A D F D D B A A Approach Vol, veh/h 183 70 1124 777 Approach Delay, s/veh 52.5 42.8 49.5 3.7 Approach LOS D D D A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 47.1 48.9 24.1 6.2 89.7 24.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.5 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 * 55 29.0 6.0 71.5 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.8 36.1 19.1 3.6 2.0 4.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 7.2 0.5 0.0 4.8 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 33.0 HCM 6th LOS C Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Page 322 of 412 Arterial Level of Service 2025 AM Peak Road Diet SB Only Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 1 Arterial Level of Service: NB Johnson Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Bishop III 35 3.8 19.5 23.3 0.03 4.1 F Ella III 35 31.9 5.1 37.0 0.27 25.8 B Lizzie III 35 17.4 8.0 25.4 0.14 19.2 C San Luis Drive III 30 15.4 19.5 34.9 0.11 11.3 E Total III 68.5 52.1 120.6 0.54 16.0 D Arterial Level of Service: SB Johnson Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS San Luis Drive III 28 41.4 14.6 56.0 0.33 21.0 C Lizzie III 30 15.4 7.7 23.1 0.11 17.1 D Ella III 35 17.4 20.1 37.5 0.14 13.0 E Bishop III 35 31.9 6.0 37.9 0.27 25.2 B Total III 106.1 48.4 154.5 0.84 19.5 C Page 323 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 PM Peak 64: Johnson & San Luis Drive Road Diet SB Only Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 355 129 424 364 29 462 Future Volume (veh/h) 355 129 424 364 29 462 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 563 205 482 414 38 600 Peak Hour Factor 0.63 0.63 0.88 0.88 0.77 0.77 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222 Cap, veh/h 623 555 896 737 73 1048 Arrive On Green 0.35 0.35 0.96 0.96 0.04 0.56 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1870 1538 1781 1870 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 563 205 482 414 38 600 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1585 1870 1538 1781 1870 Q Serve(g_s), s 30.0 9.7 2.2 2.4 2.1 20.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 30.0 9.7 2.2 2.4 2.1 20.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 623 555 896 737 73 1048 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.37 0.54 0.56 0.52 0.57 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 784 697 896 737 89 1048 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.9 24.3 1.1 1.1 47.0 14.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.8 0.4 2.2 2.9 5.6 2.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 14.5 9.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 9.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.7 24.7 3.3 4.0 52.6 16.5 LnGrp LOS D C A A D B Approach Vol, veh/h 768 896 638 Approach Delay, s/veh 37.9 3.6 18.7 Approach LOS D A B Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 61.0 39.0 8.1 52.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 47.0 44.0 5.0 38.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.8 32.0 4.1 4.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.7 3.0 0.0 6.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.2 HCM 6th LOS B Page 324 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 PM Peak 65: Johnson & Lizzie Road Diet SB Only Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 71 0 18 13 0 75 4 669 23 74 723 36 Future Volume (veh/h) 71 0 18 13 0 75 4 669 23 74 723 36 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 92 0 23 16 0 95 5 892 31 80 786 39 Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 72 0 383 72 0 394 107 1898 66 102 953 47 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.12 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 0 1534 0 0 1577 1781 3498 122 1781 1764 88 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 92 0 23 16 0 95 5 453 470 80 0 825 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 0 1534 0 0 1577 1781 1777 1842 1781 0 1852 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.0 0.0 1.1 25.0 0.0 4.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.05 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 72 0 383 72 0 394 107 964 1000 102 0 1000 V/C Ratio(X) 1.28 0.00 0.06 0.22 0.00 0.24 0.05 0.47 0.47 0.78 0.00 0.83 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 72 0 383 72 0 394 107 964 1000 178 0 1000 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.63 0.00 0.63 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.0 0.0 28.6 50.0 0.0 29.9 41.5 0.0 0.0 43.7 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 197.7 0.0 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.3 0.2 1.6 1.5 8.0 0.0 5.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.7 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 1.8 0.1 0.4 0.4 2.1 0.0 1.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 247.7 0.0 28.6 51.5 0.0 30.2 41.6 1.6 1.5 51.7 0.0 5.0 LnGrp LOS F A C D A C D A A D A A Approach Vol, veh/h 115 111 928 905 Approach Delay, s/veh 203.9 33.3 1.8 9.2 Approach LOS F C A A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.7 59.3 30.0 11.0 59.0 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 50.0 25.0 6.0 54.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.4 2.0 27.0 2.2 2.0 27.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 7.3 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.0 HCM 6th LOS B Page 325 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 PM Peak 66: Johnson & Ella Road Diet SB Only Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 77 0 83 24 2 8 23 505 4 2 750 84 Future Volume (veh/h) 77 0 83 24 2 8 23 505 4 2 750 84 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 90 0 97 55 5 18 24 521 4 3 1000 112 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.75 0.75 0.75 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 72 0 378 69 3 374 35 1012 8 588 973 109 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.02 0.28 0.28 0.66 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 0 1575 0 14 1557 1781 3613 28 1781 1647 184 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 90 0 97 60 0 18 24 256 269 3 0 1112 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 0 1575 14 0 1557 1781 1777 1864 1781 0 1831 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.3 12.1 12.1 0.1 0.0 59.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 24.0 0.0 5.0 24.0 0.0 0.9 1.3 12.1 12.1 0.1 0.0 59.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.10 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 72 0 378 72 0 374 35 498 522 588 0 1081 V/C Ratio(X) 1.25 0.00 0.26 0.83 0.00 0.05 0.69 0.51 0.52 0.01 0.00 1.03 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 72 0 378 72 0 374 71 498 522 588 0 1081 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.80 0.00 0.80 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.0 0.0 30.8 48.6 0.0 29.2 48.7 30.3 30.3 11.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 187.5 0.0 0.4 52.4 0.0 0.1 20.8 3.6 3.4 0.0 0.0 32.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.6 0.0 1.9 2.6 0.0 0.3 0.8 5.5 5.8 0.0 0.0 9.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 237.5 0.0 31.1 101.0 0.0 29.3 69.6 33.9 33.7 11.4 0.0 32.0 LnGrp LOS F A C F A C E C C B A F Approach Vol, veh/h 187 78 549 1115 Approach Delay, s/veh 130.5 84.5 35.4 31.9 Approach LOS F F D C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.9 64.1 29.0 38.0 33.0 29.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 28.0 24.0 4.0 28.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 61.1 26.0 2.1 14.1 26.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 44.6 HCM 6th LOS D Page 326 of 412 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 PM Peak 67: Johnson & Bishop Road Diet SB Only Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 87 0 28 55 2 157 9 410 18 24 646 87 Future Volume (veh/h) 87 0 28 55 2 157 9 410 18 24 646 87 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 123 0 39 93 3 266 10 461 20 25 680 92 Peak Hour Factor 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 199 9 46 355 10 327 307 2208 96 36 757 102 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.17 0.64 0.64 0.01 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 652 41 220 1368 50 1574 1781 3465 150 1781 1612 218 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 162 0 0 96 0 266 10 236 245 25 0 772 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 914 0 0 1418 0 1574 1781 1777 1838 1781 0 1830 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.1 0.5 5.6 5.6 1.4 0.0 40.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.1 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 16.1 0.5 5.6 5.6 1.4 0.0 40.3 Prop In Lane 0.76 0.24 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.12 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 253 0 0 365 0 327 307 1132 1171 36 0 860 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.81 0.03 0.21 0.21 0.70 0.00 0.90 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 327 0 0 451 0 425 307 1132 1171 89 0 1016 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 0.00 0.09 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.5 0.0 0.0 33.6 0.0 37.8 34.4 7.6 7.6 49.0 0.0 32.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 2.3 0.0 1.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.1 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 7.0 0.2 2.0 2.1 0.6 0.0 18.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.2 0.0 0.0 34.0 0.0 46.7 34.5 8.0 8.0 51.3 0.0 33.6 LnGrp LOS D A A C A D C A A D A C Approach Vol, veh/h 162 362 491 797 Approach Delay, s/veh 43.2 43.4 8.5 34.1 Approach LOS D D A C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.0 69.2 24.8 22.8 52.5 24.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 * 5.5 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 54.5 27.0 4.0 * 56 27.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.4 7.6 20.1 2.5 42.3 18.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.2 0.4 0.0 4.7 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.9 HCM 6th LOS C Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Page 327 of 412 Arterial Level of Service 2025 PM Peak Road Diet SB Only Johnson Cooridor Synchro 11 Report WDR Page 1 Arterial Level of Service: NB Johnson Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS Bishop III 35 3.8 6.5 10.3 0.03 9.2 F Ella III 35 31.9 19.9 51.8 0.27 18.5 C Lizzie III 35 17.4 5.1 22.5 0.14 21.7 C San Luis Drive III 30 15.4 14.1 29.5 0.11 13.4 E Total III 68.5 45.6 114.1 0.54 16.9 D Arterial Level of Service: SB Johnson Arterial Flow Running Signal Travel Dist Arterial Arterial Cross Street Class Speed Time Delay Time (s) (mi) Speed LOS San Luis Drive III 28 41.4 21.3 62.7 0.33 18.7 C Lizzie III 30 15.4 8.7 24.1 0.11 16.4 D Ella III 35 17.4 183.4 200.8 0.14 2.4 F Bishop III 35 31.9 4.9 36.8 0.27 26.0 B Total III 106.1 218.3 324.4 0.84 9.3 F Page 328 of 412 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2026 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATION OF $236,542 FROM UNRESERVED SB1 FUND BALANCE TO SUPPORT THE 2026 ROADWAY SEALING PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NUMBER 2000617 WHEREAS, on May 5, 2026 the City Council authorized advertisement of the 2026 Roadway Sealing Project, and delegated authority to the City Manager to award the construction contract if the lowest responsible bidder was within the Publicly Disclosed Funding Limit of $4,851,400; and WHEREAS, the project includes slurry sealing and new striping improvements to extend the useful life of the City’s roadways and to improve safety and mobility for all road users; and WHEREAS, to provide sufficient funding for both the project base and additive alternate #1, staff recommends that the City Council approve the use of an additional $236,542 from Unreserved SB1 Fund balance; and WHEREAS, an amount of $236,542 is currently available in the unreserved SB1 Fund balance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council authorizes the appropriation of $236,542 from the Unreserved SB1 Fund to the 2026 Roadway Sealing Project account 2000617. Upon motion of Council Member ___________, seconded by Council Member ___________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _______________ 20 26. ___________________________ Mayor Erica A. Stewart ATTEST: Page 329 of 412 Resolution No. _____ (2026 Series) Page 2 R ______ ______________________ Teresa Purrington City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________. ___________________________ Teresa Purrington City Clerk Page 330 of 412 PROPOSED SPEED CUSHION (1) TO BE INSTALLED MID-BLOCK ON SYDNEY BETWEEN JOHNSON AND AUGUSTA DIRECTLY FOLLOWING ROADWAY SEALING PROJECT PROPOSED SPEED CUSHION LOCATIONS Page 331 of 412 Page 332 of 412 PROPOSED SPEED CUSHIONS (2) TO BE INSTALLED ON AUGUSTA BETWEEN SINSHEIMER SCHOOL AND LAUREL DIRECTLY FOLLOWING ROADWAY SEALING PROJECT Page 333 of 412 PROPOSED SPEED CUSHIONS (2) TO BE INSTALLED ON MILL BETWEEN CHORRO AND OSOS STREET DIRECTLY FOLLOWING ROADWAY SEALING PROJECT Page 334 of 412 ONE (1) SPEED CUSHION TO BE INSTALLED ON MILL BETWEEN SANTA ROSA AND TORO, AND ONE (1) BETWEEN TORO AND JONSON STREET DIRECTLY FOLLOWING ROADWAY SEALING PROJECT Page 335 of 412 ONE (1) SPEED CUSHION TO BE INSTALLED ON MILL BETWEEN JOHNSON AND PEPPER DIRECTLY FOLLOWING ROADWAY SEALING PROJECT Page 336 of 412 ONE (1) SPEED CUSHION TO BE INSTALLED ON MILL BETWEEN CALIFORNIA AND GROVE PRIOR TO ROADWAY SEALING PROJECT Page 337 of 412 ONE (1) SPEED CUSHION TO BE INSTALLED ON MILL BETWEEN GROVE AND GRAND PRIOR TO ROADWAY SEALING PROJECT Page 338 of 412 2026 Roadway Sealing Project City Council Meeting Tuesday, May 5, 2026 Luke Schwartz Transportation Manager Public Works Department Justin Wong Transportation Planner Engineer Public Works Department Brian Nelson Deputy Director of Public Works / City Engineer Public Works Department Planning Context: •ATP Tier 1 Project •Transit & Emergency Response Route •High speeds and intersection conflicts •Traffic circle pilot project What is proposed: •Greenway markings •Crosswalk visibility improvements •Mill/Toro All Way Stop •Speed cushions Mill Street Greenway (Chorro to Pepper) •Existing speeds exceed City Thresholds •Speed humps/tables often not feasible on transit & emergency response routes, like Mill •Previously tried asphalt cushions in 2024 •Pre-formed rubber bolt-down materials now proposed •Installed via separate contract for flexibility Mill Street Speed Cushions Mill Street/Toro Street Existing Proposed MILL Pavement Area 2 Augusta Street 2 new speed cushions (NTM request); retain existing speed tables Speed limit signs & school warning signage Hi-vis crosswalk and striped bulbouts at Bishop Crosswalk daylighting near Sinsheimer Elementary Sydney Street 1 new speed cushion between Johnson and Augusta (NTM request) San Luis Drive Hi-visibility crosswalk markings at San Luis Drive/California and San Luis Drive/Johnson Reduce vehicle lane widths Bikeway visibility improvements Bike lane buffers & green at conflict points Flex posts at select locations to discourage illegal parking in bike lane Bicycle box at San Luis Drive / Johnson Improved channelization of NB bike lane approaching SLO High School main driveway Pavement Area 3 (South Broad St and Tank Farm Neighborhoods) What is Proposed with Paving Project? Hi-vis crosswalks and daylighting at intersections and trail entry points French Park and Isaly Park neighborhood Striped bike lane buffers on Ranch House Road Poinsettia-Fuller Bike Route shared lane markings Meadow Park Greenway (Tier 3 ATP project - east side of Broad included in project, west side already included in Higuera Complete Street Project) Pavement Area 3 (South Broad St and Tank Farm Neighborhoods) Striping Only North Chorro Johnson Avenue South Street Striping Only South Street EB Bike Lane Buffer KEEP CLEAR zone at Meadow Bid Additive Alternative South Broad Street (Tank Farm to City Limits) ATP Tier 1 & VZ High-Injury Network Future protected bike lanes, raised medians, roundabout/signal at Farmhouse – beyond current funding ability Add green bike lane markings through intersection conflict areas Left turn restrictions on Aerovista: High crash rate (2 fatal broadside crashes in last 5 years) -- planned summer 2026 with/without sealing project) Johnson Avenue (Bishop to Buchon) Planning Context: ATP Tier 2 Project – calls for protected bike lanes, may require lane reductions or road widening Safety History 26 crashes in 5 years, 0 severe/fatal, 2 bicycle crash, 0 ped crashes Not part of VZ High-Injury Network, crash concentrations at Johnson/San Luis Drive and Johnson/Lizzie Speeds Posted = 35 mph Prevailing Speed = 38 mph Johnson Avenue (Bishop to Buchon) Key commute corridor, route to SLO High, many driveways, varying topography Existing: 5 traffic lanes, paint-only bike lanes, all min widths per City Stds Too narrow to add buffered/protected bike lanes without removing traffic lanes Pavement in poor quality beyond slurry seal – 2026 Project includes striping only Staff evaluated feasibility of potential road diet – has been successful elsewhere on Johnson JOHNSON (LAUREL TO ORCUTT) 6,000 veh/day Striped to 3 lanes 20+ years ago JOHNSON (BISHOP TO LAUREL) 11,500 veh/day Striped to 3 lanes in 2022 JOHNSON (SAN LUIS DRIVE TO BISHOP) 16,000 veh/day 2026 Roadway Sealing Project Segment Existing Full Road Diet NB or SB Only Road Diet Traffic Operations Analysis General Plan Threshold = Auto LOS D or better. LOS E or F shown in red Traffic Operations Study Results What do these results mean? All road diet scenarios result in deficient LOS, queues – significant congestion during peak commute periods Delays of 5 minutes or more at some intersection approaches during peak periods Queues spill back to upstream intersections during peak periods Travel Times double for some scenarios/directions Results may be optimistic –more robust analysis needed for more confidence Real world observations during construction supports congestion levels forecasted in model. Emergency Response & Evacuation Considerations Concerns with added congestion & delays along primary response route, particularly to French Hospital Johnson Ave key evacuation route, particularly SB away from San Luis Drive neighborhood and hillside to east (limited alternate routes, flood risk) Egress to SB Johnson challenging during recent fire above SLO High What is proposed in 2026 Sealing Project? Bike lane buffer stripe where width allows Under rail bridge (Buchon to SLD) SB uphill between Fixilini and Bishop Green bike lane markings in conflict zones 2 Radar Speed Feedback Signs & more speed limit signs “35 MPH” speed limit markings Johnson Avenue Questions: What would the Johnson/San Luis Dr intersection look like with a road diet? Do the current plans advance recommendations for Johnson per the Draft Vision Zero Action Plan? Can you provide more details on recent crash history, and what is the confidence level on the data used? What is the cost savings if the Council decides not to move forward with work on Johnson with 2026 Roadway Sealing Project? How does the publicly disclosed funding amount of $3,932,000 relate to the construction cost figures shown in the Fiscal Impact section of staff report? Johnson Avenue Questions: What would the Johnson/San Luis Dr intersection look like with a road diet? Johnson Avenue Questions: Do the current plans advance recommendations for Johnson per the Draft Vision Zero Action Plan? Johnson (SLD to Bishop) not on High-Injury Network or “Hot Spot” location Increase awareness of speed limits with more signs, markings, radar signs Green bike lane markings at conflict points Bike box and sign/striping refinements at Johnson/San Luis Drive intersection Can you provide more details on recent crash history, and what is the confidence level on the data used? Variety of crash types, concentrations at SLD, Lizzie, many speed related 2 bike crashes at Johnson/Lizzie 1 NB right hook vs. NB thru cyclist (bike brake malfunction a factor) 1 NB scooter traving wrong way in SB bike lane vs. EB right vehicle Johnson Avenue Questions: What is the cost savings if the Council decides not to move forward with work on Johnson with 2026 Roadway Sealing Project? Apx. $300,000 in cost reduction if Johnson pulled from project scope Pavement on Johnson in bad shape, beyond slurry seal Striping condition ok, could last 1-2 more years before full refresh Public Engagement Project website, news release, coordination with SLO Fire and SLO Transit, SLO High School, SLCUSD Direct mailers to Mill Street and neighborhoods where traffic calming is proposed Neighborhood ballots to Augusta and Sydney show 78%-84% support for speed cushions Mill Street neighborhood majority support removal of pilot traffic circle, replace with all-way stop at Mill/Toro Sydney Street traffic calming added at request of community to advance NTM project already in queue Advisory Body Input ATC Generally supportive of design proposals, including traffic calming and all-way stop at Mill/Toro Recommended pursuing road diet on Johnson Avenue to reduce speeds and prioritize comfort and safety for ped/bike users Supportive of more robust safe routes to school planning and improvements on San Luis Drive for SLO High School access MTC Supportive of plans, requests continued focus on pedestrian access and crossing safety improvements near transit stops Fiscal Impact Costs: Total Funding = $4.85 million *Total Cost = $4.85 million o Base Bid Cost = $4.29 million o Bid Add Alt Cost (including contingency, etc.) = $565k *Includes direct costs, construction management and contingencies Publicly Disclosed Funding ($3,932,000) – most we can award to construction contract, while retaining sufficient funds for contingency, construction management, materials testing, etc. Next Steps 1.Spring 2026 – Advertise for construction 2.Early Fall 2026 – Start construction 3.Early 2027 – Construction Complete Questions? Recommendations: 1.Approve the project plans and special provisions for the 2026 Roadway Sealing Project, Specification Number 2000617; and 2.Authorize staff to advertise for bids for the 2026 Roadway Sealing Project; and 3.Authorize the City Manager to award the construction contract for the 2026 Roadway Sealing Project pursuant to Section 3.24.190 of the Municipal Code for the bid total, if the lowest responsible bid is within the publicly disclosed funding amount of $3,932,000; and 3.Appropriate $236,542 from the unreserved SB1 Fund balance to the project; and, Recommendations (cont.): 5.Adopt a Resolution (Attachment C) entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, Authorizing Appropriation of $236,542 from unreserved SB1 Fund Balance to support the 2026 Roadway Sealing Project, Specification Number 2000617; and, 6.Authorize the Finance Director to make the following transfers to the 2026 Roadway Sealing Project Account (2000617): a)Transfer $62,000 of Capital Outlay LRM from Bridge Maintenance (2000029); and, b)Transfer $100,000 of Capital Outlay LRM from the Traffic Maintenance and Replacement Project Account (No. 2001003); and, c)Transfer $150,000 from Completed Projects; and, 7.Authorize the City Engineer to approve Contract Change Orders up to the available project budget, including any amendments authorized by the City Manager. Alternatives 1.Deny the approval to advertise the project. City Council could choose to deny authorization to advertise this project at this time. This action would delay scheduled road maintenance, which could result in increased future costs due to construction cost escalation and further deterioration of pavement and road markings. 2.Pursue further analysis, outreach, and design for a potential road concept on Johnson Avenue. The City Council may choose to direct staff to further evaluate the potential for a road diet between San Luis Drive and Bishop Street, as recommended by the Active Transportation Committee (ATC). Should the Council wish to pursue this alternative, staff would need additional time to conduct expanded public outreach, coordinate with local emergency services, refine technical analyses (such as a Traffic Operations Analysis and a Project-Specific Evacuation Study), prepare more detailed design concepts for a road diet, and return to both the ATC and the City Council for final design and policy guidance before moving forward with construction. Given current limited staffing resources available support new initiatives, these additional tasks would be expected to require approximately 12-18 months and may necessitate supplemental funding for consultant support to advance technical studies and design work.