Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-05-12 Rail Committee Agenda PacketRAIL COMMITTEE Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 12, 2026 Community Meeting Room & Hybrid 2:30 PM   Rail Committee meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 76, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/86388142528) Meeting ID: 863 8814 2528 Phone: 1(669)900-6833   PUBLIC COMMENTS General Public Comment for items not on the agenda will be accepted in person for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. General public comment will be heard for 30 minutes. Additional public comments, if any, will be heard at the end of the agenda. Public comments for agendized items will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. Requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation or as determined by the Chair. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to city.council@PaloAlto.gov and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. Multiple individuals who wish to speak on the same item may designate a spokesperson. Spokespersons must be representing five or more verified individuals who are present either in person or via zoom. Spokespeople will be allowed up to 10 minutes, at the discretion of the presiding officer. Speaking time may be reduced if the presiding officer reduces the speaking time for individual speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to city.clerk@PaloAlto.gov at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other types of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.  1 May 12, 2026 Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak in-person ONLY to any item NOT on the agenda. 1-3 minutes depending on number of speakers. Public Comment is limited to 30 minutes. Additional public comments, if any, will be heard at the end of the agenda. VERBAL UPDATE ON INTERAGENCY ACTIVITIES   A.Caltrain B.VTA C.City Staff ACTION ITEMS   1.Alma Street-Charleston Road Railroad Crossing Near-Term Section 130 Safety Improvement Project 2.Initial Review of the Technical Activities that Informed the 15% Design Development for the Grade Separations at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road. FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)   ADJOURNMENT      2 May 12, 2026 Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1.Written public comments may be submitted by email to city.council@PaloAlto.gov. 2.For in person public comments please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item. 3.Spoken public comments for agendized items using a computer or smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. ◦You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in- browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. Or download the Zoom application onto your smart phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter in the Meeting ID below. ◦You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. ◦When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. ◦When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 4.Spoken public comments for agendized items using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 863-8814-2528 Phone: 1-669-900-6833 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@PaloAlto.gov. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.  3 May 12, 2026 Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas California Government Code §84308, commonly referred to as the "Levine Act," prohibits an elected official of a local government agency from participating in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use if the official received a campaign contribution exceeding $500 from a party or participant, including their agents, to the proceeding within the last 12 months. A “license, permit, or other entitlement for use” includes most land use and planning approvals and the approval of contracts that are not subject to lowest responsible bid procedures and have a value over $50,000. A “party” is a person who files an application for, or is the subject of, a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use. A “participant” is a person who actively supports or opposes a particular decision in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use, and has a financial interest in the decision. The Levine Act incorporates the definition of “financial interest” in the Political Reform Act, which encompasses interests in business entities, real property, sources of income, sources of gifts, and personal finances that may be affected by the Council’s actions. If you qualify as a “party” or “participant” to a proceeding, and you have made a campaign contribution to a Council Member exceeding $500 made within the last 12 months, you must disclose the campaign contribution before making your comments.  4 May 12, 2026 Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas Rail Committee Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: ACTION ITEMS Lead Department: Transportation Meeting Date: May 12, 2026 Report #:2604-6222 TITLE Alma Street-Charleston Road Railroad Crossing Near-Term Section 130 Safety Improvement Project RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Rail Committee review and recommend that Council direct staff to move forward with the proposed near-term safety improvements to the Alma Street and Charleston Road Railroad Crossing, including direction to complete final design plans, environmental analysis, project specifications, and engineering cost estimates for construction. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Rail, in cooperation with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Power Board (also known as Caltrain or JPB) and the City of Palo Alto, proposes a railroad crossing improvement project at Charleston Road in Palo Alto. This intersection was identified by California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for safety improvements as part of Section 130 federal funding for hazard elimination at railroad crossings. In December 2024, City Council authorized a contract with BKF Engineers to prepare plan line concepts, final design plans, permit applications, and construction documents for improvements to the intersection of Alma Street and Charleston Road. The project objectives are to improve the safety, efficiency, and experience of the intersection and rail crossing for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. Based on the scope of improvements listed in the Service Contract with Caltrans, the project team collaboratively developed concept plans that include the following described below: Installation of a pre-track traffic signal (pre-signal), Relocation of select traffic signal equipment at Alma Street, Replacement of the existing pedestrian crossing markings, Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 5 of 72  Reconstruction of pedestrian curb ramps, Reconfiguring pedestrian sidewalks at the northwest and southwest corners of the intersection, Addition of bike lane markings, and Modification of railroad emergency pedestrian gates and gate arms. On October 28, 2025, the project team held a community meeting to introduce the project, present existing conditions, and receive feedback from members of the public on the proposed improvements. On March 3, 2026, the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) reviewed the concept plan for this project, discussed, and provided comments and input. BACKGROUND The intersection of Alma Street and Charleston Road is close to an active railroad, with high volumes of vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic, particularly in the morning and afternoon commute periods as students travel to and from school. The intersection was identified by the CPUC as a candidate for safety improvements and hazard elimination for at-grade railroad crossings. A diagnostic team comprised of staff from CPUC, Caltrans, JPB, and the City of Palo Alto developed recommendations for safety improvements at this location. The diagnostic team evaluated the existing conditions with respect to vehicular travel, bicycle travel, pedestrian pathways, and rail operations, and determined that the identified safety improvements would be 100% eligible for Section 130 Program funding. The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) and the City will be required to coordinate their respective work items. The Railway-Highway Crossings (Section 130) Program overseen by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides funds for hazard elimination at railway-highway crossings. The Section 130 Program has been correlated with a significant decrease in collisions and fatalities at railway crossings. Section 130 funds are eligible for projects at all public crossings including roadways, bike trails, and pedestrian paths. In November 2023, Caltrans’ Division of Rail and Mass Transportation executed Service Contract No. 50LP298, with the City of Palo Alto; and on December 2, 2024, Palo Alto City Council authorized a contract with BKF Engineers for Charleston Road and Alma Street Railroad Crossing Safety Improvement Plan. Scope elements include preparation of concept plans, final design plans, and construction documents, for intersection improvements at Charleston Road and Alma Road. Improvements include, but are not limited to, traffic signal Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 6 of 72  modifications, sidewalk and crosswalk improvements, signing and striping updates, and pedestrian railroad crossing improvements. The project team includes BKF Engineers, along with subconsultants, Hexagon Transportation Consultants and Callander Associates, in consultation with City staff. ANALYSIS Collision data Required scope of work Proposed project improvements Traffic analysis Community outreach and engagement Next steps Collision Data Required Scope of Work Modification of the existing traffic signal operations at the nearby intersection of Alma Street / Charleston Road, including the addition of advance traffic signal preemption, Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 7 of 72  Based on this scope of improvements, which is outlined in the City’s contract with Caltrans, the project team developed a conceptual plan. The conceptual plan encompasses: Proposed Project Improvements Traffic Analysis Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 8 of 72  school, and PM peak hour intersection delays and levels of service at the Alma/Charleston intersection under existing conditions and with the proposed safety improvement. Community Outreach and Engagement Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 9 of 72  • Safety and visibility for bicyclists including bike lane striping suggestions that will be evaluated and incorporated where possible. On March 3, 2026, the project team also presented this project to the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) for review and discussion. A summary of the PABAC meeting is included in Attachment D. In addition to the questions shared during the meeting, the committee was encouraged to submit any follow-up questions or comments via e-mail to staff. PABAC members provided the following key comments: Attendees expressed gratitude that the proposed project is moving forward given the high volume of pedestrian and bicyclists that use this intersection. • Some attendees noted bike marking improvements, and signal timing improvements at other Palo Alto locations as potential examples for providing safer movements for bicyclists and pedestrians through the intersection. Next Steps The project team is currently updating conceptual plans based on input from community members, stakeholders, and City staff. An in-progress concept plan set from November 2025 is provided in Attachment A, with jurisdiction limits of work displayed in Attachment E. Design revisions still to be implemented include extending green pavement markings up to the rail crossing panels indicating the path that bicyclists should take through the crossing area. Pending Council approval, the project team will develop final design plans, specifications, and engineer’s cost estimates for the construction bid. Staff will work closely with JPB, Caltrans, and CPUC during the final design process. Design work is slated for completed by September 2026. Construction would be scheduled thereafter and is expected to be completed by the end of 2027. These near-term improvements do not preclude the City from taking separate longer-term actions as part of the railroad crossing grade separation initiatives that have been explored as part of the Rail Committee. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT Funding for improvements to Alma Street and Charleston Road intersection is provided through the approved Charleston Road/Alma Street Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements Capital Improvement Project PL-25002. This location was identified through the Federal Section 130 program administered by Caltrans for increasing safety at at-grade rail crossings. Based on Service Contract No. 50LP298 between the City of Palo Alto and Caltrans Division of Rail and Mass Transportation, the City will receive federal Section 130 Grade Crossing Improvement Program funds on a reimbursement basis. The existing agreement between the Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 10 of 72  City and Caltrans provides the City with $700,000 for the design phase through Section 130 funds, including the existing BKF design contract in the amount of $397,705. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 11 of 72  Item 1 Attachment A - Conceptual Plan Exhibit - November 2025        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 12 of 72  Item 1 Attachment A - Conceptual Plan Exhibit - November 2025        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 9  Packet Pg. 13 of 72  Memorandum Date: January 2, 2026 To: City of Palo Alto CC: Mr. Jason Yee, BKF Engineers From: Trisha Dudala, Katie Riutta Subject: Transportation Analysis for the Charleston Road/Alma Street Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements in Palo Alto, California Summary The City of Palo Alto is proposing safety improvements at the signalized intersection of Alma Street/ Charleston Road, the adjacent railroad crossing, and the unsignalized intersection of Ruthelma Avenue/Charleston Road. The Charleston Road at-grade crossing was identified for funding of hazard elimination and safety improvements through a federally funded program. The proposed railroad crossing improvement project at Charleston Road in Palo Alto is a joint project between the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB), the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and the City of Palo Alto. The railroad crossing is located approximately 25 feet southwest of the signalized intersection of Charleston Road and Alma Street. The intersection traffic signals are interconnected with the railroad track circuitry system for simultaneous preemption. There is enough space for one vehicle between the intersection and the railroad tracks. Eastbound motorists sometimes queue on the tracks due to the lack of storage space. The proposed railroad crossing safety improvement includes the installation of a pre-signal on eastbound Charleston Road to better keep motorists from queuing on the railroad tracks. The pre- signal would restrict vehicles from turning right on red and would potentially affect vehicular capacity at the Charleston/Alma intersection. This study looked at traffic operations during three time periods: the weekday morning commute (7-9 AM), the after school time period (2-4 PM), and the evening commute (4-6 PM). It is during these hours that the intersection experiences the most traffic congestion. The analysis was conducted using the simulation software VISSIM by PTV Vision, which has the ability to analyze signal preemption. The traffic analysis was conducted under existing conditions and with increased Caltrain frequency, which would happen when ridership increases. The analysis of the installation of a pre-signal on eastbound Charleston Road showed that the average vehicular queues on eastbound Charleston Road would increase from existing conditions during all three peak periods because the pre-signal would restrict right-turns on red. Under existing conditions without a pre-signal, the stop line for eastbound Charleston Road is located to the west of the train tracks, along with a “Stop here on Red” sign that informs motorists to stop before the tracks. However, field observations showed that some motorists would pull forward across the train tracks and wait in the area on the east side of the tracks, and right-turning vehicles were observed to turn onto southbound Alma Street. Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 10  Packet Pg. 14 of 72  Charleston Road/Alma Street Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements January 2, 2026 Page | 2 Alma Street and Charleston Road Railroad Crossing Existing Conditions Analysis The existing conditions analysis was conducted based on existing peak hour traffic volumes, existing lane geometries, existing signal timings, and the number of trains during the peak hours as described below. An aerial image of the existing striping at the Alma Street and Charleston Road Railroad Crossing is shown on Figure 1. Existing Lane Geometry Separate left-turn lanes are provided on Alma Street in both the northbound and southbound directions to Charleston Road, including two northbound left-turn lanes and one southbound left- turn lane (see Figure 1). In addition, there is a separate southbound right-turn lane on Alma Street to westbound Charleston Road. Charleston Road is striped with a shared left/through lane and a shared through/right lane in both directions at Alma Street. The stop line for eastbound Charleston Road is located to the west of the train tracks, along with a “Stop here on Red” sign that informs motorists to stop at the stop line. The area between the tracks and Alma Street is striped out to suggest no stopping in that area. Bike lanes are present in both directions on Charleston Road and on-street parking is not permitted. On Alma Street, bike facilities are not provided and on-street parking is not permitted. Traffic Volumes AM, after school, and PM peak-hour turning movement counts for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles were conducted at the Alma/Charleston intersection in January 2025, when schools were in session. As shown on Figure 2, a total of 3,103 vehicles, 89 bicycles, and 12 pedestrians were counted during the AM peak hour, 2,980 vehicles, 30 bicycles, and 9 pedestrians were counted during the after school peak hour, and a total of 3,509 vehicles, 30 bicycles, and 5 pedestrians were counted during the PM peak hour. Signal Timing and Phasing The existing signal timing data at the Alma Street and Charleston Road intersection were obtained from the city and verified in the field. The Alma/Charleston intersection signal currently operates at approximately 175-second cycle lengths during the AM, after school, and PM peak hours. The existing traffic signal operates with protected phasing for the northbound and southbound left-turns on Alma Street, with leading southbound left-turns and lagging northbound left-turns. Charleston Road operates with split phase signal timing, with the westbound approach being served before the eastbound approach. Signal Preemption As the Charleston Road railroad crossing is located approximately 25 feet southwest of Alma Street, the intersection of Alma Street and Charleston Road is equipped to receive a traffic preemption signal when there is a train detection. This is a special control mode in the traffic signal controller designed to start up and clear any vehicular traffic on the roadway approach crossing the railroad tracks. Before the train approaches the intersection, eastbound vehicular queues on Charleston Road between the railroad gate and Alma Street are cleared. After that, southbound left and through vehicles receive a green light, followed by southbound through and northbound through vehicles, for the duration of the train movement. A total preemption time of 45 seconds was observed from the start of the railroad crossing warning to after the train has passed the crossing and the gates were raised. Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 11  Packet Pg. 15 of 72  Park B l v d W C h a r l e s t o n R d E Ch a r l e s t o n R d Alma S t Alma S t Park B l v d W C h a r l e s t o n R d E Ch a r l e s t o n R d Alma S t Alma S t Charleston Road/Alma Street Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements Figure 1 Alma Street and Charleston Road Railroad Crossing – Existing Striping Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 12  Packet Pg. 16 of 72  Palo Alto Mountain View El C a m i n o R e a l Ruth e l m a A v e El C a m i n o R e a l Ruth e l m a A v e Alma S t Alma S t Park B l v d Ely P l Wilki e W a y Wilk i e W a y E Ch a r l e s t o n R d Ne l s o n D r W C h a r l e s t o n R d Middl e f i e l d R d W M e a d o w D r Whit c l e m D r San A n t o n i o R d Carlson Ct Mum f o r d P l E M e a d o w D r Lindero Dr Cha r l e s t o n Rd Alm aSt 61580 41 40 232 65 1 21 5 351,12 3310 99 339 177 1 5 1572 17 2 Cha r l e s t o n Rd Alm aSt 98960 33 68 220 35 2 3 30795199 79 277 186 5 1 15 16 1 Cha r l e s t o n Rd Alm aSt 79991 41 61 262 40 3 491,12 2294 81 293 196 1 2 8 21 AM Peak Hour - 8 AM - 9 AM PM Peak Hour - 5 PM - 6 PM After School Peak Hour - 3 PM - 4 PM = Pedestrian = Bicycles on Roadway = Bicycles on Crosswalk LEGEND Charleston Road/Alma Street Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements Figure 2 Alma Street and Charleston Road Existing Lane Geometry and Traffic Volumes Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 13  Packet Pg. 17 of 72  Charleston Road/Alma Street Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements January 2, 2026 Page | 5 Number of Trains Based on the current Caltrain schedule, there are a total of 8 trains (4 northbound and 4 southbound) during the AM and PM peak hours. Although the actual train spacing varies daily, the analysis assumed a constant time interval between consecutive trains, which calculates to one train every 7 ½ minutes. This represents average conditions. Occasionally trains arrive closer together, which creates longer delays, or more spread out, which creates shorter delays. Analysis of the after-school peak hour assumed the operation of 6 trains (3 trains in each direction) based on the Caltrain schedule. The spacing of the trains during the after-school peak hour was assumed to be every 10 minutes. Field Observations AM Peak Hour During the AM peak hour, long vehicular queues were observed on northbound Alma Street and eastbound Charleston Road that required one to two cycles to clear. Eastbound queues sometimes extended nearly to Wilkie Way, with or without train preemption. Eastbound vehicles were frequently observed to make right-turns on red and would sometimes drive forward from the stop bar west of the tracks to queue within the hashed area between the tracks and the intersection during a red light. Typically, only one vehicle per lane would be stopped within the hashed area and vehicles would not be stopped on the tracks themselves. Eastbound bicycles were also observed to stop within the hashed area during a red light. After School Peak Hour During the after school peak hour, long vehicular queues were observed on southbound Alma Street and eastbound Charleston Road that sometimes required more than one cycle to clear. It was observed that the railroad warning light and the intersection traffic control device preemption mode were activated at the same time, in simultaneous preemption operation. It was also observed that eastbound vehicles and northbound left turn vehicles commonly rush through the yellow light and even run the red light. As such, two northbound left-turning vehicles were stopped east of the gate when the gate lowered and blocked southbound traffic until one vehicle changed to the outer lane. It was also observed once during the observation period that the gate lowered and lifted shortly after, without any train having crossed. Eastbound vehicles and bicycles were frequently observed to drive forward into the hashed area during a red light. Some eastbound vehicles were observed to stop just past the stop bar west of the tracks and needed to back up when the gates lowered. Another eastbound vehicle was observed to stop within the hashed area with the rear of the vehicle touching the train tracks. PM Peak Hour During the PM peak hour, long vehicular queues were observed on southbound Alma Street and eastbound Charleston Road. Vehicular queues on all approaches sometimes required more than one cycle to clear due to signal preemption. Eastbound and northbound left turning vehicles were again observed to sometimes run a red light at the end of the signal phase. It was observed once during the field visit that a northbound left-turning vehicle at the end of the signal phase was abruptly stopped by the warning gate east of the tracks and resulted in a rearend collision with the vehicle behind. Eastbound vehicles were sometimes observed to stack two vehicles within the hashed area east of the tracks. Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 14  Packet Pg. 18 of 72  Charleston Road/Alma Street Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements January 2, 2026 Page | 6 Railroad Crossing The railroad crossing is located approximately 25 feet southwest of the Charleston Road/Alma Street intersection (see Figure 2). Under existing conditions, the stop line for eastbound Charleston Road is located to the west of the train tracks, along with a “Stop here on Red” sign that informs motorists to stop at the stop line. The area between the tracks and Alma Street is striped out to suggest no stopping in that area. However, field observations showed that some motorists would pull forward across the train tracks and wait in the area on the east side of the tracks, and right- turning vehicles were observed to turn on red. This could be because the striped-out area is not highly visible as it is located on a downslope from the higher elevation of the train tracks. Therefore, the existing conditions simulation model was coded with the eastbound stop line located to the east of the train tracks. Proposed Safety Improvement The Alma Street and Charleston Road intersection is located immediately east of the railroad crossing, and there is enough storage space for only one vehicle between the intersection and the railroad tracks (see Figure 1). The proposed safety improvement includes installing a pre-signal on eastbound Charleston Road. The pre-signal would add a signal head at the existing stop line for eastbound Charleston Road traffic to the west of the tracks and would restrict motorists from queuing within the train crossing area. The pre-signal would restrict right-turns on red for eastbound Charleston Road traffic. Analysis of the effect of the proposed railroad crossing improvements on existing traffic conditions at Alma Street and Charleston Road was conducted. Table 1 summarizes AM, after school, and PM peak hour intersection delays and levels of service at the Alma/Charleston intersection under existing conditions and with the proposed safety improvement. Table 1 Alma and Charleston Intersection Delay and Levels of Service – Existing Conditions Peak Hour Avg. Delay LOS Avg. Delay LOS Delay Increase Alma Street and Charleston Road AM 75.3 E 81.4 F 6.1 After School 54.1 D 56.4 E 2.3 PM 73.1 E 78.5 E 5.4 Notes: Avg Delay = Average Delay in seconds; LOS = Level of Service; 1 Existing traffic conditions were analyzed based on traffic counts collected in January 2025. A total of 8 trains were assumed to operate during the weekday AM and PM commute peak hours and a total of 6 trains were assumed to operate during the after school PM peak hour. 2 Safety improvement consists of a pre-signal for eastbound Charleston Road located west of the train tracks. The eastbound right-turn traffic would not be allowed to turn on red. Intersection Existing 1 Existing + Safety Improvement 2 Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 15  Packet Pg. 19 of 72  Charleston Road/Alma Street Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements January 2, 2026 Page | 7 As shown in Table 1, under existing conditions, the Alma Street and Charleston Road intersection operates at LOS E during the AM and PM peak hours and LOS D during the after school peak hour. With the proposed railroad crossing improvement, the results show that the average intersection delay would increase by about two to six seconds. This is due to the restriction of right turns on red. Traffic counts during all three time periods show a relatively high volume of right-turning traffic from eastbound Charleston Road to southbound Alma Street. Tables 2, 3 and 4 show the queue lengths for all approaches at the Alma/Charleston intersection during the AM, after school, and PM peak hours. As shown in these tables, the proposed pre-signal would result in an increase in average queue lengths of more than 25% for eastbound Charleston traffic during all three time periods. However, it should be noted that since the existing conditions model was coded with the stop line to the east of the tracks, and field observations showed that some vehicles were observed to stop at the existing stop line located to the west of the tracks, the actual increase in vehicular delays and queues between the existing and existing + pre-signal scenarios would be less than what is shown in the tables. Recommendations In addition to the pre-signal on eastbound Charleston Road, Hexagon recommends that the City consider implementing advance signal preemption operation. With advance preemption operation, the traffic signal controller would allow vehicles to clear the intersection before the gates came down. Table 2 Alma and Charleston Intersection Queue Length – Existing Conditions (AM Peak) Intersection Approach Average Queue Maximum Queue Average Queue Maximum Queue Alma Street and Charleston Road Alma - NB 253 1,001 236 969 Charleston - WB 100 338 95 325 Alma - SB 91 389 92 393 Charleston - EB 337 870 484 1,046 Notes: XXX - Bold indicates movements where the queue length under Existing + Safety Improvement exceeds 25% of the queue length under Existing conditions. 1 Existing traffic conditions were analyzed based on traffic counts collected in January 2025. A total of 8 trains were assumed to operate during the weekday AM and PM commute peak hours and a total of 6 trains were assumed to operate during the after school PM peak hour. 2 Safety improvements consist of a pre-signal for eastbound Charleston Road located west of the train tracks. The eastbound right-turn traffic would not be allowed to turn on red with the pre-signal. Existing 1 Existing + Safety Improvement 2 AM Peak Hour - Queue Length (feet) Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 16  Packet Pg. 20 of 72  Charleston Road/Alma Street Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements January 2, 2026 Page | 8 Table 3 Alma and Charleston Intersection Queue Length – Existing Conditions (After School) Table 4 Alma and Charleston Intersection Queue Length – Existing Conditions (PM Peak) Intersection Approach Average Queue Maximum Queue Average Queue Maximum Queue Alma Street and Charleston Road Alma - NB 100 480 104 456 Charleston - WB 77 285 76 268 Alma - SB 176 695 196 753 Charleston - EB 135 505 178 574 Notes: After School Peak Hour - Queue Length (feet) Existing 1 Existing + Safety Improvement 2 XXX - Bold indicates movements where the queue length under Existing + Safety Improvement exceeds 25% of the queue length under Existing conditions. 1 Existing traffic conditions were analyzed based on traffic counts collected in January 2025. A total of 8 trains were assumed to operate during the weekday AM and PM commute peak hours and a total of 6 trains were assumed to operate during the after school PM peak hour. 2 Safety improvements consist of a pre-signal for eastbound Charleston Road located west of the train tracks. The eastbound right-turn traffic would not be allowed to turn on red with the pre-signal. Intersection Approach Average Queue Maximum Queue Average Queue Maximum Queue Alma Street and Charleston Road Alma - NB 242 978 237 964 Charleston - WB 99 352 100 358 Alma - SB 225 800 224 759 Charleston - EB 335 877 455 983 Notes: PM Peak Hour - Queue Length (feet) Existing 1 Existing + Safety Improvement 2 XXX - Bold indicates movements where the queue length under Existing + Safety Improvement exceeds 25% of the queue length under Existing conditions. 1 Existing traffic conditions were analyzed based on traffic counts collected in January 2025. A total of 8 trains were assumed to operate during the weekday AM and PM commute peak hours and a total of 6 trains were assumed to operate during the after school PM peak hour. 2 Safety improvements consist of a pre-signal for eastbound Charleston Road located west of the train tracks. The eastbound right-turn traffic would not be allowed to turn on red with the pre-signal. Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 17  Packet Pg. 21 of 72  Charleston Road/Alma Street Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements January 2, 2026 Page | 9 Alternative Phasing Considerations In addition to the pre-signal on eastbound Charleston Road, Hexagon considered other potential improvements, including lane reassignments for an overlap phase for the eastbound right-turn movement on Charleston Road with the northbound left-turn movement on Alma Road and for an eight-phase signal configuration with protected left-turn phasing on all approaches. An overlap phase for the eastbound right-turn movement would require the outer eastbound shared through- right lane on Charleston Road to be converted to an exclusive right-turn lane, which would reduce the throughput capacity from two lanes to one lane in the eastbound direction. An eight-phase signal configuration would require the inner eastbound and westbound shared left-through lanes to be converted to exclusive left-turn turn lanes, which would reduce the throughput capacity from two lanes to one lane for both the eastbound and westbound directions on Charleston Road. Analysis of the effect of the alternative phasing improvements on existing traffic conditions at Alma Street and Charleston Road was conducted using SimTraffic simulation software. Tables 5 and 6 summarize AM, after school, and PM peak hour intersection delays and levels of service at the Alma/Charleston intersection under existing conditions and with the alternative phasing improvements. As shown in Table 5, an overlap phase for the eastbound right-turn movement would result in an increase in average intersection delay by about seven minutes compared to existing conditions during the PM peak hour. This configuration would require left-turning and through traffic on eastbound Charleston Road to share a single lane, resulting in uneven lane utilization of the two eastbound lanes. As shown in Table 6, an eight-phase signal configuration would result in an increase in average intersection delay by about four minutes compared to existing conditions during the PM peak hour. This configuration would require through and right- turning traffic on eastbound and westbound Charleston Road to share a single lane, resulting in uneven lane utilization. The analysis shows that vehicular delays on Charleston Road would increase for both alternative phasing improvements due to the decrease in throughput capacity on Charleston Road. Therefore, alternative phasing is not recommended. Table 5 Alma and Charleston Intersection Delay and Levels of Service – EBR Overlap Peak Hour Avg. Delay LOS Avg. Delay LOS Delay Increase Alma Street and Charleston Road AM 75.3 E 207.6 F 132.3 After School 54.1 D 56.0 E 1.9 PM 73.1 E 495.8 F 422.7 Notes: Intersection Existing 1 Existing + EBR Overlap 2 Avg Delay = Average Delay in seconds; LOS = Level of Service 1 Existing traffic conditions were analyzed based on traffic counts collected in January 2025. A total of 8 trains were assumed to operate during the weekday AM and PM commute peak hours and a total of 6 trains were assumed to operate during the after school PM peak hour. 2 The eastbound right-turn movement would overlap with the northbound left-turn movement. The outer eastbound shared through-right lane would be converted to an exclusive right-turn lane. Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 18  Packet Pg. 22 of 72  Charleston Road/Alma Street Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements January 2, 2026 Page | 10 Table 6 Alma and Charleston Intersection Delay and Levels of Service – 8-Phase Signal Increased Caltrain Frequency This analysis scenario describes the effect of increased Caltrain frequency on existing traffic conditions and with the proposed railroad safety improvement at Alma Street and Charleston Road. When Caltrain ridership increases, it is expected that the number of trains could increase from 8 trains to 12 trains during both the AM and PM peak hours (based on the Caltrain Electrification EIR). This calculates to one train every five minutes. During the after school peak hour, it is assumed that the number of trains will increase from 6 trains under existing conditions to 10 trains (5 trains in each direction). Table 7 below summarizes commute AM, after school, and commute PM peak hour intersection delays and levels of service at the Alma Street and Charleston Road intersection with increased train frequency and with the proposed railroad safety improvement. Peak Hour Avg. Delay LOS Avg. Delay LOS Delay Increase Alma Street and Charleston Road AM 75.3 E 149.6 F 74.3 After School 54.1 D 161.8 F 107.7 PM 73.1 E 312.9 F 239.8 Notes: Intersection Existing 1 Existing + 8-Phase Signal 2 Avg Delay = Average Delay in seconds; LOS = Level of Service 1 Existing traffic conditions were analyzed based on traffic counts collected in January 2025. A total of 8 trains were assumed to operate during the weekday AM and PM commute peak hours and a total of 6 trains were assumed to operate during the after school PM peak hour. 2 The 8-phase signal configuration would have protected phasing on all approaches. The inner eastbound and westbound shared left-through lanes would be converted to exclusive left-turn turn lanes. Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 19  Packet Pg. 23 of 72  Charleston Road/Alma Street Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements January 2, 2026 Page | 11 Table 7 Alma and Charleston Intersection Delay and Levels of Service – Increased Caltrain Frequency Conditions As shown in Table 7, the average intersection delay would increase with increased Caltrain frequency, and the intersection would operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours, and LOS E during the after school peak hour. With the proposed safety improvement that includes a pre-signal on eastbound Charleston Road (restricting right turns on red) the results show that the average intersection delay would increase by about 3 to 21 seconds. Tables 8, 9, and 10 show that the proposed pre-signal would result in an increase in average queue lengths of more than 25% for eastbound Charleston traffic during all three time periods. As noted before, since the model without the pre-signal was coded with the stop line to the east of the tracks, and field observations showed that some vehicles were observed to stop at the existing stop line located to the west of the tracks, the actual increase in vehicular delays and queues between the existing and existing + pre-signal scenarios with increased trains would be less than what is shown in the tables. The analysis showed that the maximum queue would not extend up to El Camino Real. Peak Hour Avg. Delay LOS Avg. Delay LOS Delay Increase Alma Street and Charleston Road AM 96.3 F 111.5 F 15.2 After School 58.1 E 61.4 E 3.3 PM 83.3 F 103.9 F 20.6 Notes: Avg Delay = Average Delay in seconds; LOS = Level of Service; 1 A total of 12 trains were assumed to operate during the weekday AM and PM commute peak hours and a total of 10 trains were assumed to operate during the after school PM peak hour. 2 Safety improvement consists of a pre-signal for eastbound Charleston Road located west of the train tracks. The eastbound right-turn traffic would not be allowed to turn on red. Increased Trains + Safety Improvement 2 Intersection Increased Trains 1 Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 20  Packet Pg. 24 of 72  Charleston Road/Alma Street Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements January 2, 2026 Page | 12 Table 8 Alma and Charleston Intersection Queue Length – Increased Caltrain Frequency Conditions (AM Peak) Table 9 Alma and Charleston Intersection Queue Length – Increased Caltrain Frequency Conditions (After School) Intersection Approach Average Queue Maximum Queue Average Queue Maximum Queue Alma Street and Charleston Road Alma - NB 223 945 240 954 Charleston - WB 126 387 102 329 Alma - SB 86 404 91 403 Charleston - EB 688 1,259 910 1,499 Notes: 1 A total of 12 trains were assumed to operate during the weekday AM and PM commute peak hours and a total of 10 trains were assumed to operate during the after school PM peak hour. AM Peak Hour - Queue Length (feet) Increased Trains 1 Increased Trains + Safety Improvement 2 2 Safety improvements consist of a pre-signal for eastbound Charleston Road located west of the train tracks. The eastbound right-turn traffic would not be allowed to turn on red. XXX - Bold indicates movements where the queue length under Increased Trains + Safety Improvement exceeds 25% of the queue length under Increased Trains conditions. Intersection Approach Average Queue Maximum Queue Average Queue Maximum Queue Alma Street and Charleston Road Alma - NB 97 477 100 494 Charleston - WB 81 295 82 297 Alma - SB 168 703 178 703 Charleston - EB 186 662 252 726 Notes: After School Peak Hour - Queue Length (feet) Increased Trains 1 Increased Trains + Safety Improvement 2 XXX - Bold indicates movements where the queue length under Increased Trains + Safety Improvement exceeds 25% of the queue length under Increased Trains conditions. 1 A total of 12 trains were assumed to operate during the weekday AM and PM commute peak hours and a total of 10 trains were assumed to operate during the after school PM peak hour. 2 Safety improvements consist of a pre-signal for eastbound Charleston Road located west of the train tracks. The eastbound right-turn traffic would not be allowed to turn on red. Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 21  Packet Pg. 25 of 72  Charleston Road/Alma Street Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements January 2, 2026 Page | 13 Table 10 Alma and Charleston Intersection Queue Length – Increased Caltrain Frequency Conditions (PM Peak) Ruthelma Avenue and Charleston Road – Crosswalk Analysis The existing pedestrian crosswalk at the Ruthelma Avenue and Charleston Road intersection was evaluated for enhanced/active improvements. The goal of this analysis was to determine whether any special additional pedestrian crossing treatments would be justified at this location that would make pedestrian crossing safer by decreasing pedestrian and vehicular conflicts. The analysis was based on the NCHRP Report 562 – Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. Two- day 24-hour directional speed and volume counts were conducted on Charleston Road near Ruthelma Avenue. The pedestrian crossing volume was counted for six hours (including AM, school PM and PM peak hours) on two separate days. Motorist compliance was observed in the field. Existing Lane Geometry and Traffic Volumes The Ruthelma Avenue crosswalk is located approximately 570 feet to the west of the railroad crossing on Charleston Road. At the T-intersection of Ruthelma Avenue/Charleston Road, Charleston Road has two lanes in each direction, no raised median, and is uncontrolled. There are dedicated bike lanes in each direction. The northbound approach on Ruthelma Avenue has a shared left-right lane that is controlled with a stop sign. A traditional parallel line crosswalk is present across Ruthelma Avenue, and a high-visibility crosswalk with a ladder design and static pedestrian signage is present across Charleston Road to the east of Ruthelma Avenue. Sidewalks are present on all approaches. On-street parking is permitted on Ruthelma Avenue, but not on Charleston Road. Intersection Approach Average Queue Maximum Queue Average Queue Maximum Queue Alma Street and Charleston Road Alma - NB 238 954 239 979 Charleston - WB 107 345 104 351 Alma - SB 221 830 222 799 Charleston - EB 505 1,073 885 1,435 Notes: Increased Trains 1 Increased Trains + Safety Improvement 2 XXX - Bold indicates movements where the queue length under Increased Trains + Safety Improvement exceeds 25% of the queue length under Increased Trains conditions. 1 A total of 12 trains were assumed to operate during the weekday AM and PM commute peak hours and a total of 10 trains were assumed to operate during the after school PM peak hour. 2 Safety improvements consist of a pre-signal for eastbound Charleston Road located west of the train tracks. The eastbound right-turn traffic would not be allowed to turn on red. PM Peak Hour - Queue Length (feet) Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 22  Packet Pg. 26 of 72  Charleston Road/Alma Street Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements January 2, 2026 Page | 14 AM, after-school, and PM peak-hour turning movement counts for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles were conducted at the Ruthelma/Charleston intersection for two days in January 2025, when schools were in session. As shown on Figure 3, a total of 1,184 vehicles, 76 bicycles, and 5 pedestrians were counted during the AM peak hour, 1,028 vehicles, 19 bicycles, and 10 pedestrians were counted during the after-school peak hour, and a total of 1,093 vehicles, 60 bicycles, and 8 pedestrians were counted during the PM peak hour. Hourly speed and volume data were also collected along Charleston Road near Ruthelma Avenue for 48 hours in January 2025. The average daily traffic (ADT) was found to be 13,071 total vehicles, including an average of 6,704 eastbound vehicles and 6,367 westbound vehicles. The 85th percentile speed was found to be 32.1 miles per hour (mph) in the eastbound direction and 30.6 mph in the westbound direction. Field Observations AM Peak Hour During the AM peak hour, eastbound vehicular queues on Charleston Road were sometimes observed to extend past Ruthelma Avenue nearly to Wilkie Way from the downstream signal at Alma Street and the railroad crossing. On eastbound Charleston Road, vehicles typically complied with the “Keep Clear” signage upstream of the Ruthelma Avenue crosswalk. However, vehicles would often be stopped within the crosswalk across Charleston Road due to the downstream queue. During the observation period, one northbound pedestrian crossed Charleston Road, and an eastbound vehicle was observed to slow within the “Keep Clear” area but did not come to a stop as the pedestrian crossed. After School Peak Hour During the after-school peak hour, eastbound vehicular queues from Alma Street were sometimes observed to extend past Ruthelma Avenue. PM Peak Hour During the PM peak hour, eastbound vehicular queues from Alma Street were sometimes observed to extend past Wilkie Way after train crossings had occurred. Vehicles typically complied with the “Keep Clear” signage but would often stop within the crosswalk. Westbound vehicular queues from Wilkie Way were sometimes observed to extend past Ruthelma Avenue. Since there is no “Keep Clear” signage in the westbound direction, vehicles were observed to queue within the intersection. Safety Analysis The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 112/ National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 562, Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings, provides guidelines and general recommendations on pedestrian crossing treatments to consider at unsignalized intersections. The report provides a procedure for evaluation of the pedestrian crossing that includes the posted speed limit or 85th percentile speed on the major street, peak-hour pedestrian volumes, traffic signal warrant, and pedestrian delay. Based on Appendix A, Step 2 of the report, the minimum pedestrian volume for a peak-hour evaluation is 20 pedestrians per hour for both directions. If fewer pedestrians are crossing the street, then geometric improvements (rather than signs, signals, or markings) such as traffic calming, median refuge islands, and curb extensions, are alternatives that can be considered. Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 23  Packet Pg. 27 of 72  Palo Alto Mountain View Ruth e l m a A v e Ruth e l m a A v e Alma S t Alma S t Park B l v d Ely P l Wilki e W a y Wilk i e W a y E Ch a r l e s t o n R d Ne l s o n D r W C h a r l e s t o n R d Middl e f i e l d R d W M e a d o w D r Whit c l e m D r San A n t o n i o R d Carlson Ct Mum f o r d P l E M e a d o w D r Lindero Dr El C a m i n o R e a l El C a m i n o R e a l Cha r l e s t o n Rd Ruth e l m a Ave 575 7 1 8 2 1 5982 67 8 1 1 Cha r l e s t o n Rd Ruthe l m a Ave 473 91 4 3 1 5401 92 8 1 1 Cha r l e ston Rd Ruth e l m a Ave 473 2 4 3 1 6122 8 511 7 4 3 4 3 AM Peak Hour - 8 AM - 9 AM PM Peak Hour - 4 PM - 5 PM STOP = Pedestrian = Bicycles on Roadway = Bicycles on Crosswalk LEGEND After School Peak Hour - 3 PM - 4 PM Charleston Road/Alma Street Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements Figure 3 Ruthelma Avenue and Charleston Road Existing Lane Geometry and Traffic Volumes Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 24  Packet Pg. 28 of 72  Charleston Road/Alma Street Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements January 2, 2026 Page | 16 Based on intersection counts conducted in January 2025, the pedestrian volume utilizing the crosswalk on Charleston Road at Ruthelma Avenue is between 5 and 10 pedestrians during peak commute hours. Since the pedestrian volume is below the minimum threshold described in the TCRP/NCHRP report, geometric improvements should be considered. However, it is not possible to accommodate a median refuge island or curb extensions at the crosswalk within the existing right- of-way. Since vehicles were observed to stop within the crosswalk when queues extended past Ruthelma Avenue, the existing “Keep Clear” zone could be extended past the crosswalk. However, installing an additional “Keep Clear” space on eastbound Charleston Road would extend the eastbound queue longer than it already is during the peak hours. To enhance pedestrian visibility and increase driver awareness at the uncontrolled, marked crosswalk across Charleston Road at Ruthelma Avenue, a pedestrian actuated Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) to accompany the pedestrian warning sign on both sides of the crosswalk is recommended. RRFBs consist of two rectangular- shaped yellow indications, each with a light-emitting diode (LED)-array- based light source. RRFBs flash with an alternating high frequency when activated to enhance visibility of pedestrians at the crossing to drivers. Conclusions The proposed railroad crossing safety improvement includes the installation of a pre-signal on eastbound Charleston Road, which would restrict eastbound right-turns on red. Although the stop line for eastbound Charleston Road is located to the west of the train tracks, along with a “Stop here on Red” sign that informs motorists to stop at the stop line, field observations showed that some motorists would pull forward across the train tracks and wait in the area on the east side of the tracks, and right-turning vehicles were observed to turn during the red phase of the traffic signal. Although the results show that the average delay and queue length would increase for eastbound Charleston Road during the AM, school PM and commute PM peak hours, the pre-signal would discourage motorists from queuing within the train crossing area, thus improving motorist safety. In addition to the pre-signal on eastbound Charleston Road, Hexagon recommends that the City consider advance preemption operation for the Alma Street/Charleston Road intersection to improve safety for the northbound left-turn and westbound through motorists. With advance preemption operation, the traffic signal controller would begin the preemption sequence for a period before the railroad warning devices are activated, which would allow vehicles to clear the tracks before the gate lowers and would decrease the potential for rearend collisions. Alternative phasing, including an overlap phase for the eastbound right-turn movement on Charleston Road and an eight-phase signal configuration, would result in an increase in average intersection delays due to the decrease in throughput capacity. Therefore, alternative phasing is not recommended. Based on intersection counts conducted in January 2025, the pedestrian volume utilizing the crosswalk on Charleston Road at Ruthelma Avenue is below the minimum threshold described in the TCRP/NCHRP report. Since it is not possible to accommodate a median refuge island or curb extensions at the crosswalk within the existing right-of-way, Hexagon recommends that the City consider installing pedestrian actuated Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) to accompany the pedestrian warning signs on both sides of the crosswalk. Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 25  Packet Pg. 29 of 72  Appendix A Volume and Speed Data Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 26  Packet Pg. 30 of 72  ALMA ST ALMA STCHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD (303) 216-2439 www.alltrafficdata.net Location:1 ALMA ST & CHARLESTON RD AM Tuesday, January 28, 2025Date: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour:08:00 AM - 09:00 AM Peak 15-Minutes:08:30 AM - 08:45 AM 682 1,262 338 436 1,468822 615 583 0.95 N S EW 0.84 0.78 0.90 0.88 (2,332)(1,012) (526) (687) (1,048) (944) (2,772)(1,187) 41 061 40 232 65 177 339 99 1 0 58 0 31 0 1, 1 2 3 350 CHARLESTON RD CHARLESTON RD ALMA ST ALMA ST 5 2 5 0 N S EW 1 1 32 2 3 0 0 21 0 0 0 15 0 72 0 000 1 0 16 1 0 N S EW 21 0 1 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time Rolling Hour West East South North Pedestrian Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 7:00 AM 0 54 155 0 8 400 7 25 0 2 23 335 0 0 1 22,15112 3 4 2 7:15 AM 0 67 213 0 6 420 22 37 0 1 38 468 0 0 0 02,53421 9 6 6 7:30 AM 0 63 298 0 10 1020 13 60 0 5 32 626 0 0 0 12,87520 12 4 7 7:45 AM 0 119 314 0 13 860 14 71 0 7 46 722 0 0 0 03,06727 10 7 8 8:00 AM 0 70 278 0 12 1080 23 100 0 5 54 718 0 0 1 13,10341 13 10 4 8:15 AM 0 96 307 0 16 1610 17 64 0 15 60 809 0 0 1 443 10 9 11 8:30 AM 0 69 293 0 19 1660 30 92 0 17 51 818 0 2 0 052 4 7 18 8:45 AM 0 75 245 0 14 1450 29 83 1 28 67 758 0 0 3 041 13 9 8 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 1 0 0 3 10 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 Lights 308 1,114 34 60 570 4097 334 175 64 222 37 3,0560 1 0 0 Mediums 2 8 1 1 7 02 5 2 1 10 3 420 0 0 0 Total 99 339 177 65 232 40 310 1,123 35 61 580 41 3,1030 1 0 0 Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 27  Packet Pg. 31 of 72  RUTHELMA AVE RUTHELMA AVECHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD (303) 216-2439 www.alltrafficdata.net Location:2 RUTHELMA AVE & CHARLESTON RD AM Tuesday, January 28, 2025Date: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour:07:45 AM - 08:45 AM Peak 15-Minutes:08:15 AM - 08:30 AM 0 0 577 551 104 545 577 0.93 N S EW 0.00 0.89 0.92 0.92 ()() (1,009) (908) (1,009) (898) (17)(7) 0 00 0 576 1 3 542 0 0 0 0 1 0 90 CHARLESTON RD CHARLESTON RD RUTHELMA AVE RUTHELMA AVE 2 1 2 0 N S EW 0 1 11 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 000 0 0 14 0 0 N S EW 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time Rolling Hour West East South North Pedestrian Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 45 0 0 80 125 0 0 2 17930 0 0 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 69 0 1 108 180 0 1 0 19240 0 2 0 7:30 AM 0 1 0 0 0 00 0 85 0 0 101 189 0 0 0 01,0490 0 2 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 134 0 0 162 299 0 0 1 01,1321 0 2 0 8:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 00 0 126 0 0 126 256 0 0 0 01,1311 0 2 0 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 146 0 1 155 305 0 1 1 20 0 3 0 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 136 0 0 133 272 0 0 0 01 0 2 0 8:45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 00 0 153 0 1 141 298 0 0 2 01 0 1 0 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 Lights 1 0 9 0 0 00 534 3 1 564 0 1,1120 0 0 0 Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 00 8 0 0 12 0 200 0 0 0 Total 0 542 3 1 576 0 1 0 9 0 0 0 1,1320 0 0 0 Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 28  Packet Pg. 32 of 72  ALMA ST ALMA STCHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD (303) 216-2439 www.alltrafficdata.net Location:1 ALMA ST & CHARLESTON RD PM Tuesday, January 28, 2025Date: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour:03:00 PM - 04:00 PM Peak 15-Minutes:03:15 PM - 03:30 PM 1,091 942 323 405 1,0241,181 542 452 0.97 N S EW 0.96 0.77 0.93 0.91 (1,710)(1,996) (625) (765) (884) (996) (1,829)(2,087) 33 098 68 220 35 186 277 79 0 0 96 0 19 9 79 5 300 CHARLESTON RD CHARLESTON RD ALMA ST ALMA ST 3 1 5 0 N S EW 1 0 41 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 14 0 000 0 0 16 0 0 N S EW 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time Rolling Hour West East South North Pedestrian Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 2:00 PM 0 29 135 0 19 1600 19 52 0 3 54 535 0 0 0 12,46629 17 6 12 2:15 PM 0 37 198 0 23 1810 12 51 1 6 60 626 0 0 1 02,64120 10 10 17 2:30 PM 0 40 161 0 24 2080 26 64 0 3 49 648 0 0 1 02,78040 13 5 15 2:45 PM 0 48 132 0 19 2110 20 82 0 6 55 657 0 1 4 02,89539 25 4 16 3:00 PM 0 41 188 0 36 2200 23 78 0 9 35 710 0 1 4 22,98048 16 7 9 3:15 PM 0 61 198 0 22 2540 20 61 0 8 58 765 0 0 0 043 22 9 9 3:30 PM 0 51 184 0 16 2590 14 64 0 12 78 763 0 0 0 047 22 9 7 3:45 PM 0 46 225 0 24 2270 22 74 0 6 49 742 0 0 1 148 8 5 8 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 2 0 0 0 00 1 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 Lights 197 791 29 97 953 3379 273 185 35 218 68 2,9580 0 0 0 Mediums 2 2 1 1 7 00 3 1 0 2 0 190 0 0 0 Total 79 277 186 35 220 68 199 795 30 98 960 33 2,9800 0 0 0 Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 29  Packet Pg. 33 of 72  RUTHELMA AVE RUTHELMA AVECHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD (303) 216-2439 www.alltrafficdata.net Location:2 RUTHELMA AVE & CHARLESTON RD PM Tuesday, January 28, 2025Date: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour:02:45 PM - 03:45 PM Peak 15-Minutes:03:30 PM - 03:45 PM 0 0 442 537 1711 523 434 0.90 N S EW 0.00 0.91 0.43 0.92 ()() (827) (999) (816) (987) (21)(20) 0 00 0 431 11 0 523 0 0 0 0 3 0 140 CHARLESTON RD CHARLESTON RD RUTHELMA AVE RUTHELMA AVE 3 1 7 0 N S EW 0 1 34 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 000 0 0 15 0 0 N S EW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time Rolling Hour West East South North Pedestrian Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 2:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 100 0 2 87 190 0 2 1 18600 0 1 0 2:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 94 0 2 101 199 0 0 0 09012 0 0 0 2:30 PM 0 1 0 0 0 00 0 124 0 1 97 224 0 0 1 09330 0 1 0 2:45 PM 0 2 0 0 0 00 0 117 0 3 117 247 0 0 2 19820 0 8 0 3:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 00 0 148 0 1 78 231 0 0 3 29750 0 3 0 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 108 0 2 120 231 0 0 2 00 0 1 0 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 150 0 5 116 273 0 1 0 00 0 2 0 3:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 00 0 142 0 0 95 240 0 1 2 22 0 0 0 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 00 1 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 Lights 1 0 14 0 0 00 516 0 11 426 0 9680 0 0 0 Mediums 2 0 0 0 0 00 6 0 0 5 0 130 0 0 0 Total 0 523 0 11 431 0 3 0 14 0 0 0 9820 0 0 0 Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 30  Packet Pg. 34 of 72  ALMA ST ALMA STCHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD (303) 216-2439 www.alltrafficdata.net Location:1 ALMA ST & CHARLESTON RD PM Tuesday, January 28, 2025Date: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour:05:00 PM - 06:00 PM Peak 15-Minutes:05:45 PM - 06:00 PM 1,111 1,264 363 421 1,4651,227 570 597 0.98 N S EW 0.84 0.89 0.91 0.98 (2,409)(2,198) (680) (813) (1,097) (1,169) (2,721)(2,449) 41 079 61 262 40 196 293 81 0 0 99 1 29 4 1, 1 2 2 490 CHARLESTON RD CHARLESTON RD ALMA ST ALMA ST 3 0 2 0 N S EW 0 0 11 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 001 1 0 21 0 0 N S EW 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time Rolling Hour West East South North Pedestrian Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 4:00 PM 0 69 220 0 16 2870 29 62 0 4 65 848 0 1 5 13,25962 14 9 11 4:15 PM 0 53 245 0 10 2710 16 72 0 10 63 828 0 2 1 13,28757 11 12 8 4:30 PM 0 50 265 0 24 1970 22 88 0 5 46 768 0 0 1 13,34743 12 5 11 4:45 PM 0 47 274 0 13 2350 27 74 0 4 73 815 0 0 4 03,42647 10 7 4 5:00 PM 0 59 269 0 23 2990 18 69 0 12 52 876 0 0 1 23,50943 11 11 10 5:15 PM 0 65 268 0 10 2580 22 79 0 12 69 888 0 0 1 064 21 11 9 5:30 PM 0 84 310 0 27 1690 26 76 0 6 73 847 0 0 0 142 14 10 10 5:45 PM 0 86 275 0 19 2650 15 69 0 10 68 898 0 0 0 047 15 17 12 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 1 00 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 Lights 293 1,120 49 76 985 4181 290 196 40 261 61 3,4930 0 0 0 Mediums 1 2 0 3 5 00 3 0 0 1 0 150 0 0 0 Total 81 293 196 40 262 61 294 1,122 49 79 991 41 3,5090 0 0 0 Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 31  Packet Pg. 35 of 72  RUTHELMA AVE RUTHELMA AVECHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD (303) 216-2439 www.alltrafficdata.net Location:2 RUTHELMA AVE & CHARLESTON RD PM Tuesday, January 28, 2025Date: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour:05:00 PM - 06:00 PM Peak 15-Minutes:05:30 PM - 05:45 PM 0 0 541 579 36 579 538 0.99 N S EW 0.00 0.88 0.50 0.94 ()() (1,021) (1,141) (1,010) (1,139) (8)(17) 0 00 0 537 4 2 577 0 0 0 0 1 0 20 CHARLESTON RD CHARLESTON RD RUTHELMA AVE RUTHELMA AVE 3 0 5 0 N S EW 0 0 14 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 000 0 0 20 0 0 N S EW 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time Rolling Hour West East South North Pedestrian Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 129 0 4 142 276 0 0 1 01,0451 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 138 0 2 112 254 0 0 2 11,0402 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 160 0 1 101 265 0 0 4 01,0690 0 3 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 129 1 0 117 250 0 0 3 01,0891 0 2 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 159 0 2 110 271 0 0 4 11,1230 0 0 0 5:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 00 0 151 0 0 129 283 0 0 1 12 0 0 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 131 0 1 152 285 0 0 0 00 0 1 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 136 0 1 146 284 0 0 0 10 0 1 0 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 Lights 1 0 2 0 0 00 573 2 4 534 0 1,1160 0 0 0 Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 00 4 0 0 3 0 70 0 0 0 Total 0 577 2 4 537 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1,1230 0 0 0 Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 32  Packet Pg. 36 of 72  RUTHELMA AVE RUTHELMA AVECHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD (303) 216-2439 www.alltrafficdata.net Location:2 RUTHELMA AVE & CHARLESTON RD AM Thursday, January 30, 2025Date: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour:08:00 AM - 09:00 AM Peak 15-Minutes:08:15 AM - 08:30 AM 0 0 582 597 109 592 578 0.91 N S EW 0.00 0.92 0.81 0.89 ()() (992) (917) (983) (907) (17)(16) 0 00 0 575 7 2 589 0 0 1 0 2 0 80 CHARLESTON RD CHARLESTON RD RUTHELMA AVE RUTHELMA AVE 1 1 3 0 N S EW 0 1 21 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 0 001 0 0 8 0 0 N S EW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time Rolling Hour West East South North Pedestrian Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 54 0 2 65 121 0 0 0 17320 0 0 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 63 0 1 102 167 0 0 2 28740 0 1 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 84 0 3 109 200 0 0 0 01,0311 0 3 0 7:45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 00 0 113 0 0 128 244 0 0 0 01,1220 0 2 0 8:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 00 0 136 0 3 120 263 0 0 2 01,1840 0 3 0 8:15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 01 0 165 0 1 153 324 0 1 0 11 0 2 0 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 142 0 1 145 291 0 0 0 01 0 2 0 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 146 0 2 157 306 0 0 1 00 0 1 0 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 Lights 2 0 8 0 0 00 578 2 7 565 0 1,1631 0 0 0 Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 00 11 0 0 10 0 210 0 0 0 Total 0 589 2 7 575 0 2 0 8 0 0 0 1,1841 0 0 0 Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 33  Packet Pg. 37 of 72  RUTHELMA AVE RUTHELMA AVECHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD (303) 216-2439 www.alltrafficdata.net Location:2 RUTHELMA AVE & CHARLESTON RD PM Thursday, January 30, 2025Date: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour:03:00 PM - 04:00 PM Peak 15-Minutes:03:45 PM - 04:00 PM 0 0 483 544 410 541 474 0.94 N S EW 0.00 0.88 0.75 0.91 ()() (872) (1,015) (858) (1,008) (8)(15) 0 00 0 473 9 1 540 0 1 0 0 1 0 30 CHARLESTON RD CHARLESTON RD RUTHELMA AVE RUTHELMA AVE 4 1 4 1 N S EW 0 1 31 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 2 000 3 0 8 0 0 N S EW 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time Rolling Hour West East South North Pedestrian Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 2:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 106 0 2 94 203 0 0 0 18600 0 1 0 2:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 108 0 2 74 186 0 2 2 08851 0 1 0 2:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 139 1 0 96 238 0 0 0 09580 0 2 0 2:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 113 0 0 120 233 0 0 0 09890 0 0 0 3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 128 0 3 95 228 0 0 2 11,0280 0 2 0 3:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 00 0 119 1 1 135 259 0 0 0 01 0 1 0 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 148 0 2 119 269 0 0 1 00 0 0 0 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 145 0 3 124 272 1 1 1 30 0 0 0 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 00 1 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 Lights 1 0 3 0 0 00 535 1 9 470 0 1,0200 1 0 0 Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 00 4 0 0 3 0 70 0 0 0 Total 0 540 1 9 473 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 1,0280 1 0 0 Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 34  Packet Pg. 38 of 72  RUTHELMA AVE RUTHELMA AVECHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD (303) 216-2439 www.alltrafficdata.net Location:2 RUTHELMA AVE & CHARLESTON RD PM Thursday, January 30, 2025Date: Peak Rolling Hour Flow Rates Peak Hour - Motorized Vehicles Peak Hour - Bicycles Peak Hour - Pedestrians Traffic Counts - Motorized Vehicles Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Peak Hour:04:00 PM - 05:00 PM Peak 15-Minutes:04:45 PM - 05:00 PM 0 0 475 615 44 614 474 0.96 N S EW 0.00 0.89 0.69 0.92 ()() (1,006) (1,127) (999) (1,121) (14)(15) 0 00 0 473 2 2 612 0 0 0 0 1 0 30 CHARLESTON RD CHARLESTON RD RUTHELMA AVE RUTHELMA AVE 4 0 4 0 N S EW 0 0 31 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 000 7 0 51 1 0 N S EW 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Left Thru Right Total EastboundInterval Start Time Rolling Hour West East South North Pedestrian Crossings U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-Turn 4:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 00 0 154 0 1 125 282 0 0 2 01,0931 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 142 0 1 104 247 0 0 0 01,0680 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 167 0 0 110 278 0 0 1 31,0740 0 1 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 149 0 0 134 286 0 0 1 11,0761 0 2 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 143 0 3 110 257 0 0 0 31,0480 0 1 0 5:15 PM 0 2 0 0 0 00 0 111 0 0 137 253 0 4 2 31 0 2 0 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 127 0 4 145 280 0 0 2 30 0 4 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 123 0 1 131 258 0 0 0 12 0 1 0 Vehicle Type Left Thru Right Eastbound U-Turn Westbound Northbound Southbound TotalLeftThruRightU-Turn Left Thru RightU-TurnLeftThruRightU-Turn Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 1 0 10 0 0 0 Lights 1 0 3 0 0 00 610 2 2 467 0 1,0850 0 0 0 Mediums 0 0 0 0 0 00 2 0 0 5 0 70 0 0 0 Total 0 612 2 2 473 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 1,0930 0 0 0 Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 35  Packet Pg. 39 of 72  Site Description:Charleston Rd E.O Ruthelma Ave Site Number:3 Start Date: End Date: 1 EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB EB WB EB WB 12:00 AM - - - 42 19 61 37 21 58 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1:00 AM - - - 18 14 32 16 9 25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2:00 AM - - - 10 12 22 13 8 21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3:00 AM - - - 13 15 28 13 15 28 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4:00 AM - - - 18 26 44 22 32 54 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5:00 AM - - - 56 80 136 47 93 140 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6:00 AM - - - 96 152 248 117 188 305 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7:00 AM - - - 344 398 742 327 403 730 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8:00 AM - - - 564 564 1128 609 601 1210 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9:00 AM - - - 413 448 861 418 448 866 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10:00 AM - - - 423 455 878 407 421 828 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11:00 AM - - - 393 352 745 424 359 783 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12:00 PM - - - 422 377 799 479 391 870 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1:00 PM - - - 399 348 747 429 360 789 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2:00 PM - - - 466 390 856 480 389 869 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3:00 PM - - - 520 416 936 524 470 994 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4:00 PM - - - 523 460 983 574 460 1034 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5:00 PM - - - 565 543 1108 463 491 954 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6:00 PM - - - 446 398 844 426 416 842 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7:00 PM - - - 348 252 600 323 279 602 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8:00 PM - - - 256 215 471 277 252 529 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9:00 PM - - - 156 156 312 178 177 355 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10:00 PM - - - 91 112 203 86 108 194 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11:00 PM - - - 68 64 132 68 77 145 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6:00 AM - 9:00 AM - - - 1004 1114 2118 1053 1192 2245 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM - - - 1608 1419 3027 1561 1421 2982 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6:00 AM - 7:00 PM - - - 5574 5301 10875 5677 5397 11074 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12:00 AM - 12:00 AM - - - 6650 6266 12916 6757 6468 13225 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - 51.5% 48.5% 100.0% 51.1% 48.9% 100.0% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AM Peak - - 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM - - - - - - - - PM Peak - - 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM - - - - - - - - 2/2/25 Tue-Thu Mon-Fri Mon-Sun2/3/25 1/28/25 1/29/25 1/30/25 1/31/25 2/1/25 Friday Saturday Sunday 3 Day Avg 5 Day Avg 7 Day Avg Vehicle Volume Report - Hourly 1/28/2025 1/29/2025 Time Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Northbound / Eastbound Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Southbound / Westbound Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Page 1 Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 36  Packet Pg. 40 of 72  Site Description: Site Number:3 1 1 Start Date: End Date: Average Speed 24.7 mph 25.8 mph 50th Percentile 25.8 mph 26.1 mph 85th Percentile 32.1 mph 30.6 mph 95th Percentile 35.7 mph 33.7 mph Total 0-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-100 100+ Eastbound 13407 423 1363 1727 2635 4009 2405 683 128 27 0 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent 100.0% 3.2% 10.2% 12.9% 19.7% 29.9% 17.9% 5.1% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Westbound 12734 101 278 1041 3763 5266 1897 327 46 12 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent 100.0% 0.8% 2.2% 8.2% 29.6% 41.4% 14.9% 2.6% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total 26141 524 1641 2768 6398 9275 4302 1010 174 39 1 6 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent 100.0% 2.0% 6.3% 10.6% 24.5% 35.5% 16.5% 3.9% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Eastbound Westbound Speed Range (MPH) - Total Study Vehicle Speed Report - Hourly Charleston Rd E.O Ruthelma Ave 1/28/2025 1/29/2025 Total Study Speed Summary Page 2 Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 37  Packet Pg. 41 of 72  Site Description: Site Number:3 1 1 Start Date: End Date: Charleston Rd E.O Ruthelma Ave 1/28/2025 1/29/2025 Tuesday 1/28/25 0-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-100 100+ 12:00 AM 42 0 0 0 2 9 19 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 AM 18 0 0 0 0 3 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 10 0 0 0 0 1 3 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 13 0 0 0 0 0 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 18 0 0 0 1 5 5 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 AM 56 0 0 0 2 12 27 12 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 96 0 0 1 5 18 49 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 344 11 30 31 61 103 80 18 6 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 564 26 116 122 115 118 54 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 413 5 74 73 78 116 52 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 AM 423 2 9 38 119 152 89 11 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 AM 393 1 6 31 96 172 66 18 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 PM 422 1 5 26 94 160 117 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 PM 399 7 11 31 68 156 100 20 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 PM 466 8 29 73 135 152 61 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM 520 25 61 61 140 161 54 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 523 31 118 125 130 79 30 9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 565 76 144 104 99 98 36 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 446 20 61 103 111 96 40 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 348 1 1 8 60 164 85 23 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 256 0 0 3 23 100 93 31 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 PM 156 0 1 1 11 47 56 36 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 PM 91 0 0 0 5 31 33 18 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 PM 68 0 0 0 1 18 28 17 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM - 9:00 AM 37 146 154 181 239 183 50 10 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM 132 323 290 369 338 120 30 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM - 7:00 PM 213 664 819 1251 1581 828 173 34 8 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 AM - 12:00 AM 214 666 831 1356 1971 1194 340 59 15 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent 3.2% 10.0% 12.5% 20.4% 29.6% 18.0% 5.1% 0.9% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile 25.7 mph 85th Percentile 32.1 mph 95th Percentile 35.7 mph Total 1004 1608 5574 6650 100% Vehicle Speed Report (Eastbound - 01/28/2025) Eastbound Page 3 Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 38  Packet Pg. 42 of 72  Site Description: Site Number:3 1 1 Start Date: End Date: Charleston Rd E.O Ruthelma Ave 1/28/2025 1/29/2025 Tuesday 1/28/25 0-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-100 100+ 12:00 AM 19 0 0 1 3 9 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 AM 14 0 0 0 1 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 12 0 0 0 0 7 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 15 0 0 0 1 7 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 26 0 0 0 1 9 11 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 AM 80 0 0 0 4 24 36 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 152 0 1 2 9 49 70 17 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 398 3 7 21 60 181 94 26 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 564 13 26 83 133 219 82 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 448 5 6 35 116 211 62 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 AM 455 3 6 17 136 225 59 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 AM 352 3 3 9 100 168 59 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 PM 377 1 8 14 126 168 53 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 PM 348 0 4 13 114 148 62 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 PM 390 4 3 30 134 165 50 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM 416 2 9 24 166 165 48 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 460 15 20 69 161 153 40 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 543 5 25 99 225 162 26 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 398 2 15 46 136 151 41 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 252 0 1 9 67 128 41 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 215 0 4 5 35 118 45 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 PM 156 1 0 2 30 79 35 5 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 PM 112 0 0 3 13 53 33 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 PM 64 0 0 2 3 24 28 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM - 9:00 AM 16 34 106 202 449 246 50 9 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM 22 54 192 552 480 114 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM - 7:00 PM 56 133 462 1616 2165 746 107 13 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 AM - 12:00 AM 57 138 484 1774 2631 994 164 18 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent 0.9% 2.2% 7.7% 28.3% 42.0% 15.9% 2.6% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile 26.3 mph 85th Percentile 30.7 mph 95th Percentile 33.7 mph 6266 100% Vehicle Speed Report (Westbound - 01/28/2025) Westbound Total 1114 1419 5301 Page 4 Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 39  Packet Pg. 43 of 72  Site Description: Site Number:3 1 1 Start Date: End Date: Charleston Rd E.O Ruthelma Ave 1/28/2025 1/29/2025 Wednesday 1/29/25 0-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-100 100+ 12:00 AM 37 0 0 0 1 4 17 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 AM 16 0 0 0 0 5 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 13 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 13 0 0 0 1 1 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 22 0 0 0 0 6 11 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 AM 47 0 0 0 4 10 17 8 6 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 117 0 0 2 5 28 52 26 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 327 0 24 29 48 138 61 21 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 609 21 96 131 142 151 47 17 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 418 28 103 83 61 82 49 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 AM 407 1 24 40 106 140 72 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 AM 424 2 23 34 74 162 103 20 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 PM 479 2 20 45 87 198 100 23 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 PM 429 3 12 52 95 164 85 13 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 PM 480 11 37 46 95 174 97 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM 524 39 89 85 103 131 60 11 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 574 39 99 153 144 94 40 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 463 13 84 107 113 94 38 9 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 426 49 80 71 87 83 42 10 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 323 1 2 10 53 141 92 21 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 277 0 4 7 27 99 109 28 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 PM 178 0 0 0 21 77 51 23 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 PM 86 0 0 1 10 32 27 13 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 PM 68 0 0 0 2 20 23 17 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM - 9:00 AM 21 120 162 195 317 160 64 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM 91 272 345 360 319 138 24 9 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM - 7:00 PM 208 691 878 1160 1639 846 203 44 6 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 AM - 12:00 AM 209 697 896 1279 2038 1211 343 69 12 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent 3.1% 10.3% 13.3% 18.9% 30.2% 17.9% 5.1% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile 25.8 mph 85th Percentile 32.0 mph 95th Percentile 35.8 mph 1561 5677 6757 100% Vehicle Speed Report (Eastbound - 01/29/2025) Eastbound Total 1053 Page 5 Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 40  Packet Pg. 44 of 72  Site Description: Site Number:3 1 1 Start Date: End Date: Charleston Rd E.O Ruthelma Ave 1/28/2025 1/29/2025 Wednesday 1/29/25 0-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-100 100+ 12:00 AM 21 0 0 0 6 10 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 AM 9 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 AM 8 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 AM 15 0 0 0 0 10 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 AM 32 0 0 0 0 12 16 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 AM 93 1 0 0 6 21 43 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM 188 1 1 3 12 67 81 16 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 AM 403 0 3 35 97 172 67 20 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 AM 601 6 26 83 211 212 50 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 AM 448 11 10 45 157 175 44 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 AM 421 3 5 33 114 191 62 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 AM 359 1 8 20 94 174 54 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 PM 391 1 4 18 111 190 59 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 PM 360 0 1 12 120 175 48 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 PM 389 1 1 14 119 168 76 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM 470 3 13 57 198 148 45 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 460 8 30 83 201 117 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 491 4 16 78 203 159 26 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 PM 416 4 18 57 163 142 26 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 PM 279 0 1 6 68 151 43 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 PM 252 0 1 6 51 144 44 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:00 PM 177 0 1 3 38 96 31 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:00 PM 108 0 0 1 14 56 30 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11:00 PM 77 0 1 3 6 36 25 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM - 9:00 AM 7 30 121 320 451 198 48 12 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM 15 59 218 602 424 92 7 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 AM - 7:00 PM 43 136 538 1800 2090 659 103 19 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:00 AM - 12:00 AM 44 140 557 1989 2635 903 163 28 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent 0.7% 2.2% 8.6% 30.8% 40.7% 14.0% 2.5% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50th Percentile 26.0 mph 85th Percentile 30.4 mph 95th Percentile 33.6 mph Total 1192 1421 5397 6468 100% Vehicle Speed Report (Westbound - 01/29/2025) Westbound Page 6 Item 1 Attachment B - Traffic Analysis Memo by Hexagon Transportation Consultants        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 41  Packet Pg. 45 of 72  www.callanderassociates.com BURLINGAME GOLD RIVER RENO SAN JOSE 1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 275 Hill St, Suite 260 2025 Gateway Place, Suite 285 Burlingame, CA 94010 Gold River, CA 95670 Reno, NV 89501 San Jose, CA 95110 650.375.1313 916.985.4366 775.787.2828 408.275.0565 Recreate Educate Live+Work Connect Sustain October 29, 2025 Meeting Summary Charleston Road/ Alma Street Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements RE: Community Meeting #1 Date: October 28, 2025 Time: 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Attendees: City of Palo Alto (City): Ruchika Aggarwal ruchika.aggarwal@paloalto.gov Rafael Rius rafael.rius@paloalto.gov Ria Lo ria.lo@paloalto.gov BKF Engineers (BKF): Jason Mansfield jmansfield@bkf.com Jason Yee jyee@bkf.com Callander Associates (CA): Marie Mai mmai@callanderassociates.com Melinda Wang mwang@callanderassociates.com Community Members: 8 total The purpose of this meeting was to introduce the project, present existing conditions, and receive feedback from the community on the preliminary concept. This project provides near-term improvements to address immediate safety concerns. Proposed improvements include the installation of a pre-signal to stop motorists before the railroad tracks when a train is approaching, as well as a new “No Right Turn on Red” sign. A formal presentation was followed by time for attendees to ask questions and provide comments. Summary The community’s primary concerns were 1) whether the improvements sufficiently improve safety for motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians, 2) potential property impacts to neighbors, and 3) how the project can improve safety and visibility of bicyclists crossing through this intersection. It was generally agreed that 1) the proposed design concept will improve safety, but more immediate improvements like ‘quick-build’ changes should be evaluated, and more extensive safety improvements could be accommodated in the proposed future railroad grade separation project. 2) There are no property impacts to adjacent residences, except for a location where the City has an existing easement in place. 3) Additional bike lane striping suggestions will be evaluated and incorporated where possible. Item 1 Attachment C - Community Meeting Summary        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 42  Packet Pg. 46 of 72  Meeting Summary Charleston Road/ Alma Street Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements RE: Community Meeting #1 October 28, 2025 Page 2 of 6 24054_SUM_ComMtg#1 © copyrighted 2025 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Questions and Comments Received (responses are in non-italicized text) • (After project implementation) Can motorists who intend to turn right and are stopped behind the tracks proceed forward on a red light after the gate arms go up? o No. This will be clarified with a new “No Right Turn on Red” sign. • What is the cost of this project? o Design is approximately $400K to $500K, and construction is currently estimated at $4M to $5M. The project is located within both City right-of-way (ROW) and Joint Powers Board (JPB)/Caltrain ROW and will be jointly implemented by the two agencies, with funding provided through Caltrans. • Why or how does this project qualify for Section 130 Funding? What is the purpose of this project? o The Section 130 program provides funding for elimination of hazards at highway-rail at-grade crossings. JPB evaluated train and vehicle volumes, geometric factors, pedestrians, buses and hazmat vehicles, and incident history and identified this intersection as a location that could benefit from hazard reduction. This project was not initiated by the City. However, through this program, the City would be able to address immediate safety concerns and bring the project up to current standards. • The pre-signal will be an improvement, but can there be an additional physical barrier to prevent people from circumventing the railroad gate arms? o Caltrain has a separate, but related, effort in evaluating changes to the gate arms. The gate arms are in JPB/Caltrain ROW, so the City does not have jurisdictional authority to specify the gate arm design. • Can traffic markings be added to designate a queueing area for eastbound bicyclists between the tracks and Alma Street? o This would need to be coordinated with and approved by Caltrain, but Caltrain may have concerns with bicyclists overflowing into the tracks if this queue space is formalized with traffic markings. • Can a bike box be added for westbound Charleston Road to allow motorists to have better visibility of bicyclists who are continuing along Charleston Road? o Bike boxes are typically used at through-left lanes to allow bicyclists turning left to queue in front of cars and connect to bicycle lanes on the receiving roadway. At Charleston Road, the outer lane is a through-right lane, not a through-left lane, and Alma Street does not have bicycle lanes. A bike box at this location is not recommended. • Is there bicyclist detection at this intersection? o Yes, there is video detection on the east side and a detection loop on the west side. • Can bike lane markings extend through the train track area? o This would need to be coordinated with and approved by Caltrain, as it is within Caltrain ROW. • Was changing the eastbound through-right lane to a right turn-only lane considered? o This was evaluated, but there is a lower right turn demand here than at Churchill Avenue. Based on the traffic volumes, striping the eastbound approach with a shared left-through and a right-turn only lane would likely result in longer queues and unbalanced lane utilization, especially during the AM and PM commute hours and is not recommended. • Electronic “No Right Turn on Red” signs are more visible. Can they be installed here? Item 1 Attachment C - Community Meeting Summary        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 43  Packet Pg. 47 of 72  Meeting Summary Charleston Road/ Alma Street Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements RE: Community Meeting #1 October 28, 2025 Page 3 of 6 24054_SUM_ComMtg#1 © copyrighted 2025 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. o There are prescribed uses for these electronic signs, but this can be further evaluated. There are currently electronic signs installed in both directions on Alma Street. • Are there any potential quick-build projects for the intersection that could be completed prior to these proposed improvements? o Caltrain has a quick build trial project at another location that involves the installation of glue-down posts. Caltrain has installed sentry posts at Churchill Avenue, which has been effective in detecting if someone is on the tracks and informing the train operator in advance. Caltrain has also evaluated the installation of anti-trespass panels, which are mats with 6” tall protrusions to deter pedestrian encroachment into the tracks. Quick-build options would need to be coordinated with and approved by Caltrain. • Can bike striping be extended along Charleston Road on the north side of the intersection of Park Boulevard? The roadway alignment shifts at this location, so this would be helpful for visibility of bicyclists. o This will be evaluated. • Why is the B-C crosswalk not parallel to the Y-Z? o The crosswalk is aligned with the curb ramp, and the curb ramp location was shifted to allow for a longer, less steep pedestrian path of travel. The improvements will make this location ADA-compliant. • Can there be stop bars? o Stop bars are proposed, as shown on the plans. • Charleston Road residents are concerned about potential road widening impacting their homes. The project would benefit from additional clarification about the project limits, about the lack of right-of-way encroachment on neighbors, and how the project will improve safety and accessibility for pedestrians. Attendee was glad to learn that the project will not impact residential properties. Attendee recommends the project team connect with Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). o The project will be presented to the City/School Safety Committee in early 2026. • Please keep the B-C stop bar alignment as shown and do not stagger the stop bars. Staggering the stop bars obstructs visibility of oncoming Charleston Road through traffic for right-turn motorists. o Noted. Item 1 Attachment C - Community Meeting Summary        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 44  Packet Pg. 48 of 72  Meeting Summary Charleston Road/ Alma Street Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements RE: Community Meeting #1 October 28, 2025 Page 4 of 6 24054_SUM_ComMtg#1 © copyrighted 2025 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Project Limits Preliminary Concept Enlargement Item 1 Attachment C - Community Meeting Summary        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 45  Packet Pg. 49 of 72  Meeting Summary Charleston Road/ Alma Street Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements RE: Community Meeting #1 October 28, 2025 Page 5 of 6 24054_SUM_ComMtg#1 © copyrighted 2025 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Q&A Session Notes Item 1 Attachment C - Community Meeting Summary        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 46  Packet Pg. 50 of 72  Meeting Summary Charleston Road/ Alma Street Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements RE: Community Meeting #1 October 28, 2025 Page 6 of 6 24054_SUM_ComMtg#1 © copyrighted 2025 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. Submitted by: Melinda Wang Melinda Wang Callander Associates cc: All attendees Item 1 Attachment C - Community Meeting Summary        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 47  Packet Pg. 51 of 72  www.callanderassociates.com BURLINGAME GOLD RIVER RENO SAN JOSE 1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 275 Hill St, Suite 260 2025 Gateway Place, Suite 285 Burlingame, CA 94010 Gold River, CA 95670 Reno, NV 89501 San Jose, CA 95110 650.375.1313 916.985.4366 775.787.2828 408.275.0565 Recreate Educate Live+Work Connect Sustain March 24, 2026 Meeting Summary Charleston Road/ Alma Street Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements RE: Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) Meeting Date: March 3, 2026 Time: 6:15 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Attendees: City of Palo Alto (City): Ruchika Aggarwal ruchika.aggarwal@paloalto.gov Rafael Rius rafael.rius@paloalto.gov Ria Lo ria.lo@paloalto.gov City of Palo Alto Committee Members (PABAC): (attendance not noted) Alan Wachtel Art Liberman Bill Zaumen Bruce Arthur (Chair) Cedric le la Beaujardiere Eric Nordman Jane Rosten Ken Joye (Vice Chair) Nicole Rodia Paul Goldstein Penny Ellson Robert Neff BKF Engineers (BKF): Jason Mansfield jmansfield@bkf.com Jason Yee jyee@bkf.com Callander Associates (CA): Marie Mai mmai@callanderassociates.com Melinda Wang mwang@callanderassociates.com The purpose of this virtual meeting was to present the project and receive feedback on the concept plan by the Committee. Summary The Committee’s primary concerns were whether bike lane striping or other demarcation could be carried through the rail crossing to separate vehicles from bicyclists and if there was sufficient visibility to the pre-signal and traffic lanes. It was noted that CPUC design guidelines do not support demarcation of space for cyclists separate from vehicles. The change in Item 1 Attachment D - PABAC Meeting Summary        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 48  Packet Pg. 52 of 72  Meeting Summary Charleston Road/ Alma Street Railroad Crossing Safety Improvements RE: PABAC Meeting March 3, 2026 Page 2 of 2 24054_SUM_CCMtg.docx © copyrighted 2026 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. geometry between the stop line and crosswalk, addition of the pre-signal, and inclusion of high-visibility crosswalk markings should improve overall visibility. Questions and Comments Received from Committee members (staff/consultant responses are in non-italicized text)  Does the change in geometry between the stop line and crosswalk improve sight lines? A west-bound cyclist may not see vehicles in the Alma south-bound right-turn only lane until very late. Yes, the increased distance should help improve visibility.  Is the omission of green bike lanes around the rail tracks intentional? They could help vehicles maintain their distance from cyclists. Yes, including bike lanes around the tracks would not be consistent with CPUC design guidelines.  How easy will it be for cyclists to follow the pre-signal? It will be easier; there will be a new, more visible signal arm.  Will right-turn-on-red be restricted in both directions? Yes.  What is the material in the raised islands adjacent to the curb ramps – is it dirt? No, it’s a paved surface.  Will the crosswalks be high visibility? Yes, this change has been made to the design.  Can the edge of the vehicular lane be marked to help define space for cyclists? No, this would not be consistent with CPUC design guidelines.  Does the cross-hatched area (at Churchill) help deter people from waiting in there? Yes, CPUC has data that supports the conclusion that the cross-hatching helps deter people.  Consider improvements at E. Meadow as a potential future project. E. Meadow is not included in this project. The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed at the meeting. Submitted by: Marie Mai Callander Associates Item 1 Attachment D - PABAC Meeting Summary        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 49  Packet Pg. 53 of 72  NEW ROADWAY STRIPING AND MARKINGS BY CITY Item 1 Attachment E - City and JPB Limits of Work        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 50  Packet Pg. 54 of 72  SLURRY SEAL BY CITY AREA STRIPING AND MARKINGS BY JPB CONCRETE BY CITY JPB LIMIT OF STRIPING AND TRAFFIC MARKING WORK SLURRY SEAL CONCRETE SIDEWALK AND CURB RAMPS NEW ROADWAY STRIPING AND MARKINGS BY CITY Item 1 Attachment E - City and JPB Limits of Work        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 51  Packet Pg. 55 of 72  Rail Committee Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: ACTION ITEMS Lead Department: Transportation Meeting Date: May 12, 2026 Report #:2603-6169 TITLE Initial Review of the Technical Activities that Informed the 15% Design Development for the Grade Separations at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road. RECOMMENDATION Staff is seeking initial review on the technical studies that inform the 15% design development for the grade separations at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In collaboration with City staff, Caltrain are working towards developing 15% designs and technical reports for the partial underpass alternative for Churchill Avenue, hybrid alternative for Meadow Drive, and underpass alternative for Charleston Road grade separation projects. This staff report presents an update on the 15% design and technical activities for the Rail Committee’s initial review and feedback before seeking community input and feedback. Staff plan to conduct community meetings in August 2026, to gather community input before returning to the Rail Committee and City Council to present 15% design and seek direction on progressing alternatives into 35% design and environmental documentation. BACKGROUND The City of Palo Alto’s rail corridor planning efforts commenced in 2010 with the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study, which was adopted by Council on January 22, 20131. From November 4, 2013, the City developed preliminary grade separation alternatives as part of the Connecting Palo Alto project, which explored multiple options for the four at-grade rail crossing locations of Charleston Road, Meadow Drive, Churchill Avenue, and Palo Alto Avenue. This work resulted in a Rail Corridor Circulation Study and initial screening of a wide range of alternatives by Council on May 29, 20182. In April 2018, in-depth analysis of 1 City Council , January 22, 2013; Item 7, Action Item, SR# 3410 https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=36707&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto 2 City Council , May 29, 2018; Item 7, Action Item, SR# 9284 Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 56 of 72  engineering options continued, with review by the Council Rail Committee and Rail Crossing Community Advisory Committee (XCAP). The XCAP concluded deliberations and presented recommendations to Council on March 23, 2021.5 Since 2022, staff have secured grants from the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), and have continued to develop, evaluate and present grade separation alternatives for consideration. In consultation with the community, Rail Committee and Council, the City has refined project alternatives for rail crossings at Charleston Road, Meadow Drive, and Churchill Avenue, while the Palo Alto Avenue crossing was put on hold. To facilitate durable decision-making and expedited refinement of the alternatives, the Project is divided into two steps: Preliminary Engineering Conceptual Refinement (15% Design), which is anticipated to progress through Summer 2026; and Preliminary Engineering (35% Design) and Environmental Documentation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which is anticipated to conclude in Fall 2027. On December 1, 20256 and December 15, 2025,7 Council directed staff to advance the following project alternatives into 15% design with a focus on enhancing safety and access, establishing a project footprint for environmental clearance, and minimizing congestion, environmental impacts and property impacts. For Churchill Avenue, Council selected the Partial Underpass as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) with a partial crossing for motor vehicles at Churchill Avenue with no landscaping strip along Alma Street; and a pedestrian/bicycle crossing at Seale Avenue/Peers Park with a ramp along Alma Street. Based on Council direction on November 29, 20218, the Pedestrian/Bicycle Undercrossing at Churchill (aka Closure Alternative) remains as the backup alternative if needed in the future for this location. (As directed by Council, the backup alternative will not advance to preliminary engineering at this time.) For Meadow Drive the Council identified the Hybrid Underpass as a preferred alternative to advance into 15% design. Additionally, Council asked to look at earthen berm verses 5 City Council , March 23, 2021; Item 1, Study Session Item, SR# 9284 6 City Council , December 10, 2025; Item 1, Action Item, SR# 2506-4895 https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=84042&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto 7 City Council , December 15, 2025; Item 26, Action Item, SR# 2512-5637 https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=84075&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto 8 City Council , November 29, 2021; Item 11, Action Item, SR# 13787 Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 57 of 72  podium option that was reviewed by the rail committee at its March 10, 202613 meeting. For Charleston Road, Council selected the direct ramp underpass alternative to advance into 15% design. Caltrain is leading the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation phase and the City collaborates with Caltrain for project design and acts as project sponsor. ANALYSIS During the 15% design development, the project team (City and Caltrain staff) explored and refined the following preliminary design elements: Basis of Design Track Alignment Structures Drainage Storm Water Geotechnical Utility Identification and Relocations Vehicle, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Access and Circulation Potential Property Impacts Basis of Design The Basis of Design establishes a general framework to guide project design. The detailed project design will follow the applicable provisions of Caltrain, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA), Caltrans and City of Palo Alto standards. The design criteria are governed by a combination of Caltrain, AREMA, and Caltrans standards, reflecting the diverse design elements involved—including railroad bridges, pedestrian overcrossings, retaining walls, and roadway interfaces. In general, all rail-related structures must comply with the Caltrain Design Criteria Manual, which defines electrification compatibility, seismic performance, and structural loading under increased train frequency. The design will also adhere to the AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering, which provides technical standards for rail load combinations, track-structure interaction, and substructure performance under static and dynamic loads. For roadway-related elements such as retaining walls, pedestrian bridges, and crash barriers, the project follows relevant portions of the Caltrans Bridge Design Specifications and Seismic Design Criteria (SDC 2.1), particularly for vehicular collision loads, pedestrian safety, foundation design, and geotechnical considerations. The integration of these requirements ensures that each structural component is resilient, serviceable, and compatible with both rail operations and the surrounding urban and transportation context. 13 Rail Committee, March 10, 2026; Item 1, Study Session, SR# 2603-6052 Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 58 of 72  In addition, the City requires that the project addresses multimodal access, community aesthetics, and integration with the urban environment. Together, these criteria guide the structural design toward a solution that is technically robust, operationally efficient, and responsive to the community. The Basis of Design report will be provided as part of the September Rail Committee packet after the technical review is completed by Caltrain and the City. Track Alignment Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 59 of 72  separation, a shoofly track alignment would be installed as part of that subsequent phase. Structural Elements For Churchill Avenue, structural geometry was established based on required civil alignment, vertical and horizontal clearance constraints, and the relationship between existing and proposed grades. The proposed design features a hybrid retaining system—using deep soil mixing (DSM) walls and conventional cantilever retaining walls for the ramps—and a concrete box structure for the underpass. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 60 of 72  vertical and horizontal clearance requirements, and existing ground and the finish grade. In general, a U shape conventional retaining wall is proposed for the ramps and concrete box is proposed for the tunnel, as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1: Alma Street Ramp – Pedestrian/Bicycle Tunnel and Ramp Sections The retaining wall was shortened slightly at each end of the ramps The tunnel was extended toward the west in Peers Park to reduce the maximum retained soil depth for the retaining wall. For Meadow Drive, the grade separation will include a proposed structure consisting of a three-span precast girder bridge located within the existing right-of-way. Approach embankments will be required to support the raised alignment. To accommodate the depressed roadway profile, cast-in-place cantilever retaining walls will be constructed along portions of Meadow Drive and Alma Street. The overall layout of the proposed improvements Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 61 of 72  is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: Meadow Drive Hybrid Structural Elements Figure 3: Meadow Drive Hybrid Rail Bridge Structure For Charleston Road, to achieve the required vertical clearances, the proposed design Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 62 of 72  incorporates several key structural components: a new railroad bridge, a roadway bridge, a pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing (of Charleston Road), and a series of retaining wall systems supporting the lowered roadway approaches, as shown in Figure 4. The design provides minimum clearances of 16.5 feet beneath the rail bridge, 13.5 feet beneath the roadway bridge, and 8 feet for the pedestrian undercrossing of the railroad. Roadway geometry, lane widths, cross slopes, and access connections have been developed to fit within the constrained footprint while meeting applicable design standards and maintaining connectivity to Alma Street and Park Boulevard. Figure 4: Charleston Road Underpass Structural Elements Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 63 of 72  1. Vehicular roadway, providing east-west travel lanes in each direction 2. A separate pedestrian and bicycle (multi-use) path located adjacent to the roadway at a higher elevation when undercrossing the railroad, shown in Figure 5. Figure 5: Charleston Road Underpass – Alma Street Bridge The railroad bridge carries the active Caltrain tracks over the lowered Charleston Road and the pedestrian undercrossing. Therefore, the structure shall be designed to satisfy Caltrain’s clearance, load, and operational requirements while fitting within the constrained right-of- way. Construction feasibility is dependent on the railroad structural system due to maintaining Caltrain operations. The work window assumes weekend closures. Two general construction concepts influence the structural system: • Open-Cut Method with temporary shoofly tracks as shown in Figure 6, which allows the use of conventional superstructure types. • Box-Jacking method that installs a reinforced concrete box beneath the active tracks without a shoofly (Figure 7). Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 9  Packet Pg. 64 of 72  Figure 6: Open-Cut Railroad Bridge Figure 7: Box Jacking Railroad Bridge A pedestrian bridge is required to maintain connectivity across the lowered Charleston Road. The structure spans approximately 60 feet over the lowered Charleston Road. Prestressed CIP voided concrete slab is selected as the preferred superstructure system. The lowered Charleston Road for vehicular traffic only as shown in Figure 8. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 10  Packet Pg. 65 of 72  Figure 8: Charleston Road Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Stormwater Guidance for compliance with the permanent stormwater requirements of the San Francisco Bay Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) is summarized in the Santa Clara County stormwater management program (SCVURPPP) C.3 Stormwater Handbook. This project needs to meet treatment requirements as it is classified as: Construction of impervious trails that are greater than or equal to 10 feet wide. SCVURPPP’s Local Hydro-Modification Management Applicability Maps indicate that the Project is in an area exempt form hydromodification management requirements. Caltrain Stormwater - The selected alternatives include substantial new and reconstructed impervious area within the Caltrain right-of-way associated with track and corridor improvements. The Project evaluated permanent Low Impact Development (LID) treatment within the Caltrain right of way, including bioretention, to address Caltrain new and replaced impervious surfaces consistent with Caltrain design criteria and Caltrain stormwater permit requirements. The Project cannot site permanent LID treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs) within the Caltrain right-of-way because planned future track configuration and operational requirements constrain available footprint. The Project will therefore plan to address Caltrain post construction treatment requirements through alternative compliance. Caltrain will address Caltrain track and corridor impervious area through on corridor (alternative compliance) LID treatment within Caltrain right of way. City of Palo Alto Stormwater - The City’s portion will address City MS4 and Santa Clara Clean Water Program post construction requirements through alternative compliance due to right of way and grade constraints. The City and Caltrain will coordinate ownership, access, and long-term maintenance for any pump stations and any alternative compliance BMPs through a long-term maintenance agreement. Given the constrained rights of way, grade separations, and utility and grade conflicts, on corridor low impact development (LID) within City of Palo Alto right-of-way is not practicable at multiple locations. City standards recognize that non-LID or off-site approaches may be Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 11  Packet Pg. 66 of 72  necessary where soil, location, or project constraints preclude standard LID. The Project team will coordinate early with the City staff to define the alternative compliance obligations for City regulated impervious areas in accordance with C.3.e (Alternative Compliance) by providing equivalent, hydraulically sized LID treatment off site or by participating in a Regional or off-site project administered by the City within the same watershed with a documented net environmental benefit. Drainage peak flow for the 50-year, to fully convey all runoff from the project up into the public storm drain system. Once the water is pumped to a storm drain manhole, outlet pipes that gravity flow stormwater into the City’s system are sized to adequately convey the 10-year peak flow. Per the Santa Clara County Hydro Modification Susceptibility Map, all Project Areas are in hydromodification exempt zones. The preliminary configuration assumes independent pump stations at each depressed undercrossing. The interaction between the Churchill Avenue and Seale Avenue pump facilities Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 12  Packet Pg. 67 of 72  may result in a series pumping condition within the City’ existing storm drain main system. While hydraulically feasible, this configuration will be further evaluated during the 35% design phase to assess potential gravity bypass option. The drainage report will be provided to Rail Committee packet in Fall 2026 after technical review from Caltrain and the City staff. Geotechnical Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 13  Packet Pg. 68 of 72  distance seems reasonable. Construction of the rail bridge or underpass may be achieved through conventional bridge construction or box jacking. These options are being evaluated by design engineers. During these operations, Alma Street will be narrowed to one lane in each direction. If conventional construction is adopted for the rail bridge, a deep pile foundation is expected for foundation support. However, staff believes that the project may pose noise and vibration concerns on neighbors if conventional driven piles are used. Therefore, alternatives such as Caltrans standard Cast-In-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) piles are being evaluated for feasibility. Either pile-footings or large diameter CIDH pile columns may be considered and groundwater is expected in this area. Therefore, shoring, will likely be required for the 4 to 7 f t excavation and will likely consist of cantilever soldier pile and lagging system. For small retaining walls along Meadow Drive and Alma Street, cantilever or L-shaped walls on shallow foundations would be feasible. Again, noting that for the rail bridge, the design needs to account for railroad loading. Charleston Road For Charleston Road, boring data indicates stiff clays and silty sand in the upper 20 ft depth overlying sandy clays and clayey sands through about 35 ft. The planned finished grade below the future underpass and vehicular structure at Charleston Road and Alma Street seems to be at elevation 14 to 15 ft (approximately 26 ft below the top of rail) and in stiff clay or clayey sand. For the planned retaining walls supporting future depressed Charleston Road and Alma Street, DSM walls for both shoring and permanent design will be feasible. The underpass and vehicular structures at Charleston Road and Alma Street crossing can be bridges on DSM foundations, box structures, or combination with alternate construction methods. For the pedestrian/bike path from Wright Place to Park Blvd., cantilever or L-shaped walls on shallow foundations should be feasible. At this crossing also, the box structure needs to be designed for railroad surcharge. Based on boring and CPT data, groundwater is anticipated to be above the final grade of depressed Charleston Road/Alma Street since groundwater was encountered at as high as 10 ft below surface at Charleston Road and Alma Street. Groundwater control and temporary construction dewatering will be required, and permanent roadway design needs to account for groundwater level. For permanent design, this groundwater level may necessitate a drainage blanket layer below the depressed roadway pavement sections and a pump station. The geotechnical report will be provided as part of the September Rail Committee packet after the technical review from Caltrain and the City of Palo Alto. Utility Identification and Relocation The project team submitted a request to obtain utility contact information of all utility owners Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 14  Packet Pg. 69 of 72  within the crossings as well as utility record drawings. All utility companies and the City’s Utilities department provided delineation maps, which were used to prepare a utility base map. Utility conflicts were then evaluated at a conceptual level relative to proposed grading, roadway modifications, and structural elements. Vehicle, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Access and Circulation speeds. No structural sight obstructions were identified at Churchill Avenue or Meadow Drive, indicating that SSD limitations are primarily due to vertical alignment. At the Charleston Road Direct Access Ramp, corner sight distance is constrained by bridge abutments and retaining walls. Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 15  Packet Pg. 70 of 72  Across all evaluated intersections, passenger vehicles can generally be accommodated within the proposed roadway geometry; however, larger design vehicles, including WB-40 trucks, fire trucks, buses, and refuse vehicles, frequently require oversteering or operational adjustments to complete turning movements. Accommodation for wide-body and emergency vehicles is limited and may require targeted geometric modifications or access restrictions to ensure safe and efficient operations. Therefore, it is recommended to: Prohibit access to wide-body vehicles to and through the Charleston Road Direct Access Ramp. Restrict truck movements from the Alma Street northbound approach to eastbound Charleston Road. Reconfigure the sidewalk along eastbound Charleston Road to maintain appropriate access for the trucks. Potential Property Impacts 15. In addition to private parcels the project also requires partial right-of-way from Caltrain for the proposed and roadway and structure improvements. These areas will need to be further refined in the next phase when the design is further advanced. 15 City Council, December 10, 2025; Item 1, Action Item, SR# 2506-4895 https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=84042&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 16  Packet Pg. 71 of 72  FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPROVED BY: Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 17  Packet Pg. 72 of 72