The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20123009.tiff ROAD PLAN Road Design Report Big Thompson Investment Holdings AG a 1 PRO AGPROfessionals, LLC 4350 Highway 66 Longmont, CO 80504 (970) 535-9318 Date „ ,„1 , Bin Thompson Investments Table of Contents Overview 3 Location and Project Description 3 Geotechnical 3 Traffic 4 Drainage 4 Road Design 4 Appendix 5 8,1_1:201? Road Design Report Pane 2 of D Bic Thompson ImcvnenG Overview The proposed road will be part of a minor subdivision which is located in an I-3 zone district surrounded by agricultural land. The road will provide access to the subdivision from Weld County Roads 33 and 44 in order to convey traffic to a variety of industrial business types within the developed area. The road will be approximately 3,340 feet in length and be classified as an internal unpaved road. Currently the property is zoned I-3 and is being used for agriculture production by raising various crops. Location and Project Description The subdivision the proposed road will serve is located southeast of the intersection of Highway 85 and Weld County Road 44 in the west half of Section 23, Township 4 North, Range 66 West. Parallel to Highway 85 are the railroad tracks including a 200 foot right of way extending toward the southeast which forms a portion of the property's border. South of WCR 44 exists the Western Mutual irrigation ditch and this serves as the property's northern border. The eastern edge of the property is varied in shape to allow for effective use of neighboring farm ground while the southern edge is formed by an access road. The proposed road will intersect with Weld County Road 33 on the west side of the subdivision. This location will be approximately 600 feet south of the railroad tracks and 915 feet south of the US Highway 85 and Weld County Road 33 intersection. On the North side of the subdivision, the road will access the subdivision and intersect with Weld County Road 44. This location will be approximately 1,345 feet east of the railroad tracks and 1,660 feet east of the US Highway 85 and Weld County Road 44 intersection. The proposed road alignment will be composed of two unpaved lanes and shoulders with a 15 foot utility and drainage easement on each side. The road layout will consist of two curves and three straight sections along with a bridge that will span the Western Mutual irrigation ditch on the north side of the property. The total width of the roadbed will be 36 feet and be approximately 3,340 feet in length. Geotechnical Geotechnical information was provided by Soilogic Inc. which conducted soil borings in the proposed location of the road and performed laboratory tests on site materials. Soilogic determined the moisture content and soil classification and found that the proposed site's subsurface is composed of a silty, clayey sand and lean clay. These soils were found to be suitable for the subgrade roadbed when reconditioned and prepped to the specifics outlined in the geotechnical report. The report also specifies the surface material be a minimum of 10 inches of CDOT Class 5 or 6 to meet the all-weather conditions and the expected traffic load. Soilogic also determined that the site's subsurface soils were suitable to be utilized as fill for construction of the proposed bridge roadbed when reconditioned and prepped to the specifics outlined in the geotechnical report. The report also specifies the construction and installation of the footing foundations and abutment walls. A copy of both the 8._222012 Road Design Report Page 3 of Ric,Thompson In%estments geotechnical report for the road and the bridge are available in the Appendix section of this report. Traffic The traffic study was provided by Eugene G. Coppola, P.E. and evaluated the future traffic impacts from the development. The traffic study found that the proposed road will need to be designed to handle fully loaded semi-trucks. Wider lanes will be utilized along with a thicker road base that is specified in the geotechnical report. A copy of the traffic study is available in the Appendix section of this report. Drainage Drainage of the proposed road will be directed to the drainage ditches running parallel to the proposed road by using the crown of the road. The northern ditch will collect runoff water from the north side of the subdivision and be graded to convey the drainage to a culvert located in the southeast corner of Lot A. This culvert will pass under the proposed road and the drainage path will continue to the storm water detention basin. Road Design The proposed road is designed to be an unpaved road with a gravel surface. This design was found to be most suitable based on the expected traffic loads, the proposed light industrial land use and the Weld County traffic and road requirements. The proposed road bed will be 36 feet wide and approximately 3,340 feet in length. Two lanes each 14 feet wide with 4 foot wide shoulders will make up the road bed with 15 feet on each side of the roadbed being utilized for drainage and utility easements. The road layout will have an access on the west end connecting to Weld County Road 33. Moving east along the proposed road from the Weld County Road 33 access is a straight section for approximately 600 feet then connecting to a curve. This curve will bend to the northeast and have a radius of 1,200 feet and be approximately 865 feet in length and connect to another straight section. This straight section will be approximately 1,245 feet and connect to another curve that will bend to the north. This curve will have a radius of 400 feet and be approximately 330 feet long and connect to the bridge that will span the Western Mutual irrigation ditch. The bridge will be 39 feet in length and join with the last 265 foot straight section that ends at the access to Weld County Road 44. All lot accesses for the subdivision will be off the proposed road and be sized for adequate turning dimensions of expected traffic. The proposed single-span steel bridge will cross the Western Mutual irrigation ditch and is designed to meet the AASHTO HS 25 standards and be in accordance with CDOT specifications. The bridge will be approximately 39 feet long and 30 feet wide and the deck surface will be elevated 11.5 feet above the ditch bottom. The bridge footings and abutments will be constructed and installed as to specifications discussed in the geotechnical report that was provided by Soilogic Inc. Guard rails will be installed according to CDOT specifications. A copy of the geotechnical report and the bridge cross sections are included in the Appendix section. 8.2211:20122 Road Design Report Page 4 of Big Thompson Investments Appendix • Location and area road map and site plan • Road cross section • Traffic Study • Geotechnical reports • Bridge cross sections 8,22;2011 Road Design Report Page 3 of 3 r WELD CO RI)33 a, r \I! N i N i - / -1!- s_ N BPS N !� c i. E 4- 7. G n i� s r • $I Z ', ` �� /� BIG THOMPSON x».22 201' 17�PR�Ces,ionals, LLC ROAD LAYOUT �eee \o 1 OF 1 130 i i . NOI1D3S SSOEID CWOII �7 7th oviamr :) rsinwissajOild JV zio<<T. so NOSdINOHI DIEL :in RE 31x0 rz is cc - ax m h'i > S'. Z Ls (0 \ U W V) J C >d • U } H L---„,,,,,.., U .2 O - V q > Q a z > u I J Z J Z m 2 a J _/ t 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 "1 Littleton, CO 80163 :� cr 303-792-2450 ' ' .v •g-st:D Op 9451 ;x-€ .��cr),tit i •• ion jam ��May 24, 2012 1 FU '.U?' , '��`!i�5vrpF CU,�c.`?� 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. j /� - 1 39'^i - ',iffy /t --- � � /LA SALLE _- tl_l co m m _ _7 44— SITE // � 42 //f 42 1 )'/ ,/GILCP.EST 40 L . iI 38 _ L-_ / Y i_ 36 IFigure 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 L Movement/ Level of Service Intersection Control Direction AM Pk Hr. PM PR Hr. CR 33 — U.S. 85 Stop NB L A A SB L A A WB LTR B C r EB LTR B B rCR 44 - U.S. 85 Stop NB L A A SBL A A WELT C C WBR B B EBLT D D EBR 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 r / \. LO(70� I (N "' 0 15/16 rl CO CD 4 2/6 y CA 28/18 1420 I CR 44 5 4 ♦ /7 I i 14/8 ► N 0 cD 5/6 CD C N c C) 0) 0 0 0 03 U) CO % v N.--7/3 ° 4-- 1/1 � -1/2 260 CR33 • 2/2 ( 1/0 ► CO r 5/4 COCN N- (Cr) N cc LEGEND: APdiPPA Peak Hour II Daily Figure 2 CURRENT TRAFFIC 5 m w S ♦ �I ror:- CR 44 i R AA /♦ 1 c �� CR 33 1 Figure 3 6 CURRENT ROADWAY GEOMETRY 1 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 short-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. All 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 1 ig 2111 © Ir nrr. .. = F . z J o F _ 0_ C) w ) LE z 0 0 el 1 n r '..c.-7$4,M77;71-71;'',. � x r 3 t.ir. .ly a�3 yZj y,A4 L ev.V'.fl..' l Kj s _.. 3q b }T� #� it +in } G c•�: .�r J.ttli' :A F\ i'r' �- - 1 h \ Sr - }S any i. - s < S � P��`4y .? �Y'.ef }�� \ .`cif ,-'YNe�! N \\ �i -.x z. �� ` r .a1 tgt4; tc ) atI4i - _ _ �� A I Y j ''' ;rF..r Siv��GGc ",�% { f Y F -..z �I ii .� f A. C.f 4 4 15� .Yc { 4'saC \ _1 S 5."Lra 4 I eye { p } 1 .5 �t y x' < ltf 1�, vt,.' g,'. . f `�'; -, � ; f L +E?. r it i r ,� .r ' I • 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 I In Out Rate ! In Out Phase Water Service 260 6 4 4 I 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 • co rn � I I' to) Nominal — — -- — ------- - - --- CR 44 Nominal CR 33 1 0 Figure 5 11 SITE TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION - 14) co V cl - - - CR YY Ii- I Cr) O J N 2/3 ( C) N/N z A 2/3 I� N/N — CR 33 N%N %r 6/4 -/ LEGEND: Nt,!iPM Peak Hour Figure 6 - ----, 12 SHORT_TER1l1 SITE TRAFFIC ) f \. LU C-0 v7 C) N- Z SQ%175 N• /N iy —25/200 — Ni N - CR4Y N/N —► � t ,� 290/75 •,. N Z r. U J 0 a 1 O O N Z_ N Z 75/155 �� N/N • CR 33 ir 190/50 (N N LO O O O o LEGEND: Peak Hour NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles- t Figure 7 13 BUILD OUT SITE TRAFFIC S rn co (r) CD O CO o 7- N— 15/15 oLoa N 4 N/5 ♦ c 30/20 CR 44 5/5 - �it 15/10 z O LD U') N 5/5 z c o to < O (J LO to CO O 10/5 u v v- N/N ,) ♦ N/N - CR 33 N!N - �i (1' 111OZ 5/5 m zLaLo O 53- LEGEND: AMiPiM Peak Hour NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. Figure 8 SHORT-TERM BACKGROUND 14 TRAFFIC LO CO 0 m 25/25 It 5/10 ♦L . '� ..--- 40/25 CR44 15/15 20/10 - - ► o LC o r u7 10/10 Co w co 0 v c) O C 10/5 CR 33 10/5 4 LO Z CO C C 0 0 O CO C LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. Figure 9 15 LONG-TERM BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CO S O CD CD 1- . �t 5/15 o o `" 4--N/5 3020 CR 44 5/5 �1 1 15/10 ► z LC) n L7 N 5/5 z o 0 LUv CD if) CD U 1 0 O 7 1-1..1 co Ln 5/10 Ls) L. 4--- NUN z N/N ♦ N/5 4/I ♦ --4-- N/10 CR 33 NA1 � ♦ 5/5 St N,/N ► O z 20/10 5/5 --- z (0 LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. — --- Figure 10 6 SHORT-TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC N co 2 U7 o [.0 co N c � (O O 75'120 CO 4-- 5/10 4 70,160 '• 651225 - NJ/i^1 - CR44 15/15 ♦� t (1- 115/90 ► F is 20/10 ► o o Cn 390/100 - z 10/10 — C.`— `3 ° Z C. in in co 0 co c) 0 0 • 0 N N N Z o co r coN ► 85/160 A A 4- 10/5 421 v CR 33 1 0/5 �� i♦ 190/50 00 10/N N 0 O 0 0 N N O LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. Figure 11 17 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 short-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 part 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. Short- 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 short-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 l _ \ j> CO it j y � �♦ oP CR 44 G • 0 - _P CR 33 Figure 12 19 SHORT-TERM ROADWAY GEOMETRY ._ / U CJ 7,27 k 4 aj V 1 - ,ra^ CR 44 4 w t 4 it ---► �� - - 0 U > 0 A y ♦ tic *P �' CR 33 AA i► Figure 13 20 LONG-TERM ROADWAY GEOMETRY 1 \ l 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 shod-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 Movement' Level of Service I Intersection Control Direction AM Pk Hr. ' PM Pk Hr. I CR 33 — U.S. 85 - Stop NB L A A i SB L A A \NB LTR C C — � -- - EB LTR C C I CR 33 — Drive Stop EB LT A A SB LR A A CR 44 - U.S. 85 Stop NBL A A SBL j A A WBLT L C C WBR B B EB LT D D EB R A B LONG-TERM OPERATING CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Movement/ Level of Service Intersection Control I Direction AM Pk Hr. PM Pk Hr. CR 33 — U.S. 85 Stop WBR B C EB R 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 b^/B 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 are 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 be 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. V . 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 C N Gl CO N CO C N T to N r cJ r C) CO C) V O) in C) u) 1` C O I- Q M J L o 0 n Ln 0 7 r M Co in (^, r [O r r 1O M r r . U) M N N :N in r y C N N O I- O U) 0 i " r CO CO N O N r- r r M O 0) O !- 0) N O r N N O CO N r 0 o 0 G. EDL S - =a `� .__ o r N N N .-r o o r r o N- r N r 0 0 0 r o c+) O r M to M s C — CO (N O Z [[ ^l a V) O O O — O O r O O O O O r O O r 0 0 0 r O O N 0 0 r D U 0 co in CI V Cl — — 01 g J O O r O O O O r r O N O r 0 r 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N U = 0. 1- W g = J e 0 U U) Q r N M N r r C o o C O r cJ o () N r N r o CO r r N r N [O O _ u 5-, `l 0 0 W` > O' f O r N e- e- O N O O r O O LO r N O r r O r r O O r h y C LL O Oa W 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 r o o r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r o 0 0 . CI } J r r o r O r N O O N O r N (V O r r O O N O r r O O N CQ CC7 O VI O V 1- C M r N CJ r C N r N C N CO CO N- N C C N r 0 N F nN O 0) U) C LL/ QN co CO J r CO lc- N r 0 0 PI O N O O M CO N 10 y N- N N C V r r r m V F 0 O CO ard c0 O r o r O co O r c r p O 1D r O N r r 0 0 0 N 0 0 r V 0 40 O O Cl) J r h r r O O N O r 0 0 CO :V N c0 CO !: N N C CV r r O -EJ N Ln p M V LO N N r N O r N N r M ID `. 0 r N 0 0 N O r O V r en a F a O W " Is '- m 0 ` (N O r a a N r 0 r e- O O r 0 0 r a r a .") r O O OCV o O' a 0_ CI) O o O O O ONo = J N r _, :.. _ r r o r 0 rr o - 000 U 0 o O ._ r r r, r 0 N U.' CO o '- W O f c I )n N `n 2 .--ti j O C O h O in o o o O N r LL h V) O N N N C IL W J L . '. O M C O M .-.4-. or M C R C O r � 7' O CO C C 66 ai CO do 1- m a a O O a a O O O O a in N 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 C a a a a r d a a w ID M CD .T Q G o v .L+ N- r 00 to m in m i eti n r c, c.- M in- - in h CO CI OJ F, N CI N OC .9j (7 N N N (r CO O) C) C) co CO CO N Cy C) [n N en U c. 0 '' U O CD T .N m :V a t7 .-- r CO r r r r. r r r O r .- N uD r O u LC) CO Q M C n co 0,3 r u, r r b N Q) or V O C) CO r co 't N- r I- CO O ,C r C o i = c. 0 a intn Cb 5 " K = 'N' :y N 0 r _. _. 0 r -) V L') V. '.O c C N V o V .-n r U) un I— K O Z cc .04 .C N O r 0 0 0 0 - - c7 r. a r N r O Z :N C. r 0 :n N O r O CO U -Oo -•-•u 0 J CO r e J .- a] 7 h Cr) N .�. N 'n CO CO <) D N N- [N' CO O T CO 0 LEI o mJ in _ U N p l0 co N N CO 'O t- N N Ol CO a0 H O (n < CO CO .o. (0 CO N 'C CO CO CO N n _ u O ai T 2 S o o = W ii O) N < C— O P. r — r O .. .. C: In O r N CN r N r O O O N r CO C u- oo O - N o rro :-) NoNN r o N r N o < N N r oCO >.. w J O — O — O O Cr) N C\ V N C) N (-) r :'r) N O O f) r= m c0 r r M1 Ce cQ G _ E.g. yoj N O CO C) M A N O O r y CO O O CO N— in .C) O O 5 o CD Nm ¢) -r L, COCV (N COrCO C m 0 O nn N F C N N N N N N N N N N N r CO Cl (y N C N /D 0 ) �U�3/ LL. Qr„ ..„ ,), . N r O CO O O N CO CO CO N C9 N CO A A CO O CO a N J 5 CV N N C') CO I` N r a m Q YO N VD lO Q LO CO CO CO ~ CC 4:3 CC :v m N N.- Q r M r r m „ CV rr. N o N r r r W N N N CV CN m 0 CO CS m '''r :N .n N Cn N N N v r O I] e CD j a r a N O) r r co C) N N q Io CO CO r o co (n m Q) O) 1'- (O N 0 I() N CO V I-- Le) en co r C) C) IO CO CO I() N- CO CO N. N. N CO Cl - O W D Q' co N �. v v.!� N.' N 0 ... M .T) _. _') O o iN -C) J 0) _t N d J o Ln 0 < O - N - r - - r r - r Li, 0-i 0- ° O04 o O O U J Z r a r O O O - r C- r - r - o r O O - 0 0 0 r O Cl m a o Z p. -- C D _ O r` a a a aO a O u) o o ^ (O O N O LO in W J L C . .. 'n V O (+) 0 0 - 9 LL- a c a r , CO a O =• _ n.' - m o 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co r o 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 u� O- O M W v APPENDIX B Pine1of1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information !Analyst GC 1 ',Intersection CR 33- US 85 agency/Co. ! !Jurisdiction :Date Performed 5/23/2012 I knalysis Year (EX ST LT TOTAL ! rAnalysis Time Period x4191 PM I I _f 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 Vefcles 10 -- -- 10 -- -- 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) 2 1 5 1 1 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 /c 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 95% queue length 0.01 0.03 0.06 a06 Control Delay (slveh) 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 or Florida.4:1 Rights Reserved HCS-tml Version 5.6 Generated: 5/2312012 11:24 AM x/23/7012 t'aggc. lot l TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst JGC I !Intersection CR 33 - US 85 Ii Agency/Co. I IJurisdIction III !Date Performed 5/23/ t 12 I !Analysis Year 9ST LT TOTAL I Analysis Time Period AM M) J I I I Project Description EastPNest Street: CR 33 North/South Street: US 85 Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 025 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T P 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 (vehln) _ 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 I 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 C06 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 0 2010 Ur,iversity of Florida.All Rights Reserved HCS+T^1 Version 5.5 Generated_ 5/23/2012 11:24 AM 5/23/2012 Pduc 1 of t TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information ?Analyst GO l !Intersection 44 - 85 Agency/Co. l !Jurisdiction :Date Performed 5/26/2012 ! 'Analysis Year -X ST TOTAL lF,nalysis Time Period 744 PM l I _ 2 Project Description East/Jest Street: CR 44 forth/South Street' US 55 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) 1 5°4 37 18 530 12 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR / 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 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 (Yellin) 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 I 0 1 1 - Configuration LT R LT P _ 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) 1 18 30 15 19 5 C (m) (veh/h) 938 864 295 701 187 732 v/c 0.00 0.02 a io 0.02 a io 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 5 D A • pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 15.8 23.0 pproach LOS -- --— C C copyright©2010 urr ersuy cf Flohda,All Rights Reserved HCS÷n1 Verson 5 6 Generated: 5/26/2012 3.55 AM 3/26/2012 1' uu1of I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst IOC I :Intersection 44 - 85 -F' Agency/Co. I I Ourisdicton I', :Data Performed 5/26,2012 Analysis Year ,19ST TOTAL I Analysis Time Period Alt) I I I Project Description East'West Street: CH 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 3 4 5 6 - L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 2 638 1 26 12 619 9 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 633 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 R L T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound 1 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 P 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 'dc 0.00 0.01 a10 a02 0.08 0.01 95% queue length 0.01 0.04 a34 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 B D B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 17.5 21.7 Approach LOS -- -- _ C C Copy i ght 93 2010 university,sly of Floeda,XI Rights Reserved H(213.''1 Version 5.3 Generated: 126.2012 BS7 AG 5/26/2012 APPENDIX C TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information r4nalyst GC I l!Intersection CR33-DRIVE Agency/Co. I (Jurisdiction >� /74- II Date Performed 5/23/2012 I Analysis Year (ST)L7(TOTAU H Analysis Time Period _ F P Pr1 L r' .....__.7l' Project Description i EasbWest Street: CR 33 North/South Street: DRIVE Intersecbon Orientation: East-West _ Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 I 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 I 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TN 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 J 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 a04 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.1 9.5 LOS A A Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 9.5 Approach LOS -- -- A Cooyriglit'1'2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reseried HCS>'°1 Version 5.6 Generated: .5/2312012 11:36 AM 5/23/2012 ra9c L (Jr L TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC I 'Intersection CR 33 - DRIVE Agency/Co. I !Jurisdiction if-N. j � 'Date Performed 5/23/12 analysis Year IS7)LT7rOTA(J Analysis Time Period AN. 4 F U 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 5 L T R L T R Volume (vehih) 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/h) 5 10 C (m) (veh/h) 1144 809 vic 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 10 2010 University of Florida,Ail Rights Reserved ace-''' version 5.55 Generated'. 5/23/2012 11:37 Aid 5/23/201? ra_J I ul I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst IGC - ,Intersection CR 33 - US 85 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction 44-- A I :Date Performed 5/23/2012 Analysis Year Er(J LT rOTA/I Analysis Time Period 4M 4P _ - ‘-___---- 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) 5 640 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 / 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 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 Len_gth, 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 vlc 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 2 2010 University of Florida.All Rights Resen ed '-'Cc- '.l Version 5.6 Ge. rated. 5/23;2512 1121 Al'. 5/23/701? I'ago• 1 01 f TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection CR 33 - US E5 Agency/Co. I !Jurisdiction Ii !Date Performed 5/23/2012 I Analysis Year EXte7i)LT T..7)_ nalysis Time_Period Ail/le/4 I I N 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 1.60 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 J 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) 884 660 260 218 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 92010 Unrvcrsity of Florida.All Rights Reserved HCSdT^ Version 5.6 Ger:F.at.d_ 5/23/2012 11.22 AM 5/231)017 L l gc 1 tit TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information 'Analyst GC [ Intersection 14 - 85 I 1Agenc//Co- 'Jurisdiction ,--, F\ 1�, ,Date Performed x(26/2012 I Analysis Year EXPTirOTAa 1I Analysis Time Period (ALItt.4 F ---___i Project Description East/West Street: CR 44 North/South Street: US 85 Intersection Orientation: Norih-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound F Movement 1 2 I 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 2 605 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 Nab/hi) _ 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 I 1 0 I 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 Confguraton L L LT P LT R v (veh/h) 2 20 32 15 20 5 C (m) (veh/h) 927 853 287 697 177 725 v/c 0.00 0.02 0.11 0.02 0.11 0.01 95% queue length 0.01 0.07 0-37 0.07 0.38 002 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 Q2010 University of F cQua.All Rights Reserved cps± " Version 5 6 Oe craf i'. 5/25/2012 5.59 AM 5/26/2012 Page I of I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information _ Anaiyst GC l !Intersection 44 - 85 Agency/Co. I Jurisdiction lI pate Performed 5/26/2012 l Analysis Year EX(STPOTAY Analysis Time Period A ATM) �� l! 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 3 4 5 6 L — T R L 1 H 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 VI/ay Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T P 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/)) 5 10 5 30 5 15 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 — 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Howdy Flow Rate, HFR 5 10 5 30 5 15 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 15 15 15 15 15 15 Percent Grade ('/o) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 Configuration LT P LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 LaneConfiguraon 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 (;;veh) 9.2 9.4 22.0 10.5 29.1 10.3 LOS A A C B D 8 Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 18.5 24.4 Approach LOS - -- C C Copyright.;2010 University of Florida.All Rights Reser.ed thCShni version 5.6 Goname i 5 252012 9.01 AM 5/26/2O12 APPENDIX D HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information 4 d +�;Agency Drr- on, h 0.25 a ,. 3 q .Analyst GC an I>ss Da, F/212012 Area Tyke .Other ' T..�`w�- Jurisdicticn TirreP_ricd PM PHF 0.92 z: ,, Inter ccticn 55-44 na y„is Year a,32 Analysis Per od ;1> 7 00 � —41 File Name Streets1.xus _ - _-- 'if 1g =t'. ;; Project Descriptrcn •' ' ' " r Demand Information EB ' WB NB SB !Approach Movement L T R L j T R L j T , R L T j R Demand (v), vehih 15 ; 20 , 10 ; 65 5 1 75 5 j 865 j 155 1 330 795 j 20 , Signal Information ! *- �u I sp Cycle, s 100.0 Reference Phase 2 _ --e Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Green 20.0 35.0 30.0 i 0.0 0.0 :0.0 1 !. Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap EM/ On Yellow 14.0 4.0 4 0 i 0.0 0.0 0.0 ', Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S , On Red [1.0 - 1.0 i 1.0 !0.0 0.0 ;0.0 = 5 - i Timer Results EBL : EBT WBL ' WBT NBL . NBT SBL SBT I Assigned Phase 4 8 2 1 j 6 ! Case Number 5.0 I 5.0 5.3 '! 1.0 3.0 I Phase Duration, s 35.0 . 35.0 40.0 1 25M 65.0 I Change Period, (Y+Ro), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 ' 5.0 5.0 l Max Allow Headway (NMAH),.s ; 2.9 2.9 2.8 2 9 ! 2.8 Queue Clearance Time (gs), s 3.0 ! 6.5 i 23 2 _ 12 6 9.0 I Green Extension Time (ge), s ;. 0.2 i 0.2 j j 3.8 0.4 4.7 Phase Call Probability 1.00 j 1.00 ) I 1 00 1.00 1.00 I Max Out Probability i j 0.00 i 0 00 0 16 : 0.02 j 0.00_ Movement Group Results EB WB h NB j SB Approach Movement L T R ; L ,T R L ; T R L ' T R Assigned Movement 7 i 4 14 3 8 18 5 ! 2 12 1 6 I 16 Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 16 22 11 71 5 49 ', 5 940 136 ! 359 I 864 j 22 [Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/In 1433 1900 1610 ; 1412 1900 11610 ? 650 j 1809 r 1610 1810 11809 1161( Queue Service Time (g�), s ' 0.8 i 0.8 0.5 3.7 0.2 1.6 ' 0 5 j 21.2 1 6.0 •j 10.6 t 7.0 I 0.5 ( Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gc) s 1.0 0.8 0.5 j 4.5 l 0.2 I 1.6 1 0.5 21.2 j 6.0 -i_10 6 I 7:0 ; 0.5. Capacity (c) veh/h .' 499 570 483 ' 484 r 570 ! 805 1 300 1266 I 564 j 517 12171 I 966 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 0.0330.0230.1460.0100.0610.018 : Available Capacity (ca), veh/h i 499 570 483 484 570 1 805 1 300 ' 1266 I 564 I517 2117I 966 Back of Queue (Q) veh/In (50th percentile) 0.2 0.3 0.2 i 1.1 0.1 ' 0.5 4 0.1 j 7.0 2.0 I 3 8 -L I& ! 0.1 Overflow Queue (Q3) veh/In : 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 i 0.0 0 0 i 0 0 1 0.0 1 0.0—j 0 0 ! 0.0 I 0.. J 0 i _ Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) 1 0 00 0.00 0 00 i 0 00 0.00 i 0 00 ' 0 00 0.00 0.00 0 00 10.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d r), s/veh_,-.-_ _ .__.-- _ 24.9 24.8 24 7 1 26.4 !24:6 I 12:9 I 21.3 I. 23.0 23.1 I 16.8 4.7 I 8.1 I- -- - I Incremental Delay(d2), s/veh !, 0.0 ! 0.0 0.0 i 0.1 ; QO 1 0 0 ; 0.0 j 2.1 0.11,13— 0.0 j 0.0 I Initial Quelay (d3),Control eue Dd, s/veh s/ven 0 0 0.0 0.0 1 0 0 , 0.0 1 0 0 i 0 0 . 0 0 ' 0 0 L 0 0 I 0.0 QO [_ 24.9 x 24.8 r 24.7 26.4 24.6 12.9 121 3 __25.1123.2i:20.1 I 4.7 l 8.1 I Level of Service(LOS) JC r C C j C C B CICICICIA i A Approach Delay, /veh/LOS- 24 8 C J 21.1 L C 1 24 8 _ C _ . 9 2 L _ A Intersection Delay, s/veh/LOS i 16.9 I. B Multimodal Results {.. EB j _ WB __- NB I SB _J I Pedestrian LOS Score/LOS • 3 0 C 1 3 0 C 1 2.5 B 'I 2 B IBicycle LOS Score/LOS 0 6 A ! 07 I A j 1.4 I A 1 1.5 A HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information 4 -' JLL r Agency Curalion, h 025 Anal;st GC Analysis Date 5/23/2012 Area Type Other : Jurisdiction Time Period AM CD PHF 0.92 '•y - Li • Inter dan 35- 44 Analysis Year 20x2 T07/1-t_ AnalysisPerod j1> 730 a.cif File Nome Sl ee sl xus - - 11 ft Project Description -I s > r Demand Information - ES i WE NB SB Approach /Movement L 1R ; L T R L T R L T R Demand (v), veh/h 15 ; 10 , 10 225 10 , 120 l 10 11110 , 65 d 115 , 930 i 15 Signal Information ci'u ````�fff'''' Cycles 100.0 Reference Phase 2 • - H-4Offset s 0 Reference Point ' End :30.0 - f Green 15.0 40.0 10.0 0.0 0 0 Uncoordinated, Yes - Simult. Gap ENV On Yallon'40 •4.0 '4.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 iii I Force iviode i Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red 1.0 : 1.0 . 1.0 :0.0 .0.0 f 0.0 - I Timer Results EBL ' EBT WBL WET . NBL j NBT SBL ' SBT I Assigned Phase 4 8 2 1 6 Case Number 5.0 • 5.0 i I 5.3 1.0 3.0 Phase Duration, s . 35.0 35.0 45.0 20 0 65.0 Change Period, (Y+R4, s 5.0 5 0 5.0 5.0 • 5.0 I Max Allow Headway (MAH), s ! 29 , 29 I 28 1 29 i 2.8 Queue Clearance Time (gs), s 3.2 17.0 I 30.0 5.2 10.9 1 Green Extension Time (ge), s 0.6 0.5 i 4.3 0.1 6.1 I. Phase Call Probability 1.00 - 1.00 ! 1.00 1.00 I 1.00 Max Out Probability I 0.00 0! 00 0.32 1 0.00 0.00 Movement Group Results EB WE d NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T , R L T I R Assigned Movement 7 i 4 • 14 i 3 8 18 5 I 2 l 12 f 1 1 6 . 16 • Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 16 - 11 11 245 11 98 I 11 1207 1 38 1 1.25 1011 1 16 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/In : 1426 1900 I 1610 .' 1426 1900 1610 i 566 l 1809 1610 1810 1809 161( FQueue Service Time (gs), s 0.8 0.4 0.5 14.6 I 0.4 3.6 ; 1.2 28.0 1 1.5 3 3.2 8.9 ! 0.4 Cycle Queue Clearance Time (g:), s 1.2 0.4 0.5 J 15.0 0.4 3.6 1.2 28.0 1 1.5 3.2 I 8.9 0.4 Capacity (c), veh/h ! 494 570 483 I 494 1570 725 3 299 1447 644 1 400 2171 ! 966 1 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) , 0.033; 0.019 0.023 0.495 10.019 0.135 0_.036 0.834 I 0.059 1 0 313 1 0.466 . 0.01' [Available Capacity (ca), veh/h ` 494 570 483 ': 494 570 725 1 299 11447 644 400 2171 966 I Back of Queue (Q) veh/In (50th percentile) : 0.3 , 0.2 0.2 4.5 ! 0.2 1.1 1 0.1 8.5 0.5 1.0 1 2.0 0.1 Overflow Queue (Q2), veh/In 1 0 0 ' 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 I 0 0 ' 0.0 ! 0 0 a 0 0 ! 0.0 0.0 IQueue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 i 0.00 i 0.00 j 0 00 j 0.00 0 00 0.00 j 0.00 , 0.03 Uniform Delay (d%) s/veh ' 25.1 I 24.6 124 7 29 9 124.6 16 1 1 18.4 120 5 18.4 I 16.1 j 4.9 ! 8.1 • Incremental Delay(d-) s/veh i 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 0 3 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 1 4.1 0.0 0 2 0.1 l 0.0 tin-Ili-al-Queue Delay(d3) s,Neh 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 ' 0.0 0 0 / 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 I 0.0 0.0 I Control Delay (d). s/veh 25 1 24.6 24.7 j 30 2 ! 24.6 116.1 1 18.4 24.6 18 5 16.2 4.9 8.1 I Level of Service(LOS) C i C C r CIC B 3 B C ; i3 B A j A Approach Delay, s/veh/LOS .- -. .. .... . C3 26.1 I C 3._. 24 4 I C 6 2 I_._ A I Intersection Delay, s/veh/LOS , 17.1 4 B Mult!modal Results EB � WB I NB ) SB Pede..ir!an LOS Score/LOS l 3.0 C 3.0 I C 125i 5 B l 2 4 B ! Bicycle LOS Score/LOS • 0.6 l A 1.1 l A i 1.5 ;' A l 1.4 1 A 1 «`l i U1 L TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC I ;Intersection CR33-DRIVE j ency/Co- _ Jurisdiction �1 Date Performed 5/23/2012 I (Analysis Year ST T(13TALj analysis Time Period '4P j)PPA � �__,„ II Project Description EastWest Street: CR 33 North/South Street: DRIVE Intersection Orientation: East-IIVest Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 j 5 6 _ L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 190 10 10 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 _ 1.60 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 Copy laht �2010 Uri ver ity of Ronda,All R:ghts Reserved HOC.Th Version 5.6 Generated_ 512312012 I1.34 AM 5/23/2012 rrr2JL, 1 ut TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information :analyst GC i ilntersection CR 33- DRIVE I Agency/Co. I !Jurisdiction i7 l Date Performed 5/23/2012 Analysis Year sLTJTOTAL I !Analysis Time Period Aiv1Pi/) _ I ' - Project Description w East/West Street: CR 33 North/South Street: DRIVE _ Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): a25 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 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) 5 155 _ 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 a/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 FUdda,Al Rights Reserved HC5,- ..1 Version 5 g Cerent-d_ 5/23,2012 11:32 A".1 5/23/2012 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC .Intersection CR 33 - US 85 Agency'Co. l :Jurisdiction riii. I Date Performed 5/23/2012 i Analysis Year EX S7}'LT i OTAL) H Analysis Time Period Ic4 i)PM I A 2 Il L/ 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 l 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 Charnelized 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 ( eh/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 -- -- 8 8 Copyright 02010 University of Florida All Rights Resen'ed ihfCS3T Version 5.6 Ceners et 5;23/2012 11.28 ALI 5/23/2012 t"uLLc 1 O1 I _ • TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC I 'Intersection CR 33 - US 85 ll Agency/Co. ( 'Jurisdiction ./-----. 'Date Performed 5/23/2012 I Analysis Year EX STQ1j t0T4Q II Analysis Time Period AM e,, i , _ \____y 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 Northoound 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 P _ 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 P, _ Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service _ Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R P v (veh/h) 160 5 C (m) (veh/h) 503 459 vic 0.32 0.01 95% queue length 1.36 0.03 Control Delay (s/veh) 15.5 12.9 LOS C B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 15.5 12.9 Approach LOS -- -- C B Copyright J 2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+T rd Version 5 6 Generated: 523,2012 11:28 AM 5/23/2012 I cl_C I Vl l TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC ! intersection CR 44 - DRIVE Agency/Co. Jurisdiction I Date Performed 5/23/2012 Analys'.s Year LT TOTAL , ysls Time Period tiitl PPA I I Project Description EastWest Street: CR 44 North/South Street: DRIVE Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound I Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 I 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 0 115 390 5 70 0 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration T A LT Upstream Sirnal 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 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 80 C (m) (veh/h) 1070 780 - 'i/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 pproach LOS -- -- 8 ccpyr:ghtJ 2010 U e s'ty of 212222.XI F.:ghts o s _.Ve:l ''CS>'^I Version 5.o Generate 5/23/2012 1:55 er 5/23/2012 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC ! ,Intersection ICR44-DRIVE !Agency/Co. I !Jurisdiction 'Date Performed 5/23/2012 Analysis Year LT TOTAL Analysis Time Period AM y 1 ,I H Project Description EashWest Street: CR 44 North/South Street: DRIVE I Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound :)./loveme,nt 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 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration T A 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 I 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 LA , v (veh/h) 5 380 C (m) (vsh/h) 1395 812 v/c 0.00 0.47 95% queue length 0.01 2.52 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 13.3 LOS A I B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 13.3 Approach LOS -- -- B Copyright.O 2510 Lr.i rsity of Forifta,XI Rights Resented 'C5 '_clan 5 o Gorforatett 5/212012 1.C5 PM 5/23/2012 SO LOGIC July 31, 2012 AGPROfessionals, LLC 4350 State Highway 66 Longmont, Colorado 80504 Attn: Mi. Tim Naylor Re: Pavement Design Report Big Thompson Investment Holdings Proposed Industrial Development Southeast corner of\Veld County Roads 33 and 44 Weld County, Colorado Soilogic Project# 11-1109 Mr. Naylor: Soilogic, Inc. (Soilogic) personnel have completed the geotechnical subsurface exploration and pavement section design for the proposed Big Thompson Investment Holdings industrial development in Weld County, Colorado. The results of our subsurface exploration and pavement section design options are included with this report. The purpose of our investigation was to describe the subsurface conditions encountered in the completed site borings and develop the test data necessary to provide pavement section design recommendations for construction of the site interior roadways. The conclusions and recommendations outlined in this report are based on results of the completed field and laboratory testing and our experience with subsurface conditions in this area. The proposed development is located southeast of the intersection of\Veld County Roads 33 and 44, east of US Highway 85 in Weld County, Colorado. Small grade changes are anticipated to develop finish roadway subgrade levels. FIELD EXPLORATION To develop subsurface information for use in the pavement design, seven (7) soil borings were extended to a depth of approximately 5 feet below approximate finish roadway subgrade level within the roadway alignment. The boring locations were established in Soilogic, Inc. 4350 State Highway 66 • Longmont, CO 80504• (970) 535-6144 P.O. Box 1121 • Hayden, CO 81639 • (970) 276.2087 PEv e:rtcut Desi L.25 Report Big 1 r sort 1 e::ncm H nd,res Proposed lndt -.-i .I D; Weld Count). Colorado Soilopic= 11-1109 the field by Soilogic personnel by pacing and estimating angles and distances from identifiable site references. The boring locations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used to make the field measurements. A diagram indicating the approximate boring locations is included with this report. A graphic log of each of the auger borings is also included. The test holes were advanced using 4-inch diameter continuous-flight auger powered by a truck-mounted CME-45 drill rig. Samples of the subsurface materials were obtained at regular intervals using California barrel and split-barrel sampling procedures in general accordance with ASTM specification D-1586. As part of the D-1586 sampling procedure, standard sampling barrels are driven into the substrata using a 140-pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the samplers a distance of 12 inches is recorded and helpful in estimating the consistency or relative density of the soils encountered. In the California barrel sampling procedure, lesser disturbed samples are obtained in removable brass liners. Samples of the subsurface materials obtained in the field were sealed and returned to the laboratory for further evaluation, classification and testing. LABORATORY TESTING The samples collected were tested in the laboratory to measure natural moisture content and visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The USCS group symbols are indicated on the attached boring logs. An outline of the USCS classification system is included with this report. As part of the laboratory testing. a calibrated band penetrometer (CHP) was used to estimate the unconfined compressive strength of essentially cohesive specimens. The ClIP also provides a more reliable estimate of soil consistency than tactual observation alone. Dry density. Atterberg limits. -200 wash and swell"consolidation tests were completed on selected samples to help establish specific soil characteristics. atterberg limits tests are used to determine soil plasticity. The percent passing the =?00 size sieve (-200 wash test) is used to determine the percentage of fine grained soils (clay and silt) in a sample. Swell'consolidation tests are performed 10 evaluate soil volume change JLvcincnt De> rn Report ]-3:2I I '.:p•o l l l c_tn.ent Ho Hines s l ropo<cd Inc arid] Dccclopincnt Weld County.Colorado Soilo uic = I I-I 109 potential with variation in moisture content. The results of the completed laboratory tests are outlined on the attached boring logs and swell consolidation summary sheets. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subsurface materials encountered in the completed site borings can be summarized as follows. Dark brown to rusty brown beiue silty, clayey sand, which varied to sandy lean clay was encountered at the surface at each of the boring locations. The silty, clayey sand'sandy lean clay soils varied front loose to medium dense in terms of relative density or medium stiff to very stiff in terns of consistency and showed low swell potential at in- situ moisture and density conditions. The silty, clayey sand'sandy lean clay extended to the bottom of boring at a depth of approximately 5 feet below ground surface. The stratigraphy indicated on the included boring logs represents the approximate location of changes in soil types. Actual changes may be more gradual than those indicated. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the completed site borings at the time of drilling. Groundwater levels will vary seasonally and over time based on weather conditions, site development, irrigation practices and other hydrologic conditions. Perched groundwater conditions may also be encountered at times throughout the year. Perched water is commonly encountered in soils overlying less permeable soil layers and'or bedrock. The location and amount of perched water can also vary over time. ANALYSIS AND RECO1IAIENDATJONS Site Development All existing topsoil and vegetation should be removed front the roadway embankment area. After stripping and completing all cuts and prior to the placement of any fill or pavement materials, we recommend the exposed suburade soils be scarified to a depth of 9 inches, adjusted in moisture content and compacted to at least 95% of the materials standard Proctor maximum dry density. The moisture content of the reconditioned Pavement Desinn Report Big, Thompson tn.vesIn ert Moldings Proposed Indaa;isl Develnpmem Weld Count'. Colorado Sol logic= 11-1109 4 subgrade soils should be adjusted to be within the range of -3°'() of standard Proctor optimum moisture content at the time of compaction. Fill soils required to develop the roadway embankment should consist of approved low- volume-change (L\ C) soils free from organic matter, debris and other objectionable materials. Based on results of the completed laboratory testing, it is our opinion the near- surface site silty, clayey sand"sandy lean clay could be used as fill to develop the roadway embankment if it is necessary to import material to the site for use as fill, those materials should consist of approved LVC materials. We recommend suitable fill materials be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick, adjusted in moisture content and compacted as recommended for the scarified materials above. Gravel Surfaced Pavements We understand that for the initial development of the site, gravel all weather surfacing of the interior roadway system is desired. Based on the existing subgrade conditions and volume of vehicles anticipated to utilize the interior roadway system, it is our opinion *ravel or aggregate base course materials could be used to serve as the all weather roadway surface. The subgrade soils for all-weather surfaced areas should be developed as outlined in the "Site Development' portion of this report. Gravel surfacing could be supported directly on the reconditioned subgrade soils and br suitable fill soils placed and compacted as outlined in that section. The load carrying capacity of the all-weather surfacing would be most dependent on subgrade strength. Care will be required at the time of construction to ensure stable subgrade soils are developed immediately prior to surfacing. In addition, care should be taken to develop adequate drainage across the surface of the gravel-surfaced areas and away from the edges of the gravel pavement. Water which is allowed to pond on or adjacent to the gravel-surfaced areas can result in a loss of subgrade support and unsatisfactory performance of the aggregate surfacing over time. Materials used to develop all-weather surfaced areas should consist of select granular materials meeting CDOT Class y or 6 sieve analysis specifications. Aggregate base course, recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) or recycled concrete materials could be Pev CHICHI Desi^_n Report B I'. . ipso: csumat Hola:nes Prop used Ind ;.ir!id Dcce.o,::scat Weld Coeaiv, Colorado Soho do r 11-1109 i considered for use. We recommend a minimum of ten (10) inches of granular surfacina be developed for the gravel drives expected to be utilized by heavy truck traffic. Aggregate surfacing should be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick. adjusted to within `3°b of standard Proctor optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95% of the materials standard Proctor maximum do density. The all-weather surfacing section outlined above does not follow conventional pavement section design criteria and is based on our experience with similar loading conditions and anticipated performance. With the intrinsic cfualitics of gravel-surfaced roadways, periodic and possibly frequent maintenance efforts should be expected. Pavement Design As an alternative to all-weather surfacing, a composite pavement section design was completed for the site roadway based on traffic information provided by others. At this time we understand a total of approximately 100 fully-loaded semi trucks will utilize the site roadway per day. Based on the provided traffic information, a design Equivalent Daily Load Application value (EDLA) of 300 can be calculated and was used in design. The site silty to clayey sand/sandy lean clay would be subject to low to moderate remolded strength. A resistance value (R-value) of 15 was estimated for the site silty to clayey sand'sandy lean clay and used in design. Reliability and serviceability loss values were obtained from local area pavement design guidelines for local industrial roadway applications. Alternative pavement sections could be considered and we would be happy to discuss any design alternatives at your request. Ya�cment Design Report LiEg t .o p,on 1 nee- ,neat I Ioidings Pi posed rlopn cnt Weld County. Colorado Soilonic= 11-1 i09 6 TABLE I —PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN F L S A L's 3.190,000 Reliability SO% Loss 2.2°b Resilient Modulus (Mr) 4.195 Desicn Structural Number (4.22) Option A—Composite Asphalt (Grading S) 6.5" (0.44/inch) Agggreaate Base (Class 5 or 6) 12"(0.1?:inch) (Structural Number) (4.30) Asphaltic concrete should consist of a bituminous plant mix composed of a mixture of aggregate, filler, binders and additives if required meeting the design requirements of the governing municipality. Aggregate used in the asphaltic concrete surface course should meet Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) grading S ( -inch minus) specifications. Grading SG (I-inch minus) materials could be considered for use in lower lifts. Aggregate base should be consistent with CDOT requirements for Class 5 or Class 6 aggregate base. Drainage Positive drainage is imperative for long term performance of the interior site roadways. Water which is allo'w'ed to pond adjacent to the site pavements can result in premature failure of the pavement section. 1.1'11TAT1ONS This report was prepared based upon the data obtained from the completed site exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis and any other information discussed. The completed borings provide an indication of subsurface conditions at the boring locations only. Variations in subsurface conditions can occur in relatively short distances away from the borings. This report does not reflect any variations which may occur- I .ment De>ien Repo; BIg Tho]np>cin ln%c-micnt 1Ioldincu Proposed Ind -trial Dcve_ Weld County. Colorado Soilo2ic = ] I-1 ]09 7 across the site or away lron] the borings. If variations in the subsurface conditions anticipated become evident, the geotechnical engineer should be notified immediately so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any biological or environmental assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants or hazardous materials or conditions. Other studies should be completed if concerns over the potential of such contamination or pollution exist. The geotechnical engineer should be retained to review the plans and specifications so that comments can be made regarding the interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. The geotechnical engineer should also be retained to provide testing and observation services during construction to help determine that the design requirements are fulfilled. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with the generally accepted standard of care for the profession. No warranties express or implied, are made. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should not be considered valid in the event that any changes in the nature, design or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, unless those changes are reviewed and the conclusions of this report modified and verified in writing by the geotechnical engineer. Pavement Design Report Big Thompson Investment Holdings Proposed Industrial Development Weld County, Colorado Soilogic# 1]-]109 8 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning the enclosed information or if we can be of further assistance to you in any way,please do not hesitate to contact us. Very Truly Yours, Soilogic, Inc. Reviewed by: / ��09.,, • ,c/SrF. �p9...... STS• I wo 4428 „, P 6 4 • �SS/ONALE�� SS/0 NAL Darrel DiCarlo, P.E. Wolf von Carlowitz,P.E. Senior Project Engineer Principal Engineer V - rive _ , '0 � ' ,. 4 .;, ,.,.4, 1 i ( Y4 4 ' Z 0 rir4 W to '-,-,..' l' • --.4 ' Q "- 77- r .ti d r. )r� �4 1 i--)14--,..4- rl ✓ f V' > Q � '' • ' • -;-.!/ r d P W ce L7 { Jr s • p (� El b Y ✓ �i r ti Z I I O 'I�. �1, f 'fix p., {ID I- J ��CI U a �� ra - Lo CL Li =I R'' / 1` V :t1... rat = J eL s� .4:4-1,......*;...;p • a j i W ..mss . tLL: 1;fi :CM o \ � f o r' P RJ .I 17 Z rtiL , i 6 U .�. ¢ +x ^�. ' I •` 3 i BIG THOMPSON INVESTMENT HOLDINGS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PAVEMENTS PECKHAM,COLORADO LOG OF BORING P-1 Project#11-1109P SO LOGIC July 2012 2'0:2 Neeerivoe: 4'CFA 1.7rinc Dn '73.�._. _ F -_ 7 122_12 Hanreer Lee: ..en: s Dr2!ms None 2 SH __._ - l° emonne". 709 enes 2.2 OeH L9 Eunm.vrd Swell /..Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth _ "N" MC DD q, Bp Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (fl) u (%) (pc0 (psi) 500 PO (psi) LL PI h'.I 2 E5 NA 1.5 NP NP 854O 3 CS) 14 ]7 123.8 93G5 Nose c00 I - - - 5 CS 12 182 1136 o9CC• - - - - J_1'-CLC'Ev8-NJ.01-es .. 10 11 14 15 20 25 BIG THOMPSON INVESTMENT HOLDINGS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PAVEMENTS PECKHAM,COLORADO LOG OF BORING P-2 Project/4 11-11o0P SO LOGIC July 2012 Sant Date 7 12 22,2 Haer Ty Pe: 'C ! Dunno u.a._ k ne F sh Dale 7 1220,2 Hammer ToLC: bans _ None nmeli n - -He _' e_ E3 122`i (/) _ Estimated Swell V,Passing U SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth ' "N" MC DD q„ °£Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits N 200 Sieve (ft) " (CC) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (Psf) LL I PI !^-1 2 CS 11 E3 1238 9350+ - 13 - 5 55 23 39 - NA a 9 10 11 12 13 15 IC li 12 20 12 23 BIG THOMPSON INVESTMENT HOLDINGS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PAVEMENTS PECKHAM,COLORADO LOG OF BORING P-3 Project r 11-1109P SO LOGIC July 2012 5 D-_ 7 12 2212 I= c C In FDee 7 12 22,12 - T oe. 39 Y D - `-J N _ Es:inacsd Swell St.Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth = "N" (.1C DD q, 52 Swell v Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve to - (fl) (75 (52) (pcf (psi) 500 pst (psi) LL I PI (`-) 2 55 NA 7.1 • _ NP NP 2555 :, CS 12 11.2 117.3 6500 ' 5 CS 6 I 9.6 1136 4500 f 10 11 13 15 1] 20 52 24 25 BIG THOMPSON INVESTMENT HOLDINGS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PAVEMENTS PECKHAM,COLORADO • LOG OF BORING P-4 Project Y.11-1109P SO LOGIC July 2012 S'al Dale 4"C A Hn_ ., 130-e Finish D?ta __12 - erg ._... None _c_n-el: :JD 24 _ _ _ ha ., rn _ esoma,ed Swell %Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth _ "N" MC DO q< %Swell Pressure Atterberg Limits Y,2D0 Sieve (ft) '1' (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (psf) LL I PI 1`",1 2 CS 12 5.5 155.5 `O00 Nose c.0 5 55 10 10.8 7500 - - CVGF__ .._ _ _5 7 5 10 12 13 15 lc 20 21 22 23 25 BIG THOMPSON INVESTMENT HOLDINGS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PAVEMENTS PECKHAM,COLORADO • LOG OF BORING P-5 Project S 11-1109P SO LOGIC July 2012 — Sae at ttaaaa Sao Dice ] 122:12 to r Teac, <'CFA '�'� nip-.e F. i h elate 7, 22212—I^;a ei erThee. f.'sn ,,.,".'u F:o1e m [son Sled Swell Se.Passing 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth c "N" roc DD q, %Swell SS Pressure Atlerberg Limits #200 Sieve (H) " 1%) (pcf) (Pot) 500 psf (psf) LL I PI 1`=1 SC CLEYEY SANS t: 2 ES NA 112 • • _ 23 12 45 05s CL ..._e..a_= .._c_... 3 CS 12 499 OILS 1500 - - • -to a.a e.T rr__n dense 4 5 CS 13 124 101.0 9000e None 4920 - - - 8 10 11 3 15 15 15 20 22 2.1 25 BIG THOMPSON INVESTMENT HOLDINGS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PAVEMENTS PECKHAM,COLORADO LOG OF CORING P-6 Project 11-1109P SO LOGIC July 2012 Firms- e 71222'2 — ri '-7,2e- 1.129 ._ N2ce DUD V) Estimated Swell 55 Passing SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth _` "N" IOC DD q„ %Swell C Pressure Atterberg Limits 200 Sieve CO (ft) w (°9) (Pct) (pet) 500 Pst (Psi) LL I PI 1`=1 n £�CJY'S4�CL4v,ca_ 2 Cs 17 I 87 122.5 9000+ None <509 - - CL sass lc n-.oCPA'.Et 4 5 55 23 1 15.2 - 7500 - - - - 6 8 10 12 14 15 16 17 20 BIG THOMPSON INVESTMENT HOLDINGS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PAVEMENTS PECKHAM,COLORADO LOG OF BORING P-7 Project a 11-1109P SO LOGIC July 2012 ---- ------- a_ 7 seas Buns:--Dice' 4-C. _.. liv-a h Da'e 7 2 12 — _erTvse l,lsn Beech r - - _- ''-L 7:C 6'F,^J _ UI _ es:,Ta�e Swell 7 Passing CJ SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth •-• "N" MC CD g_ %Swell @ Pressure Atterberg Limits k 200 Sieve (R) " (%) (pcf) (psf) 500 psf (Psi) LL I PI f`!I SC CLAaSi S,:•ec '2 ES NA 9.5 - 25 13 _`2iio CL asses.__s._ seas 3 CS 12 141 107.3 9000. None <550 - - 5 CS 12 12.6 1177 6000 - 8 10 1 13 14 15 16 23 25 BIG THOMPSON INV. HOLDINGS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PAVEMENTS PECKHAM, COLORADO Project # 11-1109P July 2012 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 eI I Ico 4 II I I ' HI 2 I 0 Ii -z , I w �_r� f_ea ; ' I 0 o 0 10 100 1009 1,2000 100003 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: P-1 @ 2' Sample Description: Dark Brown Silty, Clayey Sand (Sc-sr:) Initial Moisture 7.7% I Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 12.5% ' Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf None I % Passing T200 Swell Pressure <500 psf I Dry Density 123.8 pcf SO LOGIC BIG THOMPSON INV. HOLDINGS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PAVEMENTS PECKHAM, COLORADO Project # 11-1109P July 2012 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 - i I jI 3 6 2 0 it 2 w :'3^._tee_ H 11 v o I -i2 10 10CC 10003 1CO�C'CO Applied Load s (P f) Sample ID: P-4 @ 1' Sample Description: Rusty Brown Clayey Sand (SC) Initial Moisture 6.5% ! Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 14.8% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf None % Passing=200 - Swell Pressure <500 psf Dry Density 109.0 pcf • SO LOGIC BIG THOMPSON INV. HOLDINGS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PAVEMENTS PECKHAM, COLORADO Project # 11-1109P July 2012 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 — i 0 .— 8 3 6 CO i c I 4 I I I II 2 2 I I I /I Ili -4 ., I I s -10 I -12 ' 10 100 ;000 10930 155,500 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: P-5 @ 4' Sample Description: Brown/Beige Sandy Lean Clay(CL) Initial Moisture 12.4% - Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 14.5% Plasticity Index - _ % Swell @ 500 psf None I % Passing#200 - Swell Pressure <500 psf ' Dry Density 101.0 pd SO LOGIC BIG THOMPSON INV. HOLDINGS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PAVEMENTS PECKHAM, COLORADO Project # 11-1109P July 2012 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 8 0 6 -- 3 4 II II 0 U o I I ' = -6 o � , . o -- , -8 -10 i I -12 10 109 1000 10600 100600 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: P-6 @ 1' Sample Description: Dark Brown/Rust Clayey Sand (SC) Initial Moisture 8.7% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 12.8% I Plasticity Index - % S•;:eli @ 500 psf None 1 % Passing}-200 - Swell Pressure <500 psf Dry Density 123.5 pcf SO LOGIC BIG THOMPSON INV. HOLDINGS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PAVEMENTS PECKHAM, COLORADO Project # 11-1109P July 2012 SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY '2 50 - 8I I. I 6 3 I i i 2 II II 0 I 4 0 -g o , -12 10 ivy 1000 10.000 152000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: P-7 @ 2' Sample Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay(CL) Initial Moisture 4.1% Liquid Limit - Final Moisture 17.0% Plasticity Index - % Swell @ 500 psf None I % Passing=200 - Swell Pressure <500 psf ', Dry Density 107.3 pcf SO LOGIC UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS) • IS ° S , —I ,`4 - 1 I _,_Y 5_ j No [..v ..ere a _cY ,90.9 - a:1 : ,c_ <7,75 S._0 Cr:sass . . -.a ncre c le r,-..] y'-'. - c.a- dc=d Cryrrlc sIcy"" <2 75 -> - cal d'iad Cracrec S't'-'' Highly c.9c7ic 5 y c9a.so. dry', .. cc_ d arcs Pi Peot Pbo em : avan-nmc c,,...€4 S 5 Unp v G n-... - e iv=ae , i - i / I I 1 f r 1 G I I (0/ :� .ate. �c �� , I Rne 6c r.ed S-c-H CCer-.v_. ..5:-s ._-reek Q.(ssr) Ccrs.s cry , 5.ou.rg1 acicl',.c_c 2'on: .,c_ ,c - '500 :s-y eft I 0-4 --re �] 500-1Oti Sof• i 5 8 Laysx .._ r et z.. ns 1051-2055 Med., 51,.f I 9.1_ 5'.9:-'1. G:I.Secse Ccgecc sr CC' 'Fenrg 2001.4x0 511'1 13 _30 4188 45.Ccrse 5 cg...- 5''.y-hi de¢mccsfion cass',b1e cc!,r chcrec 4901-8x9 l'ery 5off 01 50 Le-pc I'rode-crc 5.77c deco,{acR ion crd color cYcrge ih-cughx.: 500!-15000 Vc 'H-rd __ Cc-9 Or We H-ch- 77,0-4 hoh'y demo:44d,nlr be co-wr :n:4 -. GENERAL NOTES DRILLING&SAMPLING SYMBOLS: SS: Split Spoon-1%"I.D., 2"O.D., unless otherwise noted HS: Hollow Stem Auger ST: Thin-Walled Tube—2.5"O.D., unless otherwise noted PA: Power Auger RS: Ring Sampler-2.42"I.D., 3"O.D., unless otherwise noted HA: Hand Auger CS: California Barrel- 1.92"I.D.,2.5"O.D., unless otherwise noted RB: Rock Bit BS: Bulk Sample or Auger Sample WB: Wash Boring or Mud Rotary The number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch O.D. split-spoon sampler(S5)the last 12 inches of the total 18-inch penetration with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches is considered the `Standard Penetration" or "N-value". For 2.5" O.D. California Barrel samplers (CB) the penetration value is reported as the number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches, reported as "blows per inch," and is not considered equivalent to the "Standard Penetration"or"N-value". WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS: WL: Water Level WS: While Sampling WCI: Wet Cave in WD: While Drilling DCI: Dry Cave in BCR: Before Casing Removal AB: After Boring ACR: After Casing Removal Water levels indicated on the boring loos are the levels measured in the borings at the times indicated. Groundwater levels at other times and other locations across the site could vary. In pervious soils, the indicated levels may reflect the location of groundwater. In low permeability soils,the accurate determination of groundwater levels may not be possible with only short-term observations. DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Soil classification is based on the Unified Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50%of their dry weight retained on a#200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a#200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are defined on the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency. FINE-GRAINED SOILS COARSE-GRAINED SOILS BEDROCK (CB) fSS) JCB) JSS) Relative � L) Blows/Ft. Blows/Ft. Consistency Blows/Ft. Blows/Ft. Density Blows/Ft. Blows/Ft. Consistency < 3 0-2 Very Soft 0-5 <3 Very Loose <24 <20 Weathered 3-5 3-4 Soft 6-14 4-9 Loose 24-35 20-29 Firm 6-10 5-8 Medium Stiff 15-46 10-29 Medium Dense 36-60 30-49 Medium Hard 11-18 9-15 Stiff 47-79 30-50 Dense 61-96 50-79 Hard 19-36 16-30 Very Stiff >79 >50 Very Dense > 96 >79 Very Hard >36 > 30 Hard RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY GRAVEL Descriptive Terms of Percent of Major Component Other Constituents Dry Weight of Sample Particle Size Trace < 15 Boulders Over 12 in. (300mm) With 15—29 Cobbles 12 in.to 3 in. (300mm to 75 mm) Modifier >30 Gravel 3 in. to#4 sieve(75mm to 4.75 mm) Sand #4 to#200 sieve(4.75mm to 0.075mm) Silt or Clay Passing#200 Sieve(0.075mm) RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION Descriptive Terms of Percent of Other Constituents Dry Weight Term Plasticity Index Trace <5 Non-plastic 0 With 5-12 Low 1-10 Modifiers > 12 Medium 11-30 High 30+ v SqLOGIC V SO1LOGIC January 25, 2012 AGPROfessionals, LLC 4350 State Highway 66 Longmont, Colorado 80504 Attn: Mr. Chad TeVelde Re: Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Big Thompson Investments Bridge over Western Mutual Ditch Southeast of U.S. 85 and Weld County Road 44 Peckham, Colorado Soilogic Project # 11-1109 Mr. TeVelde: Soilogic, Inc. (Soilogic) personnel have completed the geoteclmical subsurface exploration you requested for the proposed bridge to be constructed across the Western Mutual ditch, southeast of the intersection of U.S. Highway 85 and \Veld County Road 44 near Peckham, Colorado. The results of our subsurface exploration are included with this report. We understand the bridge will be a single-span steel structure with a concrete deck and overall length of approximately 25 feet. The bridge will be constructed over the Western Mutual irrigation ditch allowing access to the Big T property. Foundation loads for the bridge are expected to be light to moderate, with anticipated HS25-44 traffic loading. Small grade changes are anticipated to develop finish site grades in the bridge area. The purpose of our investigation was to describe the subsurface conditions encountered in the completed site borings and develop the test data necessary to provide recommendations concerning design and construction of the bridge foundation and development of the bridge embankments. Soil parameters for use in design of retaining wall abutments are also included. The conclusions and recommendations outlined in this report are based on the results of the completed field and laboratory testing and our experience with subsurface conditions in this area. Soilogic, Inc. 4350 Highway 66 • Longmont, CO 80504 • (970) 674-3430 P.O. Box 1121 • Hayden, CO 81639 • (970)276-2087 Gcotechuical Subsurface hypieretion Report Bia l itompson Investment Bride over AA-__tern Mutual Ditch Peckham, Co;or_do Sailor-ic - 11-i i(9 2 SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed bridge will be constructed approximately 1200 feet east of U.S. Highway S5 and approximately 300 feet south of County Road 44 across the Western Mutual Ditch near Peckham, Colorado. An existing concrete gate/flume structure is present at the location of the proposed bridge crossing. The Western Mutual irrigation ditch was not observed to be running water at the time of our site exploration. At the time of our site exploration, the proposed construction area was vegetated in grasses and variable in elevation, with the maximum difference in ground surface elevation between proposed bridge abutment areas and bottom of ditch berm estimated to be on the order of about four (4) to six (6) feet, EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES To develop subsurface information in the area of the proposed bridge, two (2) soil borings (one (1) at each bridge abutment location) were extended to depths of approximately 15 to 30 feet below present site grades. The approximate bridge location was established in the field using a bridge plan review diagram provided by the client. The boring locations were established in the field by Soilogic personnel based on the proposed bridge location, using existing site features for reference. A diagram indicating the approximate boring locations is included with this report. Graphic logs of each of the anger borings are also included. The test holes were advanced using 4-inch diameter continuous-flight auger powered by a truck-mounted CME-55 drill rig. Samples of the subsurface materials were obtained at regular intervals using California and split-ban-el sampling procedures in general accordance with ASTM specification D-1536. As part of the D-1536 sampling procedure, standard sampling barrels are driven into the substrata using a 140-pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the samplers a distance of 12 inches is recorded and helpful in estimating the consistency or relative density of the soils encountered. L11 the California ban-el sampling procedure, lesser disturbed samples are obtained in removable brass liners. Samples of the subsurface materials obtained in the field were sealed and returned to the laboratory for further evaluation, classification and testing. Geet.zhnical Sabsa:fa_e Exploration Report fir Thompson Investment L'ridce ov cr AVsstem Mann] Dinh Peckham, Colorado Soilo_ic = 1 I-1 109 I he samples collected were tested in the laboratory to measure natural moisture content and visually or manually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The USCS group symbols are indicated on the attached boring, logs. An outline of the USCS classification system is included with this report. As part of the laboratory testing, a calibrated hand penetrometer (CUP) was used to estimate the unconfined compressive sttenuth of essentially cohesive specimens. The CI-LP also provides a more reliable estimate of soil consistency than tactual observation alone. Dry density, Atterberg limits, -200 wash and swell'consolidation tests were completed on selected samples to help establish specific soil characteristics. Atterberg limits tests are used to determine soil plasticity. The percent passing the 4200 size sieve (-200 wash) test is used to determine the percentage of fine grained soils (clay and silt) in a sample. Swell'consolidation tests are performed to evaluate soil volume change potential with variation in moisture content. Results of the completed laboratory tests are outlined on the attached boring logs and swell/consolidation test summaries. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subsurface materials encountered in the completed site borings can be summarized as follows. Approximately 4 to 6 inches of topsoil and vegetation was encountered at the surface at the boring locations. The topsoil was underlain by rusty brown to beige sandy lean clay, which varied to clayey sand with depth. The lean clay/clayey sand varied from medium stiff to stiff in terms of consistency or loose to medium dense in terms of relative density and showed low swell potential at current moisture and density conditions. The lean clay extended to depths ranging from approximately 7 to 9 feet below ground surface and was underlain by loose to medium dense sand with varying amounts of silt, clay and gravel. The sand extended to the maximum depths explored, between approximately 15 to 30 feet below round surface. The stratigraphy indicated on the included boring logs represents the approximate location of changes in soil types. Actual changes may be more gradual than those indicated. Groundwater was encountered at both boring locations at a depth of approximately S feet below ground surface when checked immediately after the completion of drilling. When (;_o:cchuical Subsurface Ex !or;ion Raciest Si_ 1 Ii en son Investment Bridge over A estera yt i:uc! Ditch Peebban;. Colorado Soi6.:_ic e 11-1199 4 checked 6 days later, groundwater was measured at a depth of approximately S feet below ground surface in both borings. Groundwater levels will vary seasonally and over time based on weather conditions; site development, irrigation practices and other hydrologic conditions. We expect area groundwater levels would be directly impacted by water levels in the irrigation ditch. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Demolition and Site Development All existing topsoil, vegetation and existing site improvements should be completely removed from the proposed bridge area. Care will be needed to insure any in-place fill and backfill material associated with the existing structure are also completely removed. The depth and extent of any required removal can best be established at the time of excavation through openhole observation. Fill and ovcrexcavationbackfill soils required to develop the site should consist of approved, low-volume-change (LVC) soils free from organic matter, debris and other objectionable materials. Based on results of the completed laboratory testing, it is our opinion the site lean clay/clayey sand could be used as fill to develop the site. Imported materials consistent with Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Class 7 specifications could also be considered for use as fill. Suitable fill soils should be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick, adjusted in moisture content and compacted to at least 95% of the materials standard Proctor maximum dry density. The moisture content of the fill soils should be adjusted to within +2% of standard Proctor optimum moisture content at the time of compaction. Care should be taken to avoid disturbing the exposed subgrade soils and site fill soils prior to placement of any overlying improvements. Soils which are allowed to dry out or become wet and softened or disturbed by the construction activities should be removed and replaced or rev.-orked in place prior to concrete placement. Gcotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Pi_1hom;son Investment Eric Ice over Western A tutu nI Ditch Pad:!tam, ColosenIo Soilo_ie tt 11-1109 DeNvaterin2 At the time of drilling, groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately S feet below ground surface at the boring locations. Depending on the time of year when construction occurs, depth of proposed bearing and other hydrologic conditions, some dewatering of the bridge abutment cxca‘ations may be required. Based on the materials encountered in the completed site borings, results of laboratory testing and observed depth to groundwater, we expect dewatering of the bridge abutment excavations could be completed through open pumping procedures from sumps and ditches. If construction will be completed during periods of high ditch flows, or if deeper bearing depths arc planned, dewatering of the site with well point systems may be required. If open pumping will be completed, care should be taken to construct a suitable sump outside of the bridge abutment areas. A sump should consist of a slotted pipe large enough to house a submersible pump, extended deep enough such that when it is pumped out, the entire excavation will be drained. Pumps are typically suspended a minimum of 12 inches above the bottom of the pit in order to provide room for sediment. The slotted pipe should be surrounded by a much larger mass of free draining gravel. A 'A inch washed rock could be considered to develop the sedimentation zone. A larger sedimentation zone will reduce water velocities, allowing fines to settle out prior to entering the slotted pipe and mechanical pump. Periodic cleaning and maintenance of the sump should be anticipated. Drainage ditches should be constructed outside of the immediate work area to allow for collection of the infiltration waters and feeding of the sump. It may be necessary to construct shallow ditches around the perimeter of the bridge abutment excavations in order to help intercept any infiltration water before it enters and flows laterally across the interior of the excavation to reach the drains. Ditches should be filled with free-draining gravel to reduce the potential for erosion and sloped to provide positive gravity drainage to the sump. If larger water flows are encountered, socked perforated pipe should be installed within the free-draining aggregate in the collection ditches in order to facilitate drainage to the sump. Geote-ha:cal Subsa ace Exploration Repa:a Dia homhsnn In est:neat 13rid_e overwestet-n ASuc:a Ditch Peckham, Colorado So9o_ef: _: 11-1101 6 Careful observation of seepage waters should be completed at the start of pumping. If excessive fines are observed being transported up from the bottom or out of the sides of any excavation, pumping should be stopped and the excavation flooded until methods to reduce soil migration can be employed. Footing Foundations Based on results of the completed field and laboratory testing, it is our opinion the bridge abutments and wing-walls could be supported on conventional spread footing foundations bearing on natural, undisturbed, medium stiff to stiff lean clay or medium dense clayey sand. Careful evaluation of the proposed foundation bearing materials should be completed at the time of construction to help insure the bridge abutment and wing-wall footing foundations will be supported on like materials with suitable strength. Depending on the conditions encountered at the time of construction and if more extensive zones of soft clay or loose silty sands are encountered at that time, construction of a suitable working platform may be required. For design of footing foundations bearing on suitable soils outlined above_ we recommend using a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,500 psf. If higher allowable soil bearing pressures are preferred, overexcavation'replacement with select granular fill could be considered. We would be happy to provide recommendations concerning overexcav-ation-'replacement procedures at your request. Exterior footings should bear a minimum of 30 inches below finished adjacent exterior grade to provide frost protection. We recommend formed strip footings have a minimum width of 12 inches in order to facilitate construction and reduce the potential for development of eccentrically loaded footings. Actual footing widths should be designed by a qualified engineer. Care should be taken to avoid disturbing proposed foundation bearing materials prior to concrete placement. Sloughed soils or soils disturbed by the construction activities should be removed and replaced or reworked in place prior to concrete placement. We estimate settlement of footing foundations designed and constructed as outlined above and resulting from the assumed structural loads would be less than 1 inch. Geo:echnical Subsurface L>:plcrs:icn Report Li_ Thompson Inv csnnent Bridge over Western Mudal Ditch Peckham. Coler::d.o Soilogic :r 11-1109 7 Differential settlement across the structure could approach the amount of total settlement estimated above. ,Abutment Construction Abutment backfill materials should consist of approved LV'C materials, free from organic matter and debris. The on-site lean clay and clayey sand could be used as fill in this area. Materials consistent with Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) class 7 specifications could also be considered for use as backfill in this area. Fill soils should be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9-inches thick, adjusted in moisture content and compacted to be at least 95% of the material's standard Proctor maximum dry density. The moisture content of the backfill soils should be adjusted to be within the range ±2% standard Proctor optimum moisture content at the time of compaction. Care should be taken during construction to avoid disturbing the exposed subgrade soils and placed backfill materials. Materials, which are loosened or disturbed by construction activities or which are allowed to become wet and softened or dry and desiccated, should be removed and replaced or reworked in-place prior to placement of any overlying improvements. Soil Retention Areas of soil retention are anticipated for the abutment walls. We recommend weep holes or other appropriate drainage systems be installed on the retained soil side of the retaining walls to reduce the potential for development of unbalanced hydrostatic loads. Retaining wall backfill should consist of approved LVC soils free from organic matter and debris. Based on results of the completed field and laboratory testing, it is our opinion the site lean clay and clayey sand could be used as backfill in these areas. If importing of soils is required, materials consistent with Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) class 7 specifications could also be considered for use. Bridge abutment backfill should be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick, adjusted in moisture content and compacted to at least 95% of the materials standard Proctor maximum dry density. The moisture content of the backfill soils should be adjusted to within=2% of standard Proctor optimum moisture content at the time of compaction. Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Report Rio Thompson lnveslnr;:t Bridce over AVestor n A Sut1ual Ditch Peckham. Colorado Sot] is = 11-11(,P) S Excessive lateral stresses can he imposed on retaining walls during- when using heavier mechanical compaction equipment. We recommend compaction of bridge abutment wall backfill be completed using light mechanical or hand compaction equipment. • For design of abutment walls protected from hydrostatic loading and backiilled as outlined above, we recommend using an active equivalent fluid pressure value of 40 pounds per cubic foot, in addition to any surcharge loads. The equivalent fluid pressure value outlined above is based on an active stress distribution analysis in which some rotation of the retaining wall is assumed. If the bridge abutments will be tied at the steel girder connection, we recommend using an at-rest equivalent fluid pressure value of 60 pounds per cubic foot, in addition to any surcharge loads for restrained conditions. We expect the bridge abutment walls will need to be designed to withstand additional surcharge loads from heavy tntck traffic. The active and at-rest equivalent fluid pressure values outlined above assume dry conditions. Buoyant soil unit weights should be used for those portions of bridge abutment walls expected to experience submerged conditions. Lateral movement of retaining walls would be resisted by passive earth pressures and frictional resistance between the retaining wall foundation and bearing soils. A passive equivalent fluid pressure value of 300 pcf could be used for that portion of the wall extending below grade and above ditch and groundwater levels. A passive equivalent fluid pressure value of 125 pcf could be used for that portion of the wall extending below grade and below ditch and groundwater levels (submerged conditions). A coefficient of friction of 0.33 could be used between foundation concrete and bearing soils to resist sliding. The equivalent fluid pressure values, and coefficient of friction outlined above do not include a factor of safety. Surcharge loads on the retained soil side of the walls or point loads developed in the wall backfill can add to the lateral forces on bridge abutment walls causing the equivalent fluid pressures used in design to be exceeded. Draina?e Positive drainage should be developed away from the bridge abutment areas. Water which is allowed to pond adjacent to site improvements can result in unsatisfactory performance of those improvements over time. Geareehnic l Suhsurf ec [zploratiou Report Thompson Ircestme_u Brid_c eV cr AVestern Atuial Ditch. Raab:b.m. Colorado ScUccic = 11-1199 9 GENERAL CO\1\IENTS This report was prepared based upon the data obtained from the completed site exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis and any other information discussed. The completed borings provide an indication of subsurface conditions at the boring locations only. Variations in subsurface conditions can oc:ur in relatively short distances away from the borings. This report does not reflect any variations which may occur across the site or away from the borings. If variations in the subsurface conditions anticipated become evident, the geotechnical engineer should be notified immediately so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any biological or environmental assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants or hazardous materials or conditions. Other studies should be completed if concerns over the potential of such contamination or pollution exist. The geotechnical engineer should be retained to review the plans and specifications so that comments can be made regarding the interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. The geotechnical engineer should also be retained to provide testing and observation services during construction to help determine that the design requirements are fulfilled. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with the generally accepted standard of care for the profession. No warranties express or implied, are made. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should not be considered valid in the event that any changes in the nature, design or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, unless those changes are reviewed and the conclusions of this report modified and verified in writing by the geotechnical engineer. G:foteclnical Subsurface 6:p]uratio❑ Repot: Ri_ Ihonn,>on Investine t Bridle over Western Atcc: l Duch Peckh m. Cobr_!o So:!o_ic = 11-1 :09 ;0 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions coucennne the enclosed information or of v.e can be of further assistance to you in any way. please do not hesitate to contact us. Very Truly Yours, Soilonic, Inc. Reviewed by: r�OO REG/S, ')-\: 2... 4w_o�%Pg0 LI0tNN h -( (. / Lib,/ Wolf von Carlov itz, P.E. Darrel DiCarlo, P.E. Principal Engineer Senior Project Engineer U I �X L5 • s:SG1'2u't 475.9:. o S V � � J r. • lS� LV I - _ !-\\ IQ g\ m frillI z=a /:S I N \ o m cc 3 O '' I ' `'A �c, z cc 10 Z = U Y U d o f Q W Q e LC j :i w C O Q m¢ o S 't n � 'o i ail _0 _U n O j d7 O Q c)‘ O Lgi l_ J F: Q D �. z \o C O E y CO U ;- o I 0 on J s H W Z LJ J O cc O J \ ILI Q Q z - I Q o H < o D u7 v Z S Q� Q 'Ct N Z Vi N w D Q oy, \ i- o °d") N. Li O N O H S�Jy/\U7 >- o v'7 D Q G \" O „ DI_ u Q W U - -) " O ------ Z o Cr \\ E-. 0 N. z 1 WESTERN MUTUAL DITCH BRIDGE LOG OF BORING B-1 PECKHAM, COLORADO Project# 11-1109 SO LOGIC January 2012 .. CLL—_0 I. 56666 D6,62 '< ...__ F,n6sh C.-re 122Y2 7:re Su:r666.e. =i=' =_ -.e' Ssell 4d Passing N e: (/) SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth '9 ",V" MC DO q, 9e SwellPressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (R) (°£) (pu`l (psfl 500 PS!. 'Ps') LL PI t=;t 2 06 SC 3 CLA:E0 S4.] .c 5 Cs 9 I 11.2 1 117.9 I 6400 j 0I:ne I O30;e1 j 20 J 16 I 3'S-5 10 CS 24 9) - I NA - SP.0.14SAND r.ith rarying amounts It CI SILT,CLAY sri GRAVEL =se 6-6,- 14 1s SS 13 I 12.9 I • NA I - I - I 17 23 55 6 12.=.3 I I 1'.A I - I - 25 WESTERN MUTUAL DITCH BRIDGE LOG OF BORING B-2 PECKHAM, COLORADO Project# 11-1109 S0 LOGIC January 2012Sot ` �7 _0 1 1 StartD to 1,12 2 =o rT 4:.C :Durtna Dr -a Finish Date 1.122012 Hammer 7A se_ Automatic r Druma 8' Sca-ta:e Elea I.FieLit Person-el LLD o Days •CCI co U e:r,ne�-e Shell % Passing co SOIL DESCRIPTION Depth = "N" 1.'C DD q„ /Swell g. Pressure Atterberg Limits #200 Sieve (ft) (`6) (pci) (psi) 500 psf (psf) LL PI (`:1 2 LELII CLAY 50 o 0 CLA,EY 5 Cs 16 172 109.6 I 8100 0 3% 900 psf - laC2.^_ma�G.R'Y3 - e 10 CS 11 12.1 • . SAPID v:iLh varying amounts of SILT,CLAY and GRAVEL csl y:ay ':2 Ars_is me:om c=_-s 13 15 55 21 11.0 • WA I • - _0:10120F eca11.G F.= 0 21 WESTERN MUTUAL DITCH BRIDGE PECKHAP.1, COLORADO Project # 11-1109 January 2312 S\VELUCONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 -- - -' __ - -----'- ---- - ---------- - —--- --o s - - - - --- . _ -2 •ausrettraz .- — a - U 9 — '—_ __ T-- - - -12 . -.- _, 10 1T0 t000 10CC0 100000 Applied Load (psf) Sample ID: B-1, S-1 @ 4' Sample Description: RusUBrov:n/Beige Clayey Sand Initial Moisture 11.2',6 Liquid Limit 23 -— Final Moisture13.3% Plasticity Index 11 95 S'.ell @ 500 psf None % Passing x`200 - 37.4% Sr:ell Pressure <500 psf Dry Density 117.9 pcf SO LOGIC WESTERN MUTUAL DITCH BRIDGE PECKHAM, COLORADO Project= 11-1109 January 2012 SWELUCONSOLIDATION TEST SUMMARY 12 a -- to 6 ' — 4 -_..— ei -1z 10 100 1D�C0 irl" coo 1C9C00 Applied Load (psi) Sample ID: B-2, S-1 (rJ 4' Sample Description: Rust/Brown/Beige Sandy Lean Clay to Clayey Sand Initial Moisture 17.2% Liquid Limit - --.Final Moisture 18,7% Plasticity Index - % Seven © 500 psf 0.355 % Passing x200 - S.vell Pressure 900 psf ! Dry Density 109.6 ref SO LOGIC UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS) Ss', - I e,e - ts6a5 _, _, - r c. e-es cs C J ....' e' r I lac_ .._ ;'33.-; c.c.s Gle^ C css1c deb's" lag"'y G ycr c sc.s ecsra r— .- �3 .c ;nT te e .. •�' es-w-- .3 1 a 5rresarcae 5 c''-03 a trac a saw S s s 777-1 1 _ I /I _IL_ 3-3 I 2 I n.a...__e.._c.Is Coarse Orcred 5:Is c. Q%(,5�� er,e•e•_r �_L,- - oe se I eras;tr - `5-0 VerySoR 0-a Ver5Lcrsc '•e_.+ ed 509-;,:,],] Soft I 5.g Lase .. _. ..e tee-, 131-2030 Ne 5SC` p e . r 9-12 5 _ . I 2001-4003 5 r I 13G. y e D t 9 4001 80005 Sr c s p s a c. Very 5 ei 31 5G se l c- ^ sort e s o be ex c re,. 5CCI ._.G3 Very Nerd I _3 Le-se Very F;I-yF R k yphly .. __.ed m.. scree xa I B -.- - . . __APPROACH APPROAGL .,__ I STEEL GIRDER BO T T0,V ELAi GE B: DACE 1 I I I i I 'I rI L I I I I `II I I r I I _..,___I I JL 11 :TT:2, 1 l'ilj-I-7-11-ti i in-Ln‘ 'H- I II I I=E--' '. • � /IE u u s f o I '- • I �lii 1l '-111 IV - III I _ I ' _II • II III %. i cam ' .z I I• III II III jl z Ili. . n" � �`o Ill Ill � CANAL I. o , I� O o 6.I � i-/ 1 Iii— I % ��—,;' , I, r � T n % li 1 V c. c.s I— Ili I I—I 11 I II— I -1 I ' III i I� 111=7 _1—_____,I V! II 111 J • i I , ,,. I '. I H l � j B �� V l© � I II Il ill Ill X11 �_I- III - , i II II II , � , 1 —� MN o r C 3.0 Cr ID Cr Cr a o' ® v F I eC 1.5 20.0' 1.5 ec' CROSS SECTION A(A) I?.0' 2.0' O C,' -fj li / DIVIDER GUARD RAIL GUARD RAIL zz I z ~ H z0 a C01�' CET DECK clp o I � I . -32 C. T /FL o f STEEL GIRDER BOTTOM FLANGE BRACE _----------Pr / H LLI. ca _ p CAN AL D 77 SHEET • 3 ® CROSSSECTIONB B- 1 IOFI �mom� CLIENT\a>IE Hello