HomeMy WebLinkAbout20093777.tiffJune 19, 2009
•
. . (Ph).402.496:2498 •
' (Faa) 402496.27316
• Weld County Public Works
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
REFERENCE: Proposed Lonester Disposal Facility
WCR 49 and WCR 34, Weld County, CO
Traffic Impact Analysis
LRA Job No. 0208037.00-011
Lamp, Rynearson & Associates, Inc. (LRA) has completed the preliminary analysis and traffic
study for the proposed new Lonestar Disposal Facility along WCR 34, between WCR 49 and
WCR 51, in Weld County, CO. The new Lonester Disposal Facility is proposed to be located on
the south side of WCR 34. Conversations were conducted with the Weld County Public Works
Department to discuss aspects of the traffic study. Through these discussions, two
intersections along WCR 34 were selected to be included in the analysis, the intersections of
WCR 34 with WCR 49 and WCR 53. As part of the analysis, traffic counts were performed at
these intersections in the study area and each intersection was assessed from a traffic safety
and operational stand point. As part of the traffic analysis, the projected increase in traffic on
the intersections was to be noted and discussed, as well as the existing geometry of the
intersections. This report summarizes the process and findings that were developed from this
analysis.
Proposed Lonester Disposal Facility Characteristics
Information was obtained specific to the proposed Lonestar Disposal Facility that would
be pertinent to the traffic analysis. The facility is proposed to be located on the south
side of WCR 34 approximately 2,300 feet east of the intersection of WCR 34 and WCR
49, in Weld County, Colorado. The site is planned to have four to six employees and will
have planned hours of receiving from 7:00 am until .7:00 pm. The site layout for the
facility calls for one access from WCR 34, with vehicles and trucks entering the site and
exiting the site on the same access road. The proposed location, as well as only having
one access drive, will be discussed later in the report. The site will primarily be
accessed on a daily basis by two types of trucks, WB 50's with 38 ton loads and some
Bobtail trucks with 28 ton loads. Based on conversations with the owner, Lonestar, LLC,
and plans for the site, there are plans for only 60 trucks to access the site on a daily
basis. This is due to the size of the facility and the constraints of the water disposals
based on the size of the tanks and the time it takes for the operations to be completed.
This would mean that there would be a total of 60 round trips by trucks from the site, a
truck entering the site to unload the captured water and a truck exiting the site once the
truck has completed the unloading. Thus, on a daily basis there would be 60 truck trips
from the site, exiting, and 60 truck trips to the site, entering. There would be a few other
. Bnemering ..1 PlaTttg. •Surveying ' 3D Services • L'andacaix Ap iioQ"ttge t. • ' Constiiiction.A ynintsiration i OIS •/d/cep aa0y 9- 3T77
PL02.03/
Proposed Lonestar Disposal Facility
WCR 49 and WCR 34, Weld County, CO
Preliminary Traffic Impact Analysis
LRA Job No. 0208037.00-011
June 19, 2009
Page 2
from the site, exiting, and 60 truck trips to the site, entering. There would be a few other
trips during a typical day from the employees on staff, but there would be very little traffic
that would result from the someone other than an employee or a truck, due to the
extremely unique nature of the business. Conversations were held with the owner of the
proposed site to determine where the trucks would be coming from to unload the
collected water. The owner indicated a large amount of the traffic to the proposed facility
will be coming from the Guttersen Ranch, which is located to the east of the proposed
disposal site. The Guttersen Ranch a large number of wells, so there would be a
considerable amount of traffic from the ranch to the proposed site. From looking at the
surrounding roadway network, it is believed that trucks coming to the site, not from the
ranch, will be using WCR 49 since it is a paved roadway and it runs both north and south
of the proposed site.
Data Collection
Lamp, Rynearson and Associates conducted traffic counts at both of the intersections on
Thursday December 18, 2008. The traffic count was performed to collect data from both
the morning and evening hours. The AM period of data collection was from 7:00 am to
9:00 am and the PM period was from 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm. The traffic volumes were
collected in 15 minute intervals throughout the two hour period. Based on the traffic
counts, the peak hour was calculated for the two intersections. The peak hour during
the AM period was determined to be from 7:00 am to 8:00 am, with the WCR 49
intersection have a total of 281 vehicles travel through the intersection. The PM peak
hour at this intersection was from 4:00 pm to 5:00 pm, with a total of 343 vehicles
traveling through the intersection. The traffic totals at the WCR 53 and WCR 34
intersection had a considerably lower amount of traffic as compared to the WCR 49
intersection. The AM peak hour at the WCR 53 intersection occurred between 7:30 am
and 8:30 am, where only 12 vehicles went through the intersection. The PM peak hour
at this intersection was calculated between 4:30 pm and 5:30 pm, with a total of 13
vehicles traveling through the intersection. Based on this information, the peak hour for
the two intersections was the same as the peak hours at the WCR 34 and WCR49
intersection, due to the much greater amount of traffic using that intersection. The total
volumes observed during bath of these peak hours at the three intersections are
included in Figure 1 for the AM peak hour and Figure 2 for the PM peak hour.
Proposed Lonestar Disposal Facility
WCR 49 and WCR 34, Weld County, CO
Preliminary Traffic Impact Analysis
LRA Job No. 0208037.00-011
June 19, 2009
Page 3
Future Traffic Projections
While the traffic counts provide a representation to the existing traffic conditions, it is
also prudent to look at the anticipated future traffic conditions on the roadways near the
study area. In order to analyze the future traffic conditions, the existing traffic volumes
found from the traffic counts had to be adjusted to future years. For this study a short
term future analysis was conducted, five years in the future, so a year 2014 analysis, as
well as a long term future analysis, a year 2030 analysis. Specific growth rates were not
found for the various roadways and intersections, so a traditionally accepted annual
growth rate of 2.0% was used to increase the background traffic volumes. Using this
growth rate, the traffic volumes for the AM and PM peak hours from the traffic count
were calculated for a year 2014 scenario and a year 2030 scenario. The total volumes
calculated for the AM and PM peak hours for the year 2014 scenario are included in
Figures 3 and 4, and the year 2030 scenario in Figures 5 and 6.
Existing Roadway Assessment
In addition to collecting traffic volumes at each of the intersections and observations in
regards to the flow of traffic, both of the intersections and WCR 34 in the study area
were driven and analyzed to determine any needs for improvements or any existing
deficiencies. A summary of each intersection is included below:
WCR 34 and WCR 49
This is a traditional T -intersection or three legged intersection that is
currently unsignalized. WCR 49 runs both north/south through this
intersection, while WCR 34 only runs to the east of this intersection. On
the west side of this intersection are two access drives for private
property that see very little traffic. Both WCR 34 and WCR 49 are asphalt
paved roadways at this intersection with paved shoulders as well, WCR
34 is stop controlled at this intersection. Both WCR 34 and WCR 49 are
two lane roadways at this intersection, with one lane of traffic for each
direction. There are no dedicated turn lanes at this intersection. Based
on the site visit, it does not appear to be any apparent operational
deficiencies or sight distance problems at this Intersection.
WCR 34 and WCR 53
This intersection is also a T -intersection or three legged intersection that
is unsignalized. Both WCR 34 and WCR 53 are two lane unpaved gravel
roadways at this intersection. WCR 53 is the roadway that heads north
from this intersection. There is an access drive on the south approach of
this intersection, but it is a private drive and is clearly marked with "keep
out" signs and as a vehicle approaches the intersection on WCR 53 there
Proposed Lonestar Disposal Facility
WCR 49 and WCR 34, Weld County, CO
Preliminary Traffic Impact Analysis
LRA Job No. 0208037.00-011
June 19, 2009
Page 4
is an right arrow sign telling the vehicles to make a right turn and head
west on WCR 34. The east leg of the intersection leads into the
Guttersen Ranch, so WCR 34 doesn't head anywhere to the east of this
intersection other to this ranch. There are no stop signs currently at this
intersection. The intersection is flat and wide open so there does not
appear to be any sight distance problems at this Intersection.
WCR 34
In the study area, WCR is a two lane roadway that runs from WCR 49 to
WCR 53 and theoretically terminates at both of these intersections. WCR
34 is a paved roadway with paved shoulders from WCR 49 to
approximately 1/2 mile east of the proposed disposal site, at this point
WCR 34 turns into a two lane gravel roadway to WCR 53, The profile for
WCR 34 was obtained for analysis as part of this study because there is
an existing hill near the proposed site that has the potential to have
insufficient sight ,distance for access roads improperly located near this
hill. Sight distance analysis was part of the overall layout of the proposed
site design. Preliminary designs had two access drives, but proper sight
distance could not be provided at both access drives, so one access point
locate almost at the peak of the existing hill was selected for the proposed
layout because it provided the necessary sight distance for the access
drive. The current location of the access drive allows for perceived sight
distance concerns.
Based on the traffic counts taken in December of 2008, the average daily
traffic currently on this section of WCR 34, between WCR 49 and WCR
53, is estimated to be 270 vehicles during a 24 hour period. Thls was
calculated by taking the highest peak hour total from the traffic counts, the
PM peak hour with 27 vehicles on WCR 34 near WCR 49, and using the
common engineering practice that the peak hour represent 10 percent of
the average daily traffic on a roadway and multiplying the peak hour total
by 10.
Intersection Analysis
An analysis of all the unsignalized Intersections capacity performance was performed
using Synchro 6.0. Synchro is a macroscopic traffic software program that replicates the
signalized intersection capacity analysis as specified in the 2000 Edition, Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM). Macroscopic level models represent traffic in terms of
aggregate measures for each movement at the intersections. Equations are used to
determine measures of effectiveness such as delay and queue length. Effect of queues
was observed with SimTraffic simulation,
Proposed Lonestar Disposal Facility
WCR 49 and WCR 34, Weld County, CO
Preliminary Traffic Impact Analysis
LRA Job No. 0208037.00-011
June 19, 2009
Page 5
Observations of traffic volumes provide an understanding of the general nature of traffic
in the area, they are insufficient to indicate either the ability of the street network to carry
additional traffic or the quality of service provided by the street facilities. For this reason,
the concept of level of service (LOS) has been developed to correlate numerical traffic -
volume data to subjective descriptions of traffic performance at intersections. Each lane
of traffic has delay associated with it and therefore a correlating LOS. The overall LOS
of a signalized intersection is made up of the weighted average delay for each lane of
traffic for all of the approaches.
LOS is a measure of effectiveness for intersection operating conditions, and is based on
delay experienced by vehicles passing through the intersection. LOS ranges from "A" to
"F", with LOS "A" representing little or no delay, and LOS "F" representing extreme
delay. LOS "C" or better is considered desirable, LOS "D" being acceptable in some
urban situations. The qualitative definition of each category can be found in the
Appendix. The following Table 1 shows the intersection LOS Criteria for both signalized
and unsignalized intersections. (HCM 2000):
Table I — Intersection LOS Criteria
X10 ands 20 seconds
X20 and 5 35 seconds
>35 and 5 55 seconds
>10 and s 15 seconds
>80 seconds >50 seconds
In both the existing and future background conditions the intersections are anticipated to
operate at efficient and acceptable levels of service. In the background conditions, all of
the movements except one are anticipated to operate with a LOS of A in both the AM
and PM peak hours. The one movement that is not anticipated to operate with a LOS of
A is the westbound movement at the intersection of WCR 49 and WCR 34 In all of the
background PM peak hours. In all three PM peak hour background conditions, this
movement is anticipated to operate with a LOS of S. The LOS and the anticipate
average of delay per movement for all of the background analysis are included in
Figures 13-15.
For the full build -out scenario, the trips anticipated to be generated from the proposed
site were distributed based on the current traffic volume patterns and the surrounding
roadway networks. Some of the traffic could travel to the site from WCR 53, but most of
the traffic will be heading to the site from the east, from the Guttersen ranch, or from the
west using WCR 49, since the roadway goes both to the north and south of the
Proposed Lonestar Disposal Facility
WCR 49 and WCR 34, Weld County, CO
Preliminary Traffic Impact Analysis
LRA Job No. 0208037.00-011
June 19, 2009
Page 6
proposed site. As was discussed previously, there is no way to precisely distribute the
traffic in a manner that would represent the distribution for each and every day of the
year due to the variance of the well sites, so using the roadway layouts in surrounding
area, along with engineering judgment, the trips were distributed. Based on the
operations of the site, there are 60 daily truck trips that will be coming to the site and
leaving the site. The design of the site and the actual process of unloading and loading
the water, both at the disposal site and drilling site, limit the number of trucks that can be
loading or unloading at the same time. Trucks would be spread out throughout the day
and the operations would be coordinated so that arriving trucks would have access the
site and not have to wait to for other trucks to unload their water. Based on this, a more
likely scenario would be averaging the total daily truck trips over the twelve hours of
operation for an average of 5 truck trips per hour, with the peak hours could have more
trips than the other hours. This would equate the peak hours having more like two times
the trips as the other hours, so roughly 10 to 15 truck trips during the AM and PM peak
hours. For the peak hour analysis for this study, 15 new truck trips were determined to
be used in the AM and PM peak hour full build -out analysis. The distributed trips are
included in Figures 7 and 8. The distributed trips were then added to the calculated
background trips to form the full build out trips for each peak hour of each design year.
Figures 9-12 include the full build -out volumes. The intersections that are currently
unsignalized were analyzed to see if traffic signal warrants would be met in the future
and no signal warrants are anticipated to be met in any of the future full build -out
scenarios, thus the intersections were again analyzed as unsignalized in the future full
build -out analysis.
When comparing the background scenarios to the full build -out scenarios, there is only
one instance where an individual movement changes in LOS between the background
and full build -out scenarios. This is the westbound movement at the intersection of
WCR 49 and WCR 34 in the year 2030 full build -out AM analysis with the LOS changing
from a LOS of A to a LOS B between the background and full built -out scenario. All of
the other movements are anticipated to operate with the same LOS and relatively the
same amount of anticipated average delay per vehicle from the background conditions
to the full build -out scenarios. Figures 16 and 17 include the delays and LOS for each
individual movement in the full build -out scenarios. In all of the full build -out scenarios,
the proposed site access drive is anticipated to operate with a LOS of A and the average
delay in seconds per vehicle is anticipated to be 9 seconds. This was for both the AM
peak hour and PM peak hour in the full build -out scenarios. Signal warrants were
checked and were not met at any of the intersections in any of the future full build -out
scenarios. It should be mentioned again that while even using unrealistic trip generated
trips for the AM and PM peak hour, much higher than what will occur in the peak hours,
the analysis shows that each of the intersections in the area are anticipated to operate at
a very efficient level.
Proposed Lonestar Disposal Facility
WCR 49 and WCR 34, Weld County, CO
Preliminary Traffic Impact Analysis
LRA Job No. 0208037.00-011
June 19, 2009
Page 7
Conclusions
• Based on the results of the Synchro analysis, the future full build -out scenarios are
anticipated to operate with same level of efficiency and have relatively the same amount
of average delay per vehicle as compared to the background or no build conditions. For
the analysis, 15 site generated trips were used in the AM and PM peak hour full build -out
scenarios.
• The current planned location for the access drive and site layout should allow for the
necessary sight distance to be provided for the vehicles on WCR 34 and the proposed
site access drive for the disposal site. The existing profile of WCR 34 was analyzed and
several sight layouts and access drive locations were studied and did not meet the
necessary sight distance requirements. By limiting the site to one access drive and
moving this drive as close to the existing peak of the WCR 34 profile, proper sight
distance should be obtained. The radii and the design of the access drive should allow
for trucks to enter and exit the site in an efficient manner.
• The existing roadway network should be sufficient to adequately handle the increase in
the truck traffic generated from this site. None of the intersections where traffic counts
were collected had any sight distance concerns.
• Based on the anticipated future background volumes and the trips generated from the
proposed site, it is believed that warrants for dedicated right or left turn lanes or
acceleration or deceleration lanes would not be met on any of the roadways in the study
area based on this proposed site exclusively. The traffic on WCR 49 at the intersection
of WCR 34 is 326 vehicles in the peak hour, while the traffic on WCR in the area of the
proposed site is 27 in the peak hour, the addition of 15 trucks in the peak hour will not
warrant new lanes or result in a large amount of conflicts based on the low background
traffic in the area. If other development was to come along in the area along WCR 34 or
WCR 49 that was to increase the traffic significantly, the findings may be different.
• Weld County has made it clear that Weld County right-of-way shall not be used for any
staging activities associated with any operations at the proposed facility.
Proposed Lonestar Disposal Facility
WCR 49 and WCR 34, Weld County, CO
Preliminary Traffic Impact Analysis
LRA Job No, 0208037.00-011
June 19, 2009
Page 8
Thank you for this opportunity to provide you with our traffic engineering services, If you have
any questions, please feel free to call Dan Hull at (970) 356-6362 or myself at
(402) 496-2498.
Sincerely,
LAMP, RYNEARSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Matthew L. Kruse, P.E., PTOE
Senior Project Engineer
Enclosures
NO SCALE
WCR 34
t8
ir0
m
1 t
a
LEGEND
OUnsignallzed Intersection
Through Traffic Lane
Turning Traffic Lane (Right or Left Lane)
-Jr- Law,
Ryneatsan & Associates, Inc.
SITE
148 AM Traffic Volume
FIGURE 1
2009 AM PEAK HOUR
BACKGROUND VOLUMES
1.17/08 2444 PM
NO SCALE
WCR 34
ce
C]
ce
L1c
It* r7 � h C O
tr
O N
N
LEGEND
larLamp, Ryncarson & Associates, Inc.
0 Unsignalized Intersection
dlin Through Traffic Lane
Turning Traffic Lane (Right or Left Lane)
SITE
2 -t
0
148 PM Traffic Volume
Signalized Intersection
so
-7
FIGURE 2
2009 PM PEAK HOUR
BACKGROUND VOLUMES
6J77AC 3,14 PM
NO SCALE
re
L _
WCR 34
LEGEND
C
4—
L9
n
IL'or°
Unsignallzed Intersection
Through Traffic Lane
Turning Traffic Lane (Right or Left Lane)
g i Lamp, Rynearson Si. Associates, inc.
o
4) '
jr
3�
SITE
148 AM Traffic Volume
La
- 4
FIGURE 3
2014 AM PEAK HOUR
BACKGROUND VOLUMES
d7TNB 3:Y PM
NO SCALE
ce
It*
WCR 34
LEGEND
0 Unsignalized Intersection
Through Traffic Lane
r
ti11
v o
r$ «� �►
Turning Traffic Lane (Right or Left Lane)
at. Lamp, Rynearson & A.ssoaeatcs, inc.
2 j
SITE
PM Traffic Volume
Signalized Intersection
o
FIGURE 4
2014 PM PEAK HOUR
BACKGROUND VOLUMES
MTN9:44 PM
NO SCALE
ce
7o 12
WCR 34
LEGEND
O
Ito
Unsignalized Intersection
In
c
Through Traffic Lana
Turning Traffic Lane (Right or Left Lane)
z ILLamp, Ryncarson & Associates; 1rtc.
SITE
AM Traffic Volume
FIGURE 5
2030 AM PEAK HOUR
BACKGROUND VOLUMES
_ f
d1MO 141 PH
hi
NO SCALE
re
WCR 34
LEGEND
C
4-
ltme 15
r"
Er
Linsignalizad Intersection
Through Traffic Lane
Turning Traffic Lane (Right or Left Lane)
Lamp,
Ayncarson & Associates, Inc.
� a
4*
SITE
3 j
0 -
PM Traffic Volume
*a
11
FIGURE 6
2030 PM PEAK HOUR
BACKGROUND VOLUMES
17i 41x1 PM
NO SCALE
t
WCR 34
r2 7ii° 1*
O -O _
LEGEND
OUnslgnallzed Intersection
Through Traffic Lane
Turning Traffic Lane (Right or Left Lane)
J la Lamp, Rynearson & A6soct8Iesr lac.
SITE
140 Traffic Volume
-t
10
4m! 10
FIGURE 7
AM PEAK HOUR
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
J
60700 VAI AM
NO SCALE
WCR 34
LEGEND
O
4-
N
f t*
Unsignalized Intersection
Through Traffic Lane
Turning Traffic Lane (Right or Left Lane)
J�A Lamp, Rynearson &. Associates, Inc.
146 Traffic Volume
FIGURE 8
PM PEAK HOUR
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
I\I
NO SCALE
WCR 34
t1 14, r2 ri°
14 _
c_o
1rf
rn m
LEGEND
I Unsignallzed Intersection
Through Traffic Lane
Turning Traffic Lane (Right or Left Lane)
Lt_. Los p, Ryneorson & Associatea, Inc.
11wo
SITE
143 Traffic Volume
t
o 411 14
14
C
1 J
13 iimipp
FIGURE 9
2014 AM PEAK HOUR
FULL BUILD -OUT VOLUMES
dEIVI.SAM
NO SCALE
ce
WCR 34
LEGEND
OUnsignallzed Intersection
Through Traffic Lane
r
13
�� 19
r11 r 10
firs ��
10
i7 b
Turning Traffic Lane (Right or Left Lane)
kliIl1k, Lamp, Jtynearson & Assoclatea, Inca
a mit
SITE
10
14e Traffic Volume
ce
Isms 1e
FIGURE 10
2014 PM PEAK HOUR
FULL BUILD -OUT VOLUMES
NO SCALE
ap
er
WCR 34
16
*u 12
I r2 r10
0-0 _
is am.
6�
L _
LEGEND
OUnsignalized Intersection
Through Traffic Lane
Turning Traffic Lane (Right or Left Lane)
iIL-Lamp, Ityneaxson & As4clates, Inc.
2 wit
SITE
16 ^�
148 Traffic Volume
ti 0
16
FIGURE 11
2030 AM PEAK HOUR
FULL BUILD -OUT VOLUMES
IMAM
NO SCALE
cn
v
♦Y
WCR 34
17
Cr1 'IL .11r 26
Ir14 r10
ro S4
LEGEND
OUnsignalized intersection
Through Traffic Lane
Turning Traffic Lane (Right or Left Lane)
iji I
ILIA Rynea[snn Si Associates, Inc.
CD o
LD
SITE
10
148 Traffic Volume
0
4ios 21
FIGURE 12
2030 PM PEAK HOUR
FULL BUILD -OUT VOLUMES
NO SCALE
ce
WCR 34
EL GEND
C
c
Unsignalized Intersection
Through Traffic Lane
Turning Traffic Lane (Right or Left Lane)
Lartp, iynearson & As odates, Inc.
c)
AM LOS/Delay (PM LOS/Delay)
FIGURE 13
2009 AMIPM PEAK HOUR
BACKGROUND TRIPS LOS/DELAY
!117109]:II PIA
NO SCALE
CC
tS
WCR 34
LEGEND
OUnsignalized Intersection
imam Through Traffic Lane
4-
A9(B10)
0
O
d
Turning Traffic Lane (Right or Left Lane)
Iii. Lamp, Rynearson 6 Associates, Inc,
SITE
A2(A7) Elk
AU(A0)
AM LOS/Delay (PM LOS/Delay)
FIGURE 14
2014 AM/PM PEAK HOUR
BACKGROUND TRIPS LOSIDELAY
SO PM
NO SCALE
o')
et
CC
WCR 34
LEGEND
O
Unsignalized Intersection
B 11 (B 11)
C
C
4e Through Traffic Lane
Turning Traffic Lane (Right or Left Lane)
Alk. Tamp, Rynearson & Associates, inc,
A2(A7)
SITE
A0(AO)'
AM LOS/Delay (PM LOS/Delay)
FIGURE 166
2030 AM/PM PEAK HOUR
BACKGROUND TRIPS LOS/DELAY
1/171Gil 7:N PIA
N
NO SCALE
en
ce
A4(A3)
A9(B10)
WCR 34
A0(A0) Irk 411r°
a
a a
0 oa
LEGEND
O
Unsignalizad rntarsacllon
Through Traffic Lane
Turning Traffic Lane (Right or Left Lane)
kgI IJIJ Lamp, Ryncasscn Sa Associates, Inc.
SITE
i1/47(B 13)
A1(A1) 4,
.AO(A0)
AM LOS/Delay (PM LOS/Delay)
FIGURE 16
2014 AM/PM PEAK HOUR
FULL BUILD -OUT LOS/DELAY
VAN 1042 III
ji I
f3i1
knit
9BY9 BBE'010
d I Z9EB'99E'01B
4EA08 O3 'AelewD
Iooil9 1119 BOB
00YS0103. '1O11100 013M
UNKLS3N01
S31VIOOSSV '3
NOSMNA8 d1V1
NM 101d
11103dS A0 3511
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: WCR 34 & WCR 49
6/17/2009
Movement WB>_.: WBR NBT :; NBR _ SBL SBT
Lane Configurations 4
5lgn Control • Stop Free _ Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Volume (vehfh): 0 8 108 4 6 155.
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly.flow rate (vph) 0 9 117':: 4 7 168
Pedestrians
ene Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None ;:
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
VC, conflicting volume 301 120
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
1vO2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol_ 301 120
tC, single (s) 6:4 6.2.
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF.(s) 3.6 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 100 99 100
`Al capacity (vehln) 687 932 1466
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SS 1
Volume Total _ 9 122 175
Volume Left 0 0 7
Volume Right ' - 9 - 4 -0
cSH 932 1700 1466
1lolume to _Capaclty ' 0.01 .0.07 : 0.00
Queue Length (ft) 1 0 0
control Delay (s) 8.9." .i.0,0 _ 0.3
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 8.9 0.0 0.3
Approach LOS A
Intersection: Summary :.
Intersection Capacity Utilization 23,0°la IOU.Leve€ of Service .
Average Delay
p ty
Analysis'Period (min) 15
122
122
4.1
AM 2009 Background Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
Lamp, Rynearson & Associates
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
B; WCR 34 & WCR 53
6/17/2009
—or
IMhovement - EBL EST WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations 4 t'D.
_ ....... . .......
Sign Control :;� Free Free Stop
.t
Grade 0% 0% 0%
ti!olut ,e:;(veh/h} _,; 1 3 4 0 0 3
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly=flow rate(vph) i, 1 3 4 0 0 , $
Pedestrians
cane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (Ws)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
VC, conflicting volume 4 _ 10 : 4
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
VC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 4 1D 4
tC, sfngle:(s).::.... 4,1 6.4._ . 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF:(s1 : `-°,: ::' - - 2.2 3.5 • 3.3
p0 queue free% 100 100 100
CM capacity:(veh/h) , , 1617 1010 1079
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total - 4 4 8
Volume Left 1 0 0
Volume Right_ 0 ..0 3
cSH 1617 1700 1.070
Volume to Capacity 0,00 0_.00 0.00
Queue Length (ft) _ 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 1.8 0.0 8.3
Lane LOS A A
tpproach Delay (s).:_ 1.8 0,0 8.3
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
,Intersection Capacity Utilization •••
Analysis Period (min)
None :.
I
2.9
:..:.g 13.3%
15
ICU Lever of Service
AM 2009 Background
Lamp, Rynearson & Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: WCR 34 & WCR 49
6/17/2009
Movement
VI/BL VVBE NBT NBR SBL SBT •
Lane Configurations
Sign Control Stop Free .... Free'
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Volume (veh/h).. _ 7 10 7 205
.. 2 ,....
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0,92 0,92 0.92 0.92
;Hourly.flow rate,(vph) 8 11 • 223 - 2' 8 `? 121
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent B#ocicage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) -
pX, platoon unblocked
VC, conflicting volume 360 224 225
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 360 224 225
#C, single (s) 6,4 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF($L. . . _ 3.5 .3.3-
p0 queue free % 99 99
CM Capacity (vehih) 635, 816
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 18 225 128
Volume Left 8 .0 8 —
Volume. Right 11 2 0
cSH 730 1700 '1344
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0,13 - 0.01
Length (ft) 2 0 0 Queue
;Control Delay'(S) 10,1 0.0 0,5
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s) 10.1 0.0 06.
Approach LOS B
intersection summary
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity_UtIll4atian 21
Analysis Period (min)
41
2.2
99
1344'
0.7
15
CU :Levehof:
Service
PM 2009 Background
Lamp, Rynearson & Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6/17/2009
6:WCR34&WCR53
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control
Grade
.Volume (veh/h)
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly flow rate-(vph) : 2
Pedestrians
Lane Width ft
Walking Speed (ftls)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median. type
Median storage veh)
,Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
VC, conflicting volume 8
v01, stage 1 conf vol
;vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 8
tC, single (s):,:: _
->
tC, 2 stage (a)
tF (s) 2,2
po queue free % 100
'cM capacity (vehih) 1613
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total. 2 S
Volume Left 2 0
Volume Right .: 0 : ' 0
eSH 1613 1700
Volume to Capacity : 0.00 0.00
Queue Length (ft) 0 0
o -
8.4:.
Lane LOS A A.
Approach:Deray (s) 72 `0,0 = 8.4:::
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
0.92
Free Free ::. Stop
0% 0% 0%
0 7. Da. 4
0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
0' B D. D.. . .•4
None.
12. 8
12 8
_5A 6.2.
3.6 3.3
100 100
1006 1075
4
0..
4
1075
0.:00
0
3.7
13,3%
15
ICU Level of Service
PM 2009 Background Synchro 6 Report
Lamp, Rynearson & Associates Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: WCR 34 & WCR 49
6/17/2009
Movement
c
WBL
I
WBR NBT :NBR
SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
nControl
Grade
Voiurne (Veh/h) 0 9 119.
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0,92 0.92
Hourly. flow rate (vph) 0.: 10 129:
Line AM (ft)
Walking Speed (Ws)
percent Blockage'
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type. ne
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)_
pX, platoon unblocked
VC, conflicting volume 333 132.
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2 : stage 2 conf;Vo)
vC u, unblocked vol 333 132
tC, single (s)... ..6.4 .... 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tl='(s) ..._ 3.5
p0 queue free % 100
OM capacity (veh/h) 669 Direction, Lane # . WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
1yol,un e Total . 10 134 193
Volume Left 0 0 8
Volume Right . 10 4 0
cSH 918 1700 1451
Volurne to:Capacity 0.01 0,08 0.01
Queue Length (ft) 1 0 0
Control Delay s
Lane LOS A A
Approach -Delay (s) 9,0 0,0 0.3
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
intersection .Capacity. Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
......
Stop Free •
0% .0%
0.92
4
4
Free'
0%
7 171
0.92 0.92
8 186
134
134
4.1
2.2
0.5
24:7%
15
ICU.'Level 0f.Service
1
AM 2014 Background Synchro 6 Report
Lamp, Rynearson & Associates Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6:WCR34&WCR53
6/17/2009
Movernent
Lane Configurations 4 II
Sign Control Free Free Stop:":
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Volume'(veh/h) 1 3 4 ....:;:,0
Peak Hour Factor 0:92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow:rate;(vph) 1,::., 3 .4 :',..:0 0 3'=.
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed Otis)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream slgnai.(ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
VC; conflicting volume 4
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
VC2, stage 2 conf Vol
vCu, unblocked vol 4
tG, single (s)...... 4.1
(C, 2 stage (s)
:IF (s) 2.2
pD queue free % 100
'cM capacity (vehih) 1617
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 4 4 3
Volume Left
Volume Right 0 0 3
cSFI 1617 1700 1079
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00
Queue Length (ft) 0 0 0
!Control Delay (s) 1.8 0.0 8.3
Lane LOS A A
Approach belay: (s) 1.8. . 0.0 6.3
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
intersection Capacity U ization 3.
Interne 3%
Analysis Period (min)
ESL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
None
10 4
1
10 4
6.4 6:2
3.5 . 3:3
140 100
1010 1078.
1 0 0
AM 2014 Background Synchro 6 Report
Lamp, Rynearson & Associates Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: WCR 34 & WCR 49
6/17/2009
Movement WBL WBR NBT, NBR ,SBL SBT
Lane Configurations 'i 4
Sign Control Stop ... ... Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Volume (vehlli) 8 11 226 2 8 ::.122
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0,92 0_.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate.;(vph,) ' 9 ...' 12 246 .2 9 133
Pedestrians_
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
ll slrearn signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
1vC, •conflicting volume
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
yC2 stage 2conf vol
vCu, unblocked_ vol 397 247
1C; single (s).: :i0.4 6,2
tC, 2 stage (s)
(s) 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 99 98
cM capacity (vehlh) 504 792: ii
DirectIon, Lane# WB 1 NB 4.,SB.;1
Voturne`Iota -21 248 ' 141
Vc me Right
Capacity
Queue Length (ft) 2
',Contro Delay ($)' • 10.3.
Itt!ipp_roach.Deley (s) 10.3 ... 0,0 • ...0.:5 :.:
•
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
Nona
•397 247
_2413
248
• '.4.1
2.2
99
1318
0,7 _
23,Q% „ _ICU Level of Service
15
1
PM 2014 Background
Lamp, Rynearson & Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
H CM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: WCR 34 & WCR 53
6/17/2009
4/
Movement EBL EBT WBT,.. WBR SBL.:::SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign Control •
— -
Grade
1o�urrie (yehfh) 2
Peak Hour Facto r 0.92
totui1y-flow rate (vph:):; 2
Pedestrians
LaeiW`idth.(ft)
Walking
g Speed (ffls)
percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Mercian type
Median storage veh)
,Upstream signal.(ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
1'C, conflicting volume B
vat, stage 1 conf vol
i/C2, stage 2:ponf vol
vOu, unblocked vol
tO, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tt= (a) 2.2
p0 queue free % 100
cM capacity (vehlh) 1613 •
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume'Total : _ : 2 • • B 4
Volume Left 2 0 0
Volume Right : :::.:' : 0
0 4
cSH 1613 1700 1075
VaiUme to Capacity . 0,00 0.00 0.00
Queue Length (ft) 0 0 0
Control Delay (sL _ 7,2 0,;0 :::8::4
Lane LOS A A
'Approach; Delay (s)_ 7,2 .0,o . 8.4
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary.:...: ...
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
8
4.1
4 I V
Free Free . :. - Stop
0% 0% -.. - ... 0%
:.la • 0 a 4
0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
0 8: • 0 a 4
None
12
12 8
•6.4. 6.T..:.
3,5 ; :3.3
100 100
1006 1075
3.7
13.3% . :..ICU Level of Service
15
PM 2014 Background
Lamp, Rynearson & Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: WCR 34 & WCR 49
6/17/2009
c
Movement WBL WBR NBT :NBR SBL..:: SBT
Lane Configurations
Sign Control:. Skip
Grade 0%
Volume ehih
Peak Hour Factor 0.92
Huurty flow::r te:(vph}' :::. °:::.;0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ftls)
Percent Blcick
.. kage
Right
turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
vC1, stage 1 conf val
vC2,:stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 458 182
tC, single.(s)
6.4.. 6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF"(s) •
,4
5 -..:3:3
1
p0 queue free % 98
cM capacity (vehlh)'
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
./cilume Total 13 185 266
Volume Left 0 0 10
!alarms light - 13 7 0:
cSH 861 1700 1390
Volume to Ga.p-a.: lty : 0.02 0.11. 0.01
Queue Length (ft) 1 0 1
Control-belay(s) 9.2 0.0
0.3
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 9.2 0.0 .0.3 .
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay a5
Intersection Capacity:Utllization .29,7°!o ICU Level of Senilcee
Analysis Period (min) 15
None
458 'l82
Free
0%
164
185
185
4.1
2.2
99
1390
4
Free •
0%
236
AM 2030 Background Synchro 6 Report
Lamp, Rynearson & Associates
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6/17/2009
6: WCR 34 & WCR 53
Movement EBL EBT WBT; WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Sign .Control -
Grade
Volume (veh,h) . 2 '...... 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 . 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92
Haurly.flovu rate (vph) 2 5 :7 5
Pedestrians
Lane Width .(ft)
Walking Speed (ftis)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
,lip trearh signal (ft}
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, canflicting'volume 7
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
VC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 7
tC; single (s ._.. _.. 4.1.
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 .3.3
p0 queue free % 100 99
Dm capacity (veh/h) 1614 1001 1076 . .
Direction, Lane # . " , ; EB 1 WB 1 SB 1 .
Vol Total
Vo Righ 0 0 5
cSH 1614 1700 1076
Volume to Capacity 0,00 0;00 0,01
Queue Length (ft) 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 2.1 _ 0.0 8.4
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 2.1 0.0 8.4
Approach LOS A
Intersection Sumrnary:.:
Average Delay 3.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 13,3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
l _ '
4 7
Free Free Stop
0% 0% 0%
None
16. 7
16 7
AM 2030 Background Synchro 6 Report
Lamp, Rynearson & Associates Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: WCR 34 & WCR 49
6/17/2009
Movement ;.:•WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations 4
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Volume (vehlh) : x'11: 15 312 3 11 .. 169
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 __ 0.92 L 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
,Hourly flow rate (vph). 12 16 339 3 12 184
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage.
Right turn flare (veh)
Mediantype- .. None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
!Cr'; conflicting volume 549 = 341 342
vC1, stage 1 cent vol
/C2V stage 2 cent vol :.
vcu, unblocked vol 548 341 342
G, single (Sy
6.4 162 g 1
tC, 2 stage (s) -
tF (s) :..: 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free % 98 98 99
cM capacity (vehlh) . :,492 702 '"121.7
Direction, Lane# WB 1 . NB 1.
Volume Total 28 ::: 342 196
Volume Left 12 0
Volume Rignt = 16
cSH 595 1700
Volume to Capacity : 0,05 Q:20'
Queue Length (ft) 4 0
rGontrol Delay (s) - 11;4 0�0
Lane LOS B
Approach Delray :(S) ..11.4::.'4!.,i,.-
Approach LOS B
IntersectIon Summary
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
SB1.,
12
1217
06::
A..
06
0.8
27.9%
15
PM 2030 Background
Lamp, Rynearson & Associates
ICU Level of Service
A
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: WCR 34 & WCR 53
6/17/2009
4/
Movement EBL EBT WBT . .WI3R SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Sgr.iControl_ ,
Grade
Voiume (vehrh)
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly flow rate:(vph)'
Pedestrians
Lane Width ft
Waking Speed (ftls)
Percent Biockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Med€an type
Median storage veh)
,Upstream si9nal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
�rC� oriflicting volume 12
VC2,
vCu, unblocked vol 12
tC sf rigle..(s _ ' 4.1
IC, 2 stage (a)
If {s 2.2
p0 queue free o0 100
',oM capacity`(vehfh) 1607
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1.
Volume Total 3 12 7.
Volume Left 3 0 0
Volume Right _ 0 Q;. 7
cSH 1607 1700 1069
Ualume to_Capacity .Q;00 0.0.1_ 0.01
Length
Queue Len th (it) 0 0 0
;Control Delay
(A __ A s) 7.2 0,0... 8 .4 - -
Approach Delay {s) 7.2 0.0 8,4
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity• Utilization •
Analysis Period (Mn)
4 '
Free Stop Free ...
0% 0% 0%
0.92 0,92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92
3 :Q 12 Q 0 7
None
16 12
18 12
6A 6.2
3.5 3;3
100 99
997, 1069
3.6
13:3%
15
ICU Level_ of Service
:A..._.
PM 2030 Background Synchro 6 Report
Lamp, Rynearson & Associates
Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: WCR 34 & WCR 49
6/25/2009
Movement :. WBL:,.',WBR NBT : ;NBR SBL 1 i,SBT;.I;
Lane Configurations
Sign Ccntrol
Grade
VolLime (vehlh} �4 ,; =2
Peak Hour Factor 0.92
Hourly flowrat_ a (vph) ?
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft} _
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent l3iockage :;
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type -:.:None°
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)..E
pX, platoon unblocked
4C, conflicting volume
vC1,. stage 1 conf vol
CVC2 stage;2 conf Vol
vCu, unblocked vol
p, single(s)
tC, 2 stage (s).
IF -(6)
340
Stop ..
0%
t
Free
- . 0% ,.•
:12 1,1„9 fi
0.92 0.92 0.92
°:13 129.....'
`",.,;1.33..;
133
p0 queue free % 100 99
cM capacity (veh/h) _ 6 1 917 ..
0.92
Free
0%
0.92
6
136
4.1
99
1 X348
Direction," Lane # Wb 1 NB.I SB 1
Volume Total :..15: 136 197
Volume Left .. _ . 2 0 11
Volume Right : 13
7 ..'0
cSH 866 1700 1448
lolume to Capacity - .0.02 0.08 0.
Queue L.engln (ft) 1 0
pane05e
rolay ($)-...... 9.2 :..... 0.0 0.5
A
A
pproach: Delay (s) _ ` ' 9.2; : 0.0 0.5.
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary ,
Average Delay 0.7
intersection Capacity Utilization 27,2% ICU Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 15
_
AM 2014 Buildout Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
Lamp, Rynearson & Associates
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6/25/2009
3: WCR 34 & Lonestar Site Drive
Moverrient
Lane Configurations
Sign Control
Grade
i1/olurife tvei�fh
Hourly flow rate
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ftls)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Medfan typ;:.
Median storage veh)
ppstrearn signa[ (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
GC; conflicting volume
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
UC2, stage 2 •canf vol
vCu, unbtcoked vo1
tc, singre.(s) . .
tC, 2 stage (s)
kP (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (vehlh) -
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total
Volume Left
foiume Right
cSH
Iolume to Capacity
Queue Length (ft)
ControlDelay (s)
Lane LOS
approach Delay
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
lr terseotiion Cepa
Ana#ys Pe (m
`r wr
EBT EBS WBL WBI NBL NBR
Free
0%
17
17
4.1
. 2.2
99
1600
EB 1 WB1,,N,B1
17..-...-21 16
0--- 11 5
5 . ;. a. f 1_
4
Free Stop
0% 0%
02
0 1 1
0.0 3.8 8.6
A A
- 0.0 3.8 8.6
A
None
46 15
46 1;a
6.4 6.2
3.6 3.3
99 99
957 1065
4.0
7% CU Lev Servi
AM 2014 Bulldout
Lamp, Rynearson & Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: WCR 34 & WCR 53
6/25/2009
—+ 4 —
Movement EBL EBT :::WBT WBR .. SBL 5BR
Lane 4
5 gn Contra Configurations• Free Free Stop ..:.....
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Volume (vehfh) 1 13 14 0 0 3
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
,Hourly flow rate (vph) 1 14 15 0 '0 3
Pedestrians - -
Land . __... _._,..,.
Wldfh (ft)
Walking Speed (ftls)
Percent Blockage .
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
stream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
rC, conflicting volurne°'
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
iC2, stage 2 cod vol
vCu, unbiocked vol 15
tC, .single (s] 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2
p0 queue free °/a 100
cM capacity (vehfh) 1603
Direction, Lane# EB 1 WE 1 SB 1
Volume Total _ 15 15 - 3
Volume Left 1 0 0
Volume:. Right _ 0 ° 0 3
cSH 1603 1700 1064
Volume to Capacity 0,00
Queue Length (ft) 0 0 0
;Control Delay (s) 0.5 0,0 8.4
Lane LOS A A
ApproachDelay (s) :0 5
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
1.0
13.3%
15
32 15
6.4 6.2
3.5 3.3
100 100
982 1064
•
IOU Level of Service
AM 2014 Buildout Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
Lamp, Rynearson & Associates
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: WCR 34 & WCR 49
6/25/2OO9
Movement
,1NpL WBR NBT NBR . SBL ;-SBA ;..:.
Lane Configurations --
Sign Control • Stop Free :Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Volume (veh/h)-" 11 13 226- ,;. 5 10 122 : r:
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0-92 0-92
Hourlyflaw rate (vph) 12 14 245 5 11 133
Pedestrians
Lai56 Width (ft) -
Walking Speed (ft/s)
percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median •type
Median storage veh)
,Upstream sighai.(ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
:vC, conflicting volume 403 248
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
,C2,.stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
LC; single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tr CS) 3.5 3,3
p0 queue free % 96 98
`cM capacity (voh/h) 699 790
Direction, Lane* . WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 26 251 143
Volume Left 12 0 11
iVolume,Rig.ht- 14 6 _ : 0 ...
cSH 689 1700 1314
Volume to Capacity 0,04. 0.15 0.01
Queue Length (ft) 3 0 1
Control De_iay10 .O- (s) .4 0 . 0.7
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay (s) 10,4 0.0 0:7
Approach LOS
Intersection Summa
Average Delay 0.9
intersection Capaolty Utilization 24.7% ICU Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 15
I
None
403 248
6.4 6.2
251
251
41 .:
22 .::...
99
1314
1
PM 2014 Buildout Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
Lamp, Rynearson & Associates
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6/25/2009
3: WCR 34 & Lonestar Site Drive
�-- "i► 4\ p
Movement :_ ;:,;EBT EBR ;.WBL WBT;;r'NBL:: NBR,
Lane Configurations
Sign Control
Grade
limnp {vehlh
Hourly flow rate (up
Lane.Width (ft)
ercent Blookage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
,C conflictng volume
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
''C2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
ICS sin ie (s)
queue free %
capacity (vehlh
Free :
0%
4 V'
Free Stop
0% 0%
-..10 ,."1g 5
11 21
None
16 56 1
16 56 14
4.1: 6.4 6,2 -
99
D1
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total, 16 32 16
Volume Left O 11 5
/Volume Right . 5 . 0 11_
oSH 17OO 1601 1023
Volume to -Capacity 0.01 0,01 0.02"
Queue Length (ft) O 1 1
Control Delay (s} 0.0 2.5 8.6
Lane LOS A A
pproach Delay..(s) 0.0 2.5 8.6
Approach LOS A
intersection Summary
Average Delay 3.4
Intersection Capacity Utillaation 18..2%
Analysis Period (min) 15
ICU Level of Service
PM 2014 Buildout Synchro 6 Report
Lamp, Rynearson & Associates Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: WCR 34 & WCR 53
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL . .SBI
6/25/2009
Lane Configurations 4 '14
Sign Control Free Free
Grade 0% 0%
1olume (veh/h) 2 10 °,1.8,.' : •'' :'0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 11 -20 0
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (Ws)
percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
;vC, conflicting volume 2O 35 20
vC1, stage 1 corn' vol
,vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 20
tC, single (s) - 4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2-2
p0 queue free % 100
cM capacity (vehth) 1597
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 13 20 4
Volume Left 2 0 D
Volume Right 0 0 4
cSH 1597 1700 105B
Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.01 0.06
Queue Length (ft) 0 0 0
;Control Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 8.4
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 8.4
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary -
ntersectonlCapacity Utilization .:...__.ay 1.4
Intersection ..lo._.Se_..
Average
•.=73:3./0: ` :.°• '-;,,ICU Level°of �Servloe
Analysis Period (min) 15
Stop
0%..
0.92
None
0.92
35 20
6.4 6.2
3.5 °;33
100 100
977 1058
PM 2014 Bulldout Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
Lamp, Rynearson & Associates
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2:WCR34&WCR49
6/25/2009
Movement ` ,.WBL WBR NBT::' . NBR , ;:SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
S1gn Control Stop...:.:: ;... Free •
Grade 0% 0%
Volume (vehfh _°2 15 1-64 8
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
rHourl flow rate (W�1):......'::2 16 • 178
9
Pedestrians
ne Widkh (ft) ,
Walking Speed (ftis)
rcert Soc age
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type 'None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
•vC :confIicting_volume
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
v'C2, stage 2 cortf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
$C, single (s) .......
tC, 2 slags (s)
3,5
p0queuefree
3,3
% 100 98
cM,capacity (vshih) 550 860
Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1
VoiI me Total
Volume Left
1Voiume Fight F
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Queue Length (ft)
Control Delay (Si'
Lane LOS
'Approach play (s)
Approach LOS
tntersecticn umtnary
Average Delay
Interseatlon Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
465 i83
' 465 183
18: 187 270.
2 0 13
.9
806 1700 1387
0.02 0,11 ;0.01.:2 0 ..
2 0 1
9.6 0,0 0.4
A
4
:Free
0%
0.92 0,92
13....,:. 257`
187
187
4.1_
99
1387
•:I
0.6
CU Le
32.2% I �� i Level of Servir;e
�
15
AM 2030 Buildout
Lamp, Rynearson & Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6/25/2009
3: WCR 34 & Lonestar Site Drive
Movement EBT '.,,EBR :: W9L:.;..:UWBT .;.: NBL NBR
Lane Configurations - _ID 4
Sign Control Free Free Stop
V l:ume (vefif)i) 15 5 ID : = 12
!-IourJy'flowrat (vp
Lene Widifi fff)
Walking Speed (ftls)
reraent' alocltage``°-
Right turn flare (veh)
M diantype
Median storage veh)
,Ups.tream°sEgnal_(ft) _
pX, platoon unblocked
rc, conflicting volume
vC 1, stage 1 conf vol
\ C2, stage:.2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
lC, single (s)..
IC, 2 stage (s)
p0 queue free °Jo
cM capacity (yehlh)
6 "1 13 5.
None
22 54 19
22
4.1
2t2
99
1594
Direction, Lane# iEB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 22 '24— 1.6
Volume Left 0
Valurrre_Right
Volume paci 0.02
Queue Length (ft) 0 1
;control Delay.( ) 0.0 3,3
P.pproach De�ap
Approach LOS
Intersection Sumrriary
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity u tiliz
11
5
54 19
6.4 6.2
.3.5.=, 3.3
99 09
946 1059
3,5
17.9%
1mm5
ICU Level of Service
A
AM 2030 Buildout
Lamp, Rynearson & Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: WCR 34 & WCR 53
6/25/2009
Nip 4/
Movement . , EBL EBT. WBT. WSR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations 4 i+ V
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Vaturne (veh/h)_ 2 15 16 0 0 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
dourly flow rate (vph)
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ftls)
Percent Blockage
:Right turn flare (vein)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) __
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 17 38 - 17
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
1x02, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 17
tG, single ()_ 4.1
tG. 2 stage (s)
(s) 2.2.
p0queuefree % 100
cM capacity (veh/h) 1600
Direction, Lane # EB 1 . WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 18 17 5.
Volume Left 2 0 0
Yalu me Right:_, : 0• 0 6
cSH 1600 170D 1061
Volume to Capacity. 0:00 0.01 0.01
Queue Length (ft) 0 0 0
Control Delay (s) 0.9 0.0 8:4
Lane LOS A A
Approach Delay O :0.9 "0.0 8;4
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
None
38 17
6,4: 6.2
3,5 - 3.3
100 99
1001
1.5
13.3% . ICU Level of Service.
15
AM 2030 Buildout
Lamp, Rynearson & Associates
Synchro B Report
Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: WCR 34 & WCR 49
6/25/2OO9
Movement :)IVI3L VVBR NBT NBR '. SBL ` .,SST ,,, a:•:
Lane Configurations y 4
&g/yn Control Stop :Free -r . Free --
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Volume (vehil ) „4 17 312 6 13 169 k
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92
Hoiirlyno* reto-(vph) 15 18 33p 7 14!;:!:.: 184..,.: -
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ills)
percent Biock ..
9e
Right turn flare.
(veh)
Median type • None
Median storage ven)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, ,cantilcting volume. 554. 342
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
stage 2 porif vol
vCu, unblocked vol 554 342
lC, single (s) 6.4 6.2
tC 2 stage (s)
xF (:°: o - 3.5 3.3
pal queue queue free 97 97
`cM cepaeity (veinln) 487 ::.700
Direction, Lane # WB 1`, ' NB.1 SB 1
Uoltirhe Total 34 345 .195
Volume Left 15 0 14
Uolurrie Right i
cSH 585 1700 1213
'Volume to. Capacity ° 0.05 0.29 0.01
Queue Length (ft) 5 0 1
Control Delay -(s) 11.5 0,0 0,7
Lane LOS B A
"Apprgach Delay_(s)_,,_ -. 11.5 0.0 0,7__
Approach LOS 13
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Utiihation
Analysis Period (min)
346
3.46
99
:' 1213
0.9
29.6%
15
ICU_ Level; of Service.:
PM 2030 Buildout
Lamp, Rynearson & Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: WCR 34 & Lonestar Site Drive
6/25/2009
--r 4_ 4\
Mouement EBT ESR : WBL :1NBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations 1+
sign Ca, ritcol . 'Free
Grade 0%
1 olume �v h/h)
,Hourly flow vp
ane Width ` ft -
PercerrtI3lockage
hlledian type
Median storage veh)
,Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
/0, conflicting volume.:
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
V02, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
te, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s).
p0 queue free °I
cM capacity (veh/h)
.21
21
4.1.
2.2
99
..1595..
Direction, Lane# . EB 1 .WB 1, Na.1
/alone Total 21 39 _ 15
Volume Left D 11 5
U#!i Right 5 0 11
.,./blume Ca aclty
eue Length (it Q 1
ritrot Delay (s) 0.0 2 8.6
'pprgacl Delay (s) 0:,0. 8.6 -
intersection SurrAary
Average Delay 2.9
Intersection Ca elty lizatlo 6% Cu Lev Se ice
Are sls (rn
y
Free, Step
0% 0%
26
68 18
68 18
6.4. 6.2
3.5 3.3
99 99
931 1061
i
PM 2030 Buildout
Lamp, Rynearson & Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6/25/2009
6:WCR34&WCR53
Movement : BBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations 4 t V
,Sign Control Free Free -. Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
lolunie (vehih): _ 3 -10 21 0 0 6
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
urly
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
LMedian type
Median storage veh)
FLlpstreani signal (ft}
pX, platoon unblocked
S,./Conflicting volume - 20
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
VC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblockedvol 23
tC, single (s) 4.1
tF
p0 queue free % 00
cM capacity (vehlh 92
Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 SB 1
Volume Total 14 23 7
Volume Left 3 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 7
cSH 1592 1700 1054
Volume to Capacity 0,00 4-01 0.01
Queue Length (ft) 0 0 0
Control Delays) 1.7 0.0 8.4
Lane LOS A A
approach Delay (s) 1,7 0.0 84
Approach LOS A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.8
intersection Capacity Utilization . 13.3% ICU.Level of (Service
Analysis Period (min) 15
{•
None
40 . 23
40 23
.64 6,2
3.3
I
PM 2030 Buildout
Lamp, Rynearson & Associates
Synchro 6 Report
Page 3
Hello