Four - Way Stop Sign Mission ST & 8th Av 08-08-17

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
SR 2016-116
August 8, 2017
Consent Agenda
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Paul Tomasi, Director of Public Safety
APPROVED BY: Chip Rerig, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Consideration of the adoption of a resolution authorizing the installation of stop signs
and painted crosswalks creating a four- way stop sign controlled intersection at
Mission Street and 8th Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the installation of stop signs and painted crosswalks creating a four- way stop
sign controlled intersection at Mission Street and 8th Avenue.
BACKGROUND / SUMMARY
At its July 19, 2017 meeting the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee discussed the potential implementation of
stop signs and crosswalks at the intersection of Mission Street and 8th Avenue to create a four-way stop sign
controlled intersection. Committee members reviewed the Technical Memorandum completed by Keith
Higgins, a Traffic Engineer for Mott MacDonald completed specifically for the intersection of Mission in 8th
Avenue and also conducted a site visit to Mission and 8th Avenue to further assess the potential impacts a four-
way stop sign controlled intersection.
The survey conducted by Higgins, utilized the Caltrans multi-way Control Warrant in the 2014 California
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) to measure the need for a stop control mechanism at
the intersection. In the attached survey four criteria areas were addressed to determine if the installation of a
stop sign was warranted: meeting a signal warrant, collision history, vehicle and pedestrian volumes, and other
criteria. The CA-MUTCD only requires one of the criteria be met to warrant multi-way stop control, with
multiple criteria making for a stronger argument for installation. The City met two of the four criteria for this
intersection as follows:
1. Meeting a Signal Warrant: This criteria requires a certain level of traffic and/or pedestrian traffic at the
intersection to warrant the installation of signage. The intersection did not meet the signal warrants
criteria as the traffic volume on this street does not reach the level required by the survey.
2. Collision History: Per the CA-MUTCD, multi-way stop control should be considered at intersections
where there have been five or more reported crashes in a 12 month period that are susceptible to
correction by multi-way stop control (e.g., right-turn and left-turn collisions, right angle collisions).
In the survey, three years of collision data for the project study was obtained from the Carmel Police
Department in a range from January 2014 to January 2016 in order to make the determination if the
warrant was met for a multi-way stop control and as a result in the report. Based on this the Higgins
report states that this criteria was not met, which was incorrect. Accidents can be entered by either of
the two streets where the accident occurred and through an error Higgins was only provided data for
Mission and 8th Avenue and not the data for 8th and Mission. With data from both locations a total of
seven accidents were recorded from January 2014 to January 2016, with (3) during the 12 month
period in 2014 and (4) in 2015 as opposed to the Higgins report which says there were no more than
(3) in any 12 month period. . Further, analysis of data from November 2013 to November 2014 reveals
that the study area had six total vehicle accidents, two of which resulted in injury. A review of these
accidents shows that the accidents very possibly could have been avoided had stop signs been
installed. In this 12-month study period the Collision History warrants were met.
3. Vehicle and Pedestrian Volumes: This criteria was not met due to the intersection not reaching the
required number of vehicles or pedestrians through the intersection.
4. Other Criteria (i.e., left turn activity, vehicle/pedestrian conflicts, sight distance restrictions or streets of
similar function and characteristics: This criteria was met as a result of the pathway on the south side
of Mission, which will lead to pedestrians needing to cross the street at 8th Avenue. A stop sign and
crosswalk is warranted to provide a safer way for pedestrians to cross the street. This criteria was also
met for vehicles traveling northbound and southbound on Mission, either turning or proceeding straight
through the intersection. Cal Trans requires a minimum sight distance at intersections and for this
intersection those sight distances are not met.
In addition, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Traffic Safety Study from 2003 and 2010 City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
General Plan further support the Higgins findings. The 2003 study and 2010 general plan identify the 8th
Avenue corridor as an area that should be monitored and considered for future pedestrian improvements and
that 8th Avenue be considered as part of any City efforts to remedy inconsistencies in the pattern of traffic
control in the commercial district, with the Mission Street and 8th Avenue intersection called out specifically.
The committee also considered the potential for congestion due to traffic entering and leaving the North lot of
the Sunset Center and potential noise impact of trucks braking and accelerating at this intersection of the truck
route. It is anticipated the slowing of traffic at the intersection will provide a safer ingress and egress of vehicles
using the North lot and that the noise impacts will not be significant.
After review of the aforementioned studies, completion of a site visit, and receiving public input, the Traffic
Safety Advisory Committee recommends that the Council per Municipal Code section 10.32.050 (c) Erection of
Signs, approve the installation of stop signs at Mission Street and 8th Avenue intersection to create a four-way
stop sign controlled intersection and the marking of crosswalks on the south and east legs of the intersection to
encourage and guide pedestrians to use the pedestrian pathway on the south side of 8th Avenue between
Mission Street and Junipero Avenue. Staff may add 'stop ahead' warning signs at the Eighth Avenue
approaches to the new stop signs, but will not install 'stop ahead' pavement markings.
FISCAL IMPACT
The costs associated with this item include staff time and the materials for the stop signs. The estimated staff
time costs are $400 and the materials costs would be approximately $1600. Each of these costs are already
budgeted in the Public Services yearly authorized budget.
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
None at this intersection.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Technical Memorandum from Keith Higgins, PE,TE-Mott MacDonald

2. City-Wide Traffic Safety Study January 13, 2004
3. Traffic Accident data from 2013-2017
4. Resolution
M
MOTT M
MACDONALD
1300.8 First Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
T 408-848-3122 www.mottmac.com
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Tom Fountain

From: Keith Higgins, PE, TE
Date: September 30, 2016
RE: sth Avenue Pedestrian Facility Needs Assessment, Carmel-by-the-5ea, CA
This memorandum provides an assessment of the existing pedestrian facilities along 8th Avenue between
Mission Street and Junipero Avenue (Study Segment) in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California.
Concerns regarding pedestrian safety have been raised for this street segment due to the lack of a
pedestrian pathway or sidewalk along the north side of the street. This analysis also includes a multi-way
stop warrant evaluation for the Mission Street I 6th Avenue intersection (Study Intersection #1) and an
evaluation of intersection traffic operations at Study Intersection #1 and the Junipero Avenue /8th Avenue
intersection (Study Intersection #2). For the purposes of this analysis, the Study Area refers to the
Mission Street and Junipero Avenue intersections with 8th Avenue and the segment of 8th Avenue
between Mission Street and J,unipero Avenue. A map showing the project Study Area is provided in
Exhibit 1.
Background Information
Mott MacDonald (formerly Higgins Associates} prepared the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City-Wide Traffic
Safety Study (October 2003}, which is referenced in the Circulation Element of the 2010 City of Carmel-
by-the-Sea General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan (GPICLUP). The citywide safety study assessed traffic
and safety issues throughout the City and provided recommendations for improvements and further
monitoring of certain locations. Although some residents had complained about traffic speeds along 8th
Avenue, the study concluded that speeding was not a problem (i.e., the 85th percentile speed was 20 mph
or less) based on speed checks performed by the Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Department and that no
collisions involving pedestrians had occurred within the Study Area between January 1, 1998 and July 7,
2003. The citywide safety study identified the 8th Avenue corridor as an area that should be monitored
and considered for future pedestrian improvements. Since that time, a pedestrian pathway has been
added on the south side of 8th Avenue between Mission Street and Junipero Avenue, and a marked
crosswalk has been added to .the north leg of the Mission Street I 8th Avenue intersection. The citywide
safety study also noted inconsistencies in the pattern of traffic control in the commercial area, which leads
to significant driver confusion, and recommended that traffic control at the intersections in the commercial
area bounded by 5th Avenue, Junipero Avenue, 8th Avenue, and Monte Verde Street be converted to
multi-way stop control, including the Mission Street I 8th Avenue intersection (Study Intersection #1 ).
Field Observations
A site visit to the Study Area was conducted to observe traffic operations, perform a manual radar spot
speed survey. document current pedestrian facilities, and identify issues that may influence the need for
multi-way stop control at Study Intersection #1. There are no posted speed limit signs on 8th Avenue in
the Study Area. However, the Study Segment is within the Downtown Core and as such falls under the
default Business District speed limit of 25 mph per Section 235 of the California Vehicle Code.
1
\ \Gil-data-vm\fileserver\2016\Jobs\373481 - 8th Ave Ped Needs Assessment\Report\373481 Memo_rev2.docx
M
MOTT
MACDONALD
M 1300-B First Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
Based on the manual radar spot speed survey of 10 readings in each direction, the average speed on 8th
Avenue in the eastbound direction was 19 mph with an 851h percentile speed of 21 mph and a peak speed
of 26 mph. The average speed in the westbound direction was 18 mph with an 85th percentile speed of 21
mph and a peak speed of 21 mph. The 85th percentile speed, also known as the critical speed, is defined
as the speed at which 85% of all surveyed drivers are traveling at or below. Details of the speed survey
are provided in Appendix A-1 (EB) and Appendix A-2 (WB).
Study Intersection #1 is currently two-way stop-controlled with stop signs on the northbound and
southbound approaches of Mission Street. Study Intersection #2 is currently multi-way stop controlled
with stop signs on all four approaches to the intersection.
The Study Segment (8th Avenue between Mission Street and Junipero Avenue) is approximately 275 feet
long, slopes downward from east to west, and is approximately 20 to 25 feet wide. There are no
sidewalks along the segment, but there is a meandering pedestrian pathway on the south side of the
street. Parking is allowed in certain pull-out areas along the south side of the street. On-street parking is
prohibited on the north side of the street, which has no shoulder and is abutted by a steep embankment.
It was noted during the field visit that the installation of a sidewalk or pedestrian pathway on the north side
of the Study Segment would require a significant amount of earthwork, the construction of a retaining wall
due to the steep embankment, and the relocation of at least one utility pole. This could be cost prohibitive
and disruptive to the environment and character of the street setting (e.g., it could involve the removal of
trees). In addition, the longitudinal slope and steep embankment would make it difficult to design a
pedestrian pathway or sidewalk in compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards.
Pedestrian curb ramps are provided on all four corners of the Mission Street I 8th Avenue intersection
(Study Intersection #1) and on the northwest and southwest comers of the Junipero Avenue I Bth Avenue
intersection {Study Intersection #2). Crosswalks ate provided on the north leg of Study Intersection #1
and on the south and west legs of Study Intersection #2.
There are two houses on the south side of the Study Segment; one of which has a driveway on 8th
Avenue. The other house on the south side of 8th Avenue has its driveway on Mission Street. On the north
side of the Study Segment, the Cannel Scout House has a driveway on 8th Avenue, and one house has a
driveway on Junipero Avenue. A new two-unit townhouse is proposed on the north side of 8th Avenue
between the Carmel Scout House and the existing house. The proposed two-unit townhouse will have its
driveway on 8th Avenue.
Data Collection
Twelve-hour vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle traffic volumes were collected at the Study Intersections on
June 1, 2016 between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. From these counts, the eight hours with the highest traffic
volumes were identified for use in the multi-way stop warrant evaluation for Study Intersection #1. In
addition, the one-hour morning, midday and evening peak hours were identified at both Study
Intersections to evaluate the traffic operations at the intersections. Appendix B includes the raw traffic
count data.
2
\\Gil-data-vm\fileserver\2016\Jobs\373481 - 8th Ave Ped Needs Assessment\Report\373481 Memo_rev2.docx
M
MOTT
MACDONALD
Gilroy, CA 95020
Traffic Operations
Intersection traffic operations were evaluated based on the Level of Service {LOS) concept. LOS is a
quantitative description of an intersection's operation, ranging from LOS A to LOS F. Level of service "A"
represents free flow un-congested traffic conditions. Level of service "F" represents highly congested
traffic conditions with what is commonly considered unacceptable delay to vehicles at intersections. The
intermediate levels of service represent incremental levels of congestion and delay between these two
extremes.
Intersection traffic operations were evaluated using the Synchro analysis software (Version 8) which is
based on the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 methodologies for two-way and multi-way stop controlled
intersections. For two-way stop controlled intersections, the delay in seconds per vehicle at the worst
approach is used to evaluate operations. The delay at the worst approach is then correlated to a level of
service. LOS for each side street is based on the distribution of gaps in the major traffic stream and driver
judgment in selecting gaps. For multi-way stop controlled intersections, operations are based upon the
average vehicular delay at the intersection. The average delay is then correlated to a level of service. The
levels of service at the Study Intersections are summarized in Table 1. Both intersections operate at
acceptable levels of service. Level of service calculations are included in Appendix C.
Table 1
Intersection Level of Service Summary
Existing Conditions
N-S
Street
I E-W
Street
Existing
Intersection
Control
AM Peak Hr.
Delay LOS
Midday Peak Hr.
Delay LOS
PM Peak Hr.
Delay LOS
(sec) (sec) (sec)
1 Mission
Street
18th
Averue
2-WayStop
Worst Approach
1.9
10.7
A
8
3.1
11 .2
A
8
2.1
11.4
A
8
2 4-WayStop 11.1 B 10.0 A 11.3 B

JLnlpero
Street 18"'
Avenue
Mission Street /8th Avenue Intersection Multi-Way Stop Warrant Evaluation
The Caltrans multi-way stop warrant was evaluated for the Mission Street I 8th Avenue intersection (Study
Intersection #1). Per the 2014 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices {2014 CA MUTCD),
"Multi-way stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist.
Safety concerns associated with multi-way stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users
expecting other road users to stop. Multi-way stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the
intersecting roads is approximately equal."
The Multi-Way Stop Control Warrant in the 2014 CA MUTCD can be evaluated based upon the following
four criteria:
3
M
MOTT M
MACDONALD
1300-B First Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
T 408-848-3122 'NWW.mottmac.com
1. Meeting a Signal Warrant

2. Collision History
3. Vehicle and Pedestrian Volumes
4. Other Criteria (i.e., left tum activity, vehicle/pedestrian conflicts, sight distance restrictions or
streets of similar function and characteristics).
The criteria are evaluated below for the Mission Street I 8th Avenue intersection. Although the 2014 CA
MUTCD only requires that one of these criteria be met to warrant multi-way stop control, the argument
towards its instaflation is stronger when multiple criteria are met. A summary of the multi-way stop warrant
is provided in Exhibit 2.
Meeting a Signal Warrant
Based on low traffic volumes, the Mission Street I 8th Avenue intersection does not meet signal warrants.
Collision Historv
Per theCA MUTCD, multi-way stop control should be considered at intersections where there have been
five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by multi-way stop
control (e.g., right-tum and left-turn collisions, right-angle collisions).
Three years (January 2014 through January 2016) of collision data for the project study area was
obtained from the City of Cannel-by-the-Sea Police Department. Based on the collision data, the highest
number of collisions in a 12-month period at the 8th Avenue I Mission Street intersection was three
collisions. This is less than the minimum of five correctable collisions in 12 months as required by the CA
MUTCD warrant. As a result, the collision warrant is not met for this intersection. The approximate
locations of the reported collisions are shown in Exhibit 3. The collision data is provided in Appendix D.
It was also be noted that, based on information provided by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Police
Department, none of the reported collisions appear to have involved pedestrians.
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City-Wide Traffic Safety Study, prepared by Mott MacDonald (formerly
Higgins Associates) in October 2003 evaluated collision data throughout the entire city for the period
between January 1, 1998 and July 7, 2003. That report also did not identify any collisions involving
pedestrians along the Study Segment of 8th Avenue between Mission Street and Junipero Avenue.
Vehicle and Pedestrian Volumes
According to the CA MUTCD, traffic volumes at the study intersection must be considered when
evaluating the need for multi-way stop control. Minimum volumes entering the intersection from both the
major and minor streets should be considered.
In order to meet the traffic volume criteria, the minimum volume for the major street (vehicles on both
approaches of 8th Avenue) is 300 vehicles per hour, while the minimum volume for the minor street
(vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles on both approaches of Mission Street) is 200 units per hour. These
volumes must be sustained for a minimum of eight hours. As shown in Exhibit 2, the volumes at the
Mission Street I 8th Avenue intersection do not meet this warrant.
4
M
Mon
MACDoNALD
Gilroy, CA 95020
The warrant also considers vehicle delay on the side street. The delay must be at least 30 seconds of
average delay per vehicle during the highest hour. The highest hour at Study Intersection #1 was from
3:00 PM to 4:00 PM. The average delay on the side street was 11.4 seconds on the northbound approach
and 11.2 seconds on the southbound approach. Since the delays do not exceed 30 seconds, this part of
the warrant is not met. As a result, the volume warrant is not met. Delay calculations are included in
Appendix C.
Other Criteria
Per the MUTCD, the following criteria may also be considered when evaluating the need for multi-way
stop control.
1. The need to control/eft-turn conflicts:
The highest one-hour left-turn volume was 18 vehicles and occurred on the eastbound approach
during the midday peak hour (between 1:15 PM and 2:15 PM). The opposing westbound through
volume during the same hour was 100 vehicles. Based on the low volume of left-turns and
opposing through movements, and the low rate of collisions at this intersection, it does not appear
that there is a need to control left-turn conflicts at this intersection. Thus, this warrant was not
found to be met.
2. The need to control vehicle I pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian
volumes:
The highest pedestrian volumes occurred during the midday peak hour, with a combined total of
43 pedestrians crossing the north, south, east and west legs of the intersection. The west leg of
the intersection had the highest volume with 23 pedestrians crossing during the peak hour,
accounting for approximately 14% of the total traffic at the intersection. The west leg, with the
highest volume of pedestrians, is not controlled by a stop sign and has no crosswalk. The
conversion of the intersection to all-way stop control would require traffic on the approach with the
highest number of pedestrian crossings to stop and would therefore improve the safety of
pedestrians. Thus, this warrant was found to be met.
3. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to
negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop:
Sight Distance for Northbound Traffic

The sight distance was measured at the northbound approach to the intersection. For northbound
traffic, sight distance to the west is dependent upon the size and number of vehicles parked on
the south side of 8111 Avenue between Mission Street and San Carlos Street. With no vehicles
parked on the south side of the street, the sight distance extends all the way to San Carlos Street,
approximately 230 feet. The presence of parked vehicles reduces the sight distance by about
half, to about 120 feet. This is less than the Caltrans corner sight distance standard of 275 feet for
25 mph, and is also less than the Caltrans stopping sight distance standard of 150 feet for the
same speed. Therefore, the available sight distance to the west does not meet the Caltrans
standard.
5
\\Gil-data-vm\fileserver\2016\Jobs\373481 8th Ave Ped Needs Assessment\Report\373481 Memo_rev2.docx
M
Mon
MACDONALD
Gilroy, CA 95020
For northbound traffic, sight distance to the east is impaired by two large trees on the south side
of the street. The sight distance to the east is approximately 95 feet. This is less than the Caltrans
corner sight distance standard of 275 feet for 25 mph, and is also less than the Caltrans stopping
sight distance standard of 150 feet for the same speed . Therefore, the available sight distance to
the east does not meet the Caltrans standard.
Sight Distance for Southbound Traffic

The sight distance was also measured at the southbound approach to the intersection. For
southbound traffic, sight distance to the west is affected by the presence of vehicles parked on
the north side of 8th Avenue between Mission Street and San Carlos Street. With no vehicles
parked on the north side of the street, the sight distance extends all the way to San Carlos Street,
approximately 230 feet. The presence of parked vehicles reduces the sight distance to about 130
feet. This is less than the Caltrans corner sight distance standard of 275 feet for 25 mph, and is
also less than the Caltrans stopping sight distance standard of 150 feet for the same speed.
Therefore, the available sight distance to the west does not meet the Caltrans standard.
For southbound traffic, sight distance to the east is impaired by a number of trees and a utility
pole on the north side of the street. The sight distance to the east is approximately 115 feet. This
is less than the Caltrans corner sight distance standard of 275 feet for 25 mph, and is also less
than the Caltrans stopping sight distance standard of 150 feet for the same speed. Therefore, the
available sight distance to the east does not meet the Caltrans standard.
Converting this intersection to art-way stop control would improve safety for all road users at this
location, as it would require all vehicles to come to a stop at the intersection before proceeding.
This would mitigate the below-standard sight distance at this intersection. Thus, this warrant was
found to be met.
The below-standard sight distance at the 8th Avenue I Mission Street intersection could also be
mitigated by prohibiting on-street parking on the north and south sides of 8th Avenue between
Mission Street and San Carlos Street, and by removing some of the trees on the north and south
side {and relocating the utility pole on the north side) of 8th Avenue between Mission Street and
Junipero Avenue. However, the prohibition of on-street parking, the removal of some of the trees
and the relocation of the utility pole would not be necessary with the implementation of all-way
stop control at the 8th Avenue I Mission Street intersection.
4. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and
operating characteristics where multi-way stop control would improve traffic operational
characteristics of the intersection:
The southern boundary of the City's Downtown Core crosses Mission Street along 8th Avenue,
and the City's truck route passes through the Mission Street I 8th Avenue intersection along 8th
Avenue. As a result, Mission Street and 8th Avenue provide access to a mix of residential and
commercial land uses in the Study Area.
The north and west legs of the intersection are similar to each other in that they tend to provide
access to more commercial land uses and they are both about 35 feet wide. The south leg is
6
M
MOTT M 1300-B First Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
MACDONALD
about 31 feet wide, and the east leg is about 20 feet wide. However, the east and south legs of
the intersection are similar to each other in that they tend to provide more access to residential
land uses. As a result, the operating characteristics of the two streets are similar.
Nearby intersections that are already multi-way stop controlled include the Junipero Avenue I 8th
Avenue and San Carlos Street I 8th Avenue intersections, which are adjacent intersections east
and west of the Mission Street 18th Avenue intersection. Therefore, placing a multi-way stop at
this location would be consistent with the surrounding area. Based on the preceding discussion,
this warrant was found to be met.
Based on the evaluation of the Caltrans multi-way stop warrant, and specifically the need to control
vehicle I pedestrian conflicts, the deficient sight distance, and the potential to improve the traffic
operational characteristics of the intersection, multi-way stop control is recommended at the Mission
Street I 8th Avenue intersection. The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City-Wide Traffic Safety Study also
recommended multi-way stop control at the Mission Street I 8th Avenue intersection.
Mission Street /8th Avenue & Junipero Avenue /81h Avenue Intersection Pedestrian Usage
Even if the Mission Street I 8th Avenue intersection is not converted to all-way stop control, it is
recommended that crosswalk markings be provided on the south, east and west legs of the intersection to
help alert drivers of potential pedestrian crossings. Pedestrians crossing the west leg of the Mission
Street I 8th Avenue intersection accounted for 47% of all pedestrian crossings during the 12-hour count
period, and eastbound and westbound traffic is not controlled by a stop sign. Therefore, adding a marked
crosswalk on the west leg would improve safety to pedestrians. It is recommended that marked
crosswalks on the south and east legs of the intersection be added to encourage and guide pedestrians
to use the pedestrian pathway on the south side of 8th Avenue between Mission Street and Junipero
Avenue.
Crosswalk markings could also be added to the east leg of the Junipero Avenue I 8th Avenue intersection.
This would be particularly appropriate given the presence of a paved meandering pathway on the east
side of Junipero Avenue north of 8th Avenue.
Based on field observations, pedestrian use of the north side of 8th Avenue is already discouraged by the
presence of vegetation and the steep embankment. The recommended signage in the conclusion of this
report would also promote use of the pathway on the south side of the street. Based on field
observations, the pedestrian pathway on the south side of 8th Avenue appears generally accessible for
pedestrians, runs along the entire block between Mission Street and Junipero Avenue and has no
apparent obstructions to pedestrians.
Based on the 12-hour count data, pedestrian usage at the Mission Street I 8th Avenue intersection is
approximately twice as much as the pedestrian usage at the Junipero Avenue I 8th Avenue intersection.
And, as noted above, most of the pedestrian activity at Mission Street and 8th Avenue occurs west of
Mission Street (i.e., traveling in a north-south direction). This indiqates that most of the pedestrian activity
at the Mission Street I 8th Avenue intersection is generated by land uses west of the intersection, which is
consistent with the density of commercial land uses west of Mission Street and north of 7th Avenue.
7
\\Gil-data-vm\fileserver\2016\Jobs\373481 8th Ave Ped Needs Assessment\Report\373481 Memo_revl.docx
M
MOTT
MACDONALD
Gilroy, CA 95020
ath Avenue Study Segment Pedestrian Usage
The number of pedestrians walking along the Study Segment (8th Avenue between Mission Street and
Junipero Avenue) were counted on September 27, 2016 between 7:00a.m. and 7:00 p.m. A total of 106
pedestrians were counted during the 12-hour count period. This represents an average of nine
pedestrians per hour for both sides of the street. The highest one-hour period occurred between 5:00
p.m. and 6:00p.m. with a total of 22 pedestrians for both sides of the street.
The pedestrian counts along the Study Segment were categorized in the following manner:
1. Walking on the north side of 8th Avenue on the street

2. Walking on either side of 8th Avenue and crossing to the other side
3. Walking on the south side of 8th Avenue on the street
4. Walking on the south side of 8th Avenue on the pedestrian pathway
Of the total number of pedestrians that walked on the south side of 8th Avenue (either on the street or on
the pedestrian path), 83% used the pedestrian path and 17% walked on the street, despite the presence
of a dedicated pedestrian path. The average number of pedestrians that walked on the south side of 8th
Avenue was six pedestrians per hour (one in the street and five on the path). The average number of
pedestrians that walked on the north side of 8th Avenue or crossed between the north and south sides
was three pedestrians per hour (two in the street on the north side and one in the street that crossed
between the north and south sides). Based on the rate of 83% choosing the dedicated path vs. walking
on the street, the average number of pedestrians that may be expected to use a pedestrian path or
sidewalk on the north side of 8th Avenue would be estimated at two pedestrians per hour.
The data shows that more pedestrians walk along the south side than the north side of 8~ Avenue. It
could be argued that if a pedestrian path was provided on the north side of 8th Avenue, some of the
pedestrians walking on the south side would choose to walk on the north side instead. The number of
pedestrians crossing the north and south legs of the Mission Street I 8th Avenue intersection were
approximately equal (i.e., 94 crossing the north leg vs. 92 crossing the south leg in a 12-hour period). If
half of the pedestrians currently using the pedestrian path on the south side were to use a P.edestrian
path on the north side, the average number of pedestrians using the pedestrian path on the north side
would be at most about four pedestrians per hour. This low pedestrian volume does not warrant the
construction of a pedestrian path on the..north side o1 8th Avenue, particularly when considering impacts to
the environment and the street character, and the cost of such improvements. Pedestrians that wish to
walk between the northeast and northwest ends of the Study Segment can do so by crossing 8th Avenue
at both ends of the segment and using the pedestrian path on the south side of the street, which would
only add about 12 to 15 seconds to their travel time. 1 The pedestrian count data along the Study Segment
are included in Appendix E.
1
This assumes the MUTCD-recommended walking speeds of 3.5 to 4.0 feet per second and a crossing distance of
48 to 50 feet (i.e., 24 to 25 feet at each end of the segment).
8
\\Gil-data-vm\flleserver\2016\Jobs\373481 8th Ave Ped Needs Assessment\Report\373481 Memo_rev2.docx
M
MOn
MACDONALD
Gilroy, CA 95020
Possible Increases in Pedestrian Activity
As previously stated, the Study Segment has two houses on the south side and one house on the north
side of the street (at the northwest corner of 8th Avenue and Junipero Avenue). In addition, the Carmel
Scout House currently exists and a new two-unit townhouse is proposed on the north side of the street.
The Carmel Scout House was closed in 2003 because its access was not ADA compliant. Efforts are now
underway to bring access to the Scout House into ADA compliance with the hopes of reopening the
facility. The reopening of the Scout House would increase pedestrian activity in the Study Area, although
it should be noted that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City-Wide Traffic Safety Study did not identify any
collisions involving pedestrians within the Study Area based on collision data covering the period between
January 1, 1998 and July 7, 2003, during at least part of the time that the Scout House would have been
open.
Based on the City's layout, most of the pedestrian activity generated by the Scout House is expected to
come from the west and south. In addition, free, unlimited parking is available in the Sunset Center North
137-space lot located at the southwest corner of Mission Street and 8th Avenue. It should be noted that
primary access to the Scout House is located on the west side of the facility on Mission Street. If
pedestrian access is needed towards the rear of the property, adding a pedestrian pathway between
Mission Street and the rear of the property would provide pedestrian access to the area of greatest
pedestrian usage.
The addition of marked crosswalks at the on the east, west, and south legs of the Mission Street I 8th
Avenue intersection would benefit the additional pedestrian activity at the Scout House. The new two-unit
townhouse is not expected to materially increase the pedestrian usage on alh Avenue.
Although field observations indicate that motorists are complying with the 25 mph speed limit (and the
2003 citywide study determined that the 85% percentile speed was actually 20 mph or less), the addition
of speed limit signs in the vicinity of the Mission Street I 8th Avenue intersection could serve to further
calm traffic and enhance the safety of pedestrians.
Given the narrow width of 8th Avenue and the steep embankment on the north side of the street, another
option for improving pedestrian access could be to pave the existing meandering pedestrian pathway on
the south side of the street. This would most likely be less cost prohibitive and disruptive to the
environment and character of the street than the installation of a sidewalk or pedestrian pathway on the
north side of the street.
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan
Mott MacDonald (formerly Higgins Associates) prepared the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City-Wide Traffic
Safety Study (October 2003), which is referenced in the Circulation Element of the 2010 City of Carmel-
by-the-Sea General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan (GP/CLUP). The Circulation Element states "The City
has approximately 30 miles of paved roadway, the majority of which are narrow and with the exception of
some thoroughfares in the downtown commercial district, the streets have no gutters or sidewalks. This
design was intentional, to preserve the small village character desired by the residents and sought after
by visitors. Contributing to the village character, streets are rarely paved to their full width and often
meander around trees and landscaped areas.n
9
\ \Gil-data-vm\fileserver\2016\Jobs\373481 - 8th Ave Ped Needs Assessment\Report\373481 Memo_rev2.docx
M
Mon
MACDONALD
Gilroy, CA 95020
The following are excerpts from the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Circulation Element:
G2-1, 02-1, P2-3: Prohibit the construction of formal sidewalks and concrete curbs in the R-1 district.
Allow informal pedestrian paths and drainage improvements where needed. Control other construction
(e.g., retaining walls, pavement, etc.) in the City's public rights-of-way.
G2-1, 02-2, P2-12: Improve traffic safety by installing and maintaining traffic signs, pavement markings,
traffic calming measures such as pedestrian islands, and other pedestrian-friendly features, where
necessary. Speed humps may be considered on a limited basis.
G2-1, 02-3: Preserve and enhance the qualities that contribute to the residential character of the
community, including quiet neighborhoods, low levels of illumination, lack of nighttime activity, safe
environment, pedestrian use of streets, and maintenance of property values by mitigating the adverse
impacts of high volume through-traffic.
Although the Study Segment forms the southern border of the Downtown Core, it also serves residential
land uses. The narrow road width and lack of sidewalk on the north side of the street are consistent with
the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the General Plan. Policy 2-12 of the General Plan encourages the
installation of signs and other pedestrian-friendly features to improve traffic safety. The recommendations
provided at the end of this memorandum are consistent with the General Plan.
Kev Findings
1. Field observations indicate that motorists are complying with the 25 mph speed limit. The City of
Carmel-by-the-Sea City-Wide Traffic Safety Study also reported that speeding was not a problem
along 8th Avenue. However, the installation of posted speed limit signs could further help to calm
traffic and enhance safety.
2. Both Study Intersections operate at acceptable levels of service.
3. The physical characteristics of the Study Segment are consistent with the Goals, Objectives and
Policies of the General Plan.
4. Sight distance at the Mission Street I 8th Avenue intersection does not meet Caltrans standards
for minimum comer sight distance or stopping sight distance.
5. Most of the pedestrians in the Study Area were observed crossing the west leg of the Mission
Street /8th Avenue intersection which is not stop controlled and has no marked crosswalk.
6. An increase in pedestrian activity in the Study Area is possible due to the Carmel Scout House
reopening and the development of a new two-unit townhouse.
7. A meandering pedestrian pathway is present on the south side of the street, while the Study
Segment has no sidewalk or pedestrian pathway on the north side.
10
M
MOTT
MACDONALD
Gilroy, CA 95020
8. The steep embankment on the north side of the Study Segment could make the installation of a
sidewalk or pedestrian pathway cost prohibitive and disruptive to the environment and character
of the street setting.
9. The General Plan encourages the installation of signs and other pedestrian-friendly features to
improve traffic safety.
10. Conditions that may indicate the need for installing a sidewalk include a history of collisions
involving pedestrians, high pedestrian volumes, excessive vehicular speeds and the lack of other
pedestrian facilities in the area. None of these conditions were found to be present along the
Study Segment. Therefore, based on the preceding analysis, a sidewalk on the north side of
8th Avenue between Mission Street and Junipero Avenue does not appear to be warranted.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are based on the preceding analysis.
1. Install multi-way stop control at the Mission Street I 8th Avenue intersection. The City of Carmel-
by-the-Sea City-Wide Traffic and Safety Study also recommended multi-way stop control at the
Mission Street I 8th Avenue intersection.
2. Add marked crosswalks to the south, east and west legs of the Mission Street I 8th Avenue
intersection.
3. Install modified R49 (CA) signs at the Mission Street I 8th Avenue and Junipero Avenue I 8th
Avenue intersections (similar to the signs in Figures 1 and 2) to direct pedestrians to use the
pedestrian pathway on the south side of the street and discourage pedestrians from walking
along the embankment on the north side of the street. The new signs should be consistent with
the scale and character of the existing signs in the area (see Figure 3).
USE CROSSWALK USE CROSSWALK

TOPATH ... + TOPATH
Figure 1 Figure 2
Recommended Sign for Recommended Sign for
Northeast Corner of Northwest Corner of
Mission St I 8th Avenue Intersection Juniper St I 81h Avenue Intersection
Modified R49 (CA) Modified R49 (CA)
Figure 3
Existing Sign at
Junipero St 18m Ave Intersection
11
~
~
Legend:
Project Study Area [, ' J
Downtown Core Boundary - .
Public off-Street Parking ~e
Map Source:
Excerpted from the carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan 1coastal Land Use Plan Circulation Element,
RBF Consulting, 2010
Exhibit 1
Mott MacDonald Project Study Area

373481 Exhibits.xlsx
Multi-Way Stop Warrant
8th Avenue I Mission Street Intersection
Traffic Count Data Traffic Count Summary
Vehicles Veh, Ped, Bike Total nme

Peds
Interval 8th Ave 8th Ave MlsslonSt Mission St MaJor Street Minor Street Both Period
Crossing
Start Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Approaches Approaches Approaches
Leg
UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT East West
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 115 19
7:15AM 0 7 0 0 1 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 201 45
7:30 AM 0 0 14 1 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 174 76
7:45AM 0 0 12 0 0 0 25 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 183 59
8:00 AM 0 1 6 0 0 0 27 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 193 62
ts!1~AU.. ::cr .:e~. d~ ,;~,o . :o> ::n: ::~ ~;1.; o ~~-. . ~; .. o/ ~~ b J '' 2 ;:2: :(1, .2 ... : 226 74
~S;30.At.t:' ,..o ,2: 221. , .I P /~!. f'34 ,_, 2., }0 .: 1~ J(.t~(; ;-o.'. 1~;' ,i_!J . ./';,1 .1 f ;:,"4' 218 80
. -~45:AM , to!': t /0. ..c. . :35
~:o.:'. ::'lo 2 hf f;cf ~~1~: ,ft' {!J'' :d~ ;Jf3\ :-.'r;i ~Nr. :s < 219 111
o:;
: $":OOAM :, Q..; .0> '13;. Q; :H): ,.:.2;, .)5,. ft ?/0~: .0. ' ~ f' .; j~ ,,.. -\2.,:. .J:?. . .;,2: :';0' ',{s;;. 298 83
9:15AM 0 0 17 0 0 2 21 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 4 3 0 4 248 96
9:30AM 0 1 15 0 1 20 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 15 228 78
9:45AM 0 3 14 2 0 0 31 1 0 0 0 0 3 4 180 72
10:00 AM 0 14 0 0 0 19 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 6
10:15 AM 0 10 0 0 19 3 0 3 0 0 2 1 5 1 6 Project Intersection
10:30 AM 0 2 19 0 0 1 25 0 0 2 2 0 4 3 3 Major Street Approach Average {8 Highest Hours}
10:45 AM 0 5 24 0 1 3 29 2 0 0 2 1 0 2 2 0 6 226 Vehicles per Hour
11 :00 AM 0 5 24 0 25 1 0 0 2 0 3 3 6 0 0
11:15AM 0 2 19 0 2 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 1 3 Minor Street Approach Average (8 Highest Hours)
11:30AM 0 3 17 0 0 4 13 1 0 2 2 0 0 3 4 5 4 0 82 Units per Hour
11:45AM 0 1 23 0 0 0 29 3 0 0 5 0 3 0 2 1 2
12:00 PM 0 3 28 0 0 1 21 3 0 0 3 0 2 2 2 1 2
12:15 PM 1 4 29 0 0 3 25 0 0 2 1 0 3 2 5 Warrant Criteria Criteria Met?
12:30 PM 0 0 21 1 0 2 22 1 0 0 1 0 3 4 4 0 12 Major Street Approach Average (8 Highest Hours)
12:45 PM 0 9 22 0 0 0 28 1 0 2 1 0 5 . 1 B 1 2 ~ 300 Vehicles per Hour No
1:00PM 0 4 11 2 0 30 2 0 0 3 2 0 3 5 0 2
:''1:15PM"' .o o ~-2&' t . . li jz'i "~-; ~s.:: ~1L' ./1 .. 3~ ~2.; ' ~-) -.;2..' ~3i' 4: :',o.:, ,;,;'Y Minor Street Approach Average (8 Highest Hours)
1 1~30.f:iM ;~:o., a 18 ' o: < o.
o ,:21 :-.1.1 ~o.!! :'1; ::-h :o,:~ :~ o: : 5"~ /3" '57.~ ).1;. 'Ff' ~ 200 Units per Hour No
';1:.45.1'~: :<:o~ )5: is :2. ,O.: f . 31 . ~ ,!. o. 7 0.. :. CL a. '.. 1;~ ;t - .tf' ~ 6'~ 1'-c 5,
2:ooPM o. ;s~ ;~ 3:; :o- ;t .22.o 2 o :: o '~.1 di'''.o .:2 .f4;; 1~' / o
',,.:a: .. Major Street Approach Average 80%
2:15PM 0 2 19 1 0 2 29 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 3 2 2 ~ 240 Vehicles per Hour No
2:30PM 0 3 27 2 0 21 0 1 0 3 0 4 4 3 3 7
2:45PM 0 4 20 0 0 17 2 0 2 0 1 0 2 8 5 23 2 Minor Street Approach Average 80%
~ 3:oOPM o:. >' 3 .53 1. .o o
25: :'4 o :1 4 :.z- .. Q .1. .s 1'- 2. :' 7 '-' ~ 160 Units per Hour No
~3:15 ~M. . o . 2 :u: 1: . o.: o : :1a s.. o . o'
.3 '.1 . .o~ ,t- ; 4:, 1 r.
-A~
::3:30.P.M: .o 3: 44' .1 io" . o . .'14 .n .1 . . 1 ,,3:' ..2' .1 . . :3:{ .;2} .)5. .2 : &: Meeting Signal Warrant No
.3!4SPM o, . 3 ~ '1.: o ~ 22 7 .-o - o. 'o z,- :o' '"O'< .. ;cs _;;o )4:' s. Collision History No
4:00 PM 0 0 3B 0 2 17 4 0 2 1 0 0 3 5 6 2 4 Minor Street Delay No
4:15PM 0 3 35 1 0 18 3 0 0 5 2 4 6 5 1 5
4:30 PM 0 2 42 2 0 3 23 7 0 0 3 2 6 5 1 6 Optional Criteria
4:45PM 0 3 25 0 0 10 7 0 0 0 4 2 3 7
5:00PM 0 2 32 0 0 15 4 0 0 2 2 0 1 3 4 9 1. Left-Turn Conflicts No
5:15 PM 0 31 1 0 2 17 8 0 0 3 0 2 3 2 7 5
5:30 PM 0 3 3B 0 0 22 4 0 2 0 0 2 6 1 0 3 2. Vehicle/Pedestrian Conflicts Yes
5:45PM 0 3 19 0 0 0 18 4 0 0 5 2 0 1 2 2 0 5
6:00 PM 0 3 31 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 4 0 7 3 2 0 7 3. Sight Distance Yes
6:15PM 0 0 35 0 0 0 20 6 0 0 0 0 2 2 13
6:30PM 0 3 18 1 0 1 15 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 6 4. Street Characteristics Yes
6:45PM 0 2 11 0 0 0 13 0 0 3 0 1 3 3 4
Notes:
1. Multi-Way Stop Warrant based on criteria in 2014 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD).
2. Total of both approaches' 8 highest hours highlighted In red.
3. UT = U-Tum, LT =Left-Tum, TH =Through, RT =Right-Tum
4. Bold type indicates peak morning, midday and afternoon/evening hours.
Exhibit 2
8th Avenue I Mission Street
Mott MacDonald
\\Gil-data-vm\fileserver\2016\Jobs\373481 8th Ave Ped Needs Assessmeni\Exhibits\
Multi-Way Stop Warrant.xlsxSummary
Multi-Way Stop Warrant
Primary Collision Factor (PCF)
1 - Failure to Yield
2- Unsafe Maneuver
3 - Backing Up
4- Unsafe Right-Turn
U- Unknown
Source: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Department
Exhibit 3
Locations of Reported Collisions
Mott MacDonald
373481 Exhlbits.xJsx Between 1/3/2014 and 1/2/2016
Appendix A - 8th Avenue Spot Speed Survey
Location: 811> 1\llonuo betwoon Mission Street and Junlpero Street Location: eth AVIIIIUe -""Minion Street 8nd Junlpero Street
50th ~tile speed (median) Averaqe Speed: Direction: WB 50th percentile speed (median): Ave<age Speed:
Dlrectlon:
DeyoflheWeelt:
EB
ThUJSday 85th percenlile speed (crlticalj:
18 mpt1
21 mph Standard Oel8tion: 3,.
19 rr.ph
Day ollhe Week: ThUrsday 8SIII ~til speed (criHcal);
18rnph
~~ mp~ SlandardOG'Yialian:
18 mph
2 mph
oar... June9. 2016 10 mph pace speed2 : 14 102J Mode': 16mpl1 Dale: June 9, 2018 10 mph pace speed': 14 lo~3 Mode': 17mpl1
TimeoiOay: 10:00 NJ. 10:30 NJ. Porcelli In pa.;a speed: 90'fo % Exeeading Speed Umil 10% Time ol Day: 10:00 1oM - 10:30 rw. Percent in pace speed: 100~ % ExeHding Speed Limil 0%
Poste4 Speed Llmit3: 25 Range Of speeds: 15., l6 Poslocl Speed Limit': 25 Range of speed$: 15 .. 21
Vllhldes ObM!IIed: 10 Veltlcleo Obserwd: 10
~
~ -
r-
... 111) I.
..., __
~
.
Sp.oad Numb<~< PO!ftl\l CWnul NumbPorcont. C<rN4
!mph) aiObs. c!Tolol P -
iL" (mphl otObo. otT<bl Percef1l L
./ v
v
. --- --
152 20 20
15
16
2 20
0
20
:10
./
~ll 1 , 1) 30 - L
/
17 10 30 ~ /_
- r- !1
18
2
0
20
0
!Ill
50 L
2 20 50
18
10 10 60 ,. --- 19 ' 10 50 70 ! - - r - v
t.
20 2 20 80 20 2 20 1>0 /_
21 1 In 90 I 21 2 20 L
22 0 ~ 90
v leo
23
24
0
0
~
0
90
90
:-- -
1-- - ./ ~ . L
./""'_
25
:!tl
D 0
"'
90
1011
j: /
I
I~
/
/
v
/
30 :10
V-
20
7
./
~
-
20 r-.=z
.
10 10
I
-- - -
.
--
1---1----
0
15 .. 17 . . r.o 21 22 Zl .. 20 15 .. 11 10 11 20
~
~---
--~
r .- -
1
: - - -------
. ~
!-!
i 1
.
~
I 1--1...~1 I
r.: r. I
I' , ~
8
~ 'I
f r- ~---~~-- -----. I,
~ .
~
t~ .rl r- f -
I'll ~
. ,,
lj, t.. . 20
~
r:
.. . "
~
.
J
" l~t-.ht
21
" .,...tntpf\1
~
1
llhmtis tnc:l'e than one mode, 1118 ~ I9Md Is prvwnkd In tM aunwn.ry. .!191& ' r there it morfhan OM-mode, the highest speed 11 ~In !he tc.Wnmmy.
'4 ru.. 1s mort tMnono 10 mph pace t.pMd. 08 ~ b: P'nanled lntMwmmwy.
1
ttwets more ti\Mono 10 mpt\p~ spetd,lhe avwagei&pret,entecS tn .-..~.
~to~orsto~fin'nOOS!Odmd.ayaodotllloloca1iO'lcftnespoOd....,.Y.
'F><f-lo-.dl!milas-ondoylnllll""'-."'llla--.
Appendix A-1 Appendix A-2

Mott MacDonald Mott MacDonald
373481 EB Speed Survey.xts EB 8th Avenue Spot Speed Survey 373481 WB Speed Survey.xls WB 8th Avenue Spot Speed Survey
Appendix B -Intersection Traffic Count Data Appendix B - Intersection Traffic Count Data
www.idaxdata.com www.ldaxdata.com
Mission St
8th Ave idaK UT
_.l01ionSI
l!culhl>ound
LT TH RT
~;: l o'!.."':.':,
L
Date: 06/01/2016
A ~ Count Period: 7:00AM to 11:00 AM
0 0 1 0 9
N 7:15AM 0 1 7 0 0 1 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 34
Peak Hour: 8:15AM to 9:15AM
7:30AM 0 0 14 1 1 1 17 1 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 1 37 0
~lr~
_j
7:45AM 0 0 12 0 0 0 25 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 42 122
& 8:00AM 0 1 8 0 0 0 27 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 42 155
Jii.b t..s -~ ~-- :;~~~?~~i~';E:t

9:15AM 0 0 17 0 0 2 21 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 4 3 53 236
,:) s~ 9:30AM 0 1 15 1 0 1 20 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 8 53 220
~ ~j ~!! ~ NE3 8.~ ~

.' ft.\
:...1
6
9:45AM 0 3 14 2 0 0 31 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 4 61 216
1t!- TEV: 23Q -12& ' 10:00 AM 0 1 14 0 0 0 19 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 41 208
~ s;:::; ~ tfO~o~!~-mrr== ~ r.; a

n, ot.87 rf;:
10:15 AM 0 1 10 0 0 1 19 3 0 3 0 1 0 2 1 5 46 201
PHF: 10:30 AM 0 2 19 0 0 1 25 1 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 4 58 206
!0:45AM 0 5 24 0 I 3 29 2 0 0 2 1 I 0 2 2 72 217
PH~ 57}\~ ~;
I
CountTo1al I 0 18 211 6 I 2 19 391 28 I o 5 9 12 I 2 IS 29 -42 I 787 I o
0 ..... ..,. C"'t
;
. n
1: EB
HV%:
3,2% 0.~ I 0 Cl 0
! WB 3.5% 0.87 ~ .o . '
1i
s; NB Q.O% 0.67
SS 16.0% O.S7
~ "' TOTAL 4.6% 0.117 lnlllrv Hu ~Vohicle Totllo lllc-;d.. I P.-tti- ICrosoing L..,l
Start I EB WB NB Sll Tolal l EB WB N6 SB Tobll Eosl West N<wll SOUlh Total
7:00AM I 0 0 0 0
7:15AM
7:30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2
7:45AM 0 3 0 Q 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0
Four-Hour Count Summaries 8:00AM 1 0 0 0 I 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 2
~~nt~~~m':l-.
81~ Ave Mlsotan St ...,1n
Interval 15 Rolling
EHII>OIIn<l Soollllbootn<l
l!lort Totll o...tt......
~ u m u m m
:~Eaa:lr:.@~ ~:r:J~cRt~;s:;;H;!-~'t~i-tll 'llf1,~it:~;r.~~~~t

9:15AM I 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 0
9:30AM 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 2 17
9:45AM 0 0 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 2 0 11
. ;~:1Er~~-}~r,.~~52' l~. t:)l,:..:t.:~'.;~:l ~:::::1~1 i E.I:.;. :: ~~:2~~-~~1 ~:S~Ih:.:

!O:OOAM 1 1 0 o 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 l! 1 0 7
!0:15AM
10:30AM 10
"""'""">' -,..,page.
Nol: Forsllh-.hour coom1 !0:45AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 8 1 0 7
lntorval
Start TIIU!I
CountTo1al I 7
'lti8i<ttow I 2~
17
' . ,.~ 4
30
-iN "; I
3
: ,....
3 0
o . .
0 5
.,:.;z : . z
10 75
.18"
17
"fi
19
. :1:
121
34
~:E; 51~ii,i11'1%,~;~j-; "!tl-~lf; l:~l c~H~:t~i!i~~~~

'l'illliHriur' .~!' . s ;o '4 11 1 , . : , o a.. ' 2 2 : 11 8 : .,;. :J4
Deon Fouche: 415 757 n14 deon.fauche@iclaxdata.com Deon Fouche; 415-757- n14 deon.fauche@idaxdata.com
Appendix B - Intersection Traffic Count Data Appendix B ~Intersection Traffic Count Data
www.idaxdata.com www.ldaxdata.com
Mission St
m- idaK
Four-Hour Count Summaries Heav~ Vehicles
8th Ave
lntrval
St. It Eastbound ~-
Tot~~~ ~ One
~~ Hour
UT LT TH Date: 06101/2016
7:00AM 0 0 D I D 0 0 O I O 0 0 0
A ~ Count Period: 11:00AM to 3:00PM
_j .:!~. L
N
7:15AM Peak Hour: 1:15PM to 2:15PM
7:30AM
7:451W 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4
~
8:00AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5
ii~m~t~~[t1~~.~.~,~} .J ! t.U~
~ . ';',-~l''t;: "b.
-,.
II ~-----. ; ~-
;{IIDJO-? .
9:151W 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 o:> "-11
~ o~_-.~-~ ~.. ~1o N~ ~-'_;~ o ~

~ ,,...J
~
9:30AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:45AM ----';> TEV: 304 - 1
... o
118 93- PHF: O.S6
rs ~ OO 0~ Si!"
~;::Fr
!O:OOAM
!0:15AM
7
-0 109 oi1) e::s ~o
r--li- - -
8
nit PH~1
!0:30AM
I I -:,
1
10:45AM 10
I: ~ ~ 0;;11
HV%:
3.4~ o.~
C<>untTotal
P~liHaf J D Cl 2 13 .. ~ 0
O
0
0 : I.: 1
. t
1
O..
4
3
30
,.11
0 N
WB
EB o o
1
~1 i~
4.3% 0 ,84
NB 11.8% 0.71 ~
Four-Hour Count Summaries Bikes
! SB
TOTAl
0.0%
3.8%
0.72
0.86
~:.n IC:'=r
lnt.rval
Slllrt
7:00AM
7:1SAM
7:30AM
AM~
Four-Hour Count Summaries
~t~<'; ~~~~~~b~~ ~.t~~Bg;r~t;~:.::i;~;:.:~bt;~:J:~ ti.~ .:.J<.~ ~:\: ~~~-. f~ . ,.;

N5
8:00AM 01 0
0 o0 0
0 0
2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 Itt! Avo
.f _o :;.~ ... ~~~:~. o~:~ _, ,~ . ~:~~~~~.:~~~~ ;.~~~:~qt :.-~~~:~~,
Itt!- MISIIIon St MlSllonSt
t~ ~~~ N{ :: ; ~~0 ::~~,~~~~;.~~.. ~-~( :;~ .o~ ; !.~ - ~:~~~;;;o::-:
ln!Airval
Start
~
EoslboUnd
U ~ ~
I ~
Weslbound
U ~ ~
I ~
N<lltitlound
U ~ ~
I ~
Soutllbound
U ~
1 ;:;"!" I:.::~,
1
I
TH

:~,: ~~~:;.<. 't:;~~~:~~~:~)::;~rm: . : :~ tk!:rft<:~~\:~~ ~;I,~~,:~.~;~;~~~.!} :.il~:: i;~;;-;;. ~)~;{;;;1::~~= : ~p:_::r
;~_:;;,;~: ,;,~~: :)~,:~~tb. ~:; : i~hJ~ :'.
9:15AM
9:30AM
0
o
D
0
0
0
~;:{ :::'~' ~} :i.:::~&:.:;;ti :.2~. : ;)l . ~J :;
0
0
0
0
i } ,,
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1 8
-~ : 1i$ P.YJ ., ~'"li:'"'''1Ci,~, ~~: .~'o ,,,;;t: ,-.:;,:a,,,."'-' 2 . o/i'; !I ~- jtll 't~ '"'':O 'li<: 1/ 0::<:_<.$' .... , .. ~~ ~:~
,;.~~PI! 'o'''i-:' s<~ ;g ,; 't' ,;o.:*-,.):A'.,:ii'' ' 2" : .o~\: .o :~.~1 1,. .
Y,.2, _ ;e:.;::~2 ~':- .': . u\' ,~:'li . ,< 3o~"' ~.:
~: :t:;~r-~i~~~~E118t~k1~~;~~~~v~}:.::~~6;~:~:1:t;,~~~-r:1~J:!,:: .I ~ ~:!:~~.'
9:45AM
10:001W
10:15AM
10:3DAM Nolo: For .,,~18e-hour COUnl&ummlll)', - " ' " " - -
10:4$AM 1n~rv1l Ha~ Vehicle Totals BlcveJ~s P - . b l -rctaasl'i!z_4iii_

CouniToflll 0 0 Start EB WB NB SB Total ES WB NB SB Tollll Eaot Wesl Na1t! Sa\1111 Total
PtitliovF 0 .0
~;~~ 1ft1J,h~r~ ~.~ :t~~:rtf:i~!~:L ,::~:ii~~:,~~i~t

1.. . . ,~ : I .o . 0. 2;.
Nolo: U-Tum otumea ffN bilm""' hiCiuded in Lofl.. Tum. II ""Y
Puk'ttout ' 4 S ,'z: l : . ' . ..ff ' .. 0 . 0 :o .II . D. ... 2 23 " ':. -18 ' _,., , .Q;
Oeon Fouche: 415-757- 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com Oeon Fouche: 415 757 7714 deon.fOIJChe@ldaxdata.com
- -.---
www.idaxdata.com www.idaxdata.com
Four-Hour Count Summaries Four-Hour Count Summaries He~ Vehicle

llhAYO llhA>Ie MlaslonSI
15-mln Rolllflil
,=~ Io':"::.
fntarvat Interval
Stan easlbo<lnd wes-.a Soutlbound
Total OnoHour Start
UT lT Tl( RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
I 1:00AM 0 5 24 26 1 0 3 3 6 72 11:00AM
11:15AM 0 2 19 18 51
11:1&AM
11:30AM 0 3 17 13 54
11,301\M
I 1:45AM
12:00PM
u
0
1
3
23
28
29
21
67
66 I 244
238
11:45At.l
2
12:00PM
12:15 PM
12:30PM
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
I I 2
1
10
10
9
g~~ 0 0 3 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1:00PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ifiHW!i~-;t~t!ff
2:15PM
2:30PM
~9 0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 11
Count Tolal I 1 58 3&3 15 I o 24 378 27 I o 8 zr 20 I s 43 47 76 I 1.082 I o 2:45PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.~- ~~.~=-~ ~~
Count Total I o 2 9 o I o o 14 2 I o 2 o o I o o 2 2 I 33
""*~::..0---::'T~F II:,,"t ....s ;.. ~r;f o .. ,.t O .o I 'lh ' o.. ~:Q ':<';o .; l . -t1 I O -<.
'o -..
1Nole: Fo<lr-ltour counl """'""'IY ..a/limes irlciOO&IIHY)' vehicles but cludl>lcyclls in ovora/1 count. Four-Hour Count Summaries Bikes
-IYol Haavy Vehlde Totals
~" Podntllans !CIOSslng Log) jntrvaJ llh- ~~ , Ro-
~ WB NB SB Tolel l EB WB N8 SB Total I East Wast Nllf1h Soulh Total Start
LT
Eaalbo<lncl
TH RT
T- OM Hour
11:00AM O j O 0 0 0 0
I 1:15AM 3 11:00AM 0 O I O 0 D I D D D I D
11:30AM 11:1SAM
11 :4SAM
lll
11:30AM
12:00PM 11:451\M
12:15PM !2:00PM
12:30 PM 0 1 I 1 0 0 D 1 0 12 0 0 12 !2:15PM
I
12:45 PM 3 0 0 0 :t 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 5 12:30 PM
1:00PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 D 0 0 2 0 0 2
~
~~~!i:~~- ;11:.~ ,: ."'f. _'"J-1. 1'i" f.!-:f.~ .~-~-~: >~~~;.~1,f.~,[~~~~~~~f:!;~~~f-A<,.~l.~ ' !:l >: i;~ ~'
1:00PM
12:-'ISPM 0
0 0
0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:15 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 8
::~1;;~ ~z;!~t::,~;~~ :T~--*~::::;.~:). :,:;~t~r~~::;:~-: ~~;:t~~.J::f~_:.:;::.~ {~:.1~ ~i~i_'.\?:
2:30 PM 0 2 0 1 . 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 0 6 111 ~:~ i ::i'~~~ a.iA.~~ :;~~:;~ ~~!'-?m!.>iiAot: . ~
. . . .. , .~ ,.~, ..
2:45PIIol 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Q 23 2 2 0 27 2'15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0
Coun1 Tolaf I1 16 2 4 33 1 1 0 0 2 39 62 14 25 140 2:30PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
':p.akHour .- <1 : s 2 o 11 .o O . o o o 2 23 11 ..n 2:46PM
CountTollll I o 1
l'~lf~ilt-J :-T!J,:C~~':::o-----c,
o I o 1
ii ~l~ !!-;- ..:o :~ '. .. ....: ,.,. : :,' o'.
Nolfl: U-Tum 110/ume# lbrl>iltes ore Included in Lett-Tum, If any.
Deon Fouche: 415-757- n14 deon .fouche@klaxdata.com Deon Fouche: 415-757 7714 deon.fouche@idaltdata.com
Appendix B - Intersection Traffic Count Data Appendix B - Intersection Traffic Count Data
Mission St
8th Ave idaK
FourHour Count Summaries
lnlarvol
Stott
~
8th Aw
Ea&-.nd
U ~ ~
I
I ~
8th Ave
Weslbound
U ~ ~
I
I ~
111o1on St
NDrll't>cunO
U ~ M
I
I ~
lll811ion St
Solllhbound
U ~ M
1 =
1
I C:~:~
L
Date: 06/01/2016
A
~~~i~~fi~i~1,~~~~~5r~!~i1.
.ew..ti2w: Count Period: 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM
N
Pttak Hour: 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM
~tr~
_j l5
~~
J I l. UL
., . . _j ',~~i:;:'\,;11
~-tmJll~~
t4J
4;00 PM
4:15PM
4:30PM
-4:45PM
5:00PM
5:15PM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
3
2
3
33
35
42
25
32
31
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
o
0
0
2
1
3
1
1
2
17
18
23
10
15
17
4
3
7
7
4
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
1
5
3
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
2
3
0
1
1
1
0
0
6
4
1
2
3
~
5
I
1
1
3
3
6
5
5
2
4
2
79
84
97
55
6C1
73
337
345
351
315
302
291
~0
28 5:30PM 0 3 38 0 0 1 22 4 0 2 2 0 0 2 6 1 81 275
5
o!:> oUi "'
~ ~ 0~.;~ ~~ Jl. "'~ ~1 ~
79 109 ' 5:45 PM 0 3 19 0 0 0 18 4 0 0 5 2 0 1 2 2 5!1 276
11..J lEV: 358
r
-
oo
'
~,~ s -" 01/
6:00PM 0 3 31 0 0 o 16 o o o o 4 0 7 3 2 66 276
~ .:0 ~m:ixHr.F
-~ ~}
PHF: 0.9 2 ----;. ...,1
17:; 0 186 6:15PM 0 0 35 0 0 0 20 6 0 0 I 0 0 1 2 2 67 270
n, t r c FflO;'\ 6:30PM
6:~5PM
0
0
3
2
18
11 0
1 0
0
1
0
15
13
5
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
0
0
0
\
2
3 3
1 47
38
238
218
I
0 HV%: PHF ;i:f)Xf:t: Count TDia1 I o 38 529 10 I o 14 283 80 I 1 9 31 25 I 4 37 53 53 I 1,187 I o
.- N ~ ,._ ~ EB 1.6% 0.83 0 0
,;! WB 6.4% 0.88 1

::~; OlD
::: 11 :;:
NB
SB
TOTAL
o.a%
7.5%
3.6%
0.11
0.83
0.90
Note: Four-hour count SUfl'lmaiY IJOAimel include heBvy ~o~V~JIIQ'es our fiXCIUCill DIGYQ1'.3 n
SB
a~"" COUIJf.
Tollll East Wosl

~~~~1;1~1111 i~i1I!i~f1 ;~~i!jiiit:(
4:00PM 1 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 11 1 18
8th Avo I 8111 Ave I llllisolan 81 I Ml..lon St 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 S 7 2 15
lnhiY.e
Stan Easlbcolnd
u
I Wealbound
u
I No<lhbound
u
I Sou-.-nd
u
I '~:~ I !:':::.~, 4:30PM 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 R 5 4 f6
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ffl ~
-~ 17
;f~~. :fl~f.~zt :~:~:~;5:~~:~~: :1*l~:;ni. :~ Iit~it :.~i: ~i

~~ !9
~~ 2!1
~~ 14
~~ 8
:.~~t~ :\~ .,:;:-;a~~r!~.~\~' '~;:\:!:_!;Z,'.~ 3 ;-~.:~-~:!--1

INottt: For.- three-hourcounrtiU(nmaty, atB n&zr fMI!Ifl
fi _;l~:r!~~ z;(}~ ;,'E'_,.' ;}f.: ~~
-~
~~
~~
13
4
6
2 8 15
16
75
13
Coun1Tolal I 6 11 4 27 I o 2 o 24 92 53 48 227
lntv~ Htovy Vthlcle Tobit BiC~ - - ,--- -- Pedeolttw (cr.,oolng I.Ol ' l"wkliaw' I ''J -,', 7 3. >-~_Tq"--; 2 ;.II o< :.~-- - ~ 1 i:ll :.. ,. - ._. .s_ ...a-,~, ,._,.
Start EB W8 NB S8 Total EB WB loll! SB Total Easl WHt NOI'II Sou'l> tni.Jl
, ii$-. :}.::r~I~fr !-~fi.!, :I--~~i:.t- !~I.t: P~:-:!:: _,~:tc:i{t'I,f~~~~;,-~~J.~;;~~ii~

:hakHi>ur 'a ' :. .,- < o , ..'-a-.. n .. o 2 .o .2 - s 11 s , , .,.
Deon Fouche: 415 - 757 n14 deon.fouehe@idaxdata.tom Oaon Fouche: 415-757-7714 deon.foLIChe@idaxdata.com
Appendix B - Intersection T raffle Count Data Appendix B -Intersection Traffic Count Data
Junipero Ave
Four~our
lnmrv..
Start
Count Summaries Heavy Vehicles
lthtwo
~..lbourd ,;:." I:.!t:. BthAve ldaK
_j ~ ~1r~h.u L.
UT LT TH Date: 06101/2018
A
. ..': i,.,:
. :_,,tt~~,
~ - .."~ 1."..~,~~~~~~"~1'' =i:~.:.~-~~~;;~\..#-."'k~i~S1!~~.!~~H,~'ftcn~~~~~i'J)a.!~f Q. N ~ Count Period: 7:00AM to 11:00 AM
-~;i~~;~ .;i;.~~Jlf-~;;~ };_]~:,.,f_E~i;

~:'":,~:. ;)i_.L;::~~-:; ;j.::t~b =;~:~:~; :j;~-j~ Peak Hour: 7:45AM to 8:45AM
4:00PM
4:15PM
0
o
0
o
1
o
0
o
0
o
0
o
1
o
0
o
0
o
0
o
0
o
0
o
0
a
0
o
0
o
1
o
3
o
13
11
~
ll:~J
4:30PM 10
JJ ::a fi * ... o\
4'45PM
~ ~
5:00PM J.
5:15PM 0 .::> L.2 ' 2

~ 0~ ~ ~:'.0
5:30PM
5:45PM ~
126 52--'
TEV: 506 ...... 8 ....- . .., ~2
"'
6:00PM -+
59 - """ ... ,...
0 ---,>9 i:'l 3 ~-..
6:15PM
c:
n0i . . 1;: ..r .~ I O~fJ';_~
6!30PM 3, 1: <-{Ql(ID- ' :
I 0100~11
6:45PM 0
Coun!Tolal
J>etoi<Hour .
I 0
o
0
,o ,
6 O l D
. 3.'' ;, .o j':o
0
D
9
s
2 1 0
,; ,.2v l o .< o
0
.o
0 1
:.o .. . ' 'f .;J.,. ,~~ .1 : ~
EB
WB
HV%:
~.1%
5.6%
PH:-1
0. :
0.56
~
Four~our
lnler'"'l
Start
Count SUmmaries Bikes
~~
Eaal!>ounc
~
To1al
~ 0....
~- Hour
j3 li ~
NB
S8
TOTAL
3.8%
3.7%
4.0%
0,56
0,83
0.85
M)
LT TH RT LT TH RT
\5iEml11 ~~SI i!Etfi~~:}!t,~iE~

4:00PM 0 :j. a 0 0 0 0 0 0 II 0 0 0 0 2
lnlatYol
~two u- ~ ~~
4:15PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ EIISibound Tor.. Ono Hour
4:30PM UT LT TH
4:45PM
5:00PM
5:15PM
5:30PM
5:45PM
6:00PM
615PM
Note: For ol flllftff.horK t:Dtml....,mary, ,.,.m.,rtp-.
6:30PM
6:45PM I 0 0 0 1nta"'oa Hnvy Velllclo Totll lllcvcln h c l - (CmllngL~
Coun1Total I 0 a o o a I 2 I o Sblrt EB WS NB S8 Tolal ~8 WB N6 68 To111 EMI We11 Noll\ 8o11111 To111
Peait!iOW'T -co-- o: ,. ;. , ., o..: ...
:;ES~ ,~~t.~j;f~~H~fl.;r~ i~k~~~;;: :lt~~~ltll'f!j;;
0 ,. o"-f> ~'2 '''' 1 '~.o
Nato: U-Tum 110/U~Nslorbike
'
.,,. InclUded in Lefi.Tum, If eny.
:'ll'oak'HoW .. .,. , ('"'"" . -,,.,,:.. ~. ''i,>.., 2 o , o ,. "2 : 1.:. . z .J to
OeonFouche:415757 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com Oeon Fouche: 415 757-7714 deon.fouche@idaxdala.com

Appendix 8 - Intersection Traffic Count Data Appendix B- Intersection Traffic Count Data
Four-Hour Count Summaries Four-Hour Count Summaries Heavy Vehicles

&thl<v 15...., 1n
lntorvaf
Eos_,ncl Total
Rollin; lntervlll ~~ u- , R~
Stan
UT LT 'IW
OneH~ur Start Eas_,ncl T-1 0...-
UT LT 'IW
7:00AM
7:15AM 0 0 0
7:30AM 0 0 0 Q ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ~ 0 0 1 0
~
~E~~~::m.:~~~~{~el
9:45AM
9;00AM
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
5
2
20
18
6 9:15AM 17
7 !1:30AM 10
2 9:45AM 5
s 10:00AM
10:30AM 16 24 24 25 1 99 393 10:15AM
10:45 AM I a 21 2 3 I o 3 24 , 28 27 I 119 I 404 !0:30AM 10
Count Total I o 199 18 22 I o 37 35 12 I o -
28 -
3(
,3- -
10 14 551 374 I 1.818 10~SAM 16
.
~:;rt~k~-~(!~s ~:1:f3~E~~!~~,il .;};1:. z -~~l--1-.~~ :.'.,.r':V.,t"~;
221~'11~ ~- ~.-. ,.--o::>
:. !:.; : ',;: :,~{
CountTollll I o 5 0 1 I o 1 2 o I 0 3 8
-:~~tliot.r.Te';.c-~--2~ ~ i:~1B::.tc-:-;cl_e~)- . -!l "l'i o~!..-ii? .3
0 I o
. , - Icc~
18 12 I 49
.: 7-' ~ ,, . ,I .211 ,_;o.,
No!e: Four-hour countournn>:Jty 1'1>/Umos
lntarval
Slllrt
7:00AM
7:15AM ~ 0
7:301<1.! 0
0
0
0
'
"'cl""" II<Javt ""niCIQ~ but ciUd bicycles in overell count.
01
1
0~
1
2
0
0
0
0
o0
0
o0
0
o0
0
o2
0
31
0
2
0 4
Tol&l
4
Four-Hour Count Summaries - 8lluts
Into Mil
St.ort
7:00AM
7:15AM
LT
0
0
8th Avo
Eaa11Jound
TH
0
0
RT
0 1 0 0 0 1 0
1
= 1!:":.!,
:;~.!t: ~ .Ti~~::T~:-::~.Y!;1f:::;:~- . -: ,:f::z: :- .~i-; :_ _; _;: : .,~.:-! ~: .:::.:.;~F!~~?!l~~t~1ki.~~~f';:{:: ,.;;;:Y .;:~: ~,.-~ :!:r->:.:::~~'.:1:':~:~,.~,.,.,,.~: ~
: ....: .:}~;:. e~. ::'': ,. _.,:.~_, .:,~tc:~
> "'_:;~l;:r:~-.~
-~al!~ :~#~~~~~;w~!~~ ;.~~F~~~;..\'!'i;ft}':il!. !i'56~~~1f~~~,m
8:45AM
9:00AM
9:15AM
9:30AM
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
2
1
2
5
2
2
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
2
3
0
0
1
2
0
0 5
~~~~-i~~:~!~:~~r~
9:00AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9:15AM
9:45AM
9:30AM
!O:OOAM 13
9:45AM
10:15AM 3
!0:30AM !O:OOAM
10:15AM
.,, ,,
10:45AM 1
CouniTolal 6 3 29 49 14 18 16 22 70 !0:30AM
....... HoJif ,. :&.' 3 1S 20 I 1 2
- '2 J. ' ~.; :~' --::ttl !0:45AM
CountTotal
-~it:tk.lll-L: .II :.J..~
0
2
2
0
0
e I..:.. 0
. :. J .: o ' i :
Nom: UTum!IOiuma$fo/'blkesaraincluded/IJLotr-Tum. iteny.
Deon Fouche: 415 757- 7714 deon.fouclte@idaxdala.com Deon Fouche: 415 757 n14 deon.fooche@idaxdata.c.om
www.idaxdata.com W\\>w.idaxdata.com
Junlpero Ave
8th Ave idaK Four-Hour Count Summaries
lnlolrval ~
Wnlbour
Date: 06101/2016 ~ RT I UT LT TH RT I UT L lH K1 Ul LT lH RT
L
A
N ~ Count Period: 11:00 AM to 3:00PM
Peak Hour: 1:45PM to 2:C5 PM
11:00AM
11;15AM
24
19
1 2 25
31
2
0 ,
2 2
1
27
29
23
17
116
104
11:30AM 14 22 2 2 2 35 14 105
~
_j.~J
11:45AM 21 20 2 1 3 33 26 124 449
- Eli1! 12:00PM
!2:15PM
12:30PM
24
24
18
26
31
38
6
2
2
1
,
1
2
2
3
33
50
22
23
23
128
147
459
502
;.,;~._,
38 136 633
:;: ! ~ .... . ~~""0 . ~. 12:45F'M 3 59 28
I l.UL,
~ 11
~ :~
." ; . ~ J~ ~0 l
r
91_J TEV: 601 - '
~ 6- PHF: 0.9 ,....16 ~ ~ O ~'; ~ ~ ~D 01)
31
~
: .J. \ <E-!IDJ[]{}- Fv
n, t r c:
0
111
14 , .
11
.:~
PHF~ dit}~~.
I
!I! HV%; CcuntT-l I o 330 29 64 I o liD 36 20 I 1 41 ~ 43 I 21 33 644 351 I 2,1&7
~ ~ ~ ~ 0.~ .-...... ~ ,.,.., .

-
,.
:
-1
EB
WB
3.6%
B.1% 0.69
' c o o
l
0'0
t~;_~a~~~r.
li
NB 1.6% o.ae
on .., -, SB 2.2% 0.89
~ !:! TOTAL 2.5% 0.90 lntarvll Huw Vehicle Tor.! I BIC<1H
...!!:!!.......B WB HB SB TO!al l E8 WB fiB SB Total ! East Weal Total
11 :00AM o I o o
11:15AM
11:30AM 12
11:45AM 6
Four-Hour Count Summ11ries 12:00PM
12:15PM
lntaiYII ~~ ~ ~ ~~ !2:30PM
Start Eastbc>Und Tot.! One Hour
UT ~T TH 12:45 PM
\' ;ii~,~~i~;l: ~~41+Er ~~:fi:.,E~:I ,r~,i si>i ::;~a;,~

1:00PM
1:15PM 0
0 1 0 2 3
it~+EJ :;. ~::!~;Tt~z,! . ;<~,:)~~:~:i ;~~~lL;:! <~; -~~~:i," :~ ~~z;. -~ E~, -l~,:;~-~
Noto: FDI' elltJrGIJ..htXH t;OUfiJ :;ummlll)', .wv IH'IJCf Pllfi'J.
1
~ 0
8
0
38
2
11
0
25
2
llO
ln;:lll I EB ~ va:le To: Tot81
~ ~ ~
.p..kiiOW :J ~-----:;-: -"j';, . . "" 'fir" 1--o: --- o' 'o :_.- o: " '4 . a' - _, ..__ -, '1f ....: .2tl
- :_~E~-rr.~:i :-~w::;k;~.,.~:. ~ ;:.~\ iY~: .~ %~ :- ~. :~.--~ ~,-1- ~~:i"~t~)l,:~t?:;:t~~~i:E~-:~,~-

POIII<H.,... I " c ~ a a .-. o 1 4 a- . ,, , 11- 211 .
Deon Fouehe: 415-757-7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com Deon Foluche: 415 . 757- 7714 deOn.fouche@idaxdata.com
Appendix 8 - Intersection Traffic Count Data Appendix 8 - Intersection Traffic Count Data
Four-Hour Count Summaries Four-Hour Count Summaries Heavy Vehicles

- - ,..,. 8th 1\Vtt
Weatbound
I
15...,111 l'loiUng
foUl Ono Haur
lnUrval 8ltll\ve IS.In IRolling
Sbort EKib<Mld Total 0.... H...,
UT LT TH RT UT LT TH UT LT TI-l RT
:r~r:5 m~rrm ~11!:I ~~~1~ ;~}

0 4 2 0 1 5 83
84
79
474
1
5
7
4
0
4
1
I
1
0
49
43
956
17
15
4320
u
186
181
221
173
76<1
750
780
761
\~~~~~~~rnr~~~~w~:~l
4:30PM
4:45PM
13
11
511 34 ~ 155 ~
52 36 15 ID 711 6:00PM 8
48 29 ~ ~ ~ 5:15PM
29 24 13 w ~ 5:30PM
22 18 u w m 5:45PM
28 18 ~ m ~ !1:00PM
19 18 M ~ ~ 6:16PM
8:45 PM I o 11 1 2 I o 2 2 J I 0 2 18 3 I 0 o 13 9 86 m 6:30PM
CountTolal I o 489 61 46 I o 43 ss 19 I 1 70 101 611 I 27 36 sse 249 I 2,493 6:45PM I 0 0 o o t o o o o t o
Counllolal I o 5 o 0 I o o o o 4 0 I 2 2 4 9 I 28
P.at-~ 'L \, a: J:' :; ..o ;r: ~ ,:~;::.~.--" o.' _: r:il. o ., _ ,o ,:i:l::C.f.,':"'i :Yo;~ ' -' 1' ~ I. ,(I
Four-Hour Count Summaries Bikes

IIIII Ave I llh Avo I Jt.o!lpwo Ave I Junlpero Aw
In-
S!aft
lnlolYII
Sbort Eaalllc>Und I W6011>cund I Norlhbatlnd I Saullbound , ,;:." 1 0:~:.
l~f:l~~i*rint'Jmri;tr~~n~f!~~t
\.T TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
4:00PM
4:15PM
4:30PM
~:46 PM
I
1
0
0
0
1
2
1
3
3
0
(I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
1
0
4
5
1
10
8 '~~~~-:
4:16PM~I
4:30PM
~ ~lt1~~~1~fi'
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00PM 11
4:45PM
5:15PM 5 5:00PM
5:30PM
5:15PM
5:45PM
5:30PM
8:00PM
5:4SPM
8:15PM
6:00PM
8:30PM 8
1 6:15PM
.
6:45PM 0 I 15
6:30PM
Coun!Tolal
PeikHolll'.
6
;i
4
: o
17

28 I
ro
0
I O:
1
1
I
~- ~ I 14
0
25
. .. ,.
19 48
i$ ;
..
104
"' ' 6:45PM I

CouniTolal I
0
0 0 o 0 1 0
..J'.'HiiiJ8 ~c 7' j - "&. <. -.-1. 'o o.. .o ."' ' . :o
Nole: U-Tum I'Ciumos fill' bikes art~lncludod in Left-Tum, if any.
Deon Fouche: 415-757 n14 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com Deon Fouche: 415-757- n14 deon,fouche@Jdaxdata.com
- - - - -- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -.. - - - - - - - - I
Appendix C - Level of Service Calculations Appendix C - Level of Service Calculations
HCM 2010 TWSC Existing AM.syn HCM 2010 AWSC Existing AM.syn
1: Mission St & 8th Ave 6/7/2016 I 2: Junipero St & 8th Ave 6f712016
---
Intersection Intersection
lnt Delay. slveh 1.9 Intersection Delay, slveh 11.1
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR
Vol, veh/h 2 56 2 9 128 6 1 4 3 5 8 12 Vol, veh/h 0 52 4 3 0 8 8 2 0 6 71 2
Conflicting Peds, #lhr 24 0 26 10 0 8 26 0 10 8 0 24 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Heavy Vehides, % 2 5 5 5 2 6 6 5 2 4 4 4
RT Channelized - None - None - None - None MvmtFiow 0 61 5 4 0 9 9 2 0 7 84 2
Storage Length Number of lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 0
Grade, % 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour Factor 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 A~~ch EB WB NB
Heavy Vehicles. % 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 2 2 16 16 16 Opposing Approach WB EB SB
Mvmtflow 2 64 2 10 147 7 1 5 3 6 9 14 I Opposing Lanes
Conflicting Approach Left
1
SB
1
NB EB
2
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 1

Ma~r/Minor ~or1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB
Confticting Flow All 176 0 0 93 0 0 303 295 102 295 292 201 Confticting Lanes Right 1 2 1
Stage 1 96 96 195 195 HCM Control Delay 9 8.5 8.5
Stage2
CriticaiHdwy 4.13 4.14
207
7.12
199
6.52 6.22
100
7.26
97
6.66 6.36
I HCMLOS A A A
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 6.12
6.12
5.52
5.52
6.26
6.26
5.66
5.66
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 2.236 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.544 4.144 3.444 Vol left,% 8% 88% 44% 100% 0%
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1392 1489 - 549
911
616 953
815
630 596 806 VoiThru,%
Vol Right,%
90%
3%
7%
5%
44%
11%
0%
0%
67%
33%
Stage 1 776 714
Stage2 795 736 873 788 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Platoon blocked,% Traffic Vol by Lane 79 59 18 11 339
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1362 . - 1477 598 585 925 602 566 773 LTVol 6 52 8 11 0
Through Vol
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
- 598 585 602 566
695 RTVot
71
2
4
3
8
2
0
0
227
112
889 796 759
Stage 2 - 749 716 856 769 Lane Flow Rate
GeometryGrp
93
5
69
2
21
2
13
7
399
7
Degree of Util (X) 0.123 0.103 0.031 O.Q19 0.516
~J!!:Oach EB WB NB SB Departure Headway (Hd) 4.765 5.348 5.32 5.388 4.654
HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0.5 10.4 10.7 Convergence, YIN Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
HCMLOS B B I Cap
ServlceTlllle
752 670 672
2.795 3.383 3.361
666 778
3.11 2.376
HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.124 0.103 0.031 0.02 0.513
Minor LaneJMaior Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1
HCM Control Delay 8.5 9 8.5 8.2 12.3
Capacity (vehlh) 681 1362 - 14n 659
HCMlaneLOS A A A A B
HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.014 0.002 - 0.007 -
- 0.044
I HCM951h-lile0 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 3
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.4 7.6 0 7.5 0 10.7
HCMLaneLOS B A A A A B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 0 0.1
Moll MatOonald Synchro 8 Report Moll MacDonald Synchro 8 Report

1:12016\Jobs\373481 -8th Ave Ped Needs Assessment\Synchro\Existing AM.syn Page 1 1:12016\Jobs\373461 -8th Ave Ped Needs Assessment\Synchro\Exisling AM.syn Page2
HCM 2010 AWSC Existing AM.syn HCM 2010 TWSC Existing Midday.syn
2: Junipero St & 8th Ave 61712016 1: Mission St & 8th Ave 61712016
Intersection Delay, slveh lnt Delay, sJveh 3.1
Intersection LOS
Movement ssu SBl SBT SBR ~~ mrn~ ~~~ ~~~ -~~
Vol, veh/h 8 3 22.7 112 Vol, veMt 18 93 7 6 100 11 2 8 7 12 11 29
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 33 0 31 10 0 12 31 0 10 12 0 33
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop StOp Stop Stop Stop
MvmtAow 9 4 267 132 RT Channelized - None ~ None - None - None
Number of lanes 0 1 1 0 Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage,# 0 - 0 0 0
SB
Grade, % 0 0 o D
~eroach Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86
Opposing Approach NB Heavy Vehicles,% 3 3 3 4 4 4 12 12 12 2 2 2
Opposing lanes 1 MvmtFiow 21 108 8 7 116 13 2 9 8 14 13 34
Conflicting Approach left WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1
Conflicting Approach Right EB Major/Minor Major1 Maior2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 Conflicting Flow All 162 0 0 147 378 361 155 364 359 189
HCM Con1rol Delay 12.2 Stage 1 185 185 170 170
HCMLOS B Stage2 193 176 194 189
Critical Hdwy 4.13 4.14 7.22 6.82 6.32 7.12 6.52 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.22 5.62 6.12 5.52
lane Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.22 5.62 6.12 5.52
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 2236 3.608 4.108 3.408 3.518 4.018 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1411 1423 562 550 865 592 568 853
Stage 1 794 728 832 758
Stage2
Platoon blocked, %
766 735 - 808 744
MavCap-1 Maneuver 1372 1409 493 510 834 548 527 807
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 493 510 548 527
Stage 1 761 698 796 733
Stage2 716 711 769 713
Aee!:oach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.2 0.4 11.2 11
HCMLOS B B
Minor lane/Maier Mvmt NBln1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity {\'ehlh) 604 1372 - 1409 661
HCM lane VIC Ratio 0.033 0.015 - 0.005 - 0.091
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.2 7.7 0 7.6 0 11
HCMlanelOS B A A A A B
HCM 951h %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 0 -
0.3
Molt MacDonald Synchro 8 Report ' Molt MacDonald Synchro 8 Report

1:\2016\Jobs\373481 - sth Ave Ped Needs Assessmenl\Synchro\Exisling AM.syn Page 3 1:\2016\Jobs\373481 -8th Ave Ped Needs Assessment\Synchro\Existing Midday.syn Page 1
HCM 2010 AWSC Existing Midday.syn HCM 2010 AWSC Existing Midday.syn
2: Junipero St & 8th Ave 6/7/2016 2: Junipero St & 8th Ave 61712016
---
Intersection Delay, stveh 10 Intersection Delay, slveh
Intersection LOS A Intersection LOS
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Movement SBU SBl SBT SBR
Vol,vehhl 0 91 6 14 0 16 11 6 0 13 158 15 Vol, vehlh 7 10 164 90
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 4 4 4 2 6 6 6 2 2 2 2 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2
MvmtFiow 0 101 7 16 0 18 12 7 0 14 176 17 MvmtFiow 8 11 182 100
Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Number of lanes 0 1 1 0
~f!!oach EB WB NB Ae!1!:oath SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB Opposing Approach NB
Opposing lanes 1 1 2 Opposing lanes 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Conflicting Approach Left W8
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 1 Conflicting Lanes Left 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB Conflicting Approach Right EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1 Conflicting Lanes Right 1
HCM Control Delay 9.6 8.8 9.7 HCM Control Delay 10.6
HCMLOS A A A HCMLOS B
lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBln1 SBln1 SBln2 lane

Vol left,% 7% 82*k 48% 100% 0%
V01Thru.% 85% 5% 33% 0% 65%
Vol Right.% B"'o 13% 16% 0% 35%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol bv lar.e 186 111 33 17 254
LTVOI 13 91 16 17 0
ThroughVo! 158 6 11 0 164
RTVol "15 14 6 0 90
lane Ro..., Rate 207 123 37 19 282
Geome!ryGm 5 2 2 7 7
Degree ol Uti! (X) 0.275 0.182 0.055 0.03 0.384
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.783 5.302 5.38 5.645 4.892
ConveJgelltl!. YIN Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 748 672 660 633 734
Serv1ceTime 2.838 3.366 3.458 3.394 2.641
HCM lane VIC Rallo 0.277 0.183 0.056 0.03 0.384
HCMConlrol Delay 9.7 9.6 8.8 8.6 10.7
I-ICMlaneLOS A A A A B
HCM 95thlil~ Q 1.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 1.8
Molt MacDonald Synchro 8 Report Molt MacDonald Synchro 8 Report

I:\2016\Jobs\373481 -8th Ave Ped Needs Assessment\Synchro\Existing Midday.syn Page2 1:\2016\Jobs\373481 -8th Ave Ped Needs Assessment\Synchro\Exisling Midday.syn Page3
I
I
HCM 2010 TWSC Existing PM.syn HCM 2010 AWSC Existing PM.syn
1: Mission St & 8th Ave 6/712016 2: Junipero St & 8th Ave 6(712016
---
Intersection
lnlersectioo
In! Delay, slveh 2.1 ~Delay, slveh 11.3
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SST SBR Mowment EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR
Vol, veh/h 11 174 4 2 79 28 3 10 7 6 16 16 Vol, vehlh 0 163 10 15 0 12 15 10 0 24 258 13
Conflicting Peds, #lhr 23 0 26 13 0 10 26 0 13 10 0 23 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.96
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
RT Channelized
Storage Length
- - None - None None - None MvmiFlow
Number of Lanes
0
0
170
0
10
1
16
0
0
0
13
0
16
1
10
0
0
0
25
0
269
t
14
0
Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 0
Grade,% 0 . 0 0 0
90 90 90 90 90 90 90 ~~ch EB WB NB
Peak Hour factor 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles. % 2 2 2 6 6 6 2 2 2 8 8 8 Opposing Approach WB EB SB
MvmtFiow 12 193 4 2 88 31 3 11 8 7 18 20 ! Opposing Lanes
Conflicting Approach Left
1
SB NB
1 2
EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 1
Ma~/Minor Major1 Maior2 Minot1 Minot2 Conflicting Approach Right NB sa WB
Conflicting Flow All 142 0 0 224 0 0 396 392 235 386 379 152 Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 1
Stage1
Stage2
Critical Hdwy 4.12 4.16
246
150
7.12
246
146
6.52 6.22
131
255
7.18
131
248
6.58 6.28
I HCM Control Delay
HCMLOS
11.1
8
9.1
A
11.9
B
Critical Hdwy Slg 1 6.12 5.52 6.18 5.58

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBln1 SBLn1 S8Ln2
critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 6.18 5.58
3.572 4.072 3.372 Vol Left,% 8% 87% 32% 100% 0%
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 2.254 3.518 4.018 3.318
544 804 562 544 879 VoiThru,% 87% 5% 41% 0% 73%
Pot CaJ>-1 Maneuver 1441 1321 564
Stage1
Stage 2
758
853
703
716
858
736
776
690
VoiRight,%
Sign Control
4'
Stop
8%
Stop
27%
Stop
0%
Stop
27%
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 295 188 37 18 244
Platoon blocked, %
Mov CaJ>-1 Maneuver 1410 1307 508 516 778 526 516 843 LTVol 24 163 12 16 0
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 508 516 526 516 Through Vol 258 10 15 0 m
Stage1 . . 734 681 833 760 RTVol
Lane Row Rate
13
307
15 10 0 67
Stage2 794 760 702 668 196 39 19 254
GeometryGrp 5 2 2 7 7
Degree of Uti! (X) 0.429 0.306 0.061 0.031 0.374
~~roach EB WB NB SB Departure Headway (Hd) 5.131 5.626 5.728 6.116 5.416
HCM Control Delay, s
HCMLOS
0.4 0.1 11.-4
B
11.2
B I Convergence, YfN
Cap
Service Time
Yes
707
Yes
642
Yes
628
Yes
589
Yes
668
3.131 3.628 3.737 3.816 3.116
HCM Lane VIC Rallo 0.434 0.305 0.062 0.032 0.38
Minor Lane/Ma[or Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EST EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1
HCM Control Delay 11.9 11.1 9.1 9 11.3
Capacity {vehlh) 583 1410 - 1307 627 HCMLaneLOS B B A A B
HCM Lane VIC Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
0.038 0.009
11.4 7.6 0
- 0.002
7.8 0
0.071
11.2
I HCM95th-tileQ 2.2 1.3 02 0.1 1.7
HCMLaneLOS B A A A A B
HCM 95th %tile Q{veh) 0.1 0 0 02
Mott MacDonald Synchro 8 Report Molt MacDonald Synchro 8 Report

1:\2016\.Jobs\373481 -8th Ave Ped Needs Assessment\Synchro\Existing PM.syn Page 1 1:\2016\Jobs\373481- 8th Ave Ped Needs Assessment\Synduo\Existing PM.syn Page2
Appendix C - Level of Service Calculations
HCM 2010 AWSC Existing PM.syn
2: Junipero St & 8th Ave 617/2016
Intersection
Intersection Delay, &'veh
Intersection LOS
Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR
Vol, vehlh 6 12 m 67
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3
MvmtFlow 6 13 184 70
Number of Lanes 0 1 1 0
~2roach SB
Opposing Approach NB
Opposing Lanes 1
Conflicting Approach Left WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1
Conflicting Approach Righi EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1
HCM Control Delay 11.1
HCMLOS B
Lane
Molt MacDonald Synchro 8 Report

1:\2016\Jobs\373481 8th Ave Ped Needs Assessmen1\Synchro\Existing PM.syn Page3
I
Appendix D - Collision Data
6114fl016
r.-.ffi~ Acc_
ident Repoit
tm;upectand ~ eroateencs nne Hllnblt
DMe 1lrno Dey ~
-~--=-!Otl~-- --~
.P.CF-.. lnclcfent No.
tll'Cl)ll4
IS+f hU lhfAV Zti02CA) Ot\ 80UC!iEft CAl~
0911$1141619 MOfl mtAV l't I'm WESt WIS$IoN~ ZltV' ~ CAt~l
~~~
U41M mtAV " R!IT M$SJON sr.
wur ~ '\\ MUKAi CAI-5.50
Uf!SIU l)l$ WED s 111fAV ' fl$f ~ MlsstOH ~ 22107 I.JGHWOOT CAI500107
UiJ6fiS ltl? WED lntAV 14 WEST MISSION 22t06 \ flflEGlR C:Auoon6
OIIIM6 UZ7 SAT N muv IOl FliT &A$'f Wslow S'nll!1' 22101 \ 8RUHCI f:iti~
~eou"' e
Appendix 0 - Collision Data

fifl4/201il
TraffiC Accident Report
~and Sorted By Dele and 11me Numb
-~~~----~~~~--------~~--------~
lVllll$ 1141 SAT 11HAV ll REI' SOUTif .IUiCPmlO --~~~f&~ . ----~~~~--~
...,.,....,., \ ~~-- -..--
ft --~~
.......,....._,., .._.-_,.,.
~&.~
Record Cold 1
----- -------
Appendix E- 8th Avenue Segment Pedestrian Counts
Pedestr11111 Aotlvlty 8th Avenue BetwHII Ul. .lon Street and Junlpero Awnua
15-Minute Ho..ty
North Side of 8th Avenue Cro-d North to South South Side of 8tlt Awn1111 South Side of lth Avenue
lnteiVIII Hour
OnStfeet or South to North On Street On Pede.trilln Pathwey Total
St.ut
7:00AM 2 0 0 0
7:15AM 0 0 0 1
7:00 AM 8:00AM 3
7:30AM 0 0 0 0
7:45AM 0 0 0 0
8:00AM 0 0 1 3
8:15AM 3 0 0 0
8:00 AM 9:00 AM 13
8:30AM 1 0 0 0
8:45AM 1 0 0 4
9:00AM 1 0 1 0
9:15AM 0 0 0 0
9:00AM10:00AM 3
9:30AM 0 0 0 0
9:45AM 0 1 0 0
10:00AM 1 0 0 1
10:15AM 0 2 0 5
10:00 AM 11:00 AM 13
10:30AM 2 0 0 0
10:45AM 0 2 0 0
11:00 AM 0 0 0 0
11:15AM 0 0 0 0
11:00 AM 12:00 PM 3
11:30 AM 0 0 0 1
11:45AM 0 0 0 2
12:00 PM 0 0 0 0
12:15 PM 0 0 0 0
12:00 PM-1:00PM 1
12:30PM 0 0 0 0
12:45 PM 0 0 0 1
1:00PM 0 0 0 1
1:15PM 3 0 2 1
1:00PM 2:00PM 11
1:30PM 0 0 0 0
1:45PM 0 0 0 4
2:00PM 0 0 0 2
2:15PM 2 0 0 0
2:00 PM 3:00 PM 12
2:30PM 2 0 2 0
2:45PM 0 0 0 4
3:00PM 0 1 0 2
3:15PM 0 0 0 4
3:00 PM 4:00 PM 10
3:30PM 0 0 0 2
3:45PM 1 0 0 0
4:00PM 2 0 0 0
4:15PM 0 0 2 1
4:00 PM 5:00 PM 11
4:30PM 2 0 0 0
4:45PM 0 0 2 2
5:00PM 0 1 0 1
5:15PM 0 1 0 2
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 22
5:30PM 0 3 0 1
5:45PM 2 4 0 7
6:00PM 0 0 0 0
6:15PM 0 0 0 2
6:00 PM 7:00 PM 4
6:30PM 0 0 1 0
6:45PM 1 0 0 0
Grand Total 26 15 11 54 106
Average Per Hour 2 1 1 5 g
Percent of Total 24.5"/o 14.2o/o 10.4% 50.9"/o
Counts conducted on Tuaday, September 27, 2016.
Mott MacDonald
8th Avenue Pedestrian Counts.xlsx
F1na lRenort
0
r
Preparedfor S a California
. of Carmel-by-the- e '
The City
January 131 2004

Table of Contents
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Scope of Work .................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Methodologies Used in Study ............................................................................................. 2
2. Existing Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Existing Road Hierarchy ..................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Bus and Truck.Routes ......................................................................................................... 5
2.4 Bicycle Routes .................................................................................................................... 5
2.5 Pedestrian Movement .......................................................................................................... 5
2.6 Existing Traffic Control .................................................................................................... ;.6
2.7 Parking ................................................................. .................................... ........................... 9
2.8 Spot Speed Evaluation ......................................................................................................... 9
3. Accident Analysis .......................................................................................... ............................... 11
4. Discussion of Traffic Problem Areas or "Hot Spots" ................................................................... 15
5. Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................. ................................................ 17

5.1 Concluding Comments ...................................................................................... ................ 17
5.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 17
I:\2003\Tobs\001-050\A03-019\Report\A03-019 Final Report.doc

D -
.
List of Exhibits
EXHIBIT 1A- Traffic Safety "Hot-Spots"

EXHIBIT 1B- Top Ten Locations with the Highest Number of Accidents
EXHIBIT 2- Existing Road Hierarchy
EXHIBIT 3- Bus & Truck Routes
EXHIBIT4- Bicycle Routes
EXHIBIT SA- Locations of Accidents involving Pedestrians

EXHIBIT 5B- Proposed Priority Pedestrian Improvement Routes
EXHIBIT 6- Existing Traffic Control
EXHIBIT 7A- Accidents with Traffic Signs as the Primary Collision Factor
EXHIBIT 7B- Existing Traffic Control in Commercial District
EXHIBIT 7C- Proposed Traffic Control in Commercial District
EXHIBIT SA- Commercial District Street Parking - Types

EXHIBIT 8B- Commercial District Street Parking - Number of Spaces
EXHIBIT 8C- Accident Locations with PCF Parked Vehicles
EXHIBIT 9- 85 1h Percentile Speeds
EXHIBIT 10- Junipero Avenue I Seventh Avenue Improvement Proposal
EXHIBIT 11- Scenic Road I Santa Lucia Avenue Improvement Proposal
I:\2003\Jobs\001-050\A03-0 19\Report\A03-0 19 Final Report.doc

List of Appendices
APPENDIX Al - LOS Description - Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersections
APPENDIX A2 - LOS Description - Multiway (All-Way) Stop Controlled Intersections
APPENDIX A3- Multiway (All-Way) Stop Warrant Sheets
APPENDIX B - Speed Survey Result Sheets
APPENDIX C - Collision Diagrams for Traffic "Hot-Spots"
APPENDIX D - Carpenter Street Truck Route Discussion
I:\2003\Jobs\001-050\A03-019\Report\A03-019 Final Report.doc

1. Introduction
1.1 Background
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is located on the coast in Monterey County and is home to
4,081 residents according to the most current census. It has a unique and quaint character and
is a big tourist attraction and the daytime population during the peak season goes up to
approximately 35,000. The small city takes up approximately one square mile and is nestled
between the world famous Pebble Beach golf course to the north and the spectacular Big Sur
coast to the South. By carefully guarding the natural beauty of the area, Carmel-by-the-Sea
became a special place. The City's ordinances, regulations, policies, and amenities created
over the years by citizens, property owners, and elected and appointed officials, have kept it a
desirable place to live, visit, and work. Through these efforts, Carmel-by-the-Sea has retained
its village character and its quality of life since 1916.
Due to the natural beauty of Carmel-by-the-Sea numerous visitors are attracted each day and
when the mix of road users are evaluated (residents or regular visitors, tourists, commercial
deliveries, etc.) it becomes easy to understand that all traffic related issues, such as access,
parking, speeding, vehicular/pedestrian conflict etc., could become an issue. The City
Officials recognized these issues and commissioned Higgins Associates, Civil and Traffic
Engineers to assess the city-wide circulation and to evaluate traffic and safety issues
throughout the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
1.2 Scope of Work
Prior to the commissioning of this study, the University Of California Berkeley Institute Of
Transportation Studies (ITS) performed an evaluation called Enforcement and Engineering
Analysis of Traffic Safety for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea with funding from the California
Office of Traffic Safety (OTS). Two other City reports are also relevant for this study, namely
the Carmel-by-the-Sea Bikeways Plan and the findings of the Vehicle/Pedestrian Study Team.
Due to a limited budget available for this study, it was agreed between the City Staff and the
Consultant that all previous studies will be considered to avoid duplication of efforts and to
keep the project cost down. The City furthermore offered that most of the data collection
required for this study would be performed by themselves to reduce the cost of this study.
This report documents a city-wide assessment to evaluate traffic and safety issues throughout
the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. The study included a broad brush assessment of existing road
hierarchy system, the assessment of the current traffic flow patterns throughout the residential
and downtown areas, and the identification of vehicular and pedestrian safety issues within
the Carmel-by-the-Sea city limits;
The following tasks were performed as part of the study:
1. The road hierarchy, as classified in the Circulation Element of the latest General Plan
for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea was evaluated for relevance. The current traffic flow
patterns throughout the city limits were observed to validate the existing road hierarchy.
Problem areas and traffic "hot spots" were identified.
I:\2003\Jobs\001-050\A03-0 19\Report\A03-0 19 Final Report. doc

6 -.
2. City-wide accident statistics were collected from the City Police Department and
analyzed for the past 5 years. The accident data was compiled on a spot map to identify
high accident locations. Areas where speeding could be a problem were identified and
spot speed checks performed to determine if posted speed limits are still relevant or if
enforcement is required. Broad brush solutions to traffic safety problems were identified
through accident analysis.
3. City staff was interviewed to determine locations where traffic operational and safety
problems have been identified in the past. Brief assessment of the relevance and correct
use of traffic control devices throughout the city limits was evaluated. Broad brush
solutions to traffic circulation, traffic control and safety problems were identified.
4. All the locations with traffic issues and/or problem areas identified during the
investigation were transferred to a GIS map for ease of reference. A list describing the
problem at each of these locations was prepared and presented in an easy reference
table. Digital photos were taken of each location where appropriate, and included in the
summary information.
5. Improvement recommendations were made and specific action items listed regarding
vehicle circulation and pedestrian safety improvements within the city limits of Carmel-
by-the-Sea studies.
1.3 Methodologies Used in Study
The methodologies used in this traffic study to identify the problem areas or traffic "hot-
spots" to be investigated included the following:
Previous studies: All previous studies on traffic, circulation, parking and pedestrian safety
were read and specific issues to be investigated were highlighted.
Meeting with Staff: The Consultants met with City of Carmel-by-the Sea staff to determine
locations where traffic operational and safety problems have been identified in the past. The
staff consulted included the Mayor, City Manager, Director of the Public Works Department,
with input from the Chief of Police.
City-Wide accident Analysis: The accident history for the period January 1, 1998 to July 7,
2003 was thoroughly evaluated to identify the highest accident occurrence locations.
The study locations identified for immediate broad-brush traffic safety evaluations are listed
below and graphically presented in Exhibit lA:
Junipero A venue/7th Avenue intersection;

Scenic Drive/Santa Lucia intersection;
Rio Road/Santa Lucia intersection;
Rio Road/Junipero Avenue intersection;
5th Avenue between Dolores Street and Sari Carlos Street;*
gth Avenue speeding and Traffic flow along gth Avenue;
I:\2003\Jobs\00 I-050\A03-0 19\Report\A03-0 19 Final Report.doc 2

.
D '
-
7) Pedestrian movement along Scenic Drive between Ocean A venue and 8th Avenue;
8) School safety at Stevenson School, 1st A venue;
9) 4th Avenue between Monte Verde and San Antonio;
J0) Traffic flow via Carpenter Street from SR 1 to Junipero A venue.
fTiA San Carlos/Ocean A venue intersection;
j ~ ~~ \Mission Street/6th Avenue intersection;
13) \San Carlos Street/6th A venue intersection;
I
/ i
14) /'Lincoln Street/th A venue intersection;
15) Mission Street/7th A venue intersection;
I
16) San Carlos Street/7th A venue intersection;
1~7)'Junipero Avenue/Ocean Avenue intersection;
18) Mission Street/Ocean A venue intersection;
19) Junipero A venue/61h Avenue intersection; and
20) Dolores Street/ih A venue intersection;
* This item will become the topic of a separate study and will not be dealt with as part of
this traffic safety study.
Item numbers 11 to 20 were identified based on the accident analysis, while items 1 to 10
were identified by City of Carmel-by-the-Sea staff. Exhibit IB shows the top-ten accident
locations in the Carmel-by-the-Sea area.
I:\2003\Jobs\00 1-050\A03-0 19\Report\A03-0 19 fjnal Report. doc 3

2. Existing Traffic Conditions
2.1 Introduction
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has approximately 30 miles of paved roadway and through
careful planning the city has kept its village character intact. Most streets in the residential
area have no formal curbs and gutters. Contributing to the village character, streets are rarely
paved to their full width and often meander around trees and landscaped areas. Carmel-by-
the-Sea is proud of its "uniqueness." Among its more unusual ordinances is one that requires a
permit to wear certain high heel shoes. Since part of Carmel-by-the-Sea's charm is its urban
forest, walking here may be more difficult than in other settings. The absence of overhead
street lights and paved sidewalks in the residential areas influences pedestrian safety.
Traditional village character is maintained by lighting from within private property.
Therefore, exterior lighting on private property is limited to 25 watts for entrance fixtures and
15 watts per fixture for walkways. All lighting on public rights-of-way is reviewed and
approved by the City.
Part of the quaintness of Carmel-by-the-Sea is that there are no street addresses. Properties are
identified as, for example, "west side of San Antonio Street, three houses south of 12th
A venue." In addition, Carmel-by-the-Sea cottages often are given names such as "Tinker
Bell" and "The Doll House." There is only limited home mail delivery to those who request it.
Mostly, mail is picked up at the Carmel-by-the-Sea branch of the U.S. Post Office on 5th
A venue between Dolores and San Carlos Streets. This longtime custom generates a flow of
pedestrian traffic to the Post Office.
To preserve and share the limited parking resources in the business district, time limitations
are enforced. Residents may obtain Resident Permit Parking stickers which allow them to
park double the posted time in all zones (except 10-minute green zones) in the commercial
district. In the residential areas, vehicles may be parked on the street for 48 continuous hours
or less. In some posted residential areas, "Resident Permit Parking" zones have been
established to limit tourist/visitor parking. Free parking is available at Vista Lobos.
Posting of "No Parking" signs in the public right-of-way by residents are prohibited. All
street-side parking is for the use of residents and visitors alike, unless designated as a
"Resident Permit Parking" zone.
2.2 Existing Road Hierarchy
As a developed community with a centralized commercial core surrounded by residential

development, the City of Carmel.:.by-the-Sea experiences many unique situations relating to
traffic, circulation, parking and pedestrian safety. Because of its quaintness, coastal setting,
historic landmarks, restaurants, specialty shops and cultural events, many visitors are attracted
to the area. Most of these visitors can be considered day-visitors and travel to and from
Carmel-by-the-Sea for the day, hence the big difference in number of residents and the daily
population (4081 versus a imately 35,000 . This type of travel pattern has many
implications for tra 1c circulation ra IC safety and could put severe strain on a road
system and parking.
I:\2003\Tobs\00 l-050\A03-0 19\Report\A03-0 19 Final Report.doc 4

Due to the topography and natural forest in which Carmel-by-the-Sea is located it becomes a
challenging task to define a proper road hierarchy and to classify specific road classes with
standard geometric standards. The streets in Cannel-by-the-Sea are narrow and vary between
14 and 34 feet, with the exception of some of the downtown streets and thoroughfares. As a
result of the externally generated traffic associated with visitors and the large variation in
daily traffic based on season and weekday versus weekend great fluctuation is experienced in
daily traffic volumes. As a result, there are periods when the intersections and street segments
in the downtown commercial area as well as the access roads into Carmel-by-the-Sea could
exceed their capacity. However, from the broad-brush evaluation it seems as if the existing
road hierarchy reflects the major movements through Carmel-by-the-Sea. The existing road
hierarchy is shown in Exhibit 2.
2.3 Bus and Truck Routes
The available width for travel lanes is constrained by topography and property boundaries, not
only on residential streets, but also on the access routes into the commercial area that must
serve vehicles, trucks and busses. The truck and bus route into Cannel-by-the-Sea forms a
circular route from SR 1 via Carpenter Street, 2nd Avenue, Santa Fe Avenue, Junipero
Avenue, gth Avenue, San Carlos, 13 1h Avenue and Rio Road back to SR 1. The
Monterey/Salinas Transit Bus Company (MST) provides the regular commuter/local bus
service for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. There is more than one MST bus route through
Carmel-by-the-Sea for the local bus service and there are also tour busses bringing in visitors
to the Carmel-by-the-Sea area. The existing truck and bus routes are shown in Exhibit 3.
2.4 Bicycle Routes
The Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) developed the General Bikeways
Plan for Monterey County in 1999. This plan includes an overview of various bicycle
facilities in each jurisdiction, including Carmel-by-the-Sea. Furthermore, the current General
Plan for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does not include any objectives or policies that
specifically address bicycle transportation. A special committee formed by the Department of
Community Planning and Building investigated the proposals contained in the TAMC
Bikeways Plan. This resulted in the recommendation from the committee that the provisions
ofTAMC's Bikeways Plan for the County relating to facilities adjacent to the City of Carmel-
by-the-Sea would be incorporated into a more local plan. The Carmel-by-the-Sea Bikeways
Plan was adopted in 2001. The bike routes as adopted in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Bikeways Plan are shown il}~Some of the signage identified on the route maps hav~ 'e
not been erected and should be implemented as soon as possible to facilitate safe bicycling-in .
Carmel-by-the-Sea. ___..,
2.5 Pedestrian Movement
It has been estimated that more than 10 million people visit the Monterey Peninsula each year.
Carmel-by-the-Sea is one of the top destinations in the Peninsula. Part of the quaintness of
Carmel-by-the-Sea is the numerous specialty shops and fine restaurants that are located within
I:\2003\Jobs\001-050\A03-019\Report\A03-019 Final Report.doc 5

6 -'
.
.
the commercial area. These shops attract millions of visitors during the year and people walk
around the village to browse in the shops and dine at the restaurants. It is not uncommon to
see clusters of pedestrians trying to cross intersections in all directions at the same time.
Numerous pedestrians walk through the village, along the beachfront and along Scenic Drive.
The absence of overhead street lights and paved sidewalks in the residential areas and along
certain segments of Scenic Drive influences pedestrian safety.
A City Vehicle/Pedestrian Study Team was formed during 2002 with the sole purpose of
investigating pedestrian safety and the pedestrian related accidents that have taken place
within the Carmel-by-the-Sea area. The team identified specific pedestrian routes that require
further investigation, based on the occurrence of accidents involving pedestrians. Exhibit 5
shows the locations where pedestrian related accidents (27 in total) have occurred. The
priority pedestrian routes to be investigated are listed below:
1) Pebble Beach Gate to 4th Avenue to Ocean Avenue;

2) San Carlos Street and 13th Avenue to the Carmel Mission.
3) Camino Del Monte from Lorca Lane via 4th Avenue to the beach at 4th
Avenue;
4) Mountain View and Forest Road to San Carlos Street via gth Avenue and/or via
Mountain View;
5) Truck Route- Carpenter and 2nd Avenue to Santa Fe to Torres and 3rd Avenue;
6) Interim Pedestrian Route- Scenic Road from Ocean Avenue to gth Avenue.
The Vehicle/Pedestrian Study Team should continue to investigate the above priority routes
and recommend improvements. Exhibit 5B shows these six routes on a map.
2.6 Existing Traffic Control

I
Traffic vblumes within the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea city limits and in particular in the
village area varies significantly, depending on the season, day of the week or even time of the
day. If the number of residents is compared to the daily population (4081 vs. 35,000) it
becomes clear that the majority of the motorists driving in Carmel-by-the-Sea must be new to
the area, new to the traffic circulation patterns and the location of parking, and they are
probably not sure what their specific destination is. Furthermore, the lack of public parking
within the village area and the limited signage policy of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea could
add to additional traffic circulation.
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has an informal policy against the implementation of traffic
signals to preserve the village atmosphere. Stop signs are thus the only type of traffic control
device used within the city limits. There is no specific pattern or methodology used in the
placement of the stop signs; in some cases the stop signs are placed at specific intersections to
slow traffic down or the stop signs are placed on alternating approaches from one block to the
next. Exhibit 6 shows the existing traffic control at intersections in the City of Carmel-by-the-
Sea.
I:\2003\Jobs\00 l-050\A03-0 19\Report\A03-0 19 Final Report.doc 6

A stop sign is not a "cure-all" and is not a substitute for other traffic control devices. Many
times the need for a stop sign can be eliminated by removing obstructions to increase sight
, distance. Where two higher order streets intersect, the stop sign or signs should normally be
~
posted on the minor street to stop the lesser flow of traffic. The implementation of three and
four-way stops if not warranted by traffic volumes (thus stopping the major traffic flow)
might be justified for traffic safety reasons, if based on engineering studies and judgment.
As part of this circulation and traffic safety study, the traffic flow patterns in the commercial
area was observed and evaluated. The behavior of motorists was evaluated at 4-way and 2-
way stops as well as their interaction with the numerous pedestrians that continuously crossed
~their path of travel, as well as the parked vehicles on the side of the road that sometimes
'tJ completely obscure the line of sight. There was a remarkable difference noted between the
\~behavior of motorists that looked as if they could be regulars to the area, and motorists that
r}were obviously foreign to the area. The conclusion was drawn that the number of potential
conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians, vehicles and other moving vehicles, and moving
vehicles and parked cars are far too many to encourage safe behavior at intersections. The
diagram below graphically shows the potential conflicting points at each intersection to
demonstrate the safety issue at intersections in the Carmel-by-the-Sea commercial area.
Potential Vehicular/Pedestrian Conflict Points at a Typical Ocean Avenue Intersection

within the Commercial Area.
Parked Vehicles
PedestrianNehicle Conflict Points

o VehicleNehicle Conflict Points
As can be seen from the diagram above, the number of potential conflict points is huge. The
observations from the site evaluations showed that there is significant driver confusion at the
I:\2003\Jobs\001 -050\A03-019\Report\A03-01 9 Final Report.doc 7

intersections in the commercial area of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Furthermore, the fact that there is
inconsistency in the way that the stop signs are placed (i.e. sometimes on major and other
times on minor roads) adds to the driver confusion. It is recommended that the traffic control
at all intersections in the commercial area between gth Avenue and 5th A venue in the north-
south direction and Junipero Avenue and Monte Verde in the east-west direction be converted
to all-way stop controlled intersections.
All the 2-way stop intersections on 6th Avenue and 7th A venue were evaluated for multi way
stop control warrants according to the Caltrans Traffic Manual and the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). In most of the cases, the warrants were not met on either
traffic volume or the accident criteria. However, the San Carlos Street/7th Avenue intersection
is warranted based on accidents. Although the intersections do not warrant 4-way stop control,
it could be argued that very few of the existing 4-way stops would meet the warrants, should
they be evaluated. The potential benefit that could be achieved by reducing driver choice and
confusion in the commercial area outweighs the fact that it does not meet all the warrants. The
multi way warrant assessment sheets are included in Appendix A.
There were a total of 22 accidents with the primary collision factor (PCF) being traffic signs.
The location of the accidents involving traffic signs is included as Exhibit 7A. Refer to
Exhibit 7B for the area and the existing traffic control at each intersection within that area
while Exhibit 7C shows the future traffic control at the intersections.
Potential Vehicular/Pedestrian Conflict Points at the Ocean Avenue I Junipero Avenue I

Mountain View Intersection at the entrance to the Commercial Area.
Junipero
Avenue
Parked Vehicles
PedestrianNehicle Conflict Points

~ o VehicleNehicle Conflict Points
Ql
1:\2003\Jobs\00 1-050\A03-0 19\Report\A03-0 19 Final Report.doc 8

6 .
.
The potential conflicting points at Ocean Avenue I Junipero Avenue I Mountain View
intersection, both for pedestrian/vehicle and vehicle to vehicle as shown in the diagram are
numerous due to the five approaches to the intersection. The natural topography, width of the
intersection, the wide planted medians on three of the five approaches and being the "entrance
intersection" to the commercial area are all contributing factors to traffic safety problems at
this intersection. These factors contribute to sight distance issues and also influence the
motorist's observation and decision points and response time. This intersection has been
identified by all the stakeholders as a potential problem intersection and is dealt with under
the "traffic hot spots" in section 4.
2.7 Parking
The absence of overhead street lights and paved sidewalks in the residential areas necessitates
the use of flashlights after dark and pedestrians are often forced to walk in the roadway. In the
residential areas, vehicles may be parked on the street for 48 continuous hours or less. In
some posted residential areas, "Resident Permit Parking" zones have been established to limit
tourist/visitor parking intrusion into the residential areas. Posting of "No Parking" signs in the
public right-of-way by residents is prohibited. All street-side parking is for the use of
residents and visitors alike, unless designated as a "Resident Permit Parking" zone. Free
parking is available at Vista Lobos. Vista Lobos was acquired by the City to preserve open
space and to protect a view corridor to the ocean. Vista Lobos is one of the few areas in the
community that offers free parking every day of the week.
To preserve and share the limited parking resources in the business district, time limitations
are strictly enforced. Residents may obtain Resident Permit Parking stickers which allow
them to park double the posted time in all zones (except 10-minute green zones) in the
commercial district. Exhibit 8A indicates the types of parking available within the commercial
area and Exhibit 8B identifies the associated number of each parking type.
There is a high number of accidents (153) that has the primary collision factor (PCF)
involving a parked vehicle. This could be due to the high number of circulating traffic looking
for parking and the high turnover of parking due to strict enforcement of parking limits;
narrow residential streets that are more narrowed down due to vehicles parked on the side of
the road; and pedestrians sometimes walking in the roadway. Exhibit 8C identifies the
accident locations with PCF involving a parked vehicle.
2.8 Spot Speed Evaluation
As a village in the forest, Carmel-by-the-Sea's streets are mostly residential with maximum
speed limits of 25 miles per hour. Speed limits are strictly enforced to protect and ensure the
safety of citizens. Streets are intentionally kept irregular, somewhat bumpy and narrow in
residential streets to keep speeds down. However, the Mayor has received several complaints
about speeding along gth Avenue. Spot speed checks were performed by the Police
Department of Carmel-by-the-Sea during August 2003 at several locations along 6th Avenue,
7th Avenue, gth Avenue, Junipero Avenue and Rio Road and the data collected was forwarded
to
1:\2003\Jobs\00 1-050\A03-0 19\Report\A03-0 19 Fina1 Report. doc 9

6 >
.
Higgins Associates for processing. The 85th percentile speeds traveled along the surveyed
roads was calculated. At all the locations measured, the 85th percentile speed was 20 miles per
hour or less. The only exception is on Rio Road where the 85th percentile speed was 26 miles
per hour. The 85th percentile speeds calculated is shown on a map as Exhibit 9. The detailed
result sheets are included as Appendix B. In general, it could be stated that most of the
motorists adhere to the speed limit. However, there will always be the exceptions.

~
El
3. Accident Analysis
As part of a previous study conducted during 2001 by the Institute of Transportation Studies
of the University of California at Berkeley, a comprehensive and very detailed accident
evaluation was conducted. It is not the intention of this study to duplicate efforts, but to
update and supplement the information already available. The accident statistics reported in as
part of this study should be read in conjunction with the 200 I Study Report. The accident
analysis performed for this study is based on the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
(SWITRS) accident reports for the period January 1, 1998 to July 27, 2003. The City of
Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Department (CPD) has recently acquired the Crossroads software
to facilitate the analysis of accident data and this software was used in the assessment of the
accident data for this study. At the time of this study one member of the CPD staff has
received the basic training in the use of the software. This study was utilized as an advance
training opportunity for the CPD. The Consultants assisted the CPD with setting up their
Crossroads system and to extract the required outputs from it.
> Number of Accidents
The total number of accidents that was reported during the evaluation period (January 1, 1998
to July 27, 2003) is 450. Of the 450 accidents, there were 98 accidents (21. 7%) where injuries
were reported; 55 or 56.1% of the injuries occurred when two vehicles were involved; 26
(26.5%) of the injury accidents involved pedestrians; 10 (I 0.3%) injuries occurred where
parked vehicles were involved and 7 (7 .1 o/o) involved bicyclists. The total number of
accidents was broken down to reflect the annual number of accidents and the graphic below
shows a graphical comparison of the annual number of accidents for 1998 to 2003.
Comparison of Annual Accidents: 1998 to 2003.

120
.1998 1999 ' 2000
2001 ~ 2002 t 2003 107
100
80
80
66
61
60
40
20
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year
I:\2003\Jobs\001-050\A03-0 19\Report\A03-0 19 Final Report.doc 11

It should be noted that the evaluation period for 2003 was only for seven months. The
comparison shows that there is a great variation in the number of annual accidents over the
last six years with the most accidents recorded during 2002 (1 07). During 2002 approximately
34% more accidents (107 accidents) occurred than the second highest year, 1999 (80
accidents).
Types of Accidents
In order to get a better understanding of the specific causes for the accidents that have been
occumng over the -assessment period, an analysis of the types of accidents have been
performed.
Eight different accident types have been identified; namely sideswipe, broadside, rear-end, hit
object, vehicle/pedestrian head-on, overturned and other.
Types of Accidents: 1998 to 2003.
160 ~----------------------------1=
51~--------------------~
140 - 1 - - - - -- - -- -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -
124
120 +------- -
In
'EGI 100 - 1 - - - - -
'C
8
~ 80 -f-- - - -
ta; 67
.c
60 - 1 - - - - - -
z 49
40 - 1 - - - - - -
26
'C
c: uGl Gl
c. 'C
Gl tD
! ::E'
0
'j
rn
E
:I 5
=
a: :f
Gl
'C
0
't:
~
0
Type of Accident
From the diagram above it can be seen that- the majority of the accidents are sideswipes,
followed by broadside accidents. The sideswipe accidents could be symptomatic of the high
number of circulating traffic, narrow streets, parked vehicles and high pedestrian movements.
The broadside accidents indicate that there is a high occurrence of right of way and traffic
control confusion/violation or it could also be an indication of sight distance problems.

~
Rfl
~ Weather and Lighting Conditions at Time of Accidents
The traditional village character is maintained by lighting from within private property.
Limited street lighting is provided in the commercial area and mainly on Ocean Avenue.
Therefore, exterior lighting on private property is limited to 25 watts for entrance fixtures and
15 watts per fixture for walkways. All lighting on public rights-of-way is reviewed and
approved by the City.
The restrictions on street lighting together with bad weather could have a significant influence
on traffic safety given the winding, narrow streets in some of the residential areas. An
evaluation of accidents during the different periods of the day as well as weather conditions
was performed. The results are graphically shown in the next diagram.
Weather Conditions at Time of Accidents: 1998 to 2003
1 (0%) 5 (1%) 21 (5%)
I EJCiear IOICioudy DRaining tJOther Fog I
Lighting Conditions at Time of Accidents: 1998 to 2003.
3 (1%) 7 (2%) 17 (4%)
l:l Dayllgld Dark no Steet Lights 0 Dark Street Ughts 0 Dusk-Dawn Othe I
l:\2003\lobs\00 I-050\A03-0 19\Report\A03-0 19 Final Report.doc 13

~
~
From the two graphs on the previous page, it can be seen that weather conditions contributed
approximately 25% of the accidents that occurred during the evaluation period. Similarly, the
conclusion could be drawn that the absence of street lights contributed to 13% of all
accidents. However, this percentage could be significantly higher when considered that the
traffic volumes at night time are just a fraction of the daytime volumes. This issue should be
further investigated to determine the actual number of accidents as a ratio of night time
volumes.
I:\2003\Jobs\001-050\A03-0 19\Report\A03-0 19 Final Report.doc 14

4. Discussion of Traffic Problem Areas or "Hot Spots"
The main objective of this study was to use the City staffs local knowledge and previous
studies to identify existing deficiencies on the Carmel-by-the-Sea road network in terms of
traffic safety. Secondly, the evaluation of the accident statistics over the period January 1,
1998 to July 27, 2003 was used to identify new deficiencies. In some cases, problem areas
were identified through both methods. The second component of the study was to evaluate the
identified traffic "hot spots" and to propose broad-brush improvements if applicable. The final
component of the study was to map the problem areas.
The locations identified for immediate broad-brush traffic safety evaluations are listed below
and graphically presented in Exhibit 1A:
1) Junipero Avenue/ih Avenue intersection;

2) Scenic Drive/Santa Lucia intersection;
3) Rio Road/Santa Lucia intersection;
4) Rio Road/Junipero Avenue intersection;
5) 5th Avenue between Dolores Street and San Carlos Street;*
6) 81h A venue speeding and Traffic flow along 81h Avenue;
7) Pedestrian movement along Scenic Drive between Ocean Avenue and 81h Avenue;
8) School safety at Stevenson School, 1st Avenue;
9) 4th Avenue between Monte Verde and San Antonio;
10) Traffic flow via Carpenter Street from SR 1 to Junipero Avenue;
11) San Carlos/Ocean Avenue intersection;
12) Mission Street/6th Avenue intersection;
13) San Carlos Street/6th Avenue intersection;
14) Lincoln Street/71h Avenue intersection;
15) Mission Street/7th Avenue intersection;
16) San Carlos Street/ih Avenue intersection;
17) Junipero Avenue/Ocean Avenue intersection;
18) Mission Street/Ocean A venue intersection;
19) Junipero Avenue/6th Avenue intersection; and
20) Dolores Street/ih Avenue intersection;
* This item will become the topic of a separate study and will not be dealt with as part of
this traffic safety study.
Item numbers 1 to 10 were identified by City of Carmel-by-the~Sea staff, while items 11 to 20

were identified based on the accident analysis. Exhibit 1B shows the top-ten accident
locations in the Carmel-by-the-Sea area and the detailed collision diagrams for each of the
intersections on the above list is included in Appendix C.
The traffic volumes within the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea area vary significantly and as
identified in previous studies, the accident rates for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea could be
considered the norm when the daily population made up by residents and visitors is
considered.
I:\2003\Jobs\001-050\A03-0 19\Report\A03-0 19 Final Report. doc 15

The highest number of accidents at any one intersection is 11. The- .
(PCF' s) identified at some of the intersections in the top-ten of the acl-.
that a lot of the accidents could be attributed to bad driving and it is not \
the City staff to change that. An evaluation matrix was prepared for the trafb"
ease of comparison and is included at the back of this report.
I:\2003\Tobs\001-050\A03-019\Report\A03-019 Final Report.doc 16

1-1
lations
c safety assessment for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea that

the city limit that require improvement or special attention
it should also be recognized and mentioned that due to the
and the fairly strict development conditions in the City of
e traffic safety aspects that work well for the City. They are
streets are mostly residential with maximum speed limits of

s are strictly enforced to protect and ensure the safety .of
citizens . ..-,u"'"'""' _ f kept irregular, somewhat bumpy and narrow in residential
streets to keep speeds down. The spot speed surveys have shown that although some of the
residents perceive speeding as an issue, there are no speeding problems within the city limits.
The perception of speeding could be due to the narrow roadways and lack of paved sidewalks
for pedestrians which put pedestrians and vehicles closer together. Furthermore, the natural
topography required the construction of narrow and winding roads which act as natural traffic
claming.
Accidents - The number of accidents in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is still low in

comparison to other similar cities. However, the comparison of the number of accidents over
the past 5 years has identified a slight increase in the number of accidents per year, especially
from the year 2000. The accident data for the year 2003 was only available for half the year
and it should be evaluated and compared once all the data is available for the year. This
comparison would enable the City to determine if there is an upward trend in the number of
annual accidents that should be monitored and investigated.
5.2 Recommendations
Several traffic improvement proposals ranging from changes to traffic control devices to
actual road improvements have been identified to address the highest safety priorities. These
improvement proposals took cognizance of the work previously done by other parties as well
as the efforts from the City Staff and Special Advisory Committees.
The methodologies followed in the traffic safety investigation for the City of Carmel-by-the-
Sea have been thoroughly described in the preceding sections. The City Staff of Carmel-by-
the-Sea assisted with data collection, identification and evaluation of the traffic issues and the
process was one of collaboration. The study lead to the identification of the traffic safety "hot-
spots" that requires either improvement or further investigation.
The recommended action items of this study are summarized in the "Evaluation Matrix for
Traffic Hot Spots".
I:\2003\Jobs\00 l-050\A03-0 19\Report\A03-0 19 Final Report.doc 17

However, there are several general improvement recommendations that require prompt action.
They are:
> Implement four-way stop controls in the central zone of the commercial district
(shown in Exhibit 7B). This would reduce driver confusion and improve traffic
safety.
Initiate an annual "Pedestrian Route Improvement Program" to further
investigate and implement pedestrian safety improvements along the Priority J
Pedestrian Improvement Routes as identified by the City's Vehicle/Pedestrian
Study Team that was formed during 2002. Refer to Exhibit 5B.
> Implement the recommended improvements as shown in Exhibit 10 at the
Junipero Avenue I Seventh Avenue intersection to improve traffic safety.
> Implement the recommended improvements as shown in Exhibit 11 at the
Scenic Road I Santa Lucia Avenue intersection to improve traffic safety.
> Evaluate and monitor the total number of accidents for the year 2003 to
determine if there was an increase in annual accidents in the City of Carmel-
by-the-Sea. If it proves to be the case, the possible causes should be
investigated and rectified.

EVALUATION MATRIX FOR TRAFFIC "HOT SPOTS"
SOURCE OF
NO. LOCATION ISSUES/ASPECTS RECOMMENDATION
IDENTIFICATION
1. Junipero A venue/ih City Staff This intersection has severe sight distance Specific improvements
Avenue intersection inadequacies. recommended at this intersection
The sight line for EB vehicles wanting to include the facilitation of a two-
tum SB (right) onto Junipero Avenue from stage left tum movement for EB
ih Avenue is obscured by vegetation and vehicles turning from ih Avenue
parked tour busses between Ocean Avenue into Junipero Avenue.
and ih Avenue. The limit line on the EB approach I
The sight line for EB vehicles wanting to could be moved forward to enable 1
tum NB (left) onto Junipero Avenue from ih a motorist to have a better sight
Avenue is obscured by a vertical crest on line to detect oncoming vehicles
J unipero Avenue to the south of ih Avenue. on SB Junipero Avenue.
Although there has not been a significant The conceptual improvements to
number of accidents reported at this location, this intersection are shown in
safety improvement are required at this Exhibit 10.
intersection.
2. Scenic Drive/Santa Mayor Scenic Drive has one-way traffic flow in a Keeping in mind the City's
Lucia intersection SB travel direction from Ocean Avenue to informal policies on limiting
Santa Lucia Avenue. signing and striping, an
It changes into two-way traffic flow south of improvements proposal has been
Santa Lucia Avenue. This is confusing to prepared to convert this
motorists as there is not sufficient indication intersection into a 3-way stop
that the road changes (for motorists traveling controlled intersection.
in both directions). A different surface treatment is
Currently there is no stop control on Santa recommended to delineate the
Lucia A venue or for NB motorists on Scenic markings.
Drive. The conceptual improvements to
this intersection are shown in
Exhibit 11.
EVALUATION MATRIX FOR TRAFFIC HHOT SPOTS" Matrix Page 2 -
SOURCE OF
IDENTIFICATION
3. Rio Road/Santa Mayor, City Staff & Rio Road is one of the busiest roads in the The recommendation for this
Lucia intersection Chief of Police Carmel-by-the-Sea area and the speed intersection is to convert the 2-
surveys have shown that the 85th percentile way stop control at this
speed traveled at this location is 26 miles per intersection into a 3-way stop.
hour. However, this cannot be done
This intersection has severe sight distance without specific changes to the
inadequacies and the EB approach is stop Rio Road/Junipero Avenue/13th
controlled, i.e. vehicles have to stop for the Avenue intersection which will be
traffic on Rio Road. discussed under item 4.
The EB vehicles wishing to make either a
NB left tum or a SB right tum into Rio road
has very limited sight lines to safely make
the maneuvers.
This intersection is in close proximity to the
Rio Road/Junipero Avenue/13th Avenue
intersection, which has an influence on the
improvements that could be considered at
this intersection.
The multiway stop control warrant
assessment performed for this intersection
shows that the warrants for all-way stop
conditions are met.
- - -
6 """
.
.
EVALUATION MATRIX FOR TRAFFIC HHOT SPOTS" Matrix Page 3
~
NO. SOURCE OF
LOCATION ISSUES/ASPECTS RECOMMENDATION
IDENTIFICATION
4. Rio Road/Junipero Mayor, City Staff & This intersection is in close proximity to the There are several possible
A venue intersection Chief of Police Rio Road/Santa Lucia A venue intersection improvements that could be
and the operation of each of the intersections implemented at this intersection
has an influence on the other one. ranging from change of traffic
There are sight distance problems at this control to road improvements .
intersection. To simplify the intersection the
SB vehicles wanting to perform a left tum most southerly intersection of
from 13th Avenue/Rio Road into Junipero Ridgewood Road could be closed
Avenue practically have to make aU-tum. off and vehicles wanting to enter
SB right turns are prohibited from J unipero and exit Ridgewood Road should
A venue into 13th A venue due to the acute do so via the other intersection of
angle of the intersection. Junipero Avenue I Ridgewood Rd.
The stop on 13th Avenue/Rio
Road could be moved to be
located at Santa Lucia A venue.
J unipero A venue could be
realigned towards 13th A venue/Rio
Road to intersect at a 90 degree
angle and be stopped controlled.
This will improve the sight
distance as well as facilitate all
movements between 13th
A venue/Rio Road and J unipero
Avenue.
There is unfortunately no layout
plan available for this intersection,
so it was not possible to prepare a
concept drawing for the
recommended improvements.
EVALUATION MATRIX FOR TRAFFIC ((HOT SPOTS" Matrix Page 4
SOURCE OF
IDENTIFICATION
However, it is recommended that a

topographical survey is
commissioned for this intersection
to facilitate a proper conceptual
design.
A mini -roundabout could also be
investigated at this location.
In the interim to improve the
traffic safety for vehicles on Santa
Lucia Avenue, 3-way stop control
could be implemented at this
intersection.
5. 5th Avenue between Mayor & City Staff This section of 5th Avenue has one-way This item will become the topic of
Dolores Street and travel in an east direction to facilitate the a separate study and will thus not
San Carlos Street mail drop boxes at the Carmel-by-the-Sea be dealt with as part of this traffic
Post Office. safety study.
This small section of one-way traffic flow in
an area where two-way traffic flow is the
order of the day, is confusing, inconvenient
and interrupts the traffic circulation.
The parking lot that serves the Post office is
located on the corner of 5th Avenue and
Dolores Street. Pedestrians cross 5th Avenue
to go between the parking lot and the Post
Office .
. - -
~
:..,~.--
~:-
EVALUATION MATRIX FOR TRAFFIC "HOT SPOTS" - Matrix Page 5
SOURCE OF
IDENTIFICATION
6. gth Avenue speeding Mayor Spot speed surveys were conducted at Seeding is not a problem along
and Traffic flow several locations along gth Avenue. gt Avenue.
along gth Avenue The 85th percentile speed traveled on the Convert all intersections along the
streets surveyed showed speeds of 20 mph stretch of gth Avenue from the
and less. It is thus below the 25 mph posted commercial area to the beach to 4-
speed limit. way stops to improve the safety at
Stop control along the stretch of gth Avenue these intersections .
from the commercial area to the beach
alternates between gth Avenue and the cross
streets.
There are sight distance limitations at some
of the intersections.
7. Pedestrian City Staff There is no sidewalk provided for As an interim improvement until a
movement along pedestrians on Scenic Road between Ocean more permanent solution is found
Scenic Drive Avenue and gth Avenue. for pedestrians along this route, it
between Ocean Ocean Avenue has one-way traffic flow in a is recommended that a 3-4 foot
Avenue and 8th south direction and vehicles mostly park on "sidewalk" is painted on the left
Avenue the right hand side of the road side of the road to guide
This pedestrian route has also been identified pedestrians and motorists .
as one of the priority improvement routes by
the Vehicle/Pedestrian Team.
8. School safety at Mayor The safety of school children crossing the This is the topic of a separate
Stevenson School, road at this location is an issue. study and the services of Higgins
1st Avenue Associates have been obtained to
investigate this aspect.
The City staff will be informed of
the progress.
EVALUATION MATRIX FOR TRAFFIC HHOT SPOTS" Matrix Page 6
SOURCE OF
IDENTIFICATION
9. Avenue between
4th Mayor A request has been received by the Mayor The limited scope and resources
Monte Verde and from the residents along this section of 4th for this study made it impossible
San Antonio Avenue to convert this section of 4th Avenue to make a conclusive argument for
to one-way traffic flow. or against the one-way traffic
flow.
It is recommended that an
origin/destination study be
performed along this section of 4th
Avenue to determine the merits
for the change.
10. Traffic flow via City Staff Truck/passenger. vehicle/pedestrian The limited scope and resources
Carpenter Street movements along this section of the road has for this study made it impossible
from SR 1 to been and issue for a long time. to perform an in-depth study along
Junipero Avenue This route was also identified as one of the this route.
priority improvement routes by the The previous study performed by
Vehicle/Pedestrian Team and will be further the ITS of the Univ. of Berkeley
investigated. discusses the merits of this route at
length. It is recommended that this
specific corridor be the topic of a
separate study.
-- - - - - - - L__
EVALUATION MATRIX FOR TRAFFIC "HOT SPOTS" Matrix Page 7-
SOURCE OF
IDENTIFICATION
11. San Carlos Street/ Accident Analysis Intersection with highest number of Ensure that vegetation on median
Ocean Avenue accidents in evaluation period (11 accidents). is cut back regularly to improve
Intersection Two pedestrian injury accidents due to high sight distance .
pedestrian numbers. On weekends and special event
Unsafe start/ backup accidents due to too days with increased
many conflicting movements (4 accidents). vehicular/pedestrian movements, a
Two accidents occurred due to driving under police officer could perform point
influence (DUI). duty at intersection to reduce
Three accidents caused by vehicles parking. vehicular/pedestrian conflict and
One of the busiest intersections in the ensure pedestrian safety.
commercial area, with the highest vehicular Police should continue to monitor
and pedestrian traffic. DUI.
12. Mission Street/ 61h Accident Analysis Intersection in "top 10" for highest number Monitor situation to see if this
Avenue intersection of accidents in evaluation period (8 intersection continues to have high
accidents). accident rates.
Almost all the accidents at this intersection If high accident rates continue at
could be attributed to bad driving and most this intersection, a full sight
probably driver confusion. distance investigation should be
High vehicular/pedestrian movements, commissioned.
although no pedestrian accidents have been
reported.
Sight distance could be a problem due to
narrow roadway.
EVALUATION MATRIX FOR TRAFFIC HHOT SPOTS" Matrix Page8
-
SOURCE OF
IDENTIFICATION
13. San Carlos Street/ Accident Analysis Intersection in "top 10" for highest number The conversion of the 2-way stop
6thAvenue of accidents in evaluation period (8 to a 4-way stop would reduce
intersection accidents). driver confusion and most
One accident involving a pedestrian right-of- probably reduce the number of
way 1ssue. accidents caused by right-of-way
Broadside accidents could indicate traffic violation .
control problems. In most of these accidents
at this intersection the north-south vehicles
were at fault as they have the stop signs to
obey.
All, except one accident occurred in daytime .
However, street lighting is not present which
could influence the visibility.
San Carlos is a very busy street with heavy
pedestrian movements.
14. Linco In Street/ i h Accident Analysis Intersection in "top 10" for highest number Monitor this intersection to see if
Avenue intersection of accidents in evaluation period (8 it continues to have high number
accidents). of accidents.
All the accidents at this intersection could be The police could conduct spot
attributed to bad driving. The site checks for right-of-way violation.
investigation could not identify any specific
deficiency at the intersection that could
contribute to the accidents.
Only one accident occurred during the
evening/ nighttime. Lack of street lighting
could be a contributing factor to poor
visibility.
Half of the accidents occurred due to right-
of-way violation.
- -
EVALUATION MATRIX FOR TRAFFIC "HOT SPOTS" Matrix P ~
9
SOURCE OF
IDENTIFICATION
15. Mission Street/ ih Accident Analysis Intersection in "top 10" for highest number Perform a full sight distance
Avenue intersection of accidents in evaluation period (8 ace.). evaluation at this intersection to
All the accidents at this location were either recommend improvements .
caused by improper driving or unsafe start/
backup.
Five of the eight accidents involved parked

vehicles. This indicates that sight distance
could be a problem
There was no injuries resulted from the
accidents.
16. San Carlos Street/ Accident Analysis Intersection in "top 10" for highest number Converting the 2-way stop to a 4-
ih Avenue of accidents in evaluation period (8 way stop would help reduce driver
intersection accidents). confusion and most probably
There was one pedestrian accident during the reduce the number of accidents
evaluation period with injury. caused by right-of-way violation.
The 2-way stop control one ih Avenue is ...
confusing to drivers and pedestrians.
17. Junipero Avenue/ Accident Analysis Intersection in "top 10" for highest number There are three options available
Ocean Avenue/ and request by City of accidents in evaluation period (8 to solve the problems at this
Mountain View staff and Chief of accidents). intersection. They are:
Avenue intersection Police Five-leg intersection with far too many 1) Signalize the intersection.
potential conflicting movements, which can 2) Investigate the implementation
be confusing to many drivers. of a modem roundabout to
reduce vehicular conflict
points.
~
. , -.
'~. - . -.}~..,...~
~ _-I
EVALUATION MATRIX FOR TRAFFIC "HOT SPOTS"
Matrix Page 10
so~URCEOF
NO. LOCATION ISSUES/ASPECTS
IDENTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION
Junipero Avenue and Ocean Avenue west of 3) Convert the two-way traffic
Junipero Avenue are wide streets with flow on Mountain View
medians and two-lane approaches. The wide A venue to one-way flow in an
intersection creates a far distance from the easterly travel direction to
drivers' decision point to the movements. remove some of the conflicting
Ocean A venue is the main access route into movements.
Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Junipero A venue on bus and truck route .
There were 3 accidents reported where
pedestrians were involved.
18. Mission Street/ Accident Analysis Intersection in "top 10" for highest number Check the vegetation in the
Ocean Avenue of accidents in evaluation period (8 median to ensure adequate sight
intersection accidents). distance.
Two injury collisions were reported, of Monitor the number of accidents
which one involved a pedestrian. at this location.
High traffic and pedestrian volumes at this
intersection.
Most of the accidents were caused by bad
driving.
19. J unipero A venue/ Accident Analysis Intersection in "top 10" for highest number It could be considered to prohibit
6th Avenue of accidents in evaluation period (7 U-tums at this intersection due to
intersection accidents). its close proximity to the Junipero
The west approach of the intersection is a bit Avenue/ Ocean A venue
obscured and somewhat hidden when intersection.
vehicles are traveling in a southbound Perform a full sight distance
direction on Juniper Avenue. assessment for this intersection.
- - ~
~

-
.. ;~~.,_- ~,.
EVALUATION MATRIX FOR TRAFFIC (<HOT SPOTS" Matrix Page 11
SOURCE OF
IDENTIFICATION
Some vehicles traveling northbound on

Junipero Avenue perform U-turns at this
intersection to go back to Ocean Avenue,
which could add to vehicular conflicts and
accidents.
There were no injuries associated with any of
the reported accidents.
20. Dolores Street/ ih Accident Analysis Intersection in "top 10" for highest number Convert the 2-way stop to a 4-way
Avenue intersection of accidents in evaluation period (7 ace.). stop control at this intersection.
There was one injury accident involving a
pedestrian reported.
Two-way stop control increased motorist
confusion and could be the cause of the
' -
~ccidents with rig~!-~f-~(lY violation (3 ace.)
\
f:\ Reference Number of Traffic "Hot Spof'

\.Y as in Section 1.3 and Exhibit 1A
ciscussed in Evaluation Matrix Traffic Safety Hot Spots
0 1000 2000 Feet
Carmel-by-the-Sea
03-019\...\allacddents.apr
Number of Accidents
7 Exhibit 18
8 10 Locations with the Highest
11 Numbers of Accidents
0 1000 2000 Feet
Carmel-by-the-Sea
~E s
Road Hierarchy
-Arterials Exhibit 2
- - - Unofficial Arterials Existing Road Hierarchy
-Collectors Carmel-by-the-Sea
500 1000 1500 2000 Feet - - Other Streets
3-019\... \basemap.apr
' I
1"--,
1 ------
......__.
- ..._
,...__
----
--- ---t ,;--- --.. ......
>..
ISpecial Service}.~
r
...... __
--- ____ .....

- -----
I
--;----r~-
- - Bus Routes
- - - Boundary of Commercial Zone Exhibit 3
- -Truck Routes
Bus and Truck Routes
[!] MST Bus Route Number
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
0 500 1000 1500 2000 Feet
-
Bike Route
Coastal Route Southbound
1
- Coastal Route Northbound Exhibit 4
- Commuter Route Bicycle Routes
-East-West Link
r;;;-1 Bike Route Sign Carmel-by-the-Sea
500 1000 1500 2000 Feet
lJ' Ma Kiosk
~-019 ... \oosemap.apr
Extent of Accident Exhibit 5A
Complaint of Pain Locations of Accidents
Other Visible Injury Involving Pedestrians
~t. Property Damaae Only Carmel-by-the-Sea
0 500 1000 1500 200'0 Feet
-019\ ... \allaccidents.apr
L
\_
Exhibit 58
CD Route Number Proposed Priority Pedestrian
Improvement Routes
0 500 1000 1500 2000 Feet
Carmel-by-the-Sea
E
8 one-way stop
'ra\i two-way stop
. . Exhibit 6
~ 3-way stop ExlstngTraffic Control Device in
Ill 4-way stop
1500 Feet
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
1 5-way stop
Extent of Accident
Complaint of Pain Exhibit 7
Other Visible Injury
Property Damage Only
=
Accidents with PCF Traffic Signs
Carmel-by-the-Sea
500 1000 1500 2000 Feet
PCF: Primary Collison Factor
f---1---
I T
I
-
f--
r---
f--r--
1--
f---
~--r=Jhl----r----
Parking Types and Number of Spaces

-Short-Term (<30 min.): 154
-One-Hour: 502 Exhibit BA
-Two-Hour: 232 Commercial District
- N o Time Limit: 323
~Truck Loading: 14
Street Parking Types
-Passenger Loading: 7 Carmel-by-the-Sea
Special Purpose: 1
100 200 300 400 Feet
Total: 1233 S aces
~-019\ ...\basemap.apr
Exhibit 88
Commercial District Street Parking
Number of Spaces
0 100 200 300 400
I
Feet Carmel-by-the-Sea
I
~mbers represent available spaces

Extent of Accident
Complaint of Pain Exhibit ac
Other Visible Injury Locations of Accidents Involved
L Property Damage Only
0 1000 2000 Feet with Parked Vehicles
\
Exhibit 9
@85th Percentile Speed in Miles Per Hour (mph) 85th Percentile Speed
Carmel-by-the-Sea
500 1000 1500 2000 Feet
GENERAL NOTES
:DGE OF PAVEMENT/CURB
1. ALL EXISTING STRIPING AND PAVEM
LEGEND WHICH CONFLICTS WITH THE OF PAVEMENT
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE
REMOVED AS NECESSARY MENT LEGEND
5TRIPING
LINE/STRIPING
NEW RAISED MEDIAN
OR PLANTED MEDIAN ~OADSIDE SIGN
~OADSIDE SIGN TO REMAIN
STRIPING DETAIL #
L
,ERO STREET
~
REDUCE SIZE
OF EXISTING
PLANTER
EXHIBIT 10
Junipero Ave. / Seventh Ave.
Improvement Proposal
ng: J :\2003\001 -050\03-01 9\Arch Jun ipero and SeventhC2 .dwg

H IGGINS AssociATES 1t : Layout 1
)9, 2004 , 10 :49am
GENERAL NOTES
1. ALL EXISTING STRIPING AND PAG EDGE OF PAVEMENT/CURB
LEGEND WHICH CONFLICTS WITH Tf
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHALL 'RIPING
REMOVED AS NECESSARY :; ROADSIDE SIGN
>ADSIDE SIGN
NEW ROADSIDE SIGN

; ROADSIDE SIGN TO REMAIN
~S STRIPING DETAIL #
EXISTING
NEW
EXISTING "NO
NEW STAMPED-
CONCRETE
CROSSWALK (R 1B)
,\
RAISED@--
PAVEMENT
MARKERS
EXISTING DOUBLE RAISED f21\-_

PAVEMENT MARKERS~~~
NEW "STOP" SIGN (R1) 0 .

GRAPHIC SCALE
.-------------.
~
~
10 20
I I EXHIBIT 11
------ r
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 20 ft.
I
Scenic Rd. / Santa Lucia Ave.
Improvement Proposal
HIGGINS AssociATES _oyoul : Layout 1

Jon 09. 2004, 10:49am
7/20/2017
Traffic Accident Report
Grouped and Sorted By Date and Time
Number
Date Time Day__ Location Intersection/Distance___Cr_oss Street PCF lnj\Killed - -
-- - - Incident No.
11/20/13 1318 WED 8THAV 30 FEET WEST MISSION STREET 22107 01\ CJOHNSON CA1300737
01/03/14 1544 FRI 8THAV 14 FEET NORTH MISSION STREET 21802(A) 01\ BOUCHER CA1400006
09/15/14 1619 MON 8THAV 29 FEET WEST MISSION STREET 22107 \ CJOHNSON CA1400501
10/07/14 1547 TUE 8THAV 25 FEET WEST MISSION ST. Unknown \ MUKAI CA1400550
11/25/15 1325 WED s 8THAV 5 FEET WEST MISSION STREET 22107 \ LIGHTFOOT CA1500707
12/16/15 1917 WED 8THAV 74 WEST MISSION 22106 \ PFLEGER CA1500756
01102/16 2227 SAT N 8THAV 102 FEET EAST MISSION STREET 22107 \ BRUNO CA1600004
04/20/17 1900 THU 8THAV 79 FEET WEST MISSION STREET 22106 \ BRUNO CA1700230
Record Count 8
7/20/2017
Traffic Accident Report
Grouped and Sorted By Date and Time
Number
_Date Time Day Location Intersection/Distance Cross Street _Cf lnj\Killed _lo_cident No.
11118/13 1252 MON E MISSION 132 FEET NORTH 8TH AVENUE 22517 \ JUAREZ CA1300733
05/24/14 1217 SAT MISSIONST 36 FEET NORTH 8TH 22106 \ BOUCHER CA1400256
06/16/15 1748 TUE MISSIONST X 8TH AVENUE 21802(A) 01 \ POWELL CA1500306
09/27/16 1141 TUE MISSIONST X 8TH AVENUE 22450(A) \ BRUNO CA1600591
07/08/17 1245 SAT MISSIONST 61 FEET NORTH 8TH AVENUE 22107 \ PFLEGER CA1700425
07/13/17 1417 THU MISSION ST 158 FEET SOUTH 8THAVENUE 22350 \ PFLEGER CA1700445
Record Count 6
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
RESOLUTION 2017-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS AND PAINTED CROSSWALKS
CREATING A FOUR-WAY STOP SIGN CONTROLLED INTERSECTION AT MISSION STREET
& 8TH AVENUE.
WHEREAS, the Traffic Safety Committee unanimously approved the installation of

additional stop signs and painted crosswalks on 8TH Avenue, creating a four-way stop sign
controlled intersection at Mission Street, and
WHEREAS, a review of the location, the technical memorandum prepared by Keith

Higgins of Mott MacDonald, and
WHEREAS, a review of traffic accident data revealed a safety hazard at this intersection
due to both speed and visual obscurities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Concur that adding stop signs on 8th Avenue at Mission as well as adding painted
crosswalks the location will improve motorist and pedestrian safety by converting the
intersection into a four-way stop.
2. Authorize Public Works to install stop signs at the intersection of Mission Street and 8th
Avenue.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-

THE-SEA on this 8th day of August 2017 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

SIGNED:
_________________________
STEVE G. DALLAS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
ASHLEE WRIGHT, City Clerk

Four - Way Stop Sign Mission ST & 8th Av 08-08-17

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Four - Way Stop Sign Mission ST & 8th Av 08-08-17

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members

SUBMITTED BY: Paul Tomasi, Director of Public Safety

APPROVED BY: Chip Rerig, City Administrator

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION

None at this intersection.

1. Technical Memorandum from Keith Higgins, PE,TE-Mott MacDonald

To: Tom Fountain

RE: sth Avenue Pedestrian Facility Needs Assessment, Carmel-by-the-5ea, CA

2 4-WayStop 11.1 B 10.0 A 11.3 B

Mission Street /8th Avenue Intersection Multi-Way Stop Warrant Evaluation

1. Meeting a Signal Warrant

Meeting a Signal Warrant

Vehicle and Pedestrian Volumes

1. The need to control/eft-turn conflicts:

Sight Distance for Northbound Traffic

Sight Distance for Southbound Traffic

ath Avenue Study Segment Pedestrian Usage

1. Walking on the north side of 8th Avenue on the street

Possible Increases in Pedestrian Activity

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan

2. Both Study Intersections operate at acceptable levels of service.

The following recommendations are based on the preceding analysis.

USE CROSSWALK USE CROSSWALK

RBF Consulting, 2010

Mott MacDonald Project Study Area

Traffic Count Data Traffic Count Summary

Vehicles Veh, Ped, Bike Total nme

Source: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Department

Appendix A-1 Appendix A-2

& 8:00AM 0 1 8 0 0 0 27 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 42 155

Jii.b t..s -~ ~-- :;~~~?~~i~';E:t

,:) s~ 9:30AM 0 1 15 1 0 1 20 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 8 53 220

~ ~j ~!! ~ NE3 8.~ ~

~ s;:::; ~ tfO~o~!~-mrr== ~ r.; a

! WB 3.5% 0.87 ~ .o . '

:~Eaa:lr:.@~ ~:r:J~cRt~;s:;;H;!-~'t~i-tll 'llf1,~it:~;r.~~~~t

. ;~:1Er~~-}~r,.~~52' l~. t:)l,:..:t.:~'.;~:l ~:::::1~1 i E.I:.;. :: ~~:2~~-~~1 ~:S~Ih:.:

~:E; 51~ii,i11'1%,~;~j-; "!tl-~lf; l:~l c~H~:t~i!i~~~~

~ o~_-.~-~ ~.. ~1o N~ ~-'_;~ o ~

~t~<'; ~~~~~~b~~ ~.t~~Bg;r~t;~:.::i;~;:.:~bt;~:J:~ ti.~ .:.J<.~ ~:\: ~~~-. f~ . ,.;

10:4$AM 1n~rv1l Ha~ Vehicle Totals BlcveJ~s P - . b l -rctaasl'i!z_4iii_

~;~~ 1ft1J,h~r~ ~.~ :t~~:rtf:i~!~:L ,::~:ii~~:,~~i~t

Four-Hour Count Summaries Four-Hour Count Summaries He~ Vehicle

Count Tolal I 1 58 3&3 15 I o 24 378 27 I o 8 zr 20 I s 43 47 76 I 1.082 I o 2:45PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

,;! WB 6.4% 0.88 1

Tollll East Wosl

Four-Hour Count Summaries

;f~~. :fl~f.~zt :~:~:~;5:~~:~~: :1*l~:;ni. :~ Iit~it :.~i: ~i

:.~~t~ :\~ .,:;:-;a~~r!~.~\~' '~;:\:!:_!;Z,'.~ 3 ;-~.:~-~:!--1

, ii$-. :}.::r~I~fr !-~fi.!, :I--~~i:.t- !~I.t: P~:-:!:: _,~:tc:i{t'I,f~~~~;,-~~J.~;;~~ii~

-~;i~~;~ .;i;.~~Jlf-~;;~ };_]~:,.,f_E~i;

5:15PM 0 .::> L.2 ' 2

\5iEml11 ~~SI i!Etfi~~:}!t,~iE~

:'ll'oak'HoW .. .,. , ('"'"" . -,,.,,:.. ~. ''i,>.., 2 o , o ,. "2 : 1.:. . z .J to

OeonFouche:415757 7714 deon.fouche@idaxdata.com Oeon Fouche: 415 757-7714 deon.fouche@idaxdala.com

Four-Hour Count Summaries Four-Hour Count Summaries Heavy Vehicles

~ ~ ~ ~ 0.~ .-...... ~ ,.,.., .

\' ;ii~,~~i~;l: ~~41+Er ~~:fi:.,E~:I ,r~,i si>i ::;~a;,~

- :_~E~-rr.~:i :-~w::;k;~.,.~:. ~ ;:.~\ iY~: .~ %~ :- ~. :~.--~ ~,-1- ~~:i"~t~)l,:~t?:;:t~~~i:E~-:~,~-

Four-Hour Count Summaries Four-Hour Count Summaries Heavy Vehicles

:r~r:5 m~rrm ~11!:I ~~~1~ ;~}

Four-Hour Count Summaries Bikes

Jii.b t..s -~ ~-- :;~?i~';E:t

. ;~:1Er~~-}~r,.~~52' l~. t:)l,:..:t.:~'.;~:l ~:::::1~1 i E.I:.;. :: :2-~~1 ~:S~Ih:.:

~t~<'; ~~~~b ~.t~~Bg;r~t;~:.::i;~;:.:~bt;~:J:~ ti.~ .:.J<.~ ~:\: ~~~-. f~ . ,.;

~;~~ 1ft1J,h~r~ ~.~ :t~~:rtf:i~!~:L ,::~:ii:,i~t

;f~~. :fl~f.~zt :~:~:~;5::: :1*l~:;ni. :~ Iit~it :.~i: ~i

, ii$-. :}.::r~I~fr !-~fi.!, :I--~~i:.t- !~I.t: P~:-:!:: _,~:tc:i{t'I,f~~;,-J.~;;~~ii~

\5iEml11 SI i!Etfi:}!t,~iE~

\' ;ii~,~~i~;l: 41+Er :fi:.,E~:I ,r~,i si>i ::;~a;,~