The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20123008.tiff PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC STUDY • Traffic Impact Study HICKMAN DEVELOPMENT Weld County, Colorado Prepared For: AGPROfessionals 4350 Highway 66 Longmont, CO 80504 Prepared By: Eugene G. Coppola, P.E. P. O. Box 630027 .0\ GEORG • a Littleton, CO 80163 ` .'cc'` rE 303-792-2450 ft, n 349 .x_ i 2. t>�p�ss'p`a, c'. o May 24, 2012 /1 15,°:'�::;; P��'` 4yikta tt,ln?-iV� Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS 3 A. Existing Road Network 3 B. Existing Traffic Conditions 3 C. Surrounding Land Uses 7 III. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 7 A. Site Assumptions 7 B. Site Traffic 9 C. Trip Distribution 10 D. Background Traffic 10 E. Future Total Traffic 10 F. Future Roadway System 18 IV. TRAFFIC IMPACTS 18 A. Auxiliary Lanes and Traffic Controls 21 B. Future Operating Conditions (with Hickman) 21 V. DESIGN ISSUES 23 VI. CONCLUSIONS 24 List of Figures Figure 1 Vicinity Map 2 Figure 2 Current Traffic 5 Figure 3 Current Roadway Geometry 6 Figure 4 Concept Plan 8 Figure 5 Site Traffic Distribution 11 Figure 6 Site Traffic 12 Figure 7 Build Out Site Traffic 13 Figure 8 Short-Term Background Traffic 14 Figure 9 Long-Term Background Traffic 15 Figure 10 Short-Term Total Traffic 16 Figure 11 Long-Term Total Traffic 17 Figure 12 Short-Term Roadway Geometry 19 Figure 13 Long-Term Roadway Geometry 20 I. INTRODUCTION The Hickman Development (Hickman) is a proposed light industrial development in Weld County, Colorado. The site is generally located east of U.S. 85 between County Road 33 (CR 33) and Weld County Road 44 (CR 44). The initial phase of develop- ment will be a water service company with follow-on development expected to be other light industry. A vicinity map is presented in Figure 1. This study contains the investigations and analyses typically contained in a full traffic study. Key steps undertaken as part of this study are defined below. • Obtain current traffic and roadway data in the immediate area of the site. • Evaluate current traffic operations to establish baseline conditions. • Determine site generated traffic and distribute this traffic to the nearby street system. • Estimate roadway traffic for future roadway conditions. • Evaluate traffic operations with the proposed operation fully functional un- der future conditions. • Identify areas of potential deficiencies. • Recommend measures to mitigate the impact of site generated traffic as appropriate. Ii / i r i .�. / = - i /I X11 >LA SALLE l r I / M Y--I rM M M 46 'I �° co___Th Mi - e l / 44 ��SITE / 42 on 42 f — / GILCREST 40 _I co co ..\ M 738 o 36 Figure 1 2 VICINITY MAP II. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Existing Road Network The Hickman site is bordered on the west by U.S. 85, on the north by CR 44 and on the south by CR 33. These roadways are either under Weld County or Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) control. CR 33 is an east-west two-lane roadway serving the local area on both sides of U.S. 85. It is skewed in the southwest to northeast directions. CR 33 is currently paved between U.S. 85 and the railroad tracks and oiled to the east of the tracks. There is no posted speed limit on CR 33, east of U.S. 85. CR 44 is a paved two lane east-west roadway with one lane in each direction serving the area east and west of U.S. 85. The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour. U.S. 85 is the major north-south roadway serving this area. It provides regional service and essentially abuts the site on the west. U.S. 85 has two lanes in each direction with auxiliary lanes at intersections and a posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour. The U.S. 85 intersections with CR 33 and CR 44 are under stop sign control. There are railroad tracks paralleling U.S. 85 on the east side with railroad gates controlling traffic on CR 44 and stop signs controlling CR 33 traffic at the railroad crossing. B. Existing Traffic Conditions Traffic counts were collected as part of this study and extracted from other sources and agency publications. The CR 33 and CR 44 intersections were counted during the morning highway peak hour (6:00 - 9:00 A.M.), and the afternoon highway peak hour (3:00 - 6:00 P.M.). Daily traffic was provided by the County and by CDOT. 3 Recent traffic is shown on Figure 2 with current roadway geometry and controls shown on Figure 3. Count sheets are provided in Appendix A. Critical intersections were evaluated using highway capacity procedures during the highway morning and afternoon peak hours. Resultant levels of service are shown below. CURRENT OPERATING CONDITIONS Movement! Level of Service Intersection Control Direction AM Pk Hr. PM Pk Hr. CR 33 — U.S. 85 Stop NB L A A SB L A A WB LTR B C EB LTR B B CR 44 - U.S 85 Stop NB L A A SB L A A VBLT C C VVB R B B EB LT D D EB R A B For definition purposes, overall level of service 'D' is considered acceptable at stop sign controlled intersections during peak hours with critical minor street traffic move- ments allowed to operate at LOS 'E/F'. At signalized intersections, overall level of service 'D' or better is considered acceptable during peak hours. It should be noted that capacity analyses were conducted only to the level necessary to meet acceptable operations. Additional tweaking is expected to result in improved operations for individual traffic movements, approaches and/or overall operations at signalized intersections. As indicated above, acceptable operations are currently being experienced at all intersections. Capacity work sheets are provided in Appendix B. 4 CO GO N O O � -- 15/16 N rc of Lr) 4 2/6 ♦/ v v♦ 28/18 1420 CR 44 5/7 14/8 ► C-11 LO N Sib - co G) L7 O O O cc o N r --7/3 co co I° 1/1 ♦/ I (A ► 1/2 260 CR 33 2/2 - 1/0 5/4 N CO N O LEGEND: AD,1/PM Peak Hour Daily Figure 2 CURRENT TRAFFIC 5 l J i co 2 = CO f A' ♦ � ♦ ► CR44 f CR 33 Figure 3 6 CURRENT ROADWAY GEOMETRY l L C. Surrounding Land Uses The Gilcrest and LaSalle areas are located to the south and north of the site, respec- tively with Milliken located to the west. In the immediate area of the site, land uses are generally devoted to industrial and agricultural uses. III. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS A. Site Assumptions The Hickman site will initiate development in 2013 with a water service company catering to the oil industry. It will be located along CR 33 south of the proposed driveway on some 8 acres. For evaluation purposes, the shod- and long-term hori- zons were investigated. The shod-term time frame represents the year 2013 con- sistent with the initial phase of development with the long-term representing the widely accepted planning horizon of some 20 years in the future. Development after the water service company is uncertain; however, the balance of the site, some 92 acres, is assumed developed as light industrial uses by 2032, the long-term horizon. With the initial phase of development all site traffic will enter and exit the site using CR 33. AM departing truck trips will turn either left or right onto U.S. 85 with the reverse traffic movements expected for trips arriving at the site. Virtually all departing trucks will be loaded with arriving trucks being empty. Employee trips are expected to use the same arrival and departure routes. Site activity for the water service company will be up to 24 hours per day, seven days per week. A concept plan is provided on Figure 4. 7 I �� . � ilIi5 t III I, �r _ � . . iIII - - Oill +, ;_iir co itI �tr�< <s • � .,knnl9!3 Z I Q J a. C.) I-- a CD w I Z O CJ a II a ICI '�„3.,v 4� k! yY '. / ,1 > {�C 3 rf \ _ • " k % art , r '.:zr rr' r� '- I E ' -I;' [..„..,. ... _ yBr �n r .tom �, + �• k eye �'07r R 1a y .3 ji t.1,---2 , a�—1t \ _t�`7i. 7 1t a �r�.. }_\ck r5 �l S La�� [ J t :a 1 It r }+,, a \� ti ,ai ‘ f-j `{ artQ ,,v ,,,, n 3 \ - �f W ',rye litII r. n , ia�A 32'x"' _:_E 4 . se_ � s� , 8 B. Site Traffic Site traffic for the initial phase of development was estimated using the operating strategies planned by the water service company. The site will generally operate up to 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Based on operator estimates, 124 trucks will enter and exit the site each day. There will be up to two employees per shift and two shifts per day. Site traffic is expected to arrive at and depart the site equally to and from the north and south on U.S. 85. No significant site traffic is expected to use the County street system. The balance of the site (92 acres) is expected to develop sometime after the water service company but before the long-term (2032) planning horizon. Uncertainties abound regarding future development; however, it is anticipated that light industrial uses will find this site attractive. Development activity will occur in concert with de- mand. Site traffic for Phase I and build out of the Hickman development is shown below: Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Use Size Rate Trips Rate In Out Rate I In Out PhaseI Water Service - 260 6 4 4 6 Future Phases Light Industrial 92 AC 51.8 4,766 7.51 573 117 7.26 ; 147 521 TOTAL 5,026 579 121 151 527 Based on water service operator estimates On a representative day, Phase I, the water service company, will generate 10 morn- ing highway peak hour trips, 10 afternoon highway peak hour trips and 260 daily trips. This reflects 248 truck trips, 8 employee trips and 4 miscellaneous trips per day. At build out, the Hickman development will generate 700 morning peak hour trips, 678 afternoon peak hour trips, and 5,026 trips per day. 9 C. Trip Distribution Trip distribution is a function of the origin and destination of site users and the availa- ble roadway system. In this case, virtually all traffic will use U.S. 85 to access either CR 33 or CR 44. Local trips will use the shortest access route; however, the number of local trips is expected to be negligible. The distribution of water from this site is based on operator estimates and anticipated market areas. Site traffic distribution is shown on Figure 5 with Phase I site traffic shown on Figure 6 and build out site traffic shown on Figure 7. Build out site traffic reflects future roadway changes planned as part of the U.S. 85 Access Control Plan. D. Background Traffic Background traffic was developed for the years 2013 and 2032. These represent the short- and long-term horizons. CDOT publications indicate a growth rate in the range of about 2% annually on U.S. 85. Growth on other streets was estimated using County provided annual growth rates of 2% for both CR 33 and CR 44. Short- and long-term background traffic is shown on Figures 8 and 9. E. Future Total Traffic Total traffic is the combination of site traffic and background traffic. It represents conditions with the Hickman site fully operational. Peak hours were evaluated since these times represent the most severe traffic conditions. Site traffic was added to background traffic resulting in the short- and long-term total traffic shown on Figures 10 and 11 , respectively. 10 i co 1 C N Nominal 1 ► CR 44 Nominal ' CR33 0 N Figure 5 11 SITE TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION N m ii N l ---- - CR 44 N C) C cN \—2/3 � z co 4 N/N v z LA 2/3 A) c N/N CR 33 N/N —► � 6/4 —14 N LEGEND: AM/PM Peak How C Figure 6 12 SH0RT-TERM SITE TRAFFIC LO Z N �-50/175 NiN • LA 25/200 N/N CR 44 N/N A (Tr 290/75 •. • n n z n N rJ Z O Ln L1)-- 'C.O N- U 1 U J a O u) N r Z_ N � Z 75/155 ♦) LA N/N CR 33 1" 190/50 4 Lo O N u1 O O O 0) LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. Figure 7 BUILD OUT SITE TRAFFIC 13 co `n v7 0 co 0 c0 0 ► a O 15/15 0cro LX) C\i F- N/5 30/20 CR 44 5/5 � 15/10 ► z 0 0 n N 5/5 z 2 o 0 <n 0 v co 0 in CO0 10/5 N/N NUN CR 33 N/N —J� F\ •I N/N —► In 0 z 5/5 z � o co LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour i NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. Figure 8 SHORT-TERM BACKGROUND 14 TRAFFIC up to 0) 0 Co G O 0) O 25/25 oc, o N v x5/10 c 40/25 • CR 44 15/15 -A i♦ 23/10 ---► o Ln o LO v 10/10 CO- CD 0 cu in 0 ao o co co 10/5 — CR 33 • 10/5 n� t 1 CO Z c� o 0 co LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. Figure 9 15 LONG-TERM BACKGROUND TRAFFIC /7- CO 2 0 Cr) o U) o ► o !F1 o 15/15 N 4--- N;5 c 30120 • - CR44 p 5/5 it ! 15/10 ► Z n v 5/5 , z Lo 0 LT) v 0 L7 C) 0 0 CD LO ,, � N x- 5/10 u, _Z in in N/N Z N/N � N/5 �� 4-- N/10 • -- CR 33 N/N 1) 1' 5/5 N/N ► n 0 Z 20/10 ► 5/5 — z co 0 m LEGEND. AM/PM Peak Hour NOTE. Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. Figure 10 16 SHORT-TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC L') co O co .- La G) r /n o __75/120 N N co 4- 5/10 f -- 70/60 J \� 65/225 -- NUN, J CR44 15/15 � ♦ 115/90 ' I_♦ 20/10 --► o o 390/100 I Z 10/10 LI) ,I) N Z N <o cc U > a a > a O N a (o N Z ► 85/160J .-- 10/5 ♦ CR 33 10/5 190/50 0 0 10/N ► O 0 O N co O LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. r - Figure 11 1 7 LONG-TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC F. Future Roadway System No improvements are planned at the U.S. 85 intersections with CR 33 and CR 44 in the shod-term. Consequently, the existing roadway system will remain constant through 2013. The U.S. 85 intersections with CR 33 and CR 44 have been identified in the U.S. 85 Access Control Plan as needing reconstruction in the future due to skewed approach- es and safety concerns. This improvement is rated as a high priority which is ex- pected by 2032 or earlier. The long-term roadway system is expected to include a traffic signal at CR 44 and improvements on the CR 44 approaches to U.S. 85. In conjunction with the CR 44 intersection improvements, CR 33 will be restricted to right-turn in and out movements and perhaps the left turn movement from U.S. 85 to CR 33. As pad of this study, these changes were discussed with and determined reasonable by CDOT. For evaluation purposes only right turns were assumed al- lowed at the CR 33 intersection in the long term time frame. Shod- and long-term roadway geometry is shown on Figures 12 and 13, respectively. IV. TRAFFIC IMPACTS To assess operating conditions with the site fully functional, capacity analysis proce- dures were utilized at key intersections. These include the U.S. 85 — CR 33 and the U.S. 85 — CR 44, and the site access intersections. Site access will only be available from CR 33 in the shod-term, with CR 44 providing additional site access when needed to serve future development on this site. At the onset of these undertakings, future traffic volumes were reviewed at each location to determine if any new auxiliary lanes will be needed. Findings are indicated below. 18 x CR44 - C) 0 4 • CR 33 Figure 12 9 SHORT-TERM ROADWAY GEOMETRY co 0) H V V ► ►� 7 P CR 44 \fir A It\ ♦ ♦ fr ♦ (r a) 0 U J 0 A/ ,* • \ CR33 • (• N Figure 13 20 LONG-TERM ROADWAY GEOMETRY A. Auxiliary Lanes and Traffic Controls All warranted turn lanes currently exist at the U.S. 85 intersections with CR 33 and CR 44; however, these lanes were built to earlier design standards. Given that access restrictions will be imposed at the CR 33 — U.S. 85 intersection in the future, only 2 — 3 vehicles per hour will be added to impacted traffic movements, turning traffic is not high enough to meet warrants, and spacing is limited between intersections, no auxiliary lane improvements are needed in the short-term. Since turning traffic at CR 44 will not be impacted in the short-term, the geometry at that intersection will remain unchanged. Additionally, traffic at the CR 33 site driveway will be negligible in the short-term and will not warrant any turn lanes on CR 33. In the long-term, the CR 44 — U.S. 85 intersection will be relocated, improved, and signalized. When this intersection is improved, it is expected that CDOT will improve the approach geometry at that time. A review of traffic at the CR 44 — site driveway and the CR 33 — site driveway intersections determined that an eastbound right turn lane will be warranted on CR 44 at the driveway intersection and that an eastbound left turn lane on CR 33 at the site driveway intersection will not be needed since eastbound left turns into the site are opposed by only 10 vehicles per hour which is well below the 100 vehicles per hour threshold when the left turn lane can be waived. This threshold assesses the likelihood of conflict between left turning vehicles and opposing traffic. B. Future Operating Conditions (with Hickman) Capacity analyses were conducted using short- and long-term total traffic and the short- and long-term roadway geometry. Acceptable conditions are defined as overall level of service 'D' with critical, stop sign controlled side street traffic movements allowed to operate at level of service 'E/F'. Resultant levels-of-service are indicated in the following tables. 21 SHORT-TERM OPERATING CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT I Movement' Level of Service I Intersection j Control Direction AM Pk Hr. PM Pk Hr CR 33 — U.S. 85 Stop NB L A A SBL A A WB LTR C C EB LTR. C C CR 33 - Drive Stop EB LT A A SB LR l A A CR 44 - U.S. 85 Stop NB L A A SBL A A WBLT C C WBR B B _ I EB LT D D EBR A B LONG-TERM OPERATING CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Movement/ Level of Service Intersection Control Direction AM Pk Hr. PM Pk Hr. CR 33 — U.S. 85 Stop WBR B C EBR B B CR 33 — Drive Stop EB LT A A SB LR A A - CR 44 - U.S. 85 Signal EB C C WB C C NB C C SB A A Overall B B CR 44 — Drive Stop WB LT A A NBLR B B 22 As indicated, all intersections will operate acceptably in both the short- and long-term with development on the Hickman site. The capacity analyses do not consider the availability of right turn acceleration lanes and therefore better than indicated operat- ing conditions are expected. Accordingly, level-of-service 'C' or better is expected for all traffic movements at all intersections. Tweaking future traffic signal timings at the U.S. 85 — CR 44 intersection will also result in improved operations. For purposes of this study, however, analyses were only conducted to the point of demonstrating acceptable operations. Capacity worksheets arc presented in Appendix C for short- term conditions and Appendix D for long-term conditions. V. DESIGN ISSUES Given that the CR 33 and CR 44 intersections are closely spaced along U.S. 85, that CR 44 will be relocated and connect to U.S. 85 at a signalized location and future turn restrictions will be imposed at CR 33, the practicality and cost-effectiveness of auxilia- ry lane improvements were considered when determining which improvements can be reasonably made. It was determined that the northbound right turn lane on U.S. 85 at CR 33 and the eastbound right turn lane on CR 44 at the site driveway can be in- stalled in the long-term. Preliminary auxiliary lane designs were developed for northbound to eastbound right turns at the U.S. 85 — CR 33 intersection and for eastbound right turns at the CR 44 driveway. Based upon current CDOT design criteria, truck usage, and the posted speed limits, the northbound right turn lane should have a deceleration length of 800 feet plus 300 feet of transition taper. On CR 44, an eastbound right-turn deceleration lane at the site driveway should be built with 435 feet of deceleration lane including a 160 foot transition taper. Large radii capable of accommodating trucks should be provided at both locations. The indicated improvements are not needed with Phase I, but will be warranted sometime thereafter. 23 The feasibility of building the above indicated auxiliary lanes should he investigated as part of the preliminary design phase. At that time, adjustments to the indicated design parameters may be appropriate or construction of any given lane may be determined impractical. The need for these lanes should be confirmed as development proceeds. VI. CONCLUSIONS Based on the above documented analyses and investigations, the following can be concluded: • Current operating conditions are acceptable in the area of the Hickman site. • Phase I of this development will generate 10 morning and afternoon peak hour trips and 260 trips per day. These trips will use CR 33 to access the site and can be accommodated by the existing roadway system. No new auxiliary lane improvements are needed with Phase I. • The existing roadway system can adequately serve Phase I traffic as evi- denced by very acceptable levels of service at all intersections. • At build out, the Hickman site will generate 700 morning highway peak hour trips, 678 afternoon highway peak hour trips and 5,026 trips per day. These trips can be served by CDOT planned improvements at the U.S. 85 — CR 44 and U.S. 85 — CR 33 intersections. • The existing northbound right turn lane on U.S. 85 at CR 33 should be im- proved sometime after Phase I. This lane should be improved to CDOT stand- ards when the lane is warranted by the combination of background traffic and site traffic resulting from future phases of development on the Hickman site. • On CR 44, an eastbound right-turn lane will be warranted at the site access when traffic volumes warrant this improvement. Preliminary design parameters for this lane are provided in this report for site build out conditions. 24 • Acceptable operating conditions will be achieved and maintained through the long-term at all intersections. • The Hickman development is viable from a traffic engineering standpoint. In summary, with the identified improvements the Hickman Development will not adversely impact the area street system. This is verified by the determination that acceptable operating conditions can be anticipated at all intersections for the foresee- able future. 25 APPENDIX A J O rn a O co 0 0 N 03 V N O 1() N V W M1 0 CO 0 t Cr) Vl 0 LO M1 V M O LA J = V o V n L. CI 07 O c r M 0 0 t7 r (O r r 30 M r 'Y N M N N N c " O V N N s r o 0o CA) OD 0 0 0 J, p a r en co N O N r r r no Ol M1 r en N O r N N O Cl N r O tO M1 r F o 0 c X NV CA CO X �/� p' O r N N .V O r O O r r 0 M1 I— — r :\ r 0 0 N r 0 (0 0 r 0 Cl V! O C _ COM z co d O Z [_/ ol co _o N O O a r O O r 0 0 0 0 0 r O O r O O O r O O N O O r o CO U CU = NJ — D 0 n O J O 0 r 0 0 0 0 r r O CO 0 r 0 r 0 O r 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 N U .. M I- C.. o J r U N r N Cl N r r V 0 0 V O t0 O C) N r N r o CO r r N r N t0 0 0 ~ — a T a o W ` O' cc a r (V r r O N O O r O O N L- :V O r r O r r O O r N ACIA LL. t : : : : : : : : : r OOOO OOOOO roO0r N 00 O N O 0 0 O O N Ce Q s J co N ra 5 in V M1 oc V M r N M r V N r H C N CO CO M1 N a xi' h r LID N N F n = 0 (n LL. QCO t- N r 0 O Cl 0 N 0 0 CO O Cl N to V M1 N N C V r r r co nt o J I- r _ CO <f aCK o dor OOOr Or oO In r O N r r o 0 o N 0 0 r v c a CO o 0 on J r N V r r 0 a N O r O O CO N CJ NO M CO N N C N r r 0 r cO 40 N 75 M V 0 N N r N O r N N r cn cor c= r N O 0 N O r O V At- Cl LO F o O ! ; ce r 0 N 0 N0 r O a N r 0 M1 — 0 o r 0 O r o r O CO r r d 2,33 X to en n = — J O O a in O m a ry o o O K U E.---) $ J N r C'l N O r r O r c r r co O O r - O O r 0 0 0 r 0 N a o • © o w 4 -°. C; tn to ,n Z a -- O 0 C O ul VI N 0 LO vl c0 vl u- o N 0 O N O O in o in LL La E J r M V O V O r C] V O r M V O V r Cl V V 0 a. R a O O O O O O O O O O O CL COO 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 O O N 4" J m oO CO Cl W -'' - - Oo r M0 1) r .n0 CO m O a ,,,....:4, M -a o m mto N N N N (T.; N M N N N N N CV on M M in M en en N en M en N cn a 1— " t U a U U el 0 0 m a O m 0 en 0 m N 3- m M tn i r 0 a cri N- r r 3- 3- r r ° r N o a O O 0 L'J CO T 0 M Q r m r m CO r r t0 01 <n r V 0 m r CO r n m O Q or O S t c, o 0. o N = C LO 31 0 L d' O N :0 CV co 0 . n r co S n .O.0 0 ll n .!] V C N 0 O C.. M r 0 O I— Q ea - O Z d UJ O - O O O O r - n] m N r N a- 01' N en - O 0. N O r m CO CJ o ca 0 0 _ 0 n _ J ^"J - Q v co Ln 0) 01 N 0 N N N U) cn CD M co tV r N [n O - Q m Lu s - a Otin LO U 0 N m N N com Q n 10 N Q1 t0 fD e o l7 Q (D co(G r t0 COOJ N 'V M LO t0 N a O 33, ~ 4-4 0 Q W J Q' N - - O h - - - O to N e. 10 O r N N - N - 0 0 0 N - CD G _ YL O OS] (n M Q - - co. :n (n tV O N N r Li- O N - N 0 Q N N r 0 (n r CO tii w N cn (n `- Ln o cn en r J O r O r O O cn N Q N 10 M N 0 O C n cc CQ s_ yOj N coO COm m M r O n - m 0 COM a0 O Q t0 T O M O • c0 N ;RI- Q Q N 0 N CV r N N C Q CO M1 F N N N N N M or N N N N M en CO CO M N CO CO ("1 N = O cn CO O I.L. QCu r N co O N ti o to 0) co co co N M Co n O) co O MN o r N N N m C') r N r m m 0 mp Q 'n 10 t0 co N. co e t0 Co t0 r 0 m M= F W Q N Q Q — CA N O N r c— CO N (n N N N 0) F— J a tD Q — r O N 0 N CD — O r O) _ aNO - ,_ N N � r 6c- in _. r ,_ ,_ t`) to `__. `r`) _ is t '- r r r r r J O J CO -.C) u1 n cn 0 n c] l] O 't] �� W CA 0 Q N LO N cD N :V Q N r r O m N CO O 0) r O N Cr, r r in N o 01 N N 1n Co CO r O) Co CO o O) h O N 1. 10 N CO M I Cr r 10 M M en 0 CO a0 ti CO CO m r N. c:' CO F O co ti re co N eo a r N cn n o m m co ..n to m . - r r. c._ o N N 0 v tD r ry ,-�. V ee e en N N— O N tV -O= CO v Cr. D LO N N O h r r r r r 0 r r r r 3- r Co 0 X O M Ali Z J — o o o a r a r r r r r — — o — o o o 0 0 - o N U D - of 0 CO O Co 0 - c Cl 0 m in in in m in o In o v z a - D E ., o roi v o v o • i o n Q, o ., v o 0 Q Q = 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0: Lii Cri in v) 2 F- CO co co co co 0 0 o r d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m a 1 w APPENDIX B TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection CR 33- US 85 (Agency/Co. !Jurisdiction Date Performed 523/2012 I !,analysis Year EX STLTTOTAL Analysis Time Period ' 1 pm I I i� Project Description East/West Street: CR 33 North/South Street: US 85 _ Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 2 623 7 8 550 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 623 7 8 550 5 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 10 -- _ -- 10 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 _ Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 0 _ Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 2 1 5 / / 7 Peak-Hour Factor. PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 1 5 1 1 7 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 25 25 25 25 25 25 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N — Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 _ Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR v (veh/h) 2 8 9 8 C (m) (veh/h) 958 896 437 396 v/c 0.00 0.01 0.02 a 02 95% queue length 0.01 a03 0.06 0.06 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.8 9.1 13.4 14.3 LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 13.4 14.3 Approach LOS -- -- B B Copyright©2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 5/23;2012 11 24 AM 5/23/2012 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection CR 33 - US 85 II Agency/Co. burisdiction ;Date Performed 5/23/ -12 Analysis Year X ST LT TOTAL Analysis Time Period ,4M Pl Project Description East/West Street: CR 33 North/South Street: US 85 Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 6 661 1 14 625 4 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 661 1 14 625 4 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 10 - -- 10 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 2 0 4 2 1 3 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 0 4 2 1 3 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 25 25 25 25 25 25 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized • 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR, v (veh/h) 6 14 6 6 C (m) (veh/h) 897 871 296 447 v/c 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 95% queue length 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.04 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.0 9.2 17.4 13.2 LOS A A C B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 17.4 13.2 Approach LOS -- -- C B Copyright O 2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+T•t.I Version 5.6 Generated: 5'23/2012 11:24 AM 5/23/2012 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC I Intersection 44 - 85 —Ii Agency/Co. !Jurisdiction �--, Date Performed 5/26/2012 Analysis Year ) ST TOTAL AI nalysis Time Period (40 Pi1/1 Project Description East/West Street: CR 44 North/South Street US 85 Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hits): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1 594 37 /8 530 12 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 594 37 18 530 12 (veh/h) - Percent Heavy Vehicles 15 -- -- 15 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 / 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 - 14 5 28 2 15 Peak-Hour Factor. PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 14 5 28 2 15 (veh/h) _ Percent Heavy Vehicles 15 15 15 15 15 15 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 _ Configuration LT R LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R LT P, v (veh/h) 1 18 30 15 19 5 C (m) (veh/h) 938 864 295 701 187 732 v/c 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.10 0.01 95% queue length 0.00 0.06 0.34 __ 0.07 0.33 0.02 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.8 9.3 18.6 10.2 26.4 10.0 LOS A A C B D A Approach Delay (s/ eh) -- -- 15.8 23.0 Approach LOS -- -- C C Copyright'2010 University of Florida,Ail Rights Resented HCS+Tt.t Version 5.6 Generated: 5/26/2012 8:55 AM 5/26/2012 4c I ll TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC I :Intersection 44 - 85 /agency/Co. (Jurisdiction l' Date Performed 5/2612 Analysis Year E)STTOTAL Analysis Time Period AP4 P — I l'' Project Description East/West Street CR 44 Jorth/South Street: US 85 Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 — Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R _ Volume (veh/h) 2 638 _ 26 12 619 _ 9 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 638 26 12 619 9 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 15 -- -- 15 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T P L T R _ Upstream Signal 0 - 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 7 8 6 18 6 16 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 — Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 7 8 6 18 6 16 (veh/h) - Percent Heavy Vehicles 15 15 15 15 15 15 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N _ N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 _ 1 1 0 1 1 Configuration LT R LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT - R LT R v (veh/h) 2 12 24 16 15 6 C (m) (veh/h) 867 839 232 - 681 184 689 v/c 0.00 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.08 0.01 95% queue length 0.01 0.04 0.34 0.07 0.26 0.03 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.2 9.4 22.3 10.4 26.3 10.3 LOS A A C 8 D B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 17.5 21.7 Approach LOS -- -- C C Copyright.A 2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved ;;CS*T" Version 5.6 Generated: 5/2612012 5:57 AM 5/26/2012 APPENDIX C TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC [Intersection CR 33- DRIVE Agency/Co. [Jurisdiction /(< l (Date Performed 5/23/2012 Analysis Year (ST)LT(TOTAU 'Analysis Time Period -- N i _ Project Description EastWest Street: CR 33 North/South Street: DRIVE Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 20 5 5 Peak-Hour Factor. PHF 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 20 0 0 5 5 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 100 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 _ 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 5 0 5 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 100 0 100 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 - RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 _ 0 0 0 _ 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 5 10 C (m) (veh/h) 1150 _ 807 v/c 0.00 0.01 95% queue length 0.01 0.04 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.1 9.5 LOS A A Approach Delay (s/veh) -- 9.5 Approach LOS -- A Copyright/11/2010 university of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+T'l Version 5.6 Generated: 5/23/2012 11:36 AM 5/23/2012 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC :Intersection CR 33 -DRIVE Agency/Co. !Jurisdiction — if\ tate Performed 5/23/2012 Analysis Year I S piT COTA 9 Analysis Time Period AP/KPMJ _ Project Description East/West Street: CR 33 _North/South Street: DRIVE Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 10 10 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 10 0 0 10 5 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 100 -- -- 0 -- — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 _ 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 5 0 5 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 _ 0 0 100 0 100 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/n) 5 10 C (m) (veh/h) 1144 809 v/c 0.00 0.01 95% queue length 0.01 0.04 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.2 9.5 LOS A A Approach Delay (s/veh) _ -- -- 9.5 Approach LOS -- -- A Copyright D. 2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved FiCS T.l Version 5-5 Generated: 5i23,2012 11.37 AM 5/23/2012 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information !Analyst GC lintersection CR 33 - US 85 ;Agency/Co. I !Jurisdiction �- Date Performed 5/:3/20'12 I Analysis Year EX(S IT LT rbTA Analysis Time Period PrjPM II - _ I Project Description EasthNest Street: CR 33 North/South Street: US 85 ,Intersection Orientation: North-South _ Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 _ L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 640 10 15 560 5 - Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 640 10 15 560 5 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 10 -- -- 10 -- - Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes / 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T P L T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 5 5 5 5 5 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 25 25 25 25 25 25 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR _ LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR v (veh/h) 5 15 15 15 C (m) (veh/h) 950 880 246 250 v/c 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.06 95% queue length 0.02 0.05 0.19 0.19 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.8 9.2 20.6 20.3 LOS A A C C Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 20.6 20.3 Approach LOS -- -- C C Copyright O 2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+Tr.t Version 5.6 Generated: 5/23/2012 11,21 AM 5/33/2012 a TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC I ;Intersection CR 33 - US 85 Agency/Co. I [Jurisdiction (Date Performed 5/23/2012 Analysis Year EY, S�g)LT l� Analysis Time Period AP.461. l I 1�7 J Project Description East/West Street: CR 33 North/South Street: US 85 Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R - Volume (veh/h) 5 670 5 15 640 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 670 5 15 640 5 (veh/h) _ Percent Heavy Vehicles 10 -- -- 10 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 5 5 5 5 10 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 5 5 5 5 10 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 25 25 25 25 25 25 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR - LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 — Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR v (veh/h) 5 15 20 15 C (m) (veh/h) 884 860 260 218 v/c 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.07 95% queue length 0.02 0.05 0.25 0.22 — Control Delay (s/veh) 9.1 9.3 20.0 22.7 LOS A A C C Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 20.0 22.7 Approach LOS -- -- C C Copyright©2010 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved HCS+' i Version 5.6 Generated: 5/23/2012 11:22 AM 5/23/2012 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC i Jntersection 44 - 85 Agency/Co. _ Uurisdiction n .F\ Date Performed r26/2012 Analysis Year EXISlea I! [Analysis Time Period (A MARIA 1 Project Description East/West Street: CR 44 North/South Street: US 85 Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs.): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 I 3 4 5 6 L T I R L T R Volume (veh/h) 2 - 545605 I 40 20 545 10 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 605 40 20 545 10 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 15 -- -- 15 -- — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 — 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 - 15 5 30 2 15 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 15 5 30 2 15 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 15 15 15 15 15 15 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 Configuration LT - R LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R LT R v (veh/h) 2 20 32 1.5 20 5 C (m) (veh/h) 927 853 287 697 177 725 v/c 0.00 a02 0.11 a 02 all o.oi 95% queue length 0.01 0.07 a37 0.07 0.38 a02 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.9 9.3 19.1 10.3 27.9 10.0 LOS A A C B D A Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 16.3 24.3 Approach LOS -- -- C C Copyright©2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+f"1 Version 5.6 Generated: 5/26/2012 8:59 AM 5/26/2012 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC I ,Intersection 44 - 85 Agency/Co. I Jurisdiction __l 7 :Date Performed 5/26/2012 I (/analysis Year EXcFOTA0 Anaiysis Time Period AM PI14) I I Project Description N EastAVest Street: CF?44 North/South Street: US 85 Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): a25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 2 655 25 10 630 10 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 655 25 10 630 10 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 15 -- -- 15 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T P, Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 10 5 30 5 15 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 10 5 30 5 15 (veh/h) _ Percent Heavy Vehicles 15 15 15 15 15 15 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized . 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 Configuration LT R LT _ R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R LT R v (veh/h) 2 10 35 15 15 5 C (m) (veh/h) 857 826 247 673 164 685 v/c 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.02 0.09 0.01 95% queue length 0.01 0.04 0.49 0.07 0.30 0.02 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.2 9.4 22.0 10.5 29.1 10.3 LOS A A C B D B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 18.5 24.4 Approach LOS -- -- C C Copyright©2010 Universe of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+-TM Version 5.6 Generated: 5/26/2012 9:01 AM 5/26/201? APPENDIX D 11l.0 4V11.1V OI IIdIiLG{.1 IIILGIDUC.LIVII I\= 1411.a .JUI11111GUr I General Information (Intersection Information .._..._ .... ... —-- --.....__ ._. .____._._..._._._._...... . i ....__,0.25 --'- -- -- -:��=fi L. I Agency - Duration, h_.... .. i'--—.._..._... ",: =_: :•:;-:-.1,:;,- I •.-. Analyst _GC Analysis Date 2312012 Area Type ,Other .. r _ t Jurisdiction 'Time Period PM i PHF !0.92 l .?-4.-!; —i Intersection 85-44 i Analysis Year ' '32 Analysis Period 11>7:00 1' �.' _ �;.-'. r I File Name Streetsl.xus 1 i Project Description !... -----:-. ... .. . .. .. _.__.. _....._.-..- •-- . ....- - - '---•- ---•'-•---.. ___._.._.... 1 { , r r • Demand Information EB, • _ I_ NB S8 'Approach Movement J L IT 1R I - L j__ T ( R L� ^T R I L ( T �•1 -R ;I I Demand(v),vehlh i 15 j 20 j 10 65 1 5 i 75 •I 5 1 865 15 15 'J 330 795 1 20 • i Signal information :I :. I?,., 1 i' _ . kg Cycle, s ; 100.0 '.Reference Phase : 2 t j- 1 Offset, s 0 'Reference Point End - i 3 r____.__.:._ _. .---- ... ...._.__,_. _. .__..__..... Green ?20.0 , 5.0 i 30.0 J 0.0 '0.0 0.0 Uncoordinated,' Yes ;Simult. G_a ENV_ .1 On '14-4..."11,;(51::- f). - _ L Y _ -— _ !. .—.__- Yelloti114.0 4.0 _ :0.0 0.0 Force Mode-J Fixed I Simult.Gap N/S- ( On Red =L1.0_-_-11.0 J1.0 _j 0.0 ,0.0 J 0_0 _ 6 6 7 ••. - -- .s _ 1:.!-$-.'• ..r:,`: - Y•'r�r-q=•p•F''t ''.';tii -•1 Timer Results '1 EBL EBT WBL WBT -��.•NBL- �h NBT : SBL SBT Assigned Phase _-•_ _ . 4 _._.... 8 __ _. ...._. 2 1 1 - - 6 Case Number 5.0 5.0 —5.3 - 1.0 3.0 35.0 1 1 35.0 . ! 40.0 , 25.0 65.0 Phase Duration,s _ �___ .— .____ Change Period, (Y+Rc),s I 5;0 + 1 5:_ ._ E --I - .9. - --0 1----- 5._ Max Allow Headway(MAH),s i_ 2.9_ _J _•— •. i•- 2.9 •_-4 2.81 2.9 1 2,8 Queue Clearance Time(gs), s .1 .t .. T_ . I.. ...-. . 23.2 II 12.6 .^• , 9.0 Green Extension Time(ge), s.. . . 1 j 0.2 -.1. ._. . I 0.2 .. . .., . 33.8Y _..0.4 _- ..4:7 1. 1 1.00 1.00' Phase Call Probability 1 1,00 __— 1 .. _ ..� Max Out Probability I ( 0.00 � - �I 0.00 - j_ 0.16 0.02 0.00 f.-,c.11.--.7.-.7.7.- z-,^-Tr"... 7*.%, .y=:;i� ;y,7—lwj.41;"_t'`c,;• .;Cd�n ':`: .',j,7..�.-r-, ;;;X ��3-'"tt:. re.: ,,'14"-C�{•'•- - • • :+•.v,.•t:4,-z- :•li ,.`. +s:,:11. •<i..:>'. ~�c�Sti:�J-ro-.:._ .: .�•iv ed::afY_^.-ra.-il4L Movement—Group Results 1 EB _ WB - _ . - NB - _ SB L Approach Movement I 1 T •1 R _L T I _R_ L -1.--_ R 11_ 1_ T R Assigned_Movement + 7 1 4_ 1 14 3 8 t 18 _ 5 1 _2 j 12 1 _ 6 16 Adjusted Flow Rate(v),veh/h i 16` ' -22_1 11 _i_71_,j_.5 1. 49 5— _940_1_136 y:j 359 864 22 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate(s),veh/h/ln 1433 11900 1610 1412 ' 1900 1 1610 1650 1809 1 1610 : 1810 1809_ 161( Queue Service Time(gs),s 0.8 1 0.8 0.5 3.7 0.2 1.6 i 0.5 21.2 6.0 r 10.6 7.0 0_5 r Cycle Queue_Clearance Time (gc),s� y _ _ 1.0_ 0.8 0.5 4.5 0.2_ 1.6 0.5 21.2 6.0 10.6 7.0 0.5 Capacity(c),veh/h — i 499 _570 j 483- 484 570 805 1 300 1266 564 i 5172171 966 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio(X)) 10.033 0.038 10.023 0.146 0.010 0.061 0.018 0.743 0.241 f. 0.693 0.398 0.02: Available Capacity(ca),veh/h 1 499_ , 570 1483 484 570 J 805 300 _1266 564 r 517 2171 966 Back of Queue Q ,vehin (50th percentile) ( 0.2 0.3-_,,-.---0-.i--r-1.,1.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 7.0 2.0 1 3.8 j 1.6 0.1 Overflow Queue(Q3),veh/in i 0.0 } 0.0 '• 0.0 0.0__0.0-1 0.0 .. Queue 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 _ Queue Storage Ratio(RQ)(50th percentile) - 0.00 j 0.00 10.00 0.00 1 0:00 10.00 : 0.00 0.00 Y0.00 1' 0.00 1 0.00 O.00 •-•--�-•-D--•- •••-�_ - ._._.. ... ... - .... .. ..--- - .-_. a �--s._ UniformDelay(di),s/veh 24.9 # 24.8 24.7 L26.4 1 24.6 12.9 21.3 23.0 23.1 I 16.8 4.7 8.1 Incremental Delay(d2),s/veh d 0.0 I 0.0 !- 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1_' 0.1 I 3.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Queue Delay(c13),s/veh .-0.0 -1 E 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.0 0.0 0_Q 0.0 Control Delay(d),s/veh 1 24.9 I 24.8 24.7 26.4 24.6- 12.9 1 •21.3 25.1 23.2 20.1 4.7 8.1 Level Level of Service(LOS) C 1 C _ C C C _ j B 1~ C C C 1 C A A Approach Delay, s/veh/LOS __...__..... 24.8 i C . 21.1 J C L_24.8 I C 9.2 1 — A Intersection Delay,s/veh/LOS i6.9 _ B _h ';,;y. ...n:;* .r<�•?•'.7••.. -;,i,7...--W-1:11-;;7: .. _r`•,^_i.... �'•ti..; . 4 t.�1. -.%7 y[`±�T'�'._s � +`.a_'' - .-^.,o-S. ,+, :•- - `Y. � �r'' ..�:�-. br6'�„a•;''%':'< *.._•�'•-�•�'C.3•t,..{a.�.;w,:_�,-'�s, }'J. M$'C`,�,�ae. •' -.�f;a•- �,��7:.`..xti •.L�•er..i:.:_..._-.=.'3 a�:::.: ._ ..., .._...-_.. ..._......:'Y_. � 3:-..i:•is>... Ls�c Multimodal Results EB WB NB _ SB Pedestrian LOS Score/LOS 4 3.0 1 C _ • _.3.0 C 2.5 _B_ 2.4 B I_Bicy_c—le LOSore Sc /LOS • 1 0.6 ( A j 0.7 1 A • 1.4 1 A _ _ 1.5 A Cc!:yrF� ,..:.` L;r,i:2r;iry L;rP r.' ,A,,fir):ai._ r`S. 'r'Cr' 2010 ' 5rl••>:•r V•?rsiuet si.3 Generated:`,;23i7.612 r2aS:r3 PI nUO LV Ill olylidlILeU IIILUFSiULIVII fitUItb oUlllllldry General Information Intersection Information Agency Duration. h .0.25 1.. J L ,X: . Analyst GC Analysis Date 5/23/2012 Area Type ,Other mot^°' J b� ai! Jurisdict:co Time Period AM F, I PHF 0.92 a s ` r!,y' - aZt Intersection 85 -44 Analysis Year 20 2 -rota L Analysis Period !1> 7 CO z i_ 1e '-- File Name Streets1.xus _ _ _ _ _ . . _. i :: 11 +x.;Project Description I 1 it Yr_ Demand Information EB 'NB • NB ! SB Approach Movement L T R L T R ; L T , R I L ! T j R Demand (v), veh/h 15 10 , 10 225 10 , 120 ' 10 ! 1110 i 65 115 1 930 j 15 Signal Information - l Cycle, s 100.0 Reference Phase 2 y Sp .—< Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Green ' 15 0 40.0 30.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 l 1 Uncoordinated' Yes Simult Gap ENV On Yalloa!4.0 ,.4.0 4.0 i 0.0 0.0 i 0.0 AS1 41> : Force Mode : Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red i 1.0 I 1 0 • 1.0 j 0.0 .0.0 (0.0 Timer Results - EBL EBT ' WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 4 8 2 1 1 . 6 Case Number 5.0 5.0 I 5.3 1.0 3.0 ; Phase Duration, s - 35.0 35.0 I 45.0 20`0 ! 65.0 . I Change Period, (Y+R.), s 5.0 5.0 ! j 5.0 1 5.0 5,0 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 2.9 ' ; . 2.9 - 1.. 2.8 2.9 I 2.8 Queue Clearance Time (g)), s - 3.2 17.0 i 30.0 i _ 5.2 10.9 Green Extension Time (ge), $ 0.6 0.5 4.3 0.1 6.1 ! Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 j 1.00 _ j 1.60 l 1.00 ; Max Out Probability i 0.00 i 0 00 I 0.32 ,l 0.00 ; 0.00 Movement Group Results EB I WB i NB SB Approach Movement L T R ' L - T R L • T , R LIT ; R Assigned Movement ! 7 4 : 14 - 3 8 i 18 a 5 I 2 12 I 1 ' 6 16 Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 16 • 11 11 ',. 245 11 98 1 11 ! 1207 38 I 125 1011 16 I Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/ln 1426 1900 1610 ; 1426 1900 1610 566 i 1809 : 1610 1810 1809 161( I Queue Service-Time (9)s , s 0.8 0.4 0.5 14 6 0.4 3 6 I. 12 28.0 1 55___.. '_ ._ .9 0.4 I. ' 32 8 Cycle Queue Clearance Time (g.), s - 1.2 i 0.4 0.5 I 15.0 0.4 3.6 i 1.2 1 28.0 1.5 1 3.2 1 8.9 0,4 ! Capacity (c), veh/h 494 570 483 ' '494 570 725 299 1447 644 400 i 2171 966 I._Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 0.033 ; 0.019 0.023 I 0495 1 0,019 0.135 j 0.036 ! 0.834 1 0.059 I 0.313 0,466 0.01' I Available Capacity (ca), veh/h 494 , 570 483 ' 494 ; 570 725 I 299 1 1447 . 644 i 400. 1 2171 966 r Back of Queue (Q), veh/In (50th percentile) 0.3 0.2 0.2 1 4.5 0.2 1.1 10 1 I 8.5 1 0 5 I 1.0 2.0 0.1 I Overflow Queue (Q2),veh/In 0 0 0.0 0 0 10 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 j_ 0 0 00 I 0.0 [Queue Storage Ratio(PQ) (50th percentile) 0 00 0,00 ' 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 j 0.00 I 0.06 0 00 -6.00 0.00 ' 0.0C Uniform Delay (d;), s/veh r 25,1 24.6 ' 24.7 1 29.9 24.6 16.1 1 18.4 20.5 18.4 16.1 j 4.9 ! 8.1 j Incremental Delay(d), s/veh j 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 0 3 0:0 0.0 1 0.0 I 4.1 0 0 • ' 0 2 ! 0.1 0.0 ,- r Initial Queue Delay(d-), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 00 : 0 0 0.0 0 0 j 0 0 0.0 0.0 i Control Delay (d), s/veh ; 25.1 ! 24.5 1 24.7 30 2 24.6 16.1 118 4 24.6 18.5 . 16 2 I 4.9 8.1 j Level of Service(LOS) C C C ! C C B + B C ; B 'I B A j A I Approach Delay, s/veh/LOS ; 24.8 i C 26.1 I C ; 24 4 C 1 6.2 j A i Intersection Delay, s/veh/ LOS 17.1 1 B Multimodal Results __---_. NB I SB Bicycle LOS OS Scar / O 0 0 EB A I 11 VF A 1---1.5 — . ._ - Pedestrian LOS Score/LOS 3 0 C 3 0 C 2 5 I B ; 2 4 , B y r -- - A I._ 1.4 A TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information f4nalyst GC I Intersection CR 33 - DRIVE Agency/Co. !Jurisdiction Date Performed 5/23/2012 Analysis Year STGXifOTA Analysis Time Period j4N))P�V �� Project Description �� East/West Street: CR 33 North/South Street: DRIVE Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 _ L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 190 10 10 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 190 10 0 0 10 5 (veh/h) _ Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 _ -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 75 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 5 0 75 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 190 80 C (m) (veh/h) 1616 1011 vlc 0.12 0.08 95% queue length 0.40 0.26 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 8.9 LOS A A _ Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 8.9 Approach LOS -- -- A Copyright©2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+T't Version 5.6 Generated: 5i23/2012 11:34 AM 5/23/2012 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information ;Analyst GC I Intersection CR 33 - DRIVE 1 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Pertormed 5/23/12 Analysis Year S T TALI) cT A Analysis Time Period MF \._____, ,.._--- Project Description East/West Street: CR 33 North/South Street: DRIVE Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 50 5 5 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 50 5 0 0 5 5 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 / 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 7/olume (veh/h) 5 155 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 5 0 /55 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 50 160 C (m) (veh/h) 1623 1071 v/c 0.03 0.15 95% queue length 0.10 0.52 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 9.0 LOS A A Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 9.0 Approach LOS -- -- A _ Copyright©2010 University of Florida.All Rights Reserved HCS+T't Version 5.6 Generates: 5/23/2012 11:32 AM 5/23/2012 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information analyst GC 'Intersection CR 33 - US 85 Agency/Co. 'Jurisdiction ,.-1 f� Date Performed 5/23/2012 Analysis Year EX STILTItOTAIj 'Analysis Time Period P, PPA , I ,__, Project Description East/West Street: CR 33 North/South Street: US 85 Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments I Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1030 200 865 10 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1030 200 0 865 10 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 10 -- -- 10 -- -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 0 2 1 Configuration T R T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 10 85 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 10 0 0 85 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 25 25 25 25 25 25 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 Configuration R R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R R v (veh/h) 85 10 C (m) (veh/h) 496 557 v/c 0.17 0.02 95% queue length 0.61 0.05 Control Delay (s/veh) 13.8 11.6 LOS B B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 13.8 11.6 Approach LOS -- -- B B Copyright O 2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved ,Hcs r a Version 5.6 Generated: 5/23/2012 11.28 AM 5/23/2012 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information /analyst GC `Intersection CR 33 - US 85 Agency/Co. !Jurisdiction ,� h (Date Performed 5/23/2012 I Analysis Year EX ST(LTj toTAL) ! Analysis Time Period AM0 I L \.___-J i Project Description EastP/Vest Street: CR 33 North/South Street: US 85 Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 _ Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 5 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1010 50 1140 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1010 50 0 1140 5 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 10 -- -- 10 -- -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 0 2 1 Configuration T A T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound -Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 160 _ Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 5 0 0 160 (veh/h) _ Percent Heavy Vehicles 25 25 25 25 25 25 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 Configuration R _ R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R R v (veh/h) 160 5 C (m) (veh/h) 503 459 v/c 0.32 0.01 95% queue length 1.36 0.03 Control Delay (s/veh) /5.5 12.9 LOS C B Approach Delay (s/veh) — -- 15.5 12.9 Approach LOS -- -- C B copyright 0 2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+''' Version 5.6 Generated: 523/2072 11'28 AM 5/23/2012 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC I ,Intersection CR 44 - DRIVE I' Agency/Co. I llurisdiction ;Date Performed 5/23/2012 I Analysis Year LT TOTAL Analysis Time Period r4NI°PPMI Project Description East/IA/est Street: CR 44 North/South Street: DRIVE Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments _ Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 115 390 5 70 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 /15 390 5 70 0 (veh/h) _ Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 / 1 0 / 0 Configuration T R LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 75 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 75 0 5 0 0 0 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 10 0 10 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N IV Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR _ Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound - Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 5 80 C (m) (veh/h) 1070 780 v/c 0.00 0.10 95% queue length 0.01 0.34 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.4 10.1 LOS A B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 10.1 Approach LOS -- -- B Copyright D2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+T^t Version 5.6 Generated: 5/23/2012 1-55 PM 5/23/2012 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information ,lAnal jst GC j intersection —JCR 44-DRIVE Hgency/Co. Uurisdiction Date Performed 5/23/2012 Analysis Year LT TOTAL Analysis Time Period ;AMU Project Description East/West Street: CR 44 North/South Street: DRIVE Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 90 100 5 60 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 90 100 5 60 0 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 / / 0 1 0 Configuration T R LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 375 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 375 0 5 0 0 0 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 10 0 10 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 5 380 C (m) (veh/h) 1396 812 '1/c 0.00 0.47 _ 95% queue length 0.01 2.52 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 13.3 LOS A B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 13.3 Approach LOS -- -- B Copyright O2010 University of F:crida„411 Rights.Resented HCSTvI Versicn 5.a Generated: 5/23/2012 1:55 PM 5/23/2012 Hello