HomeMy WebLinkAboutPW Third and Hetherton Traffic Study 2018____________________________________________________________________________________
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting: 7-2-2018
Disposition: Accepted Report
Agenda Item No: 6.a
Meeting Date: July 2, 2018
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Public Works
Prepared by: Bill Guerin,
Director of Public Works
City Manager Approval:
File No.: 18.06.74
TOPIC: THIRD AND HETHERTON TRAFFIC STUDY
SUBJECT: INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON THE THIRD AND HETHERTON
TRAFFIC STUDY
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the informational report.
BACKGROUND: The intersection of Third Street and Hetherton Street is one of the
most heavily congested locations in both San Rafael and Marin County. This is due in
part to its proximity to major traffic generators such as the northbound and southbound
ramps for US-101, Downtown San Rafael, Montecito Shopping Center, San Rafael High
School and traffic from the freeway going to points west of San Rafael .
The intersection of Third Street and Hetherton Street is also highly traversed by
pedestrians traveling between the Montecito neighborhood, Downtown San Rafael, the
Caltrans Park-and-Ride lots, and the San Rafael Transit Center. During peak hours, this
intersection handles over 3,500 vehicles and 200 pedestrians per hour, creating
numerous points of conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. With the recent opening
of the adjacent Downtown San Rafael SMART Station, it is anticipated that pedestrian
traffic at this intersection will continue to increase.
In the last five years, there have been a number of pedestrian-involved collisions at
Third Street and Hetherton Street, including two pedestrian fatalities, which occurred in
2014 and 2016. Both fatalities involved vehicles making a westbound left turn from Third
Street to southbound Hetherton Street from the second turning lane.
In order to investigate whether further improvements could be made to improve safety
to the intersection, the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a
professional services agreement with the transportation consultant firm, Kimley -Horn
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
and Associates, to prepare a study for the Third Street and Hetherton Street on January
17, 2017.
ANALYSIS: Kimley-Horn and City staff worked closely to develop intersection concepts
that would provide improvements to both vehicular travel and pedestrian safety.
Existing conditions at the intersection were identified and potential improvements were
developed. Fourteen improvement options were initially identified which included such
ideas as lane configuration changes, pedestrian scrambles, geometry modifications and
changes to signal operations. A traffic analysis was performed for each option to
determine the impact on traffic and pedestrian circulation. Using the results from the
analysis, four intersection concepts were further evaluated based on traffic impacts,
safety impacts, and cost.
Based on completion of a traffic analysis, cost estimate s of the conceptual designs,
which ranged from $200,000 to $400,000, and an assessment of safety benefits for
pedestrians, staff has a recommended concept to be considered as the preferred option
for this intersection.
Figure 1: Recommended Concept
The recommended concept improves pedestrian safety by eliminating the double left
turn from Third Street and reduces the crossing distance of the south and west
crosswalks. This concept also includes a leading pedestrian interval (LPI) which
provides a head start for pedestrians crossing. The current left turn pocket will be
eliminated, leaving two thru lanes and a left/thru lane on Third Street . While eliminating
this short existing turn pocket may seem like a significant impact, based on the traffic
analysis this change will increase the delay at the intersection in the morning peak by 3
seconds and the evening peak by 2 seconds each which are not considered significant.
The analysis assumes a five second LPI which is applied to the north and south
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
crosswalks. Staff believes that this option of additional vehicular delay and pedestrian
safety, considering recent collisions, is a worthwhile compromise for this area.
Additional comments which lead to staff’s recommendation are included in Section 4.3
of Attachment 1.
The recommended concept would require both physical intersection modifications and
signal operations modifications and is estimated to cost $285,000 if permanently
implemented. The project is listed in the FY 2018-19 CIP as an Active Project, and is
fully funded by a Highway Safety Improvement Program grant.
Because of concerns outlined in the “Project Outreach” section below, it is also
recommended to implement the concept as a pilot project initially with non-permanent
solutions. Public Works would install partial temporary measures, such as bollards or
concrete K-railing, to eliminate one of the left turn lanes and pilot the concept for a year
or more to monitor traffic impacts and pedestrian safety. The cost for the temporary
installation is approximately $118,500.
Following the acceptance of this report Public Works will pursue the development of the
design for the project.
PROJECT OUTREACH: On November 8, 2017 the preliminary report was presented
to the City of San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). The
members of BPAC recommended an alternative called a “Pedestrian Scramble”. While
this option provides the biggest improvement to pedestrian safety, it also halts traffic in
all directions and had an evening peak delay to vehicular traffic of more than 90
seconds. After some discussion with BPAC members, the recommended concept was
determined to be acceptable to BPAC members based on the fact that it ad ds new
safety measures to the system, causes minimal delays to vehicular traffic and balances
comments from the public regarding traffic.
On November 15, 2017 staff and the consultant team presented the preliminary report
to the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods. The preliminary report was also
presented to the Point San Pedro Road Coalition on January 17, 2018. These meetings
allowed the community and stakeholders a chance to review the concepts and provide
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
comments and suggestions. Many of the public who attended these meetings did not
feel that removing one of the dual left turn lanes would be advantageous and would
cause delays that are unacceptable. They also questioned the validity of the traffic
model and recommended eliminating the south crosswalk as an alternative. These
ideas were evaluated and the pedestrian usage of the crosswalk supports it remaining
in place. Staff is confident that the impacts to traffic are minimal and that pedestrian
safety will be improved and recommends proceeding with the intersection modifications.
Subsequent actions by the City Council will be needed for the award of the construction
and possibly the award of the design contract depending upon its cost. Staff will
continue to work closely with the associated public groups, as well as SMART and
Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District as this project is developed.
FISCAL IMPACT: There are no direct fiscal impacts to accepting this report. The
recommended improvement construction cost is $118,500 and the permanent solution
is $285,000. The City currently has a $583,900 Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP) grant to support this project, with matching local funds of $94,035 from the
Traffic Mitigation Fund (#246). The Traffic Mitigation Fund portion supported the study
for the intersection improvements, which have totaled $62,641 to date. There is
available time before the expiration of the funds to implement the permanent
improvements if the pilot shows that this solution is effective.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept the informational report.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Third and Hetherton Traffic Study Final Report
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report | June 2018
SAN RAFAEL
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
Recommended Concept ...................................................................................................... 1
Traffic ............................................................................................................................... 2
Safety ............................................................................................................................... 5
Cost.................................................................................................................................. 6
Findings and Recommendation ........................................................................................... 7
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 9
1.1 Project Need and Background .................................................................................. 9
1.2 Project Goals ............................................................................................................ 9
1.3 Study Intersection and project process ..................................................................... 9
2 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................ 12
2.1 Crash History .......................................................................................................... 12
2.2 Traffic and Circulation ............................................................................................. 12
2.3 Key Challenges and Constraints ............................................................................ 14
2.3.1 Projects in the Area ......................................................................................... 15
3 Intersection Concepts .................................................................................................... 17
3.1 Alternatives considered and eliminated .................................................................. 17
3.1.1 Geometric Improvements ................................................................................ 17
3.1.2 Timing improvements ...................................................................................... 19
3.1.3 Other Signal Modifications ............................................................................... 20
3.2 Recommended Concept ......................................................................................... 21
3.2.1 Traffic ............................................................................................................... 21
3.2.2 Safety .............................................................................................................. 24
3.2.3 Cost ................................................................................................................. 25
3.3 Eliminated Concept #1 ............................................................................................ 27
3.3.1 Traffic ............................................................................................................... 27
3.3.2 Safety .............................................................................................................. 30
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 ii
3.3.3 Cost ................................................................................................................. 31
3.4 Eliminated Concept #2 ............................................................................................ 32
3.4.1 Traffic ............................................................................................................... 32
3.4.2 Safety .............................................................................................................. 35
3.4.3 Cost ................................................................................................................. 36
3.5 Eliminated Concept #3 ............................................................................................ 37
3.5.1 Traffic ............................................................................................................... 37
3.5.2 Safety .............................................................................................................. 40
3.5.3 Cost ................................................................................................................. 40
3.6 Eliminated Concept #4 ............................................................................................ 42
3.6.1 Traffic ............................................................................................................... 42
3.6.2 Safety .............................................................................................................. 42
3.6.3 Cost ................................................................................................................. 42
4 Conclusions and Recommendation ............................................................................... 46
4.1 Comparison of Intersection Concepts ..................................................................... 46
4.1.1 Safety .............................................................................................................. 46
4.1.2 Cost ................................................................................................................. 47
4.1.3 Traffic Effects ................................................................................................... 47
4.2 Public and Stakeholder Feedback .......................................................................... 51
4.3 Recommendation and Next Steps .......................................................................... 54
Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 56
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 iii
List of Figures
Figure E-1: Recommended Intersection Concept ................................................................... 3
Figure E-2: Recommended Intersection Concept Photo-Simulation ....................................... 4
Figure 1-1: Project Vicinity Map ............................................................................................ 10
Figure 1-2: Project Flow Chart .............................................................................................. 11
Figure 2-1: Existing Intersection Conditions .......................................................................... 13
Figure 3-1: Recommended Concept ..................................................................................... 22
Figure 3-2: Recommended Concept Photo-Simulation ......................................................... 23
Figure 3-3: Eliminated Concept #1 ........................................................................................ 28
Figure 3-4: Eliminated Concept #1 Photo-Simulation ........................................................... 29
Figure 3-5: Eliminated Concept #2 ........................................................................................ 33
Figure 3-6: Eliminated Concept #2 Photo-Simulation ........................................................... 34
Figure 3-7: Eliminated Concept #3 ........................................................................................ 38
Figure 3-8: Eliminated Concept #3 Photo-Simulation ........................................................... 39
Figure 3-9: Eliminated Concept #4 ........................................................................................ 43
Figure 3-10: Eliminated Concept #4 Photo-Simulation ......................................................... 44
Figure 4-1: Intercept Survey Western Points of Origin/Destination ....................................... 52
Figure 4-2: Intercept Survey Eastern Points of Origin/Destination ........................................ 52
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 iv
List of Tables
Table E-1: Recommended Concept LOS Analysis Results .................................................... 5
Table E-2: Recommended Concept Queuing Analysis Results .............................................. 5
Table E-3: Recommended Concept Cost Estimate ................................................................ 6
Table E-4: Recommended Concept Cost Estimate – Interim Treatments .............................. 7
Table 2-1: Existing LOS Analysis Results ............................................................................. 12
Table 2-2: Existing Queuing Analysis Results ...................................................................... 14
Table 3-1: Recommended Concept LOS Analysis Results ................................................... 24
Table 3-2: Recommended Concept Queuing Analysis Results ............................................ 24
Table 3-3: Recommended Concept Cost Estimate ............................................................... 25
Table 3-4: Recommended Concept Cost Estimate – Interim Treatments ............................. 26
Table 3-5: Eliminated Concept #1 LOS Analysis Results ..................................................... 30
Table 3-6: Eliminated Concept #1 Queuing Analysis Results ............................................... 30
Table 3-7: Eliminated Concept #1 Opinion of Probable Cost ................................................ 31
Table 3-8: Eliminated Concept #2 LOS Analysis Results ..................................................... 32
Table 3-9: Eliminated Concept #2 Queuing Analysis Results ............................................... 35
Table 3-10: Eliminated Concept #2 Cost Estimate ............................................................... 36
Table 3-11: Eliminated Concept #3 LOS Analysis Results ................................................... 37
Table 3-12: Eliminated Concept #3 Queuing Analysis Results ............................................. 40
Table 3-13: Eliminated Concept #3 Cost Estimate ............................................................... 41
Table 3-14: Eliminated Concept #4 Cost Estimate ............................................................... 45
Table 4-1: Concept Cost Estimate Comparison .................................................................... 47
Table 4-2: LOS Analysis Results – Overall Intersection ....................................................... 48
Table 4-3: LOS Analysis Results – By Approach .................................................................. 49
Table 4-4: Queuing Analysis Results – Overall Intersection ................................................. 50
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 1
Executive Summary
INTRODUCTION
The intersection of 3rd Street and Hetherton Street is one of the most heavily congested
locations in both San Rafael and Marin County. This is due in part to its proximity to major
traffic generators such as the northbound and southbound ramps for US-101, Downtown
San Rafael, Montecito Shopping Center, and San Rafael High School. During peak periods,
drivers often experience significant delays approaching this intersection, generating long
queues that in turn, add to the congestion at nearby intersections.
3rd Street and Hetherton Street is also highly traversed by pedestrians traveling between the
Montecito neighborhood, Downtown San Rafael, the Caltrans Park-and-Ride lots, and the
San Rafael Transit Center. During peak hours, this intersection handles over 3,500 vehicles
and 200 pedestrians per hour, with several points of conflict between vehicles and
pedestrians. With the recent opening of the adjacent Downtown San Rafael SMART Station,
it is anticipated that pedestrian traffic at this intersection will continue to increase.
In the last five years, there have been pedestrian-involved collisions at 3rd Street and
Hetherton Street, including two pedestrian fatalities which occurred in 2014 and 2016. Both
fatalities involved vehicles making a westbound left turn from 3rd Street to Hetherton Street.
In an effort to improve vehicular delay and pedestrian safety, the City of San Rafael initiated
this study to identify potential alternatives which would enhance the intersection of 3rd Street
and Hetherton Street for both vehicles and pedestrians. A number of intersection
improvement concepts were developed and analyzed, examining the effects of modifying
intersection geometrics, signal operations, and signal infrastructure. The numerous
concepts were screened down to a set of five intersection improvement concepts for further
development and conceptual design.
Each of the intersection concepts were then evaluated based on traffic impacts, safety
impacts, and cost. This evaluation informed the recommended concept, which is described
below.
RECOMMENDED CONCEPT
The recommended intersection concept, as depicted in Figure E-1, includes the following
modifications to the study intersection:
Signal phasing: This concept maintains the current signal phasing with slight
modifications to signal timing. A Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) would be
implemented for the north and south leg crosswalks, where most of the recorded
pedestrian collisions have occurred. The LPI begins the pedestrian walk phase prior
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 2
to the start of the vehicle phase, extending the all-red time at the signal. This
increases pedestrian visibility for autos and emphasizes the pedestrian right-of-way.
This concept includes a 5-second LPI for the east-west pedestrian phase. The 5
seconds for the LPI are shifted from the vehicle green time.
Signal infrastructure: A second mast arm for the westbound approach signal would
be installed to provide an additional signal head for westbound left-turn traffic with a
“Yield to Pedestrians” blankout sign facing the westbound approach.
Geometrics: The westbound approach would be narrowed to provide one shared
through/left lane and two through lanes. This eliminates one of the two left-turn
lanes, further benefiting pedestrian safety by eliminating the turning movement with
the least amount of pedestrian visibility. The southbound approach would maintain
the same configuration as exists today. The curb radius for the southeast corner of
the intersection would also be tightened to slow turning vehicles and shorten the
crossing distances for pedestrians, and a bulbout would be constructed at the
northwest corner of the intersection.
Figure E-2 is a visual representation of how this concept would look from the perspective of
the southeast corner of the intersection.
Traffic
Table E-1 displays the traffic analysis results for the recommended concept. Results shown
include the delay and level of service for the overall intersection and the two approaches,
and the increase or decrease in delay relative to existing conditions as a result of the
improvements.
Table E-2 displays the queuing analysis results. Results include the 95th percentile queue
lengths for southbound and westbound through and turning movements, and the increase or
decrease in queue length relative to baseline conditions as a result of the improvements.
Detailed Synchro analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix C.
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study
Figure E-1
Recommended Concept
Elimination of dual westbound left
turn removes double conict for
pedestrians crossing the south leg
and shortens crossing distance
Trac signal post moved
from location A to location
B to accommodate new
mast arm at location A
Addition of mast arm at
location A, to feature ashing
yellow left-turn arrow and
“Left Turns Yield” blankout sign
facing westbound approach
AA
BB
Tightened curb radius at southeast corner
and bulbout at northwest corner decrease
pedestrian crossing distance; pedestrian
signal head at southeast corner relocated
5-second leading
pedestrian interval
All corners: accessible
pedestrian signals installed
NOT TO SCALE
With Improvements
Existing Conditions
Figure E-2
Recommended Intersection Concept Photo-Simulation
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 5
Table E-1: Recommended Concept LOS Analysis Results
Period Intersection
Delay
Intersection
LOS
WB
Approach
Delay
WB
Approach
LOS
SB
Approach
Delay
SB
Approach
LOS
AM 24.6 C 19.4 B 33.6 C
Δ 3.1 ‐ 4.0 ‐ 1.6 ‐
PM 19.1 B 17.2 B 21.9 C
Δ 2.3 ‐ 4.1 ‐ ‐0.5 ‐
WB = Westbound; SB = Southbound; LOS = Level of Service
Table E-2: Recommended Concept Queuing Analysis Results
Period WB LT/TH Queue
95th Percentile (ft)
SB TH Queue 95th
Percentile (ft)
SB RT Queue 95th
Percentile (ft)
AM 400 153 336
Δ 114 ‐1 ‐11
PM 298 68 373
Δ 54 0 ‐28
WB = Westbound; SB = Southbound
LT = Left-turn; TH = Through; RT = Right-turn
Note: Queue lengths in bold exceed lane capacity
The results show that the addition of a LPI and modifications to the westbound lane
geometry results in a 2-3 second increase in delay at the intersection. Most of the delay
increases occur at the westbound approach, while the southbound approach would only be
slightly affected.
The concept would increase queuing for westbound movements; this is a result of the
reduction of turning capacity by removing the existing left-turn pocket. The analysis shows
95th percentile queues will increase to approximately 400 feet in the AM peak hour and 300
feet in the PM peak hour. The analysis may be overestimating the effect of the elimination of
the dedicated left-turn lane. Due to the very short length of the existing left-turn only lane
(limited by the US-101 overpass column), it provides limited benefit to intersection
operations as only the first few vehicles of the cycle are queued to make left-turns
simultaneously from both left-turn lanes.
Safety
The addition of a leading pedestrian interval for the north and south leg crosswalks of the
study intersection allows pedestrians to begin crossing the street before vehicles are
permitted to turn; this head-start increases pedestrian visibility and gives pedestrians
priority, as vehicles must yield to pedestrians already in the crosswalk.
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 6
In addition to the LPI, the elimination of the dual westbound left-turn removes the double
conflict that pedestrians currently have crossing the south leg while also shortening the
south leg crossing distance from 62 feet to 49 feet. The addition of a bulbout at the
northwest corner reduces the west leg crossing distance from 47 feet to 41 feet. The
additional signage would also increase pedestrian visibility.
Cost
The estimated cost of this concept is $283,700. A breakdown of this cost estimate is shown
in Table E-3. The primary cost contributor is the tightening of the curb radius at the
southeast corner of the intersection.
Table E-3: Recommended Concept Cost Estimate
Item Total ($)
Mobilization $14,328
Traffic Control $21,491
SWPPP/Drainage $7,164
Design $28,655
Construction Admin $21,491
Traffic Signal Modification $60,400
Civil Improvements $76,570
Signing and Striping $6,305
Subtotal $236,404
Contingency (20%) $47,281
Total $283,700
The option of implementing interim treatments, which would implement the recommended
concept with the use of striping and flexible posts or channelizers instead of reconstructing
curb, could be implemented if a nonpermanent solution is desired. The estimated cost of
implementing the recommended concept using interim treatments is $118,500. A breakdown
of this cost estimate is shown in Table E-4.
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 7
Table E-4: Recommended Concept Cost Estimate – Interim Treatments
Item Total ($)
Mobilization $6,173
Traffic Control $9,260
SWPPP/Drainage $0
Design $12,346
Construction Admin $9,260
Traffic Signal Modification $50,800
Civil Improvements $0
Signing and Striping $10,930
Subtotal $98,768
Contingency (20%) $19,754
Total $118,500
Detailed cost estimates are provided in Appendix E.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
The recommended concept was selected based on completion of a traffic analysis, cost
estimate, conceptual design, and an assessment of safety benefits for pedestrians. This
concept was selected for the following reasons:
LPIs increase the visibility of pedestrians. By allowing pedestrians a head start
over vehicles, it gives them priority, firmly establishes the pedestrian with the right-of-
way, and makes them more visible to vehicles.
It eliminates the double-conflict between westbound left-turns and
pedestrians. The existing intersection has two westbound left-turn lanes; these are
given a green light at the same time as the pedestrian walk signal. Line of sight from
the current second left-turn lane to pedestrians in the crosswalk may be limited by an
adjacent turning vehicle. Reduction of left-turning traffic to one lane improves
pedestrian visibility and reduces the number of conflict points between pedestrians
and vehicles and improves visibility.
Curb extensions, also known as bulb-outs, create a safer pedestrian
environment at the intersection. Curb extensions enhance pedestrian safety by
increasing pedestrian visibility, decreasing pedestrian exposure to vehicles by
shortening crossing distances, slowing turning vehicles, and providing more
pedestrian space.
The resulting traffic impacts are estimated to be minor. Traffic analysis results
showed that implementation of the recommended concept results in average delay
increases 2-3 seconds in both the AM and PM peak hours.
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 8
The recommended concept would require both physical and operational modifications. If a
nonpermanent solution is desired, interim treatments using striping and bollards could be
used. The capital cost for construction of permanent treatments is estimated at $283,700;
the cost for interim treatments is an estimated $118,500.
The assessment of the five concepts considered, and the evaluation process which resulted
in the selection of the recommended concept, is described in the body of this report.
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 9
1 Introduction
1.1 PROJECT NEED AND BACKGROUND
The intersection of 3rd Street and Hetherton Street is one of the most heavily congested
locations in both San Rafael and Marin County. This is due in part to its proximity to major
traffic generators such as the northbound and southbound ramps for US-101, Downtown
San Rafael, Montecito Shopping Center, and San Rafael High School. During peak periods,
drivers often experience significant delays approaching this intersection, generating long
queues that in turn, add to the congestion at nearby intersections.
3rd Street and Hetherton Street is also highly traversed by pedestrians traveling between the
Montecito neighborhood, Downtown San Rafael, the Caltrans Park-and-Ride lots, and the
San Rafael Transit Center. During peak hours, this intersection handles over 3,500 vehicles
and 200 pedestrians per hour, with several points of conflict between vehicles and
pedestrians. With the recent opening of the adjacent Downtown San Rafael SMART Station,
it is anticipated that pedestrian traffic at this intersection will continue to increase.
In the last five years, there have been pedestrian-involved collisions at 3rd Street and
Hetherton Street, including two pedestrian fatalities which occurred in 2014 and 2016. Both
fatalities involved vehicles making a westbound left turn from 3rd Street to Hetherton Street.
In an effort to improve vehicular delay and pedestrian safety, the City of San Rafael initiated
this study to identify potential alternatives which would enhance the intersection of 3rd Street
and Hetherton Street for both vehicles and pedestrians
1.2 PROJECT GOALS
This project’s goal is to identify feasible solutions to improve pedestrian safety and traffic
throughput for the intersection of 3rd Street and Hetherton Street. The outcome of this
project will be the selection of a recommended intersection design concept which can then
proceed into design and construction through the use of the City’s Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) grant and other funds.
1.3 STUDY INTERSECTION AND PROJECT PROCESS
The study intersection is shown in Figure 1-1. 3rd Street is a three-lane westbound arterial
which couples with 2nd Street to act as a major throughway for vehicles traveling into and
through Downtown San Rafael. Hetherton Street is a three-lane southbound road which
stretches from the Highway 101 southbound off-ramp at Mission Avenue to the Highway 101
southbound on-ramp at 2nd Street. Approximately 40,000 vehicles travel through this
intersection per day.
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 10
Figure 1-1: Project Vicinity Map
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 11
The project was completed following the general process
shown in Figure 1-2.
The project team analyzed existing conditions at the study
intersection to determine current operations, needs, and
potential areas of improvement. Data used to inform this
analysis included collision records from the years 2011-
2016 from California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated
Traffic Records System (SWITRS), and peak hour
intersection turning movement volumes collected in
February 2017. This data is provided in Appendix A and
Appendix B, respectively.
Based on this analysis, an initial list of potential intersection
improvements was developed. Fourteen distinct
improvement options were initially developed and reviewed
with City staff. These improvement options included
variations of improved signage and signaling, phase
changes, striping/lane geometric changes, and pedestrian
infrastructure changes. From that list, seven alternative
intersection geometric configurations and five alternative
signal phasing operations were identified. Traffic analysis
was performed on all of the geometric and phasing
alternatives to assess impacts on the circulation network.
From this analysis and in conjunction with City staff, the set
of intersection modifications was screened to a short list of five potential improvement
concepts for further analysis and concept development.
For each of the five screened concepts, conceptual layouts drawn over aerial imagery were
prepared to assess feasibility, define the configuration of the concept, and develop planning-
level cost estimates.
Each of the intersection concepts were further evaluated based on traffic impacts, safety
impacts, and cost. This evaluation informed the selection of the recommended concept.
Traffic impacts were analyzed by modeling the intersection using Synchro traffic software
and HCM 2000 methodology.
Figure 1-2: Project Flow Chart
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 12
2 Existing Conditions
Figure 2-1 depicts existing peak hour vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian volumes at the
intersection, as well as the history of bicycle and pedestrian-related collisions at the
intersection from 2011 to 2016.
2.1 CRASH HISTORY
Based on SWITRS records, a total of 70 collisions were recorded within 150 feet of the
study intersection between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2016. Eleven of these
recorded collisions involved a pedestrian or bicyclist. Of these 11 pedestrian/bicycle
collisions, six resulted in a complaint of pain, four resulted in injury, and one resulted in a
fatality. An additional pedestrian fatality occurred in 2014 which had not been recorded in
SWITRS. Eight of the pedestrian- or bicyclist-involved collisions (including the 2014 fatality)
occurred at the crosswalk across the south leg of the intersection and involved a vehicle
making a left-turn from westbound 3rd Street onto southbound Hetherton Street. The
remaining three bicycle/pedestrian collisions occurred at the crosswalk across the north leg
of the intersection and involved a vehicle making a through movement on southbound
Hetherton Street. One sideswipe collision occurred just west of the intersection between a
vehicle and a bicyclist.
2.2 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
The existing intersection was modeled using Synchro traffic modeling software and HCM
2000 methodology. Table 2-1 shows the delay and level of service (LOS) analysis results
from the model. Table 2-2 shows the 95th percentile queues for all intersection movements
as calculated in Synchro. Detailed Synchro analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix
C.
Table 2-1: Existing LOS Analysis Results
Period Intersection
Delay
Intersection
LOS
WB
Approach
Delay
WB
Approach
LOS
SB
Approach
Delay
SB
Approach
LOS
AM 21.5 C 15.4 B 32.0 C
PM 16.8 B 13.1 B 22.4 C
WB = Westbound; SB = Southbound; LOS = Level of Service
Figure 2-1
Existing Conditions
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study
1330(1393)
440(402)419(434)669(670)1034(921)252(324)16(41)
19(48)69(74)46’50’7’10’47’
46’10’10’-13’4’
4(5)6(1)NOT TO SCALE
AM(PM) Peak Hour Vehicle
Turning Movement Volumes
AM(PM) Peak Hour Bicycle
Approach Volumes
AM(PM) Peak Hour
Pedestrian Volumes
Collisions
Notes:
Collisions shown are all bicycle and pedestrian-related
collisions documented in SWITRS from 2011 to 2016.
One fatality is shown which was not documented in SWITRS
2nd/Hetherton approach volumes are from 9/21/2011. All
other counts were taken 2/28/2017.
All locations of reported collisions are approximate.
Legend
Vehicle
Bicyclist
Pedestrian
Party at Fault
Complaint of Pain
Injury
Fatality
XX(YY)
XX(YY)
XX(YY)
1013rd Street Hetherton StreetTwo fatalities have occurred since 2011 at the crosswalk across
the south leg of the intersection.
High-visibility ladder-style crosswalks have been recently striped.
High volume of right-turns on red on southbound Hetherton.
Dual westbound left-turn lanes on 3rd Street.
Buses turn left from westbound 3rd Street to approach curbside bays
at San Rafael Transit Center Platform A
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 14
Table 2-2: Existing Queuing Analysis Results
Period WB LT Queue 95th
Percentile (ft)
WB TH Queue 95th
Percentile (ft)
SB TH Queue 95th
Percentile (ft)
SB RT Queue 95th
Percentile (ft)
AM 477 286 154 347
PM 176 244 68 401
WB = Westbound; SB = Southbound; LOS = Level of Service
LT = Left-turn; TH = Through; RT = Right-turn
Note: Queue lengths in bold exceed lane capacity
The results indicate that the existing intersection operates at least at a level of service C in
both peak hours, which is considered acceptable. However, because HCM methodology
does not account for traffic spillback from downstream intersections when assessing delay,
these results do not necessarily reflect actual conditions. The close spacing of the
intersections in the Downtown grid network causes queues at one intersection to impact
operations at upstream intersections. Field observations show that current delays and
congestion at this intersection are worse than indicated by the model. However, HCM results
provide a baseline to determine the change (increase or decrease) in delay that results from
each proposed modification.
The results also indicate that delay for the southbound approach is worse than it is for the
westbound approach. Southbound right-turns experience more delay than any other
movement at the intersection. Analysis also shows that queues for southbound right-turns
exceed the capacity of the existing southbound right-turn lane.
2.3 KEY CHALLENGES AND CONSTRAINTS
A number of factors create constraints or challenges to potential improvements at this
intersection:
Signals along 3rd Street are coordinated, including the study intersection; changes to
signal timing may impact the coordination of the signals along this corridor
All signals in Downtown operate on the same cycle length; changes to the cycle
length at the study intersection would potentially affect all Downtown signals
The length of the existing westbound left-turn only pocket is constrained by the
location of Highway 101 support columns
Some buses which berth at the bus bays on the east side of Platform A at San
Rafael Transit Center make left-turns from westbound 3rd Street to southbound
Hetherton when approaching the transit center. Since these buses must pull into the
westernmost lane on southbound Hetherton, they make wide left-turns. Any
proposed improvements must account for the space needed to accommodate the
wide left-turns that buses make in order to serve these bus bays. Additionally, buses
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 15
traveling southbound on Hetherton Street must also be able to access these bays
and pull approximately parallel with the curb.
Pedestrian activity is high along all three legs currently with a crosswalk, likely as a
result of the San Rafael Transit Center
There is a high volume of southbound right-turns at the study intersection, including
numerous right-turns on red
With the construction of SMART Phase 2, queue cutter signals are anticipated to be
introduced at the at-grade rail crossings on 2nd and 3rd Streets
Right-of-way on the east side of Hetherton Street, north of 3rd Street, is constrained
by Erwin Creek
These challenges were taken into consideration when developing and evaluating potential
intersection improvements.
2.3.1 Projects in the Area
In addition to the key constraints and challenges at the study intersection, a number of
nearby projects are in progress and may have effects on the study intersection. These
projects include the following:
The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District is undergoing a joint
effort with the City of San Rafael, Marin Transit, SMART, and TAM to identify a new
location for the San Rafael Transit Center. Since the transit center is a major
generator of pedestrian activity, its relocation will likely increase pedestrian flows at
the nearest intersections.
The existing crosswalks at the intersection of 2nd Street and Irwin Street will be
relocated from the north and east legs of the intersection to the south and west legs.
The relocation of these crosswalks will affect some pedestrian paths of travel result
in changes to pedestrian activity at other intersections. For instance, pedestrians
who previously walked to United Markets from the transit center via 2nd Street would
potentially be rerouted through the intersection of 3rd Street and Hetherton Street.
The extension of SMART service to Larkspur may increase pedestrian activity in the
vicinity of the SMART station, including the intersection of 3rd Street and Hetherton
Street.
The Third Street Rehabilitation Project is an effort by the City of San Rafael to
rehabilitate Third Street in the downtown area, including the study intersection.
Improvements recommended in this study will need to integrated into the plans
developed as part of that project.
The City of San Rafael is planning to implement Adaptive Traffic Control Systems
(ATCS) Projects in Central San Rafael; this would include 3rd Street & Hetherton
Street.
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 16
A new mid-block crosswalk is planned to be installed on 3rd Street between Union
Street and Embarcadero Street. This could have a minor effect on the travel patterns
of pedestrians traversing the 3rd Street & Hetherton Street Intersection.
The City of San Rafael Downtown Parking/Wayfinding Study includes the
recommendation to improve pedestrian connections between the Caltrans Park &
Ride lots and San Rafael Transit Center; the study’s recommendations are noted to
be subject to revision based on the results of this study.
The City of San Rafael is currently updating its Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
The plan aims to guide investments in bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the next 5
to 10 years. Recommendations from this study will need to be coordinated with this
Plan update.
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 17
3 Intersection Concepts
After analysis of the existing conditions of the intersection and surrounding street network, a
number of geometric, signal, and pedestrian infrastructure alternatives were identified for
consideration and preliminary assessment. From an initial set of 14 distinct improvement
alternatives, seven geometric alternatives and five pedestrian phasing alternatives were
quantitatively analyzed for traffic operations. The list of potential improvements was
screened based on this traffic analysis, geometric constraints, impacts to surrounding
intersections, and pedestrian safety implications. The list of potential improvements was
screened down to five comprehensive improvement concepts based on input from City staff.
Each concept was evaluated to assess the potential impacts to vehicular traffic and
pedestrians, and the potential cost for implementation. More detailed drawings of these
configurations can be found in Appendix D.
3.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND ELIMINATED
Prior to developing specific intersection concept configurations, a number of potential
solutions were identified and underwent a preliminary evaluation. Traffic impacts were
analyzed using Synchro; this analysis focused primarily on the relative change in delay,
LOS, and queuing associated with each option.
3.1.1 Geometric Improvements
As the intersection is comprised of two one-way streets, the following breaks down each
approach to discuss the options for geometric configurations presented in the first phase of
analysis before being deemed infeasible.
3rd Street – Westbound approach:
One (1) westbound left and two (2) westbound through lanes: This change would
eliminate the existing westbound left-turn pocket and convert the existing westbound
through/left lane to an exclusive left turn lane. The positive impact of this option would be a
shortened crossing distance across the south leg of the intersection, a shortened crossing
distance across the intersection diagonal (if a pedestrian scramble was selected), and
increased visibility between drivers and pedestrians resulting from the reduction of two turn
lanes to one. This geometry change would result in minor increases in intersection delay.
However, the loss of a through lane would lead to significant increases in queuing for the
westbound through movement.
One (1) westbound left and three (3) westbound through lanes: This option would
convert the existing westbound through/left lane to an exclusive through lane. The benefit of
this option would be increased safety resulting from the elimination of the dual left-turns. The
traffic analysis found that this option resulted in negligible changes in delay/LOS for the
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 18
intersection. It is noted though, that the queuing for left-turns would frequently spill over into
the adjacent through lane and preclude through movement in that lane because of the short
length of the turn pocket, which is not captured by the HCM methodology.
Hetherton Street – Southbound approach:
Two (2) southbound right and two (2) through lanes: This option would convert one
existing southbound through lane to an exclusive right turn lane. Similar to the previous
option, this would increase capacity for southbound right turns, but increase conflicts and
worsen visibility for pedestrians unless combined with a phasing modification. Traffic
analysis found that this improvement resulted in similar improvements in delay and LOS as
the previous option. This option would also result in an uneven lane utilization of the two
through lanes, as only one of the southbound through lanes would lead to the US-101
southbound on-ramp south of 2nd Street. This would result in minor additional impacts in the
AM Peak.
Other Geometric Modifications:
Provide a bulb-out in the southwest corner: This option would reduce the crossing
distance across the south leg of the intersection. It was removed from consideration
because it would impact the ability of buses accessing the transit center from getting into
position parallel and adjacent to the curb on Hetherton Street.
Raise the intersection or crosswalks: Raising an intersection or raising crosswalks has
been shown to reduce vehicle speeds and improve pedestrian visibility. However,
emergency vehicles and buses may have challenges with these raised configurations.
Vehicle speeds and volumes, as well as bus volumes, make this location undesirable for
such a treatment.
Remove the south leg crosswalk and add an east leg crosswalk: This would remove the
pedestrian crossing leg with the largest number of pedestrian-involved collisions at the
intersection. However, this crosswalk serves the natural pedestrian flow from the Montecito
area to the transit center. Removal of the crosswalk would require pedestrians making this
movement to cross three legs of the intersection, including 3rd Street twice. It is likely that it
would encourage jaywalking, leading to a less safe condition. It also may worsen auto
congestion by increasing number of pedestrian-auto conflicts if pedestrians were required to
cross three legs of the intersection instead of just one.
Remove the south leg crosswalk only: Similar to the above concept, this would remove
the pedestrian crossing leg with the largest number of pedestrian-involved collisions at the
intersection. Removal of the crosswalk would force pedestrians to find a different path of
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 19
travel, either by crossing the west and north legs of the intersection or utilizing different
intersections. Removal of this crosswalk would encourage jaywalking, leading to a less safe
condition. It also may worsen auto congestion at this intersection by increasing number of
pedestrian-auto conflicts if pedestrians who currently cross the south leg of the intersection
were forced to cross the west and north legs instead. .
3.1.2 Timing improvements
In addition to the physical configuration of the intersection, alternatives to modifying the
signal timing or phasing of the intersection were evaluated; these primarily involved the
implementation of a pedestrian scramble. For the following timing solutions considered,
delay, LOS, and queueing were determined using HCM 2000 methodology.
Pedestrian Scramble (with existing
geometry): In analyzing this solution,
the intersection was modeled assuming
the minimum required 5 seconds “Walk”
time and 26 seconds “Flashing Don’t
Walk” time (governed by the NW-to-SE
diagonal crossing distance). The
intersection splits were then adjusted
until the volume to capacity ratios (v/c
ratio) of all vehicle movements were
below 1.0. This exercise essentially
determined the minimum required cycle
length needed to accommodate the
pedestrian scramble. In this
configuration, a 120-second cycle length would be needed in both AM and PM peaks to
accommodate a pedestrian scramble. The combination of the pedestrian scramble and the
longer cycle length resulted in a change from LOS B in existing conditions to LOS E in both
AM and PM peak hours. For these reasons, the implementation of a pedestrian scramble
with the existing geometry of the intersection is not recommended.
Pedestrian Scramble (with one (1) westbound left and two (2) westbound through
lanes: This option was considered to see how shortening the diagonal crossing distance
would impact the required signal timing and the resulting traffic impacts. The elimination of
the left-turn pocket reduced the required “Flashing Don’t Walk” time by three (3) seconds,
resulting in a 30-second split for the pedestrian phase. However, since this reduces the
capacity of the intersection, this configuration would require longer cycle lengths (higher
than 120 seconds) to keep v/c ratios below 1.0. It also resulted in a LOS E in both peak
Pedestrian scramble in Oakland Chinatown. Source:
CommunityCommons.org
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 20
hours. The implementation of a pedestrian scramble with these geometric changes is not
recommended for this intersection.
Pedestrian Scramble (with one (1) westbound through/left and two (2) westbound
through lanes): This option was considered to see if the performance of the previous option
could be improved by adding capacity for through movements. The required cycle lengths
for this configuration are still greater than 120 seconds. Traffic analysis found that this
resulted in slightly less overall delay than the one (1) westbound left and two (2) westbound
through lanes option, but would maintain a LOS E and is subsequently not recommended.
Pedestrian Scramble (no diagonal crossing): In this configuration, there would be an
exclusive pedestrian phase, but pedestrians would not be allowed to cross diagonally. This
solution reduces the required split for the pedestrian phase, and still separates vehicle and
pedestrian traffic. However, it would require pedestrians to wait through two cycles to cross
diagonally. The required split for the pedestrian phase was 5 seconds “Walk” time, 17
seconds “Flashing Don’t Walk” time (governed by the south leg crossing), and two (2)
seconds of yellow time. The impact to pedestrian crossing time removed this concept from
further consideration.
3.1.3 Other Signal Modifications
In addition to signal timing or geometric improvements, other signal modifications were
considered as well.
Flashing Yellow Left-turn Arrow: This would replace the green ball for left-turn
movements with a flashing yellow arrow. It would potentially help emphasize to vehicle that
they need to yield to pedestrians. This was not considered further because many drivers
may not know how to navigate it and the benefit would likely be limited.
Eliminate “No Left-Turn on Red” sign: Allowing for left-turns on red would potentially
reduce the number of vehicles turning in conflict with pedestrians. However, this turn
restriction is limited to a few hours a day and heavy queuing on Hetherton Street would
likely limit the impact of this change.
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 21
3.2 RECOMMENDED CONCEPT
3.2
The recommended concept, as depicted in Figure 3-1, includes the following modifications:
Signal phasing: This concept maintains the current signal phasing with slight
modifications to signal timing. A Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) would be
implemented for the north and south leg crosswalks, where most of the recorded
pedestrian collisions have occurred. The LPI begins the pedestrian walk phase prior
to the start of the vehicle phase, extending the all-red time at the signal. This
increases pedestrian visibility for autos and emphasizes the pedestrian right-of-way.
This concept includes a 5-second LPI for the east-west pedestrian phase. The 5
seconds for the LPI are shifted from the vehicle green time.
Signal infrastructure: A second mast arm for the westbound approach signal would
be installed to provide an additional signal head for westbound left-turn traffic with a
“Yield to Pedestrians” blankout sign facing the westbound approach.
Geometrics: The westbound approach would be narrowed to provide one shared
through/left lane and two through lanes. This eliminates one of the two left-turn
lanes, further benefiting pedestrian safety by eliminating the turning movement with
the least amount of pedestrian visibility. The southbound approach would maintain
the same configuration as exists today. The curb radius for the southeast corner of
the intersection would also be tightened to slow turning vehicles and shorten the
crossing distances for pedestrians, and a bulbout would be constructed at the
northwest corner of the intersection.
Figure 3-2 is a visual representation of how this concept would look from the perspective of
the southeast corner of the intersection.
3.2.1 Traffic
Table 3-1 displays the traffic analysis results for the recommended concept. Results shown
include the delay and level of service for the overall intersection and the two approaches,
and the increase or decrease in delay relative to existing conditions as a result of the
improvements.
Table 3-2 displays the queuing analysis results. Results include the 95th percentile queue
lengths for southbound and westbound through and turning movements, and the increase or
decrease in queue length relative to baseline conditions as a result of the improvements.
Detailed Synchro analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix C.
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study
Figure 3-1
Recommended Concept
Elimination of dual westbound left
turn removes double conict for
pedestrians crossing the south leg
and shortens crossing distance
Trac signal post moved
from location A to location
B to accommodate new
mast arm at location A
Addition of mast arm at
location A, to feature ashing
yellow left-turn arrow and
“Left Turns Yield” blankout sign
facing westbound approach
AA
BB
Tightened curb radius at southeast corner
and bulbout at northwest corner decrease
pedestrian crossing distance; pedestrian
signal head at southeast corner relocated
5-second leading
pedestrian interval
All corners: accessible
pedestrian signals installed
NOT TO SCALE
With Improvements
Existing Conditions
Figure 3-2
Recommended Intersection Concept Photo-Simulation
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 24
Table 3-1: Recommended Concept LOS Analysis Results
Period Intersection
Delay
Intersection
LOS
WB
Approach
Delay
WB
Approach
LOS
SB
Approach
Delay
SB
Approach
LOS
AM 24.6 C 19.4 B 33.6 C
Δ 3.1 ‐ 4.0 ‐ 1.6 ‐
PM 19.1 B 17.2 B 21.9 C
Δ 2.3 ‐ 4.1 ‐ ‐0.5 ‐
WB = Westbound; SB = Southbound; LOS = Level of Service
Table 3-2: Recommended Concept Queuing Analysis Results
Period WB LT/TH Queue
95th Percentile (ft)
SB TH Queue 95th
Percentile (ft)
SB RT Queue 95th
Percentile (ft)
AM 400 153 336
Δ 114 ‐1 ‐11
PM 298 68 373
Δ 54 0 ‐28
WB = Westbound; SB = Southbound
LT = Left-turn; TH = Through; RT = Right-turn
Note: Queue lengths in bold exceed lane capacity
The results show that the addition of a LPI and modifications to the westbound lane
geometry results in a 2-3 second increase in delay at the intersection. Most of the delay
increases occur at the westbound approach, while the southbound approach would only be
slightly affected.
The concept would increase queuing for westbound movements; this is a result of the
reduction of turning capacity by removing the existing left-turn pocket. The analysis shows
95th percentile queues will increase to approximately 400 feet in the AM peak hour and 300
feet in the PM peak hour. The analysis may be overestimating the effect of the elimination of
the dedicated left-turn lane. Due to the very short length of the existing left-turn only lane
(limited by the US-101 overpass column), it provides limited benefit to intersection
operations as only the first few vehicles of the cycle are queued to make left-turns
simultaneously from both left-turn lanes.
3.2.2 Safety
The addition of a leading pedestrian interval at the study intersection allows pedestrians to
begin crossing the street before vehicles are permitted to turn; this head-start increases
pedestrian visibility and gives pedestrians priority, as vehicles must yield to pedestrians
already in the crosswalk.
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 25
In addition to the LPI, the elimination of the dual westbound left-turn removes the double
conflict that pedestrians currently have crossing the south leg while also shortening the
south leg crossing distance from 62 feet to 49 feet. The addition of a bulbout at the
northwest corner reduces the west leg crossing distance from 47 feet to 41 feet. The
additional signage would also increase pedestrian visibility.
3.2.3 Cost
The estimated cost of the recommended concept is $283,700. A breakdown of this cost
estimate is shown in Table 3-3. The primary cost contributor is the tightening of the curb
radius at the southeast corner of the intersection.
Table 3-3: Recommended Concept Cost Estimate
Item Total ($)
Mobilization $14,328
Traffic Control $21,491
SWPPP/Drainage $7,164
Design $28,655
Construction Admin $21,491
Traffic Signal Modification $60,400
Civil Improvements $76,570
Signing and Striping $6,305
Subtotal $236,404
Contingency (20%) $47,281
Total $283,700
The option of implementing interim treatments, which would implement the recommended
concept with the use of striping and flexible posts or channelizers instead of reconstructing
curb, could be implemented if a nonpermanent solution is desired. The estimated cost of
implementing the concept using interim treatments is $118,500. A breakdown of this cost
estimate is shown in Table 3-4.
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 26
Table 3-4: Recommended Concept Cost Estimate – Interim Treatments
Item Total ($)
Mobilization $6,173
Traffic Control $9,260
SWPPP/Drainage $0
Design $12,346
Construction Admin $9,260
Traffic Signal Modification $50,800
Civil Improvements $0
Signing and Striping $10,930
Subtotal $98,768
Contingency (20%) $19,754
Total $118,500
Detailed cost estimates are provided in Appendix E.
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 27
3.3 ELIMINATED CONCEPT #1
This concept, shown in Figure 3-3, results in the greatest change in the geometric
configuration of the intersection. This concept includes the following modifications:
Signal phasing: The westbound left-turns and southbound right-turns would be
served concurrently with their own exclusive phase, separate from the westbound
and southbound through movements. These turning movements would be precluded
(red arrow) during the through movements. Pedestrian movements would occur only
with the through vehicular movements. This eliminates any conflict or yielding
between pedestrians and autos.
Signal infrastructure: A second mast arm for the westbound approach signal would
need to be installed to support signal heads for the westbound left-turn movement.
This concept includes in the installation of a “No Left Turn” blankout sign facing the
westbound approach and a “No Right Turn” blankout sign facing the southbound
approach to further emphasize the signal operation.
Geometrics: The westbound approach would be designated as two left-turn lanes
and two through lanes. Due to the alteration in signal phase described above, the
current shared (through and through-left) lane is not feasible. The southbound
approach would be widened to provide an additional right-turn lane to reduce auto
delay and congestion. The widening would require a reduction in the sidewalk width
on the west side of Hetherton Street north of 3rd Street. Additionally, the curb radius
at the southeast corner of the intersection would be tightened to shorten the distance
of the pedestrian crossing, and bulbouts would be constructed at the northwest
corner of the intersection.
Figure 3-4 is a visual representation of how this concept would look from the perspective of
the southeast corner of the intersection.
3.3.1 Traffic
Table 3-5 displays the traffic analysis results for Eliminated Concept #1. Results shown
include the delay and level of service for the overall intersection and the two approaches,
and the increase or decrease in delay relative to baseline conditions as a result of the
improvements.
Table 3-6 displays the queuing analysis results. Results include the 95th percentile queue
lengths for southbound and westbound through and turning movements, and the increase or
decrease in queue length relative to baseline conditions as a result of the improvements.
Detailed Synchro analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix C.
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study
Figure 3-3
Eliminated Concept #1
Westbound left-turns and
southbound right-turns take
place concurrently in an
exclusive phase, separated
from pedestrian movements
Existing left-through lane
repurposed to be left turn
only, to accomodate
exclusive left turn phase
Southbound
approach
widened to add
right-turn lane
Sidewalk width
reduced to
accomodate 2nd
right-turn lane
Trac signal post moved from location
A to location B to accommodate new
mast arm at location A, to feature “No
Right Turn” blankout sign facing
southbound approach
Addition of mast arm
at location A, to feature
“No Left Turn” blankout
sign facing westbound
approach
AA
BB
Curb radius at southeast corner
tightened to reduce crossing
distance for pedestrians;
pedestrian signal head relocated
All corners: accessible
pedestrian signals installed
NOT TO SCALE
With Improvements
Existing Conditions
Figure 3-4
Eliminated Concept #1 Photo-Simulation
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 30
Table 3-5: Eliminated Concept #1 LOS Analysis Results
Period Intersection
Delay
Intersection
LOS
WB
Approach
Delay
WB
Approach
LOS
SB
Approach
Delay
SB
Approach
LOS
AM 63.1 E 70.7 E 50.0 D
Δ 41.6 ‐ 55.3 ‐ 18.0 ‐
PM 50.3 D 48.0 D 53.9 D
Δ 33.5 ‐ 34.9 ‐ 31.5 ‐
WB = Westbound; SB = Southbound; LOS = Level of Service
Table 3-6: Eliminated Concept #1 Queuing Analysis Results
Period WB LT Queue 95th
Percentile (ft)
WB TH Queue 95th
Percentile (ft)
SB TH Queue 95th
Percentile (ft)
SB RT Queue 95th
Percentile (ft)
AM 356 607 169 251
Δ ‐121 321 15 ‐96
PM 290 573 173 269
Δ 114 329 105 ‐132
WB = Westbound; SB = Southbound
LT = Left-turn; TH = Through; RT = Right-turn
Note: Queue lengths in bold exceed lane capacity
The results show that the separation of westbound left-turn and southbound right-turn
movements into a separate phase result a 30-40 second increase in intersection delay at
the intersection. Queuing analysis shows that the most substantial effect would be on
queuing for westbound through movements; the analysis shows queues will increase to over
600 feet in both AM and PM peak hours. Given that the distance between the study
intersection and the next upstream intersection for this movement (3rd Street & Irwin Street)
is approximately 300 feet, an increase in queuing by this amount would impact congestion at
the upstream intersection as well. This concept would, however, reduce queuing for most
turning movements because of the separate turn phase and the addition of turn lane
capacity.
3.3.2 Safety
By separating turning movements from pedestrian movements, the conflict between the two
would be removed. Pedestrians would cross the north and south legs concurrently with
westbound through movements, and the west leg concurrently with southbound through
movements. The addition of “No Left Turn” and “No Right Turn” blankout signs would further
protect pedestrian movements. Eliminated Concept #1 would also reduce the sidewalk width
on the west side of Hetherton Street in order to accommodate the added southbound right-
turn lane, bringing cars closer to pedestrians on the sidewalk.
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 31
In addition to the separation of turning movements from pedestrian movements, the
tightening of the curb radius at the southeast corner would reduce the crossing distance
across the south leg of the intersection from 62 feet to 50 feet. The reduced crossing
distance increases safety and comfort for pedestrians. It is noted that the widening of
Hetherton Street on the north leg to create room for the additional right-turn lane increases
the crossing distance on the north leg.
3.3.3 Cost
The estimated cost of Eliminated Concept #1 is $380,500. A breakdown of this cost estimate
is shown in Table 3-7. Primary cost contributors are the widening of southbound Hetherton
Street and the tightening of the curb radius at the southeast corner of the intersection.
Detailed cost estimates are provided in Appendix E.
Table 3-7: Eliminated Concept #1 Opinion of Probable Cost
Item
Estimated
Cost
Mobilization $19,218
Traffic Control $28,826
SWPPP/Drainage $9,609
Design $38,435
Construction Admin $28,826
Traffic Signal Modification $69,500
Civil Improvements $116,670
Signing and Striping $6,005
Subtotal $317,089
Contingency (20%) $63,418
Total $380,500
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 32
3.4 ELIMINATED CONCEPT #2
3.4
Eliminated Concept #2, as depicted in Figure 3-5, is an alternate version of the
recommended concept. It is the same as the recommended concept in all aspects, except
for those listed below:
Signal Phasing: This concept maintains the current signal phasing with slight
modifications to signal timing. A Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) would be
implemented, which begins the pedestrian walk phase prior to the start of the vehicle
phase, extending the all-red time at the signal. This increases pedestrian visibility for
autos and emphasizes the pedestrian right-of-way. This concept includes a 5-second
LPI for each of the two pedestrian phases, resulting in 10 seconds of cycle time in
total for the LPIs. The 5 seconds for each LPI are shifted from each of the vehicle
green times.
Geometrics: For the southbound approach, convert one of the three through lanes
to a shared through/right lane (the existing southbound right lane would remain). This
would provide additional capacity for the southbound right-turn movement, but would
introduce a new conflict for pedestrians using the west leg of the intersection.
Figure 3-6 is a visual representation of how this concept would look from the perspective of
the southeast corner of the intersection.
3.4.1 Traffic
Table 3-8 displays the traffic analysis results for Eliminated Concept #2. Results shown
include the delay and level of service for the overall intersection and the two approaches,
and the increase or decrease in delay relative to baseline conditions.
Table 3-9 displays the queuing analysis results. Results include the 95th percentile queue
lengths for southbound and westbound through and turning movements, and the increase or
decrease in queue length relative to baseline conditions as a result of the improvements.
Detailed Synchro analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix C.
Table 3-8: Eliminated Concept #2 LOS Analysis Results
Period Intersection
Delay
Intersection
LOS
WB
Approach
Delay
WB
Approach
LOS
SB
Approach
Delay
SB
Approach
LOS
AM 35.3 D 32.1 C 40.7 D
Δ 13.8 ‐ 16.7 ‐ 8.7 ‐
PM 17.6 B 19.2 B 15.1 B
Δ 0.8 ‐ 6.1 ‐ ‐7.3 ‐
WB = Westbound; SB = Southbound; LOS = Level of Service
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study
Figure 3-5
Eliminated Concept #2
Addition of a second southbound
right-turn may decrease visibility
5-second leading
pedestrian interval
Elimination of the short westbound
left-turn lane to increase visibility
Trac signal post moved
from location A to location
B to accommodate new
mast arm at location A
Addition of mast arm at
location A, to feature ashing
yellow left-turn arrow and
“Left Turns Yield” blankout sign
facing westbound approach
AA
BB
Tightened curb radius at southeast corner
and bulbout at northwest corner decrease
pedestrian crossing distance; pedestrian
signal head at southeast corner relocated
All corners: accessible
pedestrian signals installed
NOT TO SCALE
With Improvements
Existing Conditions
Figure 3-6
Eliminated Concept #2 Photo-Simulation
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 35
Table 3-9: Eliminated Concept #2 Queuing Analysis Results
Period WB LT/TH Queue
95th Percentile (ft)
SB TH Queue 95th
Percentile (ft)
SB RT Queue 95th
Percentile (ft)
AM 457 166 374
Δ 171 12 27
PM 319 78 32
Δ 75 10 ‐369
WB = Westbound; SB = Southbound
LT = Left-turn; TH = Through; RT = Right-turn
Note: Queue lengths in bold exceed lane capacity
The results show that the addition of a LPI and modification of the southbound lane
geometry result in a moderate increase in delay at the intersection in the AM peak hour
(approximately 16 seconds) and minor increase in delay in the PM peak hour (approximately
2 seconds). Most of the delay increases occur at the westbound approach, while the
southbound approach would be mildly impacted.
The concept would increase queuing for westbound movements; this is a result of the
reduction of turning capacity by removing the existing left-turn pocket. The analysis shows
95th percentile queues will increase to approximately 450 feet in the AM peak hour and 320
feet in the PM peak hour. The analysis may be overestimating the effect of the elimination of
the dedicated left-turn lane. Due to the very short length of the existing left-turn only lane
(limited by the US-101 overpass column), it provides limited benefit to intersection
operations as only the first few vehicles of the cycle are queued to make left-turns
simultaneously from both left-turn lanes.
Additionally, the conversion of a southbound through lane to a combined through/right-turn
lane results in a small queuing increase in the AM peak hour and substantial queue
reduction in the PM peak hour.
3.4.2 Safety
The addition of a leading pedestrian interval at the study intersection allows pedestrians to
begin crossing the street before vehicles are permitted to turn; this head-start increases
pedestrian visibility and gives pedestrians priority, as vehicles must yield to pedestrians
already in the crosswalk.
In addition to the LPI, the elimination of the dual westbound left-turn removes the double
conflict that pedestrians currently have crossing the south leg while tightening the turn
radius also shortens the crossing distance from 62 feet to 49 feet. The addition of a bulbout
at the northwest corner reduces the west leg crossing distance from 47 feet to 41 feet.
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 36
However, the addition of a second southbound right-turn lane creates a new double conflict
with pedestrians crossing the west leg of the intersection. The new conflict would be similar
to the conflict at the south leg of the intersection, which has a comparatively higher collision
rate.
The concept also includes signage improvements designed to increase vehicle yielding to
pedestrians.
3.4.3 Cost
The estimated cost of Eliminated Concept #2 is $279,100. A breakdown of this cost estimate
is shown in Table 3-10. The greatest cost contributors to this total are the signal
modifications needed to accommodate the leading pedestrian interval, and the tightening of
the curb radius at the southeast corner of the intersection. Detailed cost estimates are
provided in Appendix E.
Table 3-10: Eliminated Concept #2 Cost Estimate
Item Estimated Cost
Mobilization $14,328
Traffic Control $21,491
SWPPP/Drainage $7,164
Design $28,655
Construction Admin $21,491
Traffic Signal Modification $61,100
Civil Improvements $76,570
Signing and Striping $1,785
Subtotal $232,584
Contingency (20%) $46,517
Total $279,100
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 37
3.5 ELIMINATED CONCEPT #3
Eliminated Concept #3, as depicted in Figure 3-7, is another alternate version of the
recommended concept. It is the same as the recommended concept in all of its treatments,
except for those listed below.
Signal phasing: This concept maintains the current signal phasing with slight
modifications to signal timing. A Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) would be
implemented, which begins the pedestrian walk phase prior to the start of the vehicle
phase, extending the all-red time at the signal. This increases pedestrian visibility for
autos and emphasizes the pedestrian right-of-way. This concept includes a 5-second
LPI for each of the two pedestrian phases, resulting in 10 seconds of cycle time in
total for the LPIs. The 5 seconds for each LPI are shifted from each of the vehicle
green times.
Geometrics: The curb radius at the southeast corner of the intersection would be
tightened to shorten the distance of the pedestrian crossing, and a bulbout would be
constructed at the northwest corner of the intersection.
Figure 3-8 is a visual representation of how this concept would look from the perspective of
the southeast corner of the intersection.
3.5.1 Traffic
Table 3-11 displays the traffic analysis results for Eliminated Concept #3. Results shown
include the delay and level of service for the overall intersection and the two approaches,
and the increase or decrease in delay relative to baseline conditions as a result of the
improvements.
Table 3-12 displays the queuing analysis results. Results include the 95th percentile queue
lengths for southbound and westbound through and turning movements, and the increase or
decrease in queue length relative to baseline conditions as a result of the improvements.
Detailed Synchro analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix C.
Table 3-11: Eliminated Concept #3 LOS Analysis Results
Period Intersection
Delay
Intersection
LOS
WB
Approach
Delay
WB
Approach
LOS
SB
Approach
Delay
SB
Approach
LOS
AM 27.1 C 22.9 C 34.5 C
Δ 5.6 ‐ 7.5 ‐ 2.5 ‐
PM 20.0 C 18.2 B 22.9 C
Δ 3.2 ‐ 5.1 ‐ 0.4 ‐
WB = Westbound; SB = Southbound; LOS = Level of Service
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study
Figure 3-7
Eliminated Concept #3
NOT TO SCALE
5-second leading
pedestrian interval
Trac signal post moved
from location A to location
B to accommodate new
mast arm at location A
Addition of mast arm at
location A, to feature ashing
yellow left-turn arrow and
“Left Turns Yield” blankout sign
facing westbound approach
AA
BB
Tightened curb radius at southeast corner
and bulbout at northwest corner decrease
pedestrian crossing distance; pedestrian
signal head at southeast corner relocated
All corners: accessible
pedestrian signals installed
With Improvements
Existing Conditions
Figure 3-8
Eliminated Concept #3 Photo-Simulation
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 40
Table 3-12: Eliminated Concept #3 Queuing Analysis Results
Period WB LT Queue 95th
Percentile (ft)
WB TH Queue 95th
Percentile (ft)
SB TH Queue 95th
Percentile (ft)
SB RT Queue 95th
Percentile (ft)
AM 539 412 156 290
Δ 128 41 2 ‐57
PM 218 302 94 353
Δ 31 43 26 ‐48
WB = Westbound; SB = Southbound
LT = Left-turn; TH = Through; RT = Right-turn
Note: Queue lengths in bold exceed lane capacity
The results show that the addition of a LPI onto the existing intersection lane configuration
results in a moderate increase in delay at the intersection in the AM peak hour
(approximately 6 seconds) and minor increase in delay in the PM peak hour (approximately
3 seconds). Most of the delay increases occur at the westbound approach, while the
southbound approach would be mildly impacted.
The concept would increase queuing for westbound movements. The analysis shows 95th
percentile queues will increase to approximately 540 feet in the AM peak hour and 220 feet
in the PM peak hour.
3.5.2 Safety
The addition of a leading pedestrian interval at the study intersection allows pedestrians to
begin crossing the street before vehicles are permitted to turn; this head-start increases
pedestrian visibility and gives pedestrians priority, as vehicles must yield to pedestrians
already in the crosswalk.
The added signage would increase pedestrian visibility, and a shortened pedestrian
crossing on the south leg would increase safety by reducing the crossing distance from 62
feet to 50 feet. The addition of a bulbout at the northwest corner reduces the west leg
crossing distance from 47 feet to 41 feet.
3.5.3 Cost
The estimated cost of Eliminated Concept #3 is $205,500. A breakdown of this cost estimate
is shown in Table 3-13. The greatest cost contributors to this total are the signal
modifications needed to accommodate the leading pedestrian interval, and the tightening of
the curb radius at the southeast corner of the intersection. Detailed cost estimates are
provided in Appendix E.
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 41
Table 3-13: Eliminated Concept #3 Cost Estimate
Item Estimated
Cost
Mobilization $10,378
Traffic Control $15,566
SWPPP/Drainage $5,189
Design $20,755
Construction Admin $15,566
Traffic Signal Modification $60,400
Civil Improvements $41,980
Signing and Striping $1,395
Subtotal $171,229
Contingency (20%) $34,246
Total $205,500
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 42
3.6 ELIMINATED CONCEPT #4
Eliminated Concept #4, as depicted in Figure 3-9, represents a set of minor improvements
to the intersection described below:
Signal phasing: None
Signal infrastructure: A second mast arm for the westbound approach signal would
be installed to provide an additional signal head for westbound left-turn traffic with a
“Yield to Pedestrians” blankout sign facing the westbound approach.
Geometrics: The curb radius at the southeast corner of the intersection would be
tightened to shorten the distance of the pedestrian crossing, and a bulbout would be
constructed at the northwest corner of the intersection.
Figure 3-10 is a visual representation of how this concept would look from the perspective
of the southeast corner of the intersection.
3.6.1 Traffic
Since this concept does not alter the geometry or signal timing of the intersection, there are
no expected delay or queuing effects for Eliminated Concept #4.
3.6.2 Safety
Minor safety improvements would be created under this concept. The added signage would
increase pedestrian visibility, and a shortened pedestrian crossing on the south leg would
increase safety by reducing the crossing distance from 62 feet to 50 feet.
3.6.3 Cost
The estimated cost of Eliminated Concept #4 is $205,500. A breakdown of this cost estimate
is shown in Table 3-14. The greatest cost contributors to this total are the signal
modifications needed to accommodate the blankout sign and the tightening of the curb
radius at the southeast corner of the intersection. Detailed cost estimates are provided in
Appendix E.
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study
Figure 3-9
Eliminated Concept #4
Tightened curb radius at southeast corner
and bulbout at northwest corner decrease
pedestrian crossing distance; pedestrian
signal head at southeast corner relocated
All corners: accessible
pedestrian signals installed
Trac signal post moved
from location A to location
B to accommodate new
mast arm at location A
Addition of mast arm at
location A, to feature ashing
yellow left-turn arrow and
“Left Turns Yield” blankout sign
facing westbound approach
AA
BB
NOT TO SCALE
With Improvements
Existing Conditions
Figure 3-10
Eliminated Concept #4 Photo-Simulation
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 45
Table 3-14: Eliminated Concept #4 Cost Estimate
Item Total ($)
Mobilization $10,378
Traffic Control $15,566
SWPPP/Drainage $5,189
Design $20,755
Construction Admin $15,566
Traffic Signal Modification $60,400
Civil Improvements $41,980
Signing and Striping $1,395
Subtotal $171,229
Contingency (20%) $34,246
Total $205,500
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 46
4 Conclusions and Recommendation
4.1 COMPARISON OF INTERSECTION CONCEPTS
There are various advantages and disadvantages associated with each of the five proposed
concepts. All five concepts represent an improvement to existing conditions regarding
pedestrian safety, but range in the magnitude of their safety impact, cost, and traffic
impacts. Eliminated Concept #1 provides the greatest benefits for pedestrian safety, but also
results in the largest queuing and delay detriment and is the costliest. Eliminated Concept
#4 generates the least benefit to pedestrian safety, but does not generate any traffic impacts
and costs the least. The recommended concept and its alternate versions (Eliminated
Concepts #2 and #3) provide a similar set of improvements, and lie in a middle ground
between Eliminated Concepts #1 and #4 in terms of safety benefits, cost, and traffic
ramifications. Eliminated Concepts #2 and #3 provide lesser pedestrian safety benefits in
comparison to the recommended concept, but have slightly lesser traffic impacts.
4.1.1 Safety
Eliminated Concept #1 is the most effective at eliminating conflict between vehicles and
pedestrians; with a separate turning phase, pedestrians cross the north and south legs
concurrently with westbound through movements, and the west leg concurrently with
southbound through movements. Additionally, “No Left Turn” and “No Right Turn” blankout
signs would alert drivers to the presence of pedestrians. While it includes a second
southbound right-turn lane, that traffic movement is fully separated from pedestrian
movements. However, it does reduce the width of the sidewalk along Hetherton Street
approaching the intersection.
The recommended concept and Eliminated Concepts #2 and #3 do not separate vehicle and
pedestrian movements, but they do give pedestrians priority in the intersection by providing
a leading pedestrian interval. They would also have “Left Turns Yield to Pedestrians”
blankout signs to alert drivers to the presence of pedestrians. In contrast with the
recommended concept, Eliminated Concepts #2 and #3 either maintain or add conflicts
between dual turn lanes and pedestrians. In the case of Eliminated Concepts #2, a second
southbound right-turn would be added through the conversion of one southbound through
lane to a through/right, which creates the same double conflict that currently exists for the
south leg. Eliminated Concept #3 maintains the dual left-turn lanes on the westbound
approach. Eliminated Concepts #2 and #3 provide leading pedestrian intervals for both
north-south and east-west pedestrian movements, providing the safety benefit of that
improvement to all pedestrians at the intersection, whereas the recommended concept
provides a leading pedestrian interval for east-west pedestrian movements only.
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 47
Eliminated Concept #4 provides minor safety improvements in comparison to the other
concepts. It includes a “Left Turns Yield to Pedestrians” blankout sign to alert drivers to the
presence of pedestrians.
All concepts reducing the crossing distance across the south leg of the intersection to
approximately 50 feet and reduce the turn radius for the westbound left-turn movement,
reducing turning speed and increasing pedestrian visibility.
4.1.2 Cost
Table 4-1 shows a comparison of the estimated cost of each intersection concept.
Eliminated Concept #1 has the highest estimated cost at $380,500. Eliminated Concepts #3
and #4 have the lowest estimated cost at $205,500. The recommended concept and
Eliminated Concept #2 have essentially the same cost; the difference between the two
estimates is caused by differences in pavement striping between the two concepts. Detailed
cost estimates are provided in Appendix E.
Table 4-1: Concept Cost Estimate Comparison
Scenario Estimated Cost ($)
Recommended Concept: 1 WB TH+LT,
2 WB TH; Leading Pedestrian Interval $283,700
Eliminated Concept #1: 2 WB LT, 2WB
TH; 3 SB TH, 2 SB RT; Separated Turn
Phasing
$380,500
Eliminated Concept #2: 1 WB TH+LT,
2 WB TH; 2 SB TH, 1 SB TH+RT, 1 SB
RT; Leading Pedestrian Interval
$279,100
Eliminated Concept #3: Existing Lane
Geometry with Leading Pedestrian
Interval
$205,500
Eliminated Concept #4: Minor
improvements; no changes to signal
phasing or timing
$205,500
4.1.3 Traffic Effects
Eliminated Concept #1 has the greatest effect on traffic flow, increasing intersection delay
by over 30 seconds in both AM and PM peak hours. The recommended concept generates
minor increases in delay: approximately 3 seconds in the AM peak hour and 2 seconds in
the PM peak hour. Eliminated Concept #2 generates moderate increases in delay, adding
14 seconds in the AM Peak and 1 second the PM Peak. Eliminated Concept #3 also results
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 48
in moderate increases in delay: approximately 6 seconds in the AM peak hour and
approximately 3 seconds in the PM peak hour. Eliminated Concept #4 would generate no
measurable changes in delay or level of service. All concepts would still result in an
acceptable intersection level of service in both peak hours.
Table 4-2 shows an intersection-level comparison of level of service and delay results for
existing conditions and the three proposed intersection concepts. Table 4-3 shows level of
service and delay results by approach.
Table 4-4 shows a comparison of queuing analysis results. All concepts except Eliminated
Concept #4 (which has no traffic impacts) increase queuing for westbound through
movements. Eliminated Concept #1 would reduce queuing for turning movements (as it
provides a separate turning movement phase). For the recommended concept and
Eliminated Concept #2, which eliminate the exclusive westbound left-turn lane, analysis
results may be overestimating the effect of the lane elimination. Due to the very short length
of the existing turn lane (limited by the US-101 overpass column), it provides limited benefit
to intersection operations as only the first few vehicles of the cycle are queued to make left-
turns simultaneously from both left-turn lanes.
Table 4-2: LOS Analysis Results – Overall Intersection
Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS Δ Delay LOS Δ
Existing 21.5 C ‐ 16.8 B ‐
Recommended Concept: 1 WB TH+LT, 2 WB
TH, Leading Pedestrian Interval 24.6 C 3.1 19.1 B 2.3
Eliminated Concept #1: 2 WB LT, 2WB TH; 3
SB TH, 2 SB RT; Separated Turn Phasing 63.1 E 41.6 50.3 D 33.5
Eliminated Concept #2: 1 WB TH+LT, 2 WB
TH; 1 SB RT, 1 SB TH+RT, 2 SB TH; Leading
Pedestrian Interval
35.3 B 13.8 17.6 B 0.8
Eliminated Concept #3: Existing lane
geometry with Leading Pedestrian Interval 27.1 C 5.6 20.0 C 3.2
Eliminated Concept #4: Geometric
improvements; no changes to signal phasing
or timing
21.5 C ‐ 16.8 B ‐
LOS = Level of Service
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 49
Table 4-3: LOS Analysis Results – By Approach
Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS Δ Delay LOS Δ
Existing
Westbound 15.4 B ‐ 13.1 B ‐
Southbound 32.0 C ‐ 22.4 C ‐
Recommended Concept: 1 WB
TH+LT, 2 WB TH, Leading
Pedestrian Interval
Westbound 19.4 C 4.0 17.2 B 4.1
Southbound 33.6 C 1.6 21.9 C ‐0.5
Eliminated Concept #1: 2 WB LT,
2WB TH; 3 SB TH, 2 SB RT;
Separated Turn Phasing
Westbound 70.7 E 55.3 48.0 D 34.9
Southbound 50.0 D 18.0 53.9 D 31.5
Eliminated Concept #2: 1 WB
TH+LT, 2 WB TH; 1 SB RT, 1 SB
TH+RT, 2 SB TH; Leading
Pedestrian Interval
Westbound 32.1 C 16.7 19.2 B 3.4
Southbound 40.7 D 8.7 15.1 B ‐7.3
Eliminated Concept #3: Existing
Lane Geometry with Leading
Pedestrian Interval
Westbound 22.9 C 7.5 18.2 B 5.1
Southbound 34.5 C 2.5 22.9 C 0.4
Eliminated Concept #4: Minor
improvements; no changes to
signal phasing or timing
Westbound 15.4 B ‐ 13.1 B ‐
Southbound 32.0 C ‐ 22.4 C ‐
LOS = Level of Service
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 50
Table 4-4: Queuing Analysis Results – Overall Intersection
Scenario Queue
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Queue
(ft)
Δ Queue
(ft) Δ
Existing
WB LT 477 ‐ 176 ‐
WB TH 286 ‐ 244 ‐
SB TH 154 ‐ 68 ‐
SB RT 347 ‐ 401 ‐
Recommended Concept: 1 WB
TH+LT, 2 WB TH, Leading
Pedestrian Interval
WB LT ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
WB TH 400 114 298 54
SB TH 153 ‐1 68 0
SB RT 336 ‐11 373 ‐28
Eliminated Concept #1: 2 WB
LT, 2WB TH; 3 SB TH, 2 SB RT;
Separated Turn Phasing
WB LT 356 ‐121 290 114
WB TH 607 321 573 329
SB TH 169 15 173 105
SB RT 251 ‐96 269 ‐132
Eliminated Concept #2: 1 WB
TH+LT, 2 WB TH; 1 SB RT, 1 SB
TH+RT, 2 SB TH; Leading
Pedestrian Interval
WB LT ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
WB TH 457 171 319 75
SB TH 166 12 78 10
SB RT 374 27 32 ‐369
Eliminated Concept #3:
Existing Lane Geometry with
Leading Pedestrian Interval
WB LT 539 128 218 31
WB TH 412 41 302 43
SB TH 156 2 94 26
SB RT 290 ‐57 353 ‐48
Eliminated Concept #4:
Geometric improvements; no
changes to signal phasing or
timing
WB LT 477 ‐ 176 ‐
WB TH 286 ‐ 244 ‐
SB TH 154 ‐ 68 ‐
SB RT 347 ‐ 401 ‐
WB = Westbound; SB = Southbound
LT = Left‐turn; TH = Through; RT = Right‐turn
Note: Queue lengths in bold exceed lane capacity
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 51
4.2 PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK
Following the development of concepts, the City sought feedback from various stakeholder
and neighborhood groups, including the San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee, Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, and the Point San Pedro Road
Coalition. The following are some of the most frequently raised points during this phase of
outreach:
Addition of a Southbound Right-Turn Lane on Hetherton
This was requested by some groups to improve traffic conditions at the intersection. While it
is acknowledged that the addition of a southbound right-turn (either through the conversion
of a through lane to a combined through/right, or the addition of a new right-turn lane) would
produce a minor decrease in intersection delay, it would also introduce an additional conflict
between right-turns and pedestrians on the west leg crosswalk. Given that the west leg of
the intersection has higher pedestrian volumes than the south leg, it was determined that
the improved traffic conditions was not worth the trade-off of increasing pedestrian risk on
the west leg crosswalk.
Embedded Pavement Crosswalk Lights
It was suggested that flashing warning lights be embedded into the south leg crosswalk to
increase the visibility of pedestrians. The trade-offs of this type of improvement is that it has
the potential to increase the likelihood of vehicles yielding to pedestrians, but is expensive to
maintain. Embedded pavement lights are also known to be more effective at night or in
inclement weather. Per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Section
4N.02, these types of warning lights shall not be used at signalized intersections; this
improvement was thus not considered.
Pedestrian Bridge
Grade-separation of the pedestrian crossing, either at the south leg or the west leg
crosswalk, has been proposed. This kind of improvement was ruled out due to its high cost.
A pedestrian bridge would also require ramping to comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The right-of-way needed to accommodate these ramps
would preclude this improvement, in addition to the high cost. Additionally, a pedestrian
bridges are considered more effective over longer crossing distances; at this intersection,
the increased crossing time that would come from the pedestrian bridge could incentivize
jaywalking.
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 52
Pedestrian Scramble
The project team studied the potential of implementing a pedestrian scramble (i.e. the
allowance of all pedestrian crossings, including diagonal crossings, in one phase) before the
development of the proposed concepts. It was found that the intersection cycle lengths
would need to be increased to at least 120 seconds to accommodate this, and it would
significantly deteriorate traffic conditions at the intersection. Because of these impacts, a
pedestrian scramble was removed from consideration.
Removal of South Leg Crosswalk
It was proposed by the public that removal of the south leg crosswalk, and thus elimination
of the double conflict between pedestrians and vehicles, would ultimately improve safety.
The project team studied this concept further. Pedestrians utilizing the south leg crosswalk
were surveyed to determine their origin and destination. Figure 4-1 shows respondents’
points of origin/destination on the west side of the crosswalk; Figure 4-2 shows
respondents’ points of origin/destination on the east side of the crosswalk.
As evidenced by the survey results, the major pedestrian flow through the south leg
crosswalk is between the transit center and San Rafael High School. This flow would be
rerouted through the west and north leg crosswalks if the south leg crosswalk were
removed. This would eliminate pedestrian-vehicle conflicts at the south leg, but would
Transit
Center
92%
Downtown
San Rafael
3%
Davidson
Middle
School
5%
Other
0%
San Rafael
High School
81%
Montecito/United
Market/Other
Shopping
14%
Canal
2%
Bradley Real
Estate
Building
3%
Figure 4-2: Intercept Survey Eastern
Points of Origin/Destination
Figure 4-1: Intercept Survey Western
Points of Origin/Destination
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 53
introduce additional pedestrian – vehicle conflicts on the north and west legs. This would
increase conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles making a southbound right-turn from
Hetherton Street to 3rd Street, potentially increasing vehicle delay and queuing for this
movement.
Pedestrians traveling to and from United Markets, or the Shell and Valero gas stations,
would also see increased walking times with the removal of the south leg crosswalk.
Pedestrians who currently cross at 3rd Street & Hetherton Street to reach these locations
would have to find longer, alternate routes instead. The planned relocation of crosswalks at
2nd Street & Irwin Street would create additional challenges for pedestrians traveling to these
locations.
Because of the above considerations, removal of the south leg crosswalk was not
considered viable.
Traffic Impact Concerns Due to the Removal of the Westbound Left-Turn Lane
Some community members expressed concerns about the traffic impacts of removing the
westbound left-turn lane. Before the development of concepts, the project team analyzed
the impacts of various potential lane geometry changes, and found that the removal of the
westbound left-turn pocket resulted in, at most, a 5 to 8 second increase in overall
intersection delay. The westbound left-turn pocket is very short (approximately 70 feet),
limiting its use to the two to three vehicles that initially queue at the signal at a red light.
Once those two to three vehicles are served on a green light, the westbound left-turn lane
does not provide any value, as overall throughput is determined by the three approach lanes
on 3rd Street. The traffic delay computational tools do not consider the limited utility of the
short pocket, and thus the effect on delay for removal of the westbound left-turn lane is likely
less than the stated 5 to 8 seconds.
However, with the concerns regarding the left-turn lane removal in mind, the project team
developed an “interim” version of the recommended concept, which utilizes striping and
flexible posts or channelizers to create bulb-outs without the demolition of existing curb. The
interim version of the recommended concept would allow for improvements to be
implemented at a lower cost and act as a trial run for the improvements before they are
permanently implemented. The interim treatments would also allay concerns that
improvements at this intersection may be less needed if the transit center is relocated north
of 3rd Street, as part of the ongoing efforts to find a permanent, long-term location for the
transit center.
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 54
4.3 RECOMMENDATION AND NEXT STEPS
The recommended concept has been selected based on completion of a traffic analysis,
cost estimate, conceptual design, and an assessment of safety benefits for pedestrians.
This concept improves pedestrian safety by eliminating the double conflict between
westbound left-turning vehicles and pedestrians on the south leg of the intersection and
reduces the crossing distance of that leg. It is noted that the south leg is where both
pedestrian fatalities occurred. The addition of a leading pedestrian interval for east-west
pedestrian movements gives pedestrians priority and improves visibility on the north and
south leg crosswalks. This concept does not create new pedestrian safety issues and has a
limited impact on traffic in terms of delay. The other concepts were eliminated for the
following reasons:
Eliminated Concept #1: This is the worst performing concept for traffic operations.
Intersection delay would significantly increase, as would vehicle queuing in the
westbound direction. In addition, it reduces the recently constructed sidewalk width
on the west side of Hetherton Street to a comparatively narrow 5 feet (from 10 feet
today). While this concept does fully separate the pedestrian movement, the
additional impact to congestion that would impact 3rd Street, Hetherton Street, and
Irwin Street and the reduction in sidewalk width does not justify the marginal
pedestrian benefit relative to the recommended concept.
Eliminated Concept #2: The addition of a 2nd right-turn on the southbound approach
creates a new double conflict between southbound right turns and pedestrians
crossing the west leg of the intersection, similar to the main safety issue that exists
today at the south leg crosswalk. While PM intersection delay and southbound
queuing is reduced, AM intersection delay and queuing increases by converting one
southbound through lane to a shared through/right lane. The limited benefit to traffic
operations does not outweigh the impact to pedestrian safety.
Eliminated Concept #3: The primary difference between Eliminated Concept #3 and
the recommended concept is that it maintains the existing westbound left-turn
pocket. The limited benefit of preserving this left-turn pocket was outweighed by the
opportunity to eliminate the double conflict between the westbound left-turns and
pedestrians.
Eliminated Concept #4: While this concept does not impact traffic operations,
improvements compared to existing conditions are relatively minor. The pedestrian
benefits associated with the recommended concept are deemed much more
beneficial in addressing project objectives.
The recommended concept would require both construction of intersection modifications
and signal operations modifications. The option of implementing interim treatments, which
would implement the recommended concept with the use of striping and flexible posts or
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 55
channelizers instead of reconstructing curb, could be implemented if a nonpermanent
solution is desired. The capital cost for construction of permanent treatments is estimated at
$283,700; the cost for interim treatments is an estimated $118,500. Detailed cost estimates
are provided in Appendix E.
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 56
Appendices
Appendix A: Turning Movement Counts
Appendix B: SWITRS Collision History
Appendix C: Synchro Analysis Worksheets
Appendix D: Intersection Concept Drawings
Appendix E: Intersection Concept Cost Estimates
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 57
Appendix A: Turning Movement Counts
Public Works Traffic EngineeringCity of San Rafael
HETHERTON
502
HETHERTON and THIRD
419 669 0
0
0
0
0
1330
440
0 0 0
2/28/2017
2/28/2017
THIRD
000
00000
00000
00000
6/2/2016
10/10/2013
9/20/2011
4/20/2010
5/21/2008
385
379
369
441
375
738
757
795
741
667
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0
1445 1498 1500 1318 1322
457 494 491 541 449
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6/2/2016
10/10/2013
9/20/2011
4/20/2010
5/21/2008
THIRD
7:00
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
23
14
52
26
19
0 0 0 0 0 0
000000
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
52
64
27
32
30
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
G12-13
G12-11
6
4
4
1
1
Pe
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
WB
4
0
9
1
4
5
8
3
10
Pe3
4
0
69
2
95
0
120
2
84
0
69
0
Ped 61
Pe
Bike
Bik
Bik
Bik
Sunny/clear
unknown
Sunny/clear
unknown
Cloudy/Occasional light rain
Sunny/clear
717
859
997
1244
1435
1504
9:00to
8:00
7:30
7:45
7:30
7:15
8:00
HETHERTON
2,813
3,041
3,155
3,128
3,025
2,858
Total
100%
108%
112%
111%
108%
102%
%
1770 1902 1992 1991 1859 1771
0 0 0 0 0 0
WB174918301877186917591697
000000
1088
1123
1136
1164
1182
SB
1042
0
0
0
0
0
0
1109
1195
1251
1286
1282
SB
1116
0
0
0
0
0
0
NB
NB
EB
EB
City
FP
City
Pass
City
City
Tue
Thu
Thu
Tue
Tue
Wed
1504 1. Occasional queue on 3rd St, WB between Irwin St and Tamalpais Ave. from 7:45 a.m to 8:15 a.m.
2. Approximately 11 cars on Hetherton St, SB made a right turn to Third St, WB from the through lane.
1244 1. Traffic moved well. Occasional queue on Third St between Hetherton and Irwin from 7:40 a.m. to 8:15 a.m.
2. Five people jaywalked crossing on the e-leg of intersection. There is no crosswalk on the east leg of intersection.
717 1. Constant queue on Hetherton, SB, between 2nd & 3rd Sts. from 7:30 to 8:10 a.m. backing up traffic on 3rd St, WB, LT. and Hetherton, SB, thru.
296 1. Solid queue on Hetherton, SB, between SB 101 on-ramp and Third backing up traffic on Third, WB, LT pockets and Hetherton from 8:15 to 8:45 a.m.
142 1. 6 cars on Hetherton SB made right turn to 3rd from the 3rd lane.
2. Occasional queue on 3rd due to buses getting out of Transit Ctr between 7:45 to 8:15AM
Public Works Traffic EngineeringCity of San Rafael
HETHERTON
502
HETHERTON and THIRD
434 670 0
0
0
0
0
1393
402
0 0 0
2/28/2017
2/28/2017
THIRD
000
00000
00000
00000
9/20/2011
4/8/2010
5/20/2008
5/25/2005
3/19/2003
438
402
359
422
486
875
691
596
754
825
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0
1731 1595 1361 1348 1492
539 486 358 518 552
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9/20/2011
4/8/2010
5/20/2008
5/25/2005
3/19/2003
THIRD
16:00
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
32
34
65
47
48
0 0 0 0 0 0
000000
0
0
0
0
0
0
41
40
51
46
34
52
XXX
XXX
G12-12
G12-11
G12-10
G12-9
1
5
0
4
0
Pe
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
WB
5
4
13
2
6
5
9
4
5
Pe2
9
0
74
4
85
0
71
0
87
0
92
0
Ped 81
Pe
Bike
Bik
Bik
Bik
Sunny/clear
unknown
Sunny/clear
Sunny/clear
Sunny/clear
Sunny/rain 5:15PM
143
297
716
858
999
1505
18:00to
16:45
16:30
17:00
16:30
16:30
16:45
HETHERTON
3,355
3,042
2,674
3,174
3,583
2,899
Total
100%
91%
80%
95%
107%
86%
%
1795 2270 2081 1719 1866 2044
0 0 0 0 0 0
WB182721691997172017701978
000000
1104
1313
1093
955
1176
SB
1311
0
0
0
0
0
0
1072
1414
1177
954
1272
SB
1377
0
0
0
0
0
0
NB
NB
EB
EB
City
Pass
City
City
City
City
Tue
Tue
Thu
Tue
Wed
Wed
1505 1. Approximately 26 cars on Hetherton St, SB made a right turn to Third St, WB from the through lane.
858 1. Farmers Market opened this day.
2. Occasional queue on Third St, WB, between Lincoln and Irwin backing up traffic on Hetherton, SB, RT pocket from 5:20 p.m. to 5:45 p.m.
716 1. Constant queue on Hetherton, SB, between 2nd & 3rd Sts. due to heavy traffic on SB 101 on ramp from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. Traffic was backed up on Third, WB, LT pocket.
At one point, no cars going SB nor WB can get through intersection in one cycle.
2. Some cars on Third, WB, made left turns on lane #3 (thru lane).
3. One car observed came from Tamalpais Ave. made a LT to Third and right turn to Hetherton.
143 1. Occasional queue on Hetherton between 2nd & 3rd between 5:20-5:45pm
2. 20 cars on Hetherton made RT on 3rd lane (see count)
3. 10 cars 3rd made RT on red (see count)
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 58
Appendix B: SWITRS Collision History
SWITRS ReportTotal Records:70out of70Public WorksTraffic EngineeringCity of San RafaelCOLLISION SEGMENTDATE:1/1/2011TO1/3/2017TIME:0TO9999DISTANCE:150INTERSECTION:HETHERTON & THIRD:502*****PARTY SEGMENTVICTIM SEGMENT*************OrAndOrAndOrAndOrAndLOCATION:*Id# Date Time Primary Road Secondary Road DS Collision Severity Primary Collision Factor Violation CategoryCollision TypeSurface WeatherDr.70323258/15/201514123RD STHETHERTON100Injury (Complaint of Pain)V.C ViolationWrong Side of RoadBroadsideDryClearE21202A1EB Not StatedBICYCLISTMaleParty : TravelAt Fault 25years oldBICYCLEHNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGBICYCLISTMale 25years old COMPLAINT OF PAINNOT EJECTEDDRIVER, MOTORCYCLE HELMET POSITION UNKNOWN2SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelPICKUP OR PANEL TRUCKHNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Male 17years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDPASSENGERPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Male 17years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDPASSENGERPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Male 17years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDPASSENGER80264404/12/201618093RD STHETHERTON ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationImproper TurningSideswipeDryClear221071WB Making Right TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 51years oldOTHER BUSHNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Making Right TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 29years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING626263210/5/201318043RD STHETHERTON ST10Injury (Other Visible)V.C ViolationPedestrain Right-of-WayVehicle/PedestriDryClearS21950A1WB Making Left TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 38years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2EB Not StatedPEDESTRIANMaleParty : Travel 14years oldPEDESTRIANHNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPEDESTRIANMale 14years old OTHER VISIBLE INJNOT EJECTEDNOT REQUIREDOTHER OCCUPANTS52245076/11/201114253RD STHETHERTON ST0Injury (Other Visible)V.C ViolationPedestrain Right-of-WayHead-OnDryClear21950A1WB Making Left TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 59years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2EB Not StatedPEDESTRIANMaleParty : Travel 69years oldPEDESTRIANHNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPEDESTRIANMale 69years old OTHER VISIBLE INJUNKNOWNPOSITION UNKNOWN581712710/5/201211153RD STHETHERTON ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationUnsafe Lane ChangeSideswipeDryClear21658A1WB Making Left TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 59years oldPICKUP OR PANEL TRUCKHNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Male 998years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDPASSENGER2 WB Making Left Turn DRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 31years oldTRUCK OR TRUCK TRACTOR HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING71905686/9/201613133RD STHETHERTON ST0FatalV.C ViolationPedestrain Right-of-WayVehicle/PedestriDryClear21950A1WB Making Left TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 60years oldTRUCK OR TRUCK TRACTOR HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Not StatedPEDESTRIANFemaleParty : Travel 77years oldPEDESTRIANHNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPEDESTRIANFemale 77years old KILLED (DIED NO LNOT EJECTEDPOSITION UNKNOWN64171553/12/20141530HETHERTON ST3RD ST4Injury (Complaint of Pain)V.C ViolationPedestrain Right-of-WayVehicle/PedestriDryClearS21950A1WB Making Left TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : TravelAt Fault 31years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Not StatedPEDESTRIANFemaleParty : Travel 18years oldPEDESTRIANHNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPEDESTRIANFemale 18years old COMPLAINT OF PAINNOT EJECTEDPOSITION UNKNOWNThursday, February 16, 2017Page 1 of 7CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATIONDO NOT COPY
Id# Date Time Primary Road Secondary Road DS Collision Severity Primary Collision Factor Violation CategoryCollision TypeSurface WeatherDr.62245199/26/201317333RD STHETHERTON AV0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationImproper TurningSideswipeDryClear221071WB Making Left TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : TravelAt Fault 37years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 34years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING60571484/25/20137283RD STHETHERTON ST0Injury (Complaint of Pain)V.C ViolationPedestrain Right-of-WayVehicle/PedestriDryCloudy21950A1WB Making Left TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : TravelAt Fault 52years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Not StatedPEDESTRIANMaleParty : Travel 13years oldPEDESTRIANHNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPEDESTRIANMale 13years old COMPLAINT OF PAINUNKNOWNPOSITION UNKNOWN54665921/10/201216113RD STHEATHERTON AV0Injury (Complaint of Pain)V.C ViolationPedestrain Right-of-WayVehicle/PedestriDryClear21950A1WB Making Left TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : TravelAt Fault 32years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Not StatedPEDESTRIANMaleParty : Travel 50years oldPEDESTRIANHNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPEDESTRIANMale 50years old COMPLAINT OF PAINNOT EJECTEDNONE IN VEHICLEPOSITION UNKNOWN668678210/20/2014812HEATHERTON ST3RD ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationImproper TurningBroadsideDryCloudy221071WB Making Left TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 74years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Female 73years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDPASSENGER2 SB Proceeding Straight DRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 44years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING626354110/26/20131442HETHERTON ST3RD ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationImproper TurningSideswipeDryClear221071WB Making Left TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : TravelAt Fault 40years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 74years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING53858119/11/20111653HETHERTON ST3RD ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationAutomobile Right-of-WayBroadsideDryClear21453B1WB Making Left TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt FaultPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON IMPAIRMENT UNKNOWN2SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 37years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Female 39years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDPASSENGERPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Male 4years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDCHILD RESTRAINT IN VEHICLE PASSENGERPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Male 12years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDPASSENGER69615345/14/201513303RD ST (N 50)3RD ST PARK AND RIDE75PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationUnsafe Starting or BackingOtherDryClearE221061WB Parking ManeuverDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : TravelAt Fault 30years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON IMPAIRMENT UNKNOWNPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Male 3years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDNOT REQUIREDCHILD PASSENGERPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Female 1years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDNOT REQUIREDCHILD PASSENGER2 EB Parked PARKED VEHICLEParty : TravelPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON NOT APPLICABLE817030911/10/201616163RD STHETHERTON ST40PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationImproper TurningSideswipeDryClearE221071WB Other Unsafe TurningDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : TravelAt Fault 31years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 50years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Female 12years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDAIR BAG NOT PASSENGERPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Male 9years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDAIR BAG NOT PASSENGER670931711/11/201410513RD STHETHERTON70PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationUnsafe SpeedRear-EndDryCloudyW223501WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : TravelAt Fault 57years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB StoppedDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 18years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING670604611/2/20149523RD ST3RD ST 66684Injury (Other Visible)V.C ViolationImproper TurningHit ObjectDryClearW221071WB Proceeding StraightBICYCLISTMaleParty : TravelAt Fault 63years oldBICYCLEHNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGBICYCLISTMale 63years old OTHER VISIBLE INJPARTIALLY EJECTEDDRIVER, MOTORCYCLE HELMET DRIVER2WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 48years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Male 12years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDPASSENGER66188958/13/201415143RD STHETHERTON ST25PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationImproper TurningSideswipeDryClearE221071WB MergingDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 20years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 26years oldOTHER BUSHNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGThursday, February 16, 2017Page 2 of 7CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATIONDO NOT COPY
Id# Date Time Primary Road Secondary Road DS Collision Severity Primary Collision Factor Violation CategoryCollision TypeSurface WeatherDr.65257226/10/201413143RD STHETHERTON ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationUnsafe Lane ChangeSideswipeDryClear21658A1WB Changing LanesDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 18years oldNOT STATED (ALSO NOT CHP) HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 66years oldNOT STATED (ALSO NOT CHP) HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING65047915/27/201417083RD STHETHERTON ST30PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationUnsafe SpeedRear-EndDryClearE223501WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 27years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Female 6years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDCHILD RESTRAINT IN VEHICLE PASSENGERPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Female 27years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDPASSENGERPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Female 3years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDCHILD RESTRAINT IN VEHICLE PASSENGER2 WB Stopped DRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 25years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING64993854/24/201410523RD STHETHERTON ST10Injury (Complaint of Pain)V.C ViolationUnsafe SpeedRear-EndDryClearE223501WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 18years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 58years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGDRIVERFemale 58years old COMPLAINT OF PAINNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDDRIVER64359934/8/201415103RD STHETHERTON AV0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationFollowing Too CloselyRear-EndDryClear217031WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : TravelAt Fault 59years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB StoppedDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 41years oldPICKUP OR PANEL TRUCKHNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING633284012/17/20137553RD STHETHERTON ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationImproper TurningSideswipeDryClear221071WB Changing LanesDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 54years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Changing LanesDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 63years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING58211439/19/20127553RD STHETHERTON AV50PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationUnsafe Lane ChangeSideswipeDryClearE21658A1WB Changing LanesDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 49years oldNOT STATED (ALSO NOT CHP) HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 65years oldNOT STATED (ALSO NOT CHP) HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Male 19years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDPASSENGER57907408/29/201211003RD STHETHERTON0Injury (Complaint of Pain)V.C ViolationUnsafe SpeedRear-EndDryClear223501WB Changing LanesDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : TravelAt Fault 77years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON IMPAIRMENT UNKNOWN2WB StoppedDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 37years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON IMPAIRMENT UNKNOWNDRIVERFemale 37years old COMPLAINT OF PAINNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDDRIVER3WB StoppedDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 26years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON IMPAIRMENT UNKNOWNPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Female 23years old COMPLAINT OF PAINNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDPASSENGERDRIVER Female 26years old COMPLAINT OF PAINNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDDRIVER56409835/26/201210283RD STHETHERTON ST0Injury (Complaint of Pain)V.C ViolationUnsafe SpeedRear-EndDryClear223501WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : TravelAt Fault 22years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB StoppedDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 59years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGDRIVERFemale 59years old COMPLAINT OF PAINNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDDRIVER3WB StoppedDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 69years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING54667421/6/201212303RD STHETHERTON ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationFollowing Too CloselyRear-EndDryClear217031WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 20years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Slowing/StoppingDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 55years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Male 55years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDUNKNOWNDRIVERThursday, February 16, 2017Page 3 of 7CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATIONDO NOT COPY
Id# Date Time Primary Road Secondary Road DS Collision Severity Primary Collision Factor Violation CategoryCollision TypeSurface WeatherDr.538291211/10/201115543RD STHETHERTON ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationUnsafe SpeedRear-EndDryClear223501WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 23years oldPICKUP OR PANEL TRUCKHNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Male 21years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDPASSENGERPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Male 23years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDDRIVER2 WB Stopped DRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 47years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Male 47years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDDRIVER3 WB Stopped DRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 56years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Female 56years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDDRIVER51844836/1/201114453RD STHETHERTON ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationUnknownSideswipeDryClear221071WB Changing LanesDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 52years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 23years oldNOT STATED (ALSO NOT CHP) HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING72007002/19/20162129HETHERTON AV3RD ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationTraffic Signals and SignsBroadsideDryClear224501WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : TravelAt Fault 24years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 24years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING714568312/10/201503RD STHETHERTON ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationTraffic Signals and SignsBroadsideWetClear21453A1WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : TravelAt Fault 43years oldNOT STATED (ALSO NOT CHP) HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 42years oldNOT STATED (ALSO NOT CHP) HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING669702210/24/2014645HETHERTON ST3RD ST0Injury (Complaint of Pain)V.C ViolationTraffic Signals and SignsBroadsideDryClear21453A1WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : TravelAt Fault 23years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGDRIVERFemale 23years old COMPLAINT OF PAINNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDDRIVER2SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 56years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING59822182/4/20131418HETHERTON ST3RD ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationTraffic Signals and SignsBroadsideDryClear21453A1WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 62years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 50years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING58211479/11/201222493RD STHETHERTON ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationTraffic Signals and SignsBroadsideDryClear21453A1WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 28years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HBD-HAD BEEN DRINKING,IMPAIRM2SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 39years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING60567664/14/20131205TAMALPAIS AVHEATHERTON AV72PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationImproper TurningHit ObjectDryClearW221071WB Ran off RoadDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : TravelAt Fault 56years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING626352210/24/201312593RD STHETHERTON ST45PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationImproper TurningBroadsideDryClearE221071SB Making Right TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : TravelAt Fault 27years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 64years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING675431312/19/20141330HETHERTON ST3RD ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationImproper TurningSideswipeWetCloudy22100A1SB Making Right TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 24years oldNOT STATED (ALSO NOT CHP) HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2SB StoppedDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 22years oldNOT STATED (ALSO NOT CHP) HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Male 24years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDPASSENGER541062511/28/20112131HETHERTON AV3RD ST0Injury (Complaint of Pain)V.C ViolationPedestrain Right-of-WayVehicle/PedestriDryClear21950A1SB Making Left TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 58years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Male 58years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDPASSENGER2 EB Not Stated PEDESTRIAN MaleParty : Travel 34years oldPEDESTRIANHNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPEDESTRIANMale 34years old COMPLAINT OF PAINUNKNOWNNONE IN VEHICLEPOSITION UNKNOWN713007011/10/20151747HETHERTON ST3RD ST0Injury (Other Visible)V.C ViolationNot StatedVehicle/PedestriDryClear1SB Making Left TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : TravelAt Fault 66years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Not StatedPEDESTRIANFemaleParty : Travel 61years oldPEDESTRIANHNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPEDESTRIANFemale 61years old OTHER VISIBLE INJNOT EJECTEDPOSITION UNKNOWNThursday, February 16, 2017Page 4 of 7CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATIONDO NOT COPY
Id# Date Time Primary Road Secondary Road DS Collision Severity Primary Collision Factor Violation CategoryCollision TypeSurface WeatherDr.66357899/19/20141300HETHERTON ST3RD ST30PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationUnsafe Lane ChangeSideswipeDryClearS21658A1SB Making Left TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 27years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2SB Making Left TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 39years oldOTHER BUSHNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING61761098/12/20131119HETHERTON ST3RD ST15PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationUnsafe Lane ChangeSideswipeDryClearS21658A1SB Making Left TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : TravelAt Fault 64years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2SB Making Left TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 52years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING533077210/6/20111155HETHERTON3RD ST50PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationUnsafe SpeedRear-EndDryClearS223501SB Making Left TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 53years oldNOT STATED (ALSO NOT CHP) HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2SB Making Left TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 44years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING71841361/30/2016845HETHERTON ST3RD ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationTraffic Signals and SignsBroadsideDryClear21453A1SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 36years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 63years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING715279512/31/20151315HETHERTON ST3RD ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationTraffic Signals and SignsSideswipeDryClear21453A1SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT ANParty : TravelAt FaultNOT STATED (ALSO NOT CHP) IMPAIRMENT UNKNOWN2WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 55years oldNOT STATED (ALSO NOT CHP) HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Female 80years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDPASSENGER709710010/8/20152205HETHERTON ST3RD ST21Injury (Complaint of Pain)V.C ViolationTraffic Signals and SignsBroadsideDryClearN21453A1SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 38years oldPICKUP OR PANEL TRUCKHNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 24years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Male 10years old COMPLAINT OF PAINNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDPASSENGER69735146/14/2015203RD STHETHERTON ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationNot StatedBroadsideDryClear1SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 29years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 64years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING66477949/27/20141135HETHERTON3RD ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationTraffic Signals and SignsBroadsideDryClear21453A1SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : TravelAt Fault 39years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 44years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON NOT STATED65434897/1/20141943HETHERTON ST3RD ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationTraffic Signals and SignsSideswipeDryClear21453A1SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 30years oldNOT STATED (ALSO NOT CHP) HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 65years oldNOT STATED (ALSO NOT CHP) HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING63757832/10/20141802HETHERTON ST3RD ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationTraffic Signals and SignsBroadsideDryClear21453A1SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : TravelAt Fault 62years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 22years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING63754392/1/20141405HETHERTON ST3RD ST0Injury (Complaint of Pain)V.C ViolationTraffic Signals and SignsBroadsideDryClear21453A1SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 31years oldMOTORCYCLE/SCOOTERHNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 40years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Female 4years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDCHILD RESTRAINT IN VEHICLE PASSENGER3 WB Making Left Turn DRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 59years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Female 24years old COMPLAINT OF PAINNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDPASSENGER587587912/11/20121136HETHERTON3RD ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationTraffic Signals and SignsBroadsideDryClear21453A1SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : TravelAt Fault 21years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Female 20years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDPASSENGER2 WB Proceeding Straight DRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 60years oldPICKUP OR PANEL TRUCKHNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGThursday, February 16, 2017Page 5 of 7CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATIONDO NOT COPY
Id# Date Time Primary Road Secondary Road DS Collision Severity Primary Collision Factor Violation CategoryCollision TypeSurface WeatherDr.58750329/8/20129233RD STHETHERTON0Injury (Complaint of Pain)V.C ViolationTraffic Signals and SignsBroadsideDryClear21453A1SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : TravelAt Fault 81years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Female 59years old COMPLAINT OF PAINNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDPASSENGERPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Female 84years old COMPLAINT OF PAINNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDPASSENGER2 WB Proceeding Straight DRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 30years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Female 2years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDCHILD RESTRAINT IN VEHICLE, STATION WAGON REARPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Male 5years old COMPLAINT OF PAINNOT EJECTEDCHILD RESTRAINT IN VEHICLE PASSENGERDRIVER Male 30years old COMPLAINT OF PAINNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDDRIVERPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Male 25years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDPASSENGER56371165/14/201219173RD STHEATHERTON ST0Injury (Complaint of Pain)V.C ViolationTraffic Signals and SignsBroadsideDryClear21453A1SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : TravelAt Fault 40years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 32years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Female 4years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDCHILD RESTRAINT IN VEHICLE PASSENGERPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Male 26years old COMPLAINT OF PAINNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDPASSENGERPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Female 5years old COMPLAINT OF PAINNOT EJECTEDCHILD RESTRAINT IN VEHICLE PASSENGER50766421/19/201112323RD STHETHERTON ST0Injury (Complaint of Pain)V.C ViolationTraffic Signals and SignsBroadsideDryClear21453A1SB Ran off RoadDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 48years oldNOT STATED (ALSO NOT CHP) HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 39years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Female 31years old COMPLAINT OF PAINNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDPASSENGERPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Male 1years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDCHILD RESTRAINT IN VEHICLE PASSENGERPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Male 1years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDCHILD RESTRAINT IN VEHICLE PASSENGER80012003/24/20161219HETHERTON ST3RD ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationUnsafe Lane ChangeRear-EndDryClear21658A1SB Changing LanesDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : TravelAt Fault 42years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2SB Changing LanesDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 35years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING68021431/22/20151555HETHERTON ST3RD ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationDriving or Bicycling Under Influence of Alcohol or Rear-EndDryClear23152A1SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : TravelAt Fault 26years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HBD-HAD BEEN DRINKING,UNDER IN2SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 20years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING64613234/29/20141238HETHERTON ST3RD ST35PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationUnsafe Lane ChangeSideswipeDryClearN21658A1SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : TravelAt Fault 70years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 21years oldPICKUP OR PANEL TRUCKHNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Male 34years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDPASSENGER593585111/26/20121529HETHERTON ST3RD ST0Injury (Complaint of Pain)V.C ViolationPedestrain Right-of-WayVehicle/PedestriDryClear21950A1NB Making Left TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : TravelAt Fault 39years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Making Left TurnPEDESTRIANMaleParty : Travel 44years oldPEDESTRIANHNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPEDESTRIANMale 44years old COMPLAINT OF PAINUNKNOWNPOSITION UNKNOWN80902957/9/201615043RD STIRWIN ST/TAMALPAIS AV0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationImproper TurningSideswipeDryClear221071WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 59years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 31years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING80562005/24/201621233RD STHETHERTON ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationTraffic Signals and SignsBroadsideDryClear21453A1WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 25years oldNOT STATED (ALSO NOT CHP) HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 59years oldNOT STATED (ALSO NOT CHP) HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING80431424/30/201615393RD STHETHERTON ST0Injury (Other Visible)V.C ViolationImproper TurningBroadsideDryClear22101D1WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 75years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Making Left TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 57years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGDRIVERMale 57years old OTHER VISIBLE INJNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDDRIVERThursday, February 16, 2017Page 6 of 7CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATIONDO NOT COPY
Id# Date Time Primary Road Secondary Road DS Collision Severity Primary Collision Factor Violation CategoryCollision TypeSurface WeatherDr.68247842/6/20151514HETHERTON ST3RD ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationTraffic Signals and SignsBroadsideWetRaining224501WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 51years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 60years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING635454912/18/20131930HETHERTON ST3RD ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)UnknowUnknownSideswipeDryClear1WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 71years oldNOT STATED (ALSO NOT CHP) HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 49years oldPICKUP OR PANEL TRUCKHNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING61538137/21/2013935HETHERTON ST3RD ST0Injury (Complaint of Pain)V.C ViolationTraffic Signals and SignsBroadsideDryClear21453A1WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 53years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGDRIVERFemale 53years old COMPLAINT OF PAINNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDDRIVER2SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 37years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGDRIVERFemale 37years old COMPLAINT OF PAINNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDDRIVER626358110/22/20131230HETHERTON ST3RD ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)UnknowUnknownSideswipeDryClear1SB Making Left TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 50years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 46years oldPASSENGER CAR WITH TRAILER HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING818004811/26/20161336HETHERTON ST3RD ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationTraffic Signals and SignsBroadsideWetRaining21453A1SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 41years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Making Right TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 77years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING675711112/12/20141514HETHERTON ST3RD ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationImproper TurningSideswipeWetCloudy221071SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 53years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2SB Making Left TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 22years oldPICKUP OR PANEL TRUCKHNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING669725211/2/201420513RD STHETHERTON ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)UnknowUnknownBroadsideDryClear1SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 61years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2WB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : Travel 31years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING65257346/2/20141700HETHERTON ST3RD ST20PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationUnsafe SpeedRear-EndDryClearS223501-B Making Left TurnDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN FemaleParty : TravelAt Fault 49years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING2SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 71years oldPASSENGER CAR/STATION WAGON HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKING537877910/19/20111910HETHERTON AV3RD ST0PDO (Property Damage Only)V.C ViolationTraffic Signals and SignsRear-EndDryClear21453A1SB Proceeding StraightDRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 85years oldNOT STATED (ALSO NOT CHP) HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Male 78years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDPASSENGERPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Female 80years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDPASSENGERPASSENGER (INCLUDES NON-OPERATOR Female 55years old NO INJURYNOT EJECTEDLAP/SHOULDER HARNEDD USEDPASSENGER2 SB Making Left Turn DRIVER (INCLUDING HIT AN MaleParty : Travel 27years oldNOT STATED (ALSO NOT CHP) HNBD-HAD NOT BEEN DRINKINGThursday, February 16, 2017Page 7 of 7CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATIONDO NOT COPY
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 59
Appendix C: Synchro Analysis Worksheets
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study Existing Conditions
502: Hetherton & 3rd AM Peak
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 9 Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc 11/01/2017
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 440 1330 00000669419
Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 440 1330 00000669419
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1700 1700 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1700 1800
Lane Width 12 12 12 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 2.2 2.2
Lane Util. Factor *0.74 *0.74 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91
Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1209 3629 4314 1298
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1209 3629 4314 1298
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 494 1494 00000704441
RTOR Reduction (vph)0000000000020
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 494 1494 00000704421
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 19 16 16 19 69 1 1 69
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4 6
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4%
Turn Type Perm NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 6 8
Permitted Phases 6 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 39.2 39.2 26.4 26.4
Effective Green, g (s) 40.2 40.2 28.4 28.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.54 0.54 0.38 0.38
Clearance Time (s) 5.2 5.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 648 1945 1633 491
v/s Ratio Prot 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm 0.41 0.41 c0.32
v/c Ratio 0.76 0.77 0.43 0.86
Uniform Delay, d1 13.7 13.7 17.3 21.4
Progression Factor 0.91 0.91 1.43 1.46
Incremental Delay, d2 5.7 2.0 0.2 12.1
Delay (s) 18.1 14.5 24.9 43.4
Level of Service B B C D
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 15.4 0.0 32.0
Approach LOS A B A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 6.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.5% ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study Existing Conditions
502: Hetherton & 3rd PM PEAK
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 9 Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc 11/01/2017
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 402 1393 00000670434
Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 402 1393 00000670434
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1600 1700 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1700 1800
Lane Width 12 12 12 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.2 2.2 2.2
Lane Util. Factor *0.75 *0.75 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90
Flpb, ped/bikes 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1147 3741 4398 1312
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1147 3741 4398 1312
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 414 1436 00000720467
RTOR Reduction (vph)0000000000019
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 373 1477 00000720448
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 48 41 41 48 74 74
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 1
Turn Type Perm NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 6 8
Permitted Phases 6 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 43.8 43.8 26.8 26.8
Effective Green, g (s) 44.8 44.8 28.8 28.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.56 0.36 0.36
Clearance Time (s) 5.2 5.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 642 2094 1583 472
v/s Ratio Prot 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm 0.33 0.39 c0.34
v/c Ratio 0.58 0.71 0.45 0.95
Uniform Delay, d1 11.5 12.8 19.6 24.9
Progression Factor 0.92 0.94 0.53 0.59
Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 1.2 0.2 26.0
Delay (s) 12.8 13.2 10.6 40.6
Level of Service B B B D
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 13.1 0.0 22.4
Approach LOS A B A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 6.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 105.8% ICU Level of Service G
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study Recommended Concept - LPI w/ 1 WB TH+LT, 2 WB TH
502: Hetherton & 3rd AM Peak
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 9 Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc 06/26/2018
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 440 1330 00000669419
Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 440 1330 00000669419
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1700 1700 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1700 1800
Lane Width 12 12 12 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.2 2.2 2.2
Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.91
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 4393 4314 1297
Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 4393 4314 1297
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 494 1494 00000704441
RTOR Reduction (vph)0000000000066
Lane Group Flow (vph)00001988 00000704375
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 19 16 16 19 69 1 1 69
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4 6
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4%
Turn Type Perm NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 6 8
Permitted Phases 6 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 37.4 22.7 22.7
Effective Green, g (s) 38.4 24.7 24.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.51 0.33 0.33
Clearance Time (s) 5.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2249 1420 427
v/s Ratio Prot 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm 0.45 c0.29
v/c Ratio 0.88 0.50 0.88
Uniform Delay, d1 16.3 20.2 23.7
Progression Factor 0.96 1.21 1.35
Incremental Delay, d2 3.8 0.2 16.1
Delay (s) 19.4 24.6 48.0
Level of Service B C D
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 19.4 0.0 33.6
Approach LOS A B A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 118.0% ICU Level of Service H
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study Recommended Concept - LPI w/ 1 WB TH+LT, 2 WB TH
502: Hetherton & 3rd PM Peak
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 9 Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc 06/26/2018
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 402 1393 00000670434
Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 402 1393 00000670434
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1800 1800 1800 1600 1700 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1700 1800
Lane Width 12 12 12 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 4.2 2.2 2.2
Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.90
Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 4462 4398 1312
Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 4462 4398 1312
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 414 1436 00000720467
RTOR Reduction (vph)0000000000062
Lane Group Flow (vph)00001850 00000720405
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 48 41 41 48 74 74
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 1
Turn Type Perm NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 6 8
Permitted Phases 6 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 40.8 24.5 24.5
Effective Green, g (s) 41.8 26.5 26.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.33 0.33
Clearance Time (s) 5.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2331 1456 434
v/s Ratio Prot 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm 0.41 c0.31
v/c Ratio 0.79 0.49 0.93
Uniform Delay, d1 15.6 21.4 25.9
Progression Factor 0.99 0.56 0.48
Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 0.2 24.4
Delay (s) 17.2 12.2 37.0
Level of Service B B D
Approach Delay (s) 0.0 17.2 0.0 21.9
Approach LOS A B A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.5% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study Eliminated Concept #1- 2 WB LT, 2 SB RT (With Protected Turn Phase)
502: Hetherton & 3rd AM Peak
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 9 Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.11/01/2017
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)0 0 0 440 1330 00000669419
Future Volume (vph)0 0 0 440 1330 00000669419
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1700 1700 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1700 1800
Lane Width 12 12 12 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11
Total Lost time (s)3.0 4.2 2.2 2.0
Lane Util. Factor *0.74 0.95 0.91 0.88
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)2451 3106 4314 2503
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)2451 3106 4314 2503
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 494 1494 00000704441
RTOR Reduction (vph)000000000000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 494 1494 00000704441
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 19 16 16 19 69 1 1 69
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)4 6
Heavy Vehicles (%)2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4%
Turn Type Prot NA NA custom
Protected Phases 3 6 8 3
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 14.0 42.8 19.8 14.0
Effective Green, g (s)15.0 43.8 21.8 16.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.49 0.24 0.18
Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.2 4.2 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)408 1511 1044 444
v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 c0.48 c0.16 0.18
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 1.21 0.99 0.67 0.99
Uniform Delay, d1 37.5 22.9 30.9 36.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 115.6 20.6 1.7 40.7
Delay (s)153.1 43.5 32.6 77.7
Level of Service F D C E
Approach Delay (s)0.0 70.7 0.0 50.0
Approach LOS A E A D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 63.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service E
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.6% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
Eliminated Concept #1- 2 WB LT, 2 SB RT (With Protected Turn Phase)Third and Hetherton Traffic Study
502: Hetherton & 3rd PM Peak
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 9 Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.11/01/2017
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)0 0 0 402 1393 00000670434
Future Volume (vph)0 0 0 402 1393 00000670434
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1600 1700 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1700 1800
Lane Width 12 12 12 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11
Total Lost time (s)3.0 4.2 2.2 2.0
Lane Util. Factor *0.75 0.95 0.91 0.88
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)2384 3167 4398 2552
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)2384 3167 4398 2552
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 414 1436 00000720467
RTOR Reduction (vph)000000000000
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 414 1436 00000720467
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 48 41 41 48 74 74
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 1
Turn Type Prot NA NA custom
Protected Phases 3 6 8 3
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)14.0 42.4 20.2 14.0
Effective Green, g (s)15.0 43.4 22.2 16.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.48 0.25 0.18
Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.2 4.2 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)397 1527 1084 453
v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 c0.45 c0.16 c0.18
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 1.04 0.94 0.66 1.03
Uniform Delay, d1 37.5 22.1 30.5 37.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 56.8 12.6 1.5 50.4
Delay (s)94.3 34.7 32.1 87.4
Level of Service F C C F
Approach Delay (s)0.0 48.0 0.0 53.9
Approach LOS A D A D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 50.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.4% ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study
502: Hetherton & 3rd
Eliminated Concept #2 - 1 WB TH+LT, 1 SB TH+RT, 1 SB RT, LPI
AM Peak
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 9 Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc 09/14/2017
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)0 0 0 440 1330 00000669419
Future Volume (vph)0 0 0 440 1330 00000669419
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1700 1700 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1700 1800
Lane Width 12 12 12 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11
Total Lost time (s)4.2 2.2 2.2
Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.86 0.86
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.91
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)4393 4077 1115
Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)4393 4077 1115
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 494 1494 00000704441
RTOR Reduction (vph)00000000000121
Lane Group Flow (vph)00001988 00000704320
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 19 16 16 19 69 1 1 69
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)4 6
Heavy Vehicles (%)2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4%
Turn Type Perm NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 6 8
Permitted Phases 6 8
Actuated Green, G (s)33.4 21.7 21.7
Effective Green, g (s)34.4 23.7 23.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.32 0.32
Clearance Time (s)5.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)2014 1288 352
v/s Ratio Prot 0.17
v/s Ratio Perm 0.45 c0.29
v/c Ratio 0.99 0.55 0.91
Uniform Delay, d1 20.1 21.2 24.6
Progression Factor 0.92 1.21 1.65
Incremental Delay, d2 13.7 0.4 23.4
Delay (s)32.1 26.0 64.1
Level of Service C C E
Approach Delay (s)0.0 32.1 0.0 40.7
Approach LOS A C A D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 108.8% ICU Level of Service G
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study
502: Hetherton & 3rd
Eliminated Concept #2 - 1 WB TH+LT, 1 SB TH+RT, 1 SB RT, LPI
PM Peak
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 9 Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc 09/14/2017
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)0 0 0 402 1393 00000670434
Future Volume (vph)0 0 0 402 1393 00000670434
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1600 1700 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1700 1800
Lane Width 12 12 12 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11
Total Lost time (s)4.2 2.2 2.2
Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.86 0.86
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 0.90
Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.97 0.85
Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)4462 3941 1128
Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)4462 3941 1128
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 414 1436 00000720467
RTOR Reduction (vph)000000000056114
Lane Group Flow (vph)00001850 00000860157
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 48 41 41 48 74 74
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 1
Turn Type Perm NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 6 8
Permitted Phases 6 8
Actuated Green, G (s)38.9 21.2 21.2
Effective Green, g (s)39.9 23.2 23.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.29 0.29
Clearance Time (s)5.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)2225 1142 327
v/s Ratio Prot c0.22
v/s Ratio Perm 0.41 0.14
v/c Ratio 0.83 0.75 0.48
Uniform Delay, d1 17.2 25.8 23.4
Progression Factor 0.98 0.57 0.32
Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 2.5 1.0
Delay (s)19.2 17.1 8.4
Level of Service B B A
Approach Delay (s)0.0 19.2 0.0 15.1
Approach LOS ABAB
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.9% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study Eliminated Concept #3 - LPI with Existing Geometry
502: Hetherton & 3rd AM Peak
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 9 Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc 11/01/2017
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)0 0 0 440 1330 00000669419
Future Volume (vph)0 0 0 440 1330 00000669419
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1700 1700 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1700 1800
Lane Width 12 12 12 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11
Total Lost time (s)4.2 4.2 2.2 2.2
Lane Util. Factor *0.74 *0.74 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91
Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1209 3629 4314 1297
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1209 3629 4314 1297
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 494 1494 00000704441
RTOR Reduction (vph)00000000000123
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 494 1494 00000704318
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 19 16 16 19 69 1 1 69
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)4 6
Heavy Vehicles (%)2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4%
Turn Type Perm NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 6 8
Permitted Phases 6 8
Actuated Green, G (s)34.0 34.0 20.8 20.8
Effective Green, g (s)35.0 35.0 22.8 22.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 0.47 0.30 0.30
Clearance Time (s)5.2 5.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)564 1693 1311 394
v/s Ratio Prot 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm 0.41 0.41 c0.25
v/c Ratio 0.88 0.88 0.54 0.81
Uniform Delay, d1 18.0 18.1 21.7 24.1
Progression Factor 0.88 0.89 1.18 1.58
Incremental Delay, d2 12.4 4.9 0.4 10.0
Delay (s)28.2 21.1 26.1 48.1
Level of Service C C C D
Approach Delay (s)0.0 22.9 0.0 34.5
Approach LOS A C A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.5% ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study Eliminated Concept #3 - LPI with Existing Geometry
502: Hetherton & 3rd PM Peak
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Synchro 9 Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc 11/01/2017
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph)0 0 0 402 1393 00000670434
Future Volume (vph)0 0 0 402 1393 00000670434
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1800 1800 1800 1600 1700 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1700 1800
Lane Width 12 12 12 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11
Total Lost time (s)4.2 4.2 2.2 2.2
Lane Util. Factor *0.75 *0.75 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90
Flpb, ped/bikes 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1147 3741 4398 1311
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1147 3741 4398 1311
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 414 1436 00000720467
RTOR Reduction (vph)00000000000113
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 373 1477 00000720354
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 48 41 41 48 74 74
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 1
Turn Type Perm NA NA Perm
Protected Phases 6 8
Permitted Phases 6 8
Actuated Green, G (s)38.8 38.8 21.4 21.4
Effective Green, g (s)39.8 39.8 23.4 23.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.29 0.29
Clearance Time (s)5.2 5.2 4.2 4.2
Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)570 1861 1286 383
v/s Ratio Prot 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm 0.33 0.39 c0.27
v/c Ratio 0.65 0.79 0.56 0.92
Uniform Delay, d1 15.0 16.7 23.9 27.4
Progression Factor 0.93 0.97 0.58 0.41
Incremental Delay, d2 3.5 2.2 0.5 24.9
Delay (s)17.5 18.4 14.4 36.1
Level of Service B B B D
Approach Delay (s)0.0 18.2 0.0 22.9
Approach LOS A B A C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 105.8% ICU Level of Service G
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study Existing Conditions
502: Hetherton & 3rd AM Peak
Queues Synchro 9 Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc 06/11/2018
Lane Group WBL WBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 494 1494 704 441
v/c Ratio 0.76 0.77 0.43 0.86
Control Delay 20.4 15.3 25.3 45.2
Queue Delay 5.4 48.6 0.1 10.2
Total Delay 25.9 63.9 25.4 55.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 190 200 118 212
Queue Length 95th (ft) #477 286 154 #347
Internal Link Dist (ft) 299 272
Turn Bay Length (ft) 70 225
Base Capacity (vph) 648 1946 1714 535
Starvation Cap Reductn 69 215 0 25
Spillback Cap Reductn 103 756 217 74
Storage Cap Reductn 0000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.91 1.26 0.47 0.96
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study Existing Conditions
502: Hetherton & 3rd PM PEAK
Queues Synchro 9 Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc 06/11/2018
Lane Group WBL WBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 373 1477 720 467
v/c Ratio 0.58 0.71 0.45 0.95
Control Delay 13.5 13.5 11.3 45.0
Queue Delay 1.0 49.6 0.0 2.9
Total Delay 14.5 63.1 11.4 47.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 114 169 38 229
Queue Length 95th (ft) m176 244 68 #401
Internal Link Dist (ft) 299 272
Turn Bay Length (ft) 70 225
Base Capacity (vph) 642 2095 1583 491
Starvation Cap Reductn 99 344 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 95 1084 68 9
Storage Cap Reductn 0000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.69 1.46 0.48 0.97
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study Recommended Concept - LPI w/ 1 WB TH+LT, 2 WB TH
502: Hetherton & 3rd AM Peak
Queues Synchro 9 Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc 06/26/2018
Lane Group WBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1988 704 441
v/c Ratio 0.88 0.50 0.89
Control Delay 20.4 25.3 45.1
Queue Delay 47.0 0.1 46.3
Total Delay 67.4 25.4 91.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 353 116 195
Queue Length 95th (ft) #400 153 #336
Internal Link Dist (ft) 299 272
Turn Bay Length (ft) 225
Base Capacity (vph) 2248 1484 510
Starvation Cap Reductn 286 0 3
Spillback Cap Reductn 796 164 105
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.37 0.53 1.09
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study Recommended Concept - LPI w/ 1 WB TH+LT, 2 WB TH
502: Hetherton & 3rd PM Peak
Queues Synchro 9 Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc 06/26/2018
Lane Group WBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1850 720 467
v/c Ratio 0.79 0.49 0.94
Control Delay 17.6 13.0 39.0
Queue Delay 48.5 0.0 8.5
Total Delay 66.1 13.1 47.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 248 43 45
Queue Length 95th (ft) 298 68 #373
Internal Link Dist (ft) 299 272
Turn Bay Length (ft) 225
Base Capacity (vph) 2331 1473 501
Starvation Cap Reductn 392 0 4
Spillback Cap Reductn 1100 46 27
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.50 0.50 0.99
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study Eliminated Concept #1- 2 WB LT, 2 SB RT (With Protected Turn Phase)
502: Hetherton & 3rd AM Peak
Queues Synchro 9 Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.06/11/2018
Lane Group WBL WBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 494 1494 704 441
v/c Ratio 1.21 0.99 0.67 0.99
Control Delay 150.4 45.1 34.3 79.9
Queue Delay 0.0 39.3 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 150.4 84.4 34.3 79.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~233 ~450 130 143
Queue Length 95th (ft) #356 #607 169 #251
Internal Link Dist (ft)299 272
Turn Bay Length (ft)70 225
Base Capacity (vph) 408 1513 1140 444
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 283 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.21 1.21 0.62 0.99
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study Eliminated Concept #1- 2 WB LT, 2 SB RT (With Protected Turn Phase)
502: Hetherton & 3rd PM PEAK
Queues Synchro 9 Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.06/11/2018
Lane Group WBL WBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 414 1436 720 467
v/c Ratio 1.04 0.94 0.66 1.03
Control Delay 95.2 36.5 33.6 88.6
Queue Delay 0.0 44.7 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 95.2 81.1 33.6 88.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~171 397 133 ~163
Queue Length 95th (ft) #290 #573 173 #269
Internal Link Dist (ft)299 272
Turn Bay Length (ft)70 225
Base Capacity (vph) 397 1526 1163 453
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 314 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.04 1.18 0.62 1.03
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study Eliminated Concept #2 - 1 WB TH+LT, 1 SB TH+RT, 1 SB RT, LPI
502: Hetherton & 3rd AM Peak
Queues Synchro 9 Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc 06/11/2018
Lane Group WBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1988 704 441
v/c Ratio 0.99 0.55 0.93
Control Delay 33.9 27.0 49.9
Queue Delay 40.7 0.2 48.4
Total Delay 74.6 27.2 98.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~372 128 204
Queue Length 95th (ft) #457 166 #374
Internal Link Dist (ft) 299 272
Turn Bay Length (ft) 225
Base Capacity (vph) 2015 1348 487
Starvation Cap Reductn 128 0 9
Spillback Cap Reductn 636 125 103
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.44 0.58 1.15
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study Eliminated Concept #2 - 1 WB TH+LT, 1 SB TH+RT, 1 SB RT, LPI
502: Hetherton & 3rd PM Peak
Queues Synchro 9 Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc 06/11/2018
Lane Group WBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1850 916 271
v/c Ratio 0.83 0.76 0.62
Control Delay 19.6 17.5 8.9
Queue Delay 48.3 0.2 1.0
Total Delay 67.9 17.7 9.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 275 65 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 319 78 32
Internal Link Dist (ft) 299 272
Turn Bay Length (ft) 225
Base Capacity (vph) 2225 1227 447
Starvation Cap Reductn 319 0 11
Spillback Cap Reductn 1007 27 48
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.52 0.76 0.68
Intersection Summary
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study Eliminated Concept #3 - LPI with Existing Geometry
502: Hetherton & 3rd AM Peak
Queues Synchro 9 Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc 06/11/2018
Lane Group WBL WBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 494 1494 704 441
v/c Ratio 0.88 0.88 0.54 0.85
Control Delay 31.8 22.6 26.7 37.3
Queue Delay 39.5 47.5 0.1 25.2
Total Delay 71.3 70.1 26.8 62.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 283 295 119 174
Queue Length 95th (ft) #539 #412 156 #290
Internal Link Dist (ft)299 272
Turn Bay Length (ft)70 225
Base Capacity (vph) 563 1693 1426 547
Starvation Cap Reductn 16 53 0 9
Spillback Cap Reductn 103 583 143 115
Storage Cap Reductn 0000
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.07 1.35 0.55 1.02
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Third and Hetherton Traffic Study Eliminated Concept #3 - LPI with Existing Geometry
502: Hetherton & 3rd PM Peak
Queues Synchro 9 Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc 06/11/2018
Lane Group WBL WBT SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 373 1477 720 467
v/c Ratio 0.65 0.79 0.56 0.94
Control Delay 18.4 18.8 15.5 36.6
Queue Delay 1.8 49.3 0.0 21.5
Total Delay 20.3 68.1 15.6 58.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 133 240 47 10
Queue Length 95th (ft) m218 302 94 #353
Internal Link Dist (ft)299 272
Turn Bay Length (ft)70 225
Base Capacity (vph) 570 1861 1308 502
Starvation Cap Reductn 52 203 0 10
Spillback Cap Reductn 86 885 36 50
Storage Cap Reductn 0000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.77 1.51 0.57 1.03
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 60
Appendix D: Intersection Concept Drawings
THIRD STREET AT HETHERTON STREET RECOMMENDED
CONCEPT: GEOMETRIC MODIFICATIONS AND LEADING
PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL - DRAFT
STEADY DEMAND SEQUENCE
�6+--
*LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL
APPROX. R25'
� SAN RAFAEL
� THE CITY WITH A MISSION
NO SCALE
Kimley>>> Horn ---
9-20-2017
THIRD STREET AT HETHERTON STREET
RECOMMENDED CONCEPT: INTERIM STRIPING MODIFICATIONS
AND LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL - DRAFT
INSTALL TWO 4-INCH
WHITE LINES WITH .3" SPACE IN BETWEEN.
STEADY DEMAND SEQUENCE
�6+--
*LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL
SAN RAFAEL
THE CITY WITH A MISSION
NO SCALE
Kimley>>> Horn ----
6-7-2018
THIRD STREET AT HETHERTON STREET
ELIMINATED CONCEPT #1: SEPARATED PEDESTRIAN
PHASES - DRAFT
STEADY DEMAND SEQUENCE
eOLA 4----t>e6P 1 ) ¢1 ,s� I l I
4----t>¢6P ,tP
PROPOSED PHASE SEQUENCE NOTE: RIGHT TURNS NOT PERMITTED EXCEPT ON GREEN ARROW
@sANRAFAEL
� THECITYWITHAMISSION
NO SCALE
Kimley>» Horn -�
8-14-2017
THIRD STREET AT HETHERTON STREET
ELIMINATED CONCEPT #2: GEOMETRIC MODIFICATIONS
AND LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL - DRAFT
STEADY DEMAND SEQUENCE
�6+--
*LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL
APPROX. R25'
� SAN RAFAEL
� THE CITY WITH A MISSION
NO SCALE
Kimley>>> Horn ---
9-20-2017
THIRD STREET AT HETHERTON STREET
ELIMINATED CONCEPT #3: NEW SIGNAGE AND TURN RADIUS
MODIFICATION AND LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL- DRAFT
STEADY DEMAND SEQUENCE
�6+--
*LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL
� SAN RAFAEL
� THE CITY WITH A MISSION
NO SCALE
Kimley>>> Horn ---
8-14-2017
THIRD STREET AT HETHERTON STREET
ELIMINATED CONCEPT #4: NEW SIGNAGE AND TURN RADIUS
MODIFICATION - DRAFT
STEADY DEMAND SEQUENCE
<t----i>'116P
'116+-
<l----i>'116P
PROPOSED PHASE SEQUENCE
(UNCHANGED)
� SAN RAFAEL
� THE CITY WITH A MISSION
NO SCALE
Kimley>>> Horn ----
8-14-2017
Third & Hetherton Traffic Study
Final Report
June 2018 61
Appendix E: Intersection Concept Cost Estimates
Third Street at Hetherton Street
Improvement Options - Cost Estimates
ITEM EST UNIT UNIT ITEM
NO. ITEM QTY PRICE, $ TOTAL, $
1 Mobilization 1 LS $14,328 $14,328
2 Traffic Control 1 LS $21,491 $21,491
3 SWPPP/Drainage 1 LS $7,164 $7,164
4 Design 1 LS $28,655 $28,655
5 Construction Admin 1 LS $21,491 $21,491
6 Traffic Signal Modification 1 LS $60,400 $60,400
7 Civil Improvements 1 LS $76,570 $76,570
8 Signing and Striping 1 LS $6,305 $6,305
Subtotal $236,404
Contingency (20%) $47,281
Total $283,700
ITEM EST UNIT UNIT ITEM
NO. ITEM QTY PRICE, $ TOTAL, $
1 Mobilization 1 LS $6,173 $6,173
2 Traffic Control 1 LS $9,260 $9,260
3 SWPPP/Drainage 1 LS $0 $0
4 Design 1 LS $12,346 $12,346
5 Construction Admin 1 LS $9,260 $9,260
6 Traffic Signal Modification 1 LS $50,800 $50,800
7 Civil Improvements 1 LS $0 $0
8 Signing and Striping 1 LS $10,930 $10,930
Subtotal $98,768
Contingency (20%) $19,754
Total $118,500
ITEM EST UNIT UNIT ITEM
NO. ITEM QTY PRICE, $ TOTAL, $
1 Mobilization 1 LS $19,218 $19,218
2 Traffic Control 1 LS $28,826 $28,826
3 SWPPP/Drainage 1 LS $9,609 $9,609
4 Design 1 LS $38,435 $38,435
5 Construction Admin 1 LS $28,826 $28,826
6 Traffic Signal Modification 1 LS $69,500 $69,500
7 Civil Improvements 1 LS $116,670 $116,670
8 Signing and Striping 1 LS $6,005 $6,005
Subtotal $317,089
Contingency (20%) $63,418
Total $380,500
Eliminated Concept #1 Summary
Recommended Concept - Summary
Recommended Concept - Interim Version
ITEM EST UNIT UNIT ITEM
NO. ITEM QTY PRICE, $ TOTAL, $
1 Mobilization 1 LS $14,328 $14,328
2 Traffic Control 1 LS $21,491 $21,491
3 SWPPP/Drainage 1 LS $7,164 $7,164
4 Design 1 LS $28,655 $28,655
5 Construction Admin 1 LS $21,491 $21,491
6 Traffic Signal Modification 1 LS $61,100 $61,100
7 Civil Improvements 1 LS $76,570 $76,570
8 Signing and Striping 1 LS $1,785 $1,785
Subtotal $232,584
Contingency (20%) $46,517
Total $279,100
ITEM EST UNIT UNIT ITEM
NO. ITEM QTY PRICE, $ TOTAL, $
1 Mobilization 1 LS $10,378 $10,378
2 Traffic Control 1 LS $15,566 $15,566
3 SWPPP/Drainage 1 LS $5,189 $5,189
4 Design 1 LS $20,755 $20,755
5 Construction Admin 1 LS $15,566 $15,566
6 Traffic Signal Modification 1 LS $60,400 $60,400
7 Civil Improvements 1 LS $41,980 $41,980
8 Signing and Striping 1 LS $1,395 $1,395
Subtotal $171,229
Contingency (20%) $34,246
Total $205,500
ITEM EST UNIT UNIT ITEM
NO. ITEM QTY PRICE, $ TOTAL, $
1 Mobilization 1 LS $10,378 $10,378
2 Traffic Control 1 LS $15,566 $15,566
3 SWPPP/Drainage 1 LS $5,189 $5,189
4 Design 1 LS $20,755 $20,755
5 Construction Admin 1 LS $15,566 $15,566
6 Traffic Signal Modification 1 LS $60,400 $60,400
7 Civil Improvements 1 LS $41,980 $41,980
8 Signing and Striping 1 LS $1,395 $1,395
Subtotal $171,229
Contingency (20%) $34,246
Total $205,500
Eliminated Concept #2 Summary
Eliminated Concept #3 Summary
Eliminated Concept #4 Summary