The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20061799.tiff REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS KITELEY RANCH AT FOSTER LAKE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO LT_ _ TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 2006-1799 LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 1889 York Street Denver,CO 80206 (303)333-1105 FAX (303)333-1107 E-mail: Ise @Iscdenver.com Web Site: http://www.lscdenver.com TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. - September 19, 2005 Mr. Michael Miro - Longs Peak Investors, LLC 7120 E. Orchard Road, Suite 450 Englewood, CO 80111 Re: Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake Weld County, CO _ (LSC #050380) Dear Mr. Miro: We are pleased to submit our revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) report of the proposed Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake development which is to be located in Weld County, Colorado. — This revision reflects changes in land use and replaces our previous TIA, dated May 4, 2005. This traffic impact study first provides a summary of the existing roadways and traffic volumes in the vicinity of the proposed development and a summary of planned improvements to the roadway system. Next, estimates are made of the amount and directional distribution of vehicular traffic likely to be generated. This information is then combined with projected future traffic volumes in the vicinity to evaluate the impact of the new development on the existing and future roadway system and,where appropriate,to make recommendations for the required roadway improvements. We trust that our findings and recommendations will assist in the planning for the proposed Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake development. Please call us if we can be of further assistance. Respectfully submitted, LSC Transporta::on Consultants, Inc. p REGM.`...•cSe 358279 c) 9 Or tel••o • By- a . enjami. . Waldman, .E. BTW/BP/wc Revised — Traffic Impact Analysis Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake Weld County, Colorado Prepared for Longs Peak Investors, LLC 7120 E. Orchard Road, Suite 450 Englewood, CO 80111 Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 1889 York Street Denver, CO 80206 (303) 333-1105 September 19, 2005 (LSC #050380) TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Description Page A Introduction 1 B Roadway and Traffic Conditions 2 — C Traffic Generation 9 D Traffic Distribution 11 E Traffic Assignment 13 — F Traffic Impacts 18 G Access Recommendations 24 - H Conclusions 25 Appendix A: Existing Traffic Appendix B: Internal Capture Summary Appendix C: Level of Service Analyses - LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS - ^ Figure Description Page 1 Vicinity Map 4 — 2 Site Plan 5 3 Existing Traffic, Traffic Control and Lane Geometry 6 4 Year 2010 Background Traffic 7 — 5 Year 2025 Background Traffic 8 6 Directional Distribution of Site-Generated Traffic 12 7 Assignment of Year 2010 Site-Generated Traffic 14 8 Assignment of Year 2025 Site-Generated Traffic 15 9 Year 2010 Total Traffic 16 10 Year 2015 Total Traffic 17 _ 11 Year 2010 Assumed Lane Geometry and Traffic Control 20 12 Year 2025 Assumed Lane Geometry and Traffic Control 21 13 Year 2025 Average Daily Traffic Impacts 23 LIST OF TABULATIONS — Table Description Page — 1 Traffic Generation Estimate 10 — 2 Intersection Levels of Service 22 SECTION A Introduction .. The Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake residential development is planned for a parcel of land located to the southeast of the intersection of State Highway (SH) 66 and Weld County Road (WCR) 7 in the Town of Mead, Colorado. The 137-acre site is proposed to contain about 424 single-family homes and a 20-acre park site. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. has been retained by Long's Peak Investors, LLC to prepare a Traffic Impact Analysis(TIA) of the development, consistent with the require- ments of the Town of Mead and Weld County. This impact analysis identifies the impacts of the development on the surrounding roadway system and describes its access require- ments. Specific steps taken in this analysis process are described below: • A review and analysis of present roadway and traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site. • A determination of the amount of peak-hour and average weekday traffic that would be generated by the proposed development and an analysis of the directional distribution of that traffic on the surrounding roadway system. • A projection of future background traffic volumes on the adjacent street system for Years 2010 and 2025 to estimate short and long term impacts. • A determination of future traffic impacts associated with the proposed f development. These impacts are based upon estimates of the total amount of traffic on the surrounding roadway system in the vicinity of the develop- ment. • A determination of street and access improvements that will be necessary to mitigate the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development. Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake(LSC#050380)_ ) September 19, 2005 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 1 SECTION B Roadway and Traffic Conditions The location of the proposed Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake development is shown in Figure 1. Also shown in Figure 1 are the developments surrounding the proposed site. Figure 2 illustrates the proposed access plan which includes two full movement access points on WCR 7 south of SH 66. Area Roadways Major roadways in the vicinity of the site are described below with a brief discussion of anticipated future roadway improvements. Existing lane geometry and traffic controls are shown in Figure 3. • SH 66 is a two-lane, east-west roadway with continuity from SH 36 on the west to SH 85 on the east. It is classified as a Regional Highway (R-A) according to the Colorado State Highway Access Code. The speed limit in the vicinity of the site is currently 60 mph. • Weld County Road (WCR) 7 is a two-lane, north-south collector roadway with continuity from WCR 26 on the south to SH 60 on the north at the northern boundary of Weld County. Its intersection with SH 66 is currently signalized. • I-25 Parallel Arterial (WCR 5.5) is a four-lane arterial proposed west of I-25 traversing parallel to the highway. The alignment of the future arterial is such that it will replace WCR 7 south of WCR 28, make an "S" curve following WCR 28 to WCR 5.5, and then follow WCR 5.5 to SH 66 (see Figure 1). • WCR 28 is a two-lane,east-west collector roadway with continuity from WCR 13 on the east to WCR 3 on the west. There currently exists a one-lane underpass of I-25 east of the proposed development. It is expected that WCR 28 and the underpass will be widened to a four-lane major collector cross-section by the Year 2025. Existing Traffic Conditions Existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3 and are based on manual peak-hour traffic counts performed by Counter Measures, Inc. in February of 2004. The raw count data is included in Appendix A. Figure 2 also shows existing daily traffic estimates on SH 66 and WCR 7,which were estimated from 24-hour road tube counts conducted by Counter Measures, Inc. in February 2004. SH 66 (west of WCR 7) currently carries about 15,310 Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake(LSC#050380) September 19, 2005 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 2 vehicles per day and WCR 7 (south of SH 66) currently carries about 210 vehicles per day. Future Traffic Conditions Years 2010 and 2025 were chosen as the design years for the project. Year 2010 is the year the proposed project is expected to be built out. Year 2025 is the 20-year horizon used for most long range planning forecasts. Year 2025 background traffic was calculated by applying a growth rate of about 3.4 percent to the existing traffic volumes on SH 66 over 21 years. This growth rate was based on CDOT's 20-year growth factors for this area. Year 2025 background traffic on WCR 7 and WCR 5.5 was adjusted based on the Adlers Estates TM prepared by Eugene G. Coppola in May 2004 and the St. Vrain School No. 5 TM prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. in July 2003. Traffic expected to be generated by the Liberty Ranch development west of the site, the Anderson Farms development south of the site, and the two mixed use developments northeast and southwest of the SH 66/WCR 7 intersection was also added — to the Year 2025 background traffic (the locations of these developments are shown in Figure 1). In addition, we assumed approximately 1,500 single-family dwelling units were planned to be constructed and occupied south of SH 66 and west of WCR 5.5. A portion of this traffic was added into the Year 2025 background traffic which may use the WCR 5.5/SH 66 intersection. Year 2010 background traffic was calculated by extrapolating between existing and Year 2025 background traffic. The resulting Year 2010 and 2025 background traffic volumes are depicted in Figures 4 and 5, respectively. Background traffic does not include the traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development. Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake(LSC#050380) September 19, 2005 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 3 CI. •— Rs o o �� c ? ` U u N Y iv O i 1 't tINS ,j c Ef :. dt y t t � t C— iii,t`. . .DIY +.._ --�,✓ { >' ,, p 20 C — -" ? C it R r\\mil \ c .3 a'.a Apt t� N'S'4.;•‘\4.4, ': ' 4' r » x., t `� �R --it, I it -,.., -7.„, li-,--",1: ::IS:arellrigil - ' ok„,v, il;skiji -jtit .: 9 SDY " 4., ri I wi 4.--, d+.-3as.^, t *... �'ci.—1 r„t' , tA'Al Yt•.,'. A `�\ s,• ` as� i r h !�c v .�•^• i '. # ` I a 0 : ,N r11 !cJ: :(?. :St! :1 ' r ��, �,i4 a 'f .r )x"-• I C M!. ` ' r� a.. , t to,i ti4^ ♦ l .G51,1 )13 I " i b` �.mow. �S _ ' , p i ) 1{ ,y 1 w..,rr .44 r September 19.2005 Page r. w tn ti o _ J d 8 W b _ L V qC K T a L Y N w L21J a � N '4Q 9aeoj adeig - J _ \ S'S 21J _ September 19,2005 Page 5 r to h = M � 1-1' CZ Q)0O 0 E 8 f `" O U Q) Y Y Z ti V OC . Z 72 sz-1 1-1.4 ----„,,, Z U -iel L). - I r- - - _ t) U --)$------ .... , i I — m 7r M t r in•O N r- hIr" (slim T 4� j1� "I' l Y) NIM -. 1-- mom S'S ND Fifil 1 f r` -ii-NIA Olm N *iM O1 Iyi fl F }- Y 3 0 4) J D a Q• O O H (/I I I W I I ii u o Y Y w 2 a 0 2 > a a I a m t cl it 0 II w II a d ` n ma k _ _ itl� -- J el' N y September 19,2005 Page 6 It O V Si v L. r- O �° O c� O Z O " 1,21 _ ta0 t u V QS Y ~—__,— sz-1 O O I,IQM1 010_ MIS 2I2 _ i ...111... Iq. ,nl,n r` rlr 1 ��l 1 r I IF " ;i ,,—., v �I2 alo — i El i ri) .,2MIS O10 r_N M M - j • Nr tal8 s's ND \$) c, MILD /J O CJ C O1O L O — 8 D u u v E 3 3 r SIB . = _ 3 F. . t. F O1O Olin 4 0. F M M F4 1'43 M O ,n to Q F loo Z ui : - p(ember 19,2005 Page 7 N p in - o --, E` a o CZ o tx Q. i ~ i O 0 �0 L V U g II t C4 II Y ``' ____J SZ-I — oII- ',II—N°. �Ir r r'RP M VM .D�O f o _ L t��l aI0 RIP1 )\ — MIN ul :—..,,,) t9 Nr__._. � NICO CO N el i — VI^ n p o, U o 8IM si? r r V 00 1` I --f LID i n r:) \ -1,1 i I ____ I di° M v NI$ Zvi Miisl Ig 01 \ i ' - s.cIJ m aswine Naii co N d t1J into 0 r — ^IN •a Cl r w U y �n rin0 OI0010 r NItrD p p c 8I8 -111.. Olto - o ON n ~ ~ d — r N� `t 7 V ..- ` Z. NIO 812 ' O 0 E Z O — OIN F-149)1 fi l(� .D I.D dJ N �— b n a ,•� t 4 rIN O RItO M O ........ u2jI 0 Q a_ F- 01�? c Z AI — t W II W 0r Z — September 19,2005 Page 8 SECTION C Traffic Generation — The Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake development will contain about 424 single-family dwelling units and a 20-acre park site. The amount of traffic that will be generated by — the development has been estimated using trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in its report, Trip Generation, 7th Edition,2003. The results of the generation analysis are given in Table 1. As indicated in Table 1, the Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake development is expected to generate about 4,104 vehicle- - trips per day (2,052 entering and 2,052 exiting vehicles in a 24-hour period). This would include about 88 vehicles that would enter and 240 vehicles that would exit during the morning peak-hour. During the evening peak-hour, there would be about 280 entering vehicles and 161 exiting vehicles. — Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake(LSC#050380) September 19, 2005 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 9 _ CO CD — r OJ r r Y Lco N C °' a m V w — N 2 N N C a N h = Oco in N — N .C D I- N C u) Cl- _ 2 o7) r- m — L Q -co 0w GO V — d N O V Q CD V O Z — — N O O enc° a) Y 0 Y A C N co of 0 — W ` V a C N m u, . n 2 CD N W W Q n N a Oa C O O O CO in du- es H o 'o in £ 5 ` L c cn y o o I. H `¢5 a = • c N I2 — I C Q ,f C8a c 0) n N W T— CO .c < a o I CI CD 0 F- W lu aj C — Y CO N N � co C .y U) .J... Q O N N — C V h N ID u 1- v c O Q O w = — o o a O N N 2 T V N Y _ 2 a .... o � c - co O c o to - C O N .C N N O N V U m F Z Z c c .1 T — N £ * V D D C I C f0 a ] O V II N LL O N ry —' a N C ii !n J J O p) > 2 N _ C O 0 O .r — it in 0 I— Z ... September 19, 2005 Page 10 SECTION D Traffic Distribution The directional distribution of generated vehicular traffic on the roadways in the vicinity of the proposed Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake development is one of the most important elements in planning its specific access requirements and in determining its traffic impacts on surrounding roadways and intersections. Major factors which will influence the traffic distribution include: • The site's location relative to the population and activity centers in Weld County and the surrounding areas. • The future roadway network serving the area. • The specific access and circulation characteristics of the development plan. Based upon the influences described above, Figure 6 shows the anticipated directional distribution of traffic to be generated by the Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake development for the existing and future street networks. As indicated, it is estimated that 15 percent of the project-generated traffic will be oriented to and from the south on WCR 7 and the I-25 Parallel Arterial; five percent will be oriented to and from the north on WCR 7; 20 percent will be oriented to and from the west on SH 66; 45 percent will be oriented to and from the east on SH 66; about five percent will be oriented to and from the north on County Road 5.5; and ten percent will be trips internal to the nearby mixed use develop- ments. The internal trip percentage was calculated using procedures found in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2004. The calculation table is attached in Appendix B. Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake(LSC#050380) September 19, 2005 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 11 — 4� Q U a ..� 0 to tn E` f� .. O L c� Za •... 4.1 it L. ft •N • - O•_ ♦! c 1� V cu C 1rZ U p ,a; - SZ-I V _ O _ \ L O - r C LLJ NI OC In '-+ .--- L ND .. r. f- 1 f 1 to ,.. -10.• S'S 20 tD tD 1.01 0 c N O 0 C V O -5 L C N = _ 6 V At N i a_ 9. o o O ......... , es i tr) i j_ z lD L III CD L-Yr f l%','''‘ -J September 19,2005 Page 12 SECTION E Traffic Assignment Traffic Assignment Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the assignment of project-generated traffic. The assignment was derived by applying the estimates of the site-generated traffic from Table 1 to the directional distribution of site-generated traffic shown in Figure 6. The assignment varies between the two time horizons due to the extension of the I-25 Parallel Arterial by the Year 2025. These two figures show the number of project-generated vehicle turning movements expected at the intersections of SH 66/WCR 7, WCR 28/WCR 7, SH 66/ WCR 5.5, I-25 Parallel Arterial/WCR 7, as well as the two site access intersections. Background Traffic As mentioned in Section B, background traffic is defined as the traffic on the roadways without any consideration of project-generated traffic. It reflects traffic from surrounding — developments and an "improved" future roadway network. Figures 4 and 5 show Years 2010 and 2025 background traffic, respectively. These figures do not include any of the traffic generated by the proposed development. Year 2025 has been selected as an appropriate analysis year for evaluating future traffic impacts. It represents the time at which the surrounding developments are expected to be completed and roadway improvements made. Total Traffic For the Kiteley Ranch traffic study,total traffic volumes are the sum of background traffic volumes plus project-generated traffic volumes. Project-generated traffic from Figures 7 and 8 has been added to the Year 2010 background traffic volumes from Figure 4 to yield Year 2010 total traffic, with these quantities being represented in Figure 9. Project- generated traffic from Figure 8 has been added to the Year 2025 background traffic from Figure 5, with the resulting Year 2025 total traffic shown in Figure 10. Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake(LSC#050380) September 19, 2005 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 13 O V 15 3 P+ o i ro 4ti N o n1� o CZ W t�.. � V ^^ll v _ Sz-I v, t!j (....,_----.... p.n � Ti _ u m�Y \...... (n'-'_..,, U 4 MIN r ) LaJ — rh I I �I� or I L n (`� _ �� r I MIN •`-Id, _ .._.----"! � � Vf uD VIP (71-- co Di or ssb� Nh'n Nigh COM J 1� M ir N H H 7 a o e _ = r I I M c°,-14411 2 o Q a i z F _ - - w II II; w c .r:e..rt;,%',.,, J CAW) "' September 19,2005 Page 14 v c , d co a N o -- v �* g.=ti c� o F,!...— ''L CZ 1:3 41 W J O L o I—, _ -6J V CU L.) el SZ-1 V) (---------- ol� .r N (rr--- -------'N'\\Ic: vl4 .- via, I I, LLJ Co CI CC 0 •"...144 ________....,„..) _ --- L 21D 92 a0IN 1 ( y 1(..... m i AIM r.IN j !- 1 'nil? — r.l„ \\NN-.^-,.. ,------..") I ___ „ t rIVMIN Ni N S'S�J I IN N 0 NIr` o at = c tf. — =74.'1 I D jt NI� .fU U(1:: Clr 'nlfn , .IN P. O — SIN j Nlrn ~ r.. W ihl hIN n ] 7 0_ = J r i ' a lI �[ O ) Q _ 1r MIN b a a wl�r -20 Q d ,_ ^ r of Z r.. lrJ 0!1 n r; f J_ cV Z d September 19,2005 Page 15 -1.... O al U A w a '` M L' o _ -4 Ig 0 _ III "e tiN til 1' Y O La- 11-3' t CU q oC N d Y SZ-i olo Mil (/'V::--- inl'a r r r, t_ InLn ol Nn _� +._ Okr) J N I r _ - .nl.n \ 12 //I "\\________7) — cn,.� u MIa olo IT r N kn r LID 4l� ',=11° i n r . �l� J ?IN `--_i k-- ! 1 rar, M N I N ( �n .n in +lg Ki,n op *-4r Cl 01101 v ! v wICS ≥ S"S 21D N MIS ) 4 M M = oIo hi L _.--•-••"")O — O IO O OIC OI ol M Mir �... ,n N 2 C m .�-)n o 0 o P in 0 If) —0. , olun N N N I O• o £ L - r I > , o p — MIM 1 t Folg dJ• QI a OIO Olw r Q d C MM mO S; m o inn.nn O 4 d t- i w a 8 — 0 p r is LLI.r.+:r(iv ", J NI"7 ; -- September 19,2005 Page 16 A ~ do O ct o il W CZ Y > o LL 10 L C OLe 715 SZ-I — O.n N m S�IN r.or — '41,rrM_J jIitI r M 218 l0 r M� 4.—N O O — 'n ` 1` N 18 r `n — ,n10 N CO ..... 1818 411 HO I \I COIN tDiryCI In ,nl I i.� 1 U r r ^I,�n a I ___ r r �la _ a o0 I LSD — nit?1,4u$ Pir -lo J 1- SIN — O en N I L �jQ M1� c e.l$ �� j 01 ≥ 12 S'S ID N 1/4O oig N,n — T Stn IN L O Y - I .n o rin D "11'7. 01.n ,nl,n ,n -pp r o ao m r ,nu u c c 4Ig r Nlr,n ( g1J S j k_ h— a. — OIO l •,nlv _) N d ,n�nr N� Olt AIM �— �IN O O C C' ton K M _ = 7 5 st b n�n w.n o o OIM 1i� rIN r N �O�D a a " !.._,OO 8. `�rIN SIT ItoSa O inl8 p `C a , al - Z IA u e — September 19,2005 Page 17 SECTION F Traffic Impacts Level of Service Capacity Analyses A significant methodology for determining traffic impacts is to examine the Levels of Service at the individual intersections and access points that will be directly impacted by a development. To assess the traffic impacts of the Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake residential development, intersection Level of Service analyses have been conducted at intersections in the vicinity of the site. Intersection capacities have been analyzed in accordance with the requirements of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), using the methodology outlined in "Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Capacities". The concept of Level of Service (LOS) is used as a basis for computing combinations of road- way operating conditions. By definition, six different Levels of Service are used (A, B, C, D, E, and F) with "A" being a free-flow condition and "E" representing the "capacity" of a given intersection or traffic movement. Traffic volumes used in the analyses include -^ those from Figures 4, 5, 9, and 10. The lane geometry and traffic controls used in the analyses are shown in Figures 11 and 12 for the Years 2010 and 2025, respectively. The results of these capacity analyses are found in Appendix C and are summarized in Table 2. • SH 66/WCR 7: This signalized intersection is expected to operate at an acceptable Level of Service(LOS"D"or better) during both morning and evening peak-hours through the Year 2025 with or without the addition of site- - generated traffic. • SH 66/WCR 5.5: This intersection will be built as part of the Liberty Ranch development located immediately west of the proposed site. As a signalized intersection, it is expected to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS"D" or better) through the Year 2025 with the exception of the Year 2025 evening peak-hour during both the background and total traffic conditions. It is expected that the intersection will operate at capacity (LOS "E") during this peak period. However, this is primarily due to background traffic on SH 66 as well as traffic generated by the developments adjacent to the intersection. Site- generated traffic from the proposed Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake development is not expected to increase the overall intersection delay at this traffic signal by more than three seconds for any of the Year 2010 and 2025 peak periods. Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake(LSC#050380) September 19, 2005 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 18 • I-25 Parallel Arterial/WCR 7: This intersection is expected to be controlled by _ a southbound Stop sign in the Year 2010. As a Stop controlled intersection, the critical movement is expected to operate at a very good Level of Service (LOS "B") during both morning and evening peak-hours with and without the addition of site-generated traffic. By the Year 2025, growth in through traffic on WCR 5.5 due to its connection to SH 66 will require that the intersection be improved and controlled by a traffic signal. As a signalized intersection, it is expected to operate at a very good Level of Service (LOS "B") during both morning and evening peak-hours with or without the addition of site-generated traffic. • WCR 7/WCR 28: The critical approach at this southbound Stop controlled intersection is expected to operate at an excellent Level of Service (LOS "A") during the Year 2010 morning and evening peak-hours with and without the addition of site-generated traffic. By the Year 2025, growth in background traffic (especially through traffic on WCR 28) will result in a decline of the southbound approach Level of Service to a very good LOS "B" during the morning peak-hour and a good LOS "C" during the evening peak-hour. This is true for both the background and total traffic scenarios. • WCR 7/South Site Access: The critical approach at this westbound Stop controlled site access intersection is projected to operate at a very good Level of Service (LOS"B") during both morning and evening peak-hours through the Year 2025. • WCR 7/North Site Access: The critical approach at this westbound Stop controlled site access intersection is projected to operate at a very good Level of Service (LOS "B") during both morning and evening peak-hours through the Year 2025. Average Daily Traffic Impacts Figure 13 shows the projected Year 2025 weekday project-generated traffic and the projected Year 2025 weekday total traffic as well as the Level of Service "D" capacity of the study area roadways. On SH 66 west of the site, the project-generated traffic is expected to account for approximately three percent of the total 2025 traffic and east of the site it is expected to account for approximately four percent of the total traffic; on WCR 7, south of SH 66, project-generated traffic is expected to account for about 36 percent of the total Year 2025 traffic; on WCR 7, south of the proposed site, project- - generated traffic is expected to account for approximately 15 percent of the total Year 2025 traffic, on WCR 5.5, north of WCR 28, project-generated traffic accounts for 30 percent of the total 2025 traffic, and on the I-25 Parallel Arterial, south of WCR 28, Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake(LSC#050380) September 19, 2005 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 19 project-generated traffic is expected to account for about two percent of the Year 2025 total traffic volumes. Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake(LSC#050380) September 19, 2005 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 20 N OM +-a = :4 4 J # ,V 2 �J L bb 1—yam O •(V e r-- 0 et .. t.' Y N SZ-Iet ci) Lu co J cc - � U —I El _IL \ —11 r, TS 1O _ u, U N A n F o � N Y z r 0 ■ � e September 19,2005 Page 21 3Q • (I) _ a 24* C9- • -V 0y— �, �c ke ti, T a 4j 0 e r y V_ M r^ H — LTV 6. U b J N C _ o sz-I -- 4...) Q) E 0 au V - - J _L_ W co ce -- L ND 1-1x) iiii(1,- I, -- ---1------I A �. - r �,,.✓ S'S ND ko — J"�ll1.�"� I N el -55111 r i b a c 1.1 a, In t p It II Id i ::Z r:,+:''•.‘ —i "m September 19,2005 Page 22 Table 2 Intersection Levels of Service Analysis(1) — Kitely Ranch at Foster Lake Weld County, Colorado (LSC#050380; September, 2005) — Year 2010 Year 2010 Year 2025 Year 2025 Background Traffic Total Traffic Background Traffic Total Traffic Level of Level of Level of Level of Level of Level of Level of Level of Traffic Service Service Service Service Service Service Service Service — Intersection Location Control AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM SH 66/WCR 7 Signalized Eastbound Left A C A C 0 D D 0 Eastbound Through B B B C A B C C Eastbound Right A A A a A A A A Westbound Left A B B D D D 0 D Westbound Through B C B C B D B D Westbound Right B C B C A A A A — Northbound Left C D D D C D D D Northbound Through C C C C C D D D Northbound Right C C C C C D D D Southbound Left C C C C D F D F Southbound Through C C C C C D 0 D Southbound Right C C C C D D D D Overall Intersection Delay(sec./veh.) 14.5 21.4 17.3 26.6 19.0 45.9 27.4 48.7 Overall Intersection Level of Service B C B C B D C 0 - SH 66/WCR 5.5 Signalized Eastbound Left A A B A F D F E Eastbound Through B B B B C E C F Eastbound Right A A A A A A A A — Westbound Left A A A B E F E F Westbound Through A A B A C B D B Westbound Right A A A A a A B A Northbound Left C D C D E F D F Northbound Through C C C C C D C 0 Northbound Right C C C C A A A A Southbound Left D D D D 0 E D E Southbound Through C C C C D F D F Southbound Right C C C C A A A A — Overall Intersection Delay(sec./veh.) 14.2 16.0 15.2 17.8 30.7 56.6 33.2 57.7 Overall Intersection Level of Service B B B B C E C E 1-25 Parallel ArterialmCR 7 Stop — Eastbound Left Control A A A A — -- -- — Southbound Approach A B B B — — -- -- Critical Approach Delay(sec./veh.) 10.0 10.6 10.3 11.0 -- -- — — Eastbound Left Signalized -- — -- -- C D D D — Eastbound Through -- -- -- — A A A A Westbound Through -- -- -- — B C B C Westbound Right -- — -- — A A A A Southbound Left -- -- — — B C B C Southbound Right — -- -- — B B B B — Overall Intersection Delay(sec./veh.) — — -- -- 13.6 18.3 15.2 18.5 Overall Intersection Level of Service -- -- -- -- B B B B WCR 7/WCR 28 Stop — Eastbound Left Control A A A A B B B B Southbound Approach A A A A B C B C Critical Approach Delay(sec./veh.) 9.4 9.7 9.6 9.9 13.4 18.9 13.7 20.8 WCR 7/South Site Access Stop Westbound Approach Control -- -- B B -- -- B B Southbound Left — -- A A — — A A Critical Approach Delay(sec./veh.) — -- 10.6 11.2 — — 11.5 12.2 — WCR 7/South Site Access Stop Westbound Approach Control — — B B — -- B B Southbound Left -- — A A — -- A A Critical Approach Delay(sec./veh.) -- — 11.4 12.0 -- -- 13.4 13.0 Note (1) Using 2000 Highway Capacity Manual(HCM)methodology and Level of Service(LOS)definitions. 1 September 19, 2005 Page 23 cu a h^ M ^ ; v C��?V O E". ;° (yid o Q 3 — U N O et _ N •$— p 1... r C rt O $ S � o O K 00 O M n, O— tri O h in co 3 an M N CO p Tr — l o L 20 M 1 __ Ii f 1 ( { _ I — I. T T P 3 O " u \ In n o It- - I 1 0 U ss)ID S 0 In .4- M p p i to r m eiei .44 O O I v o:_ u O O ,- v o V N v I_ l 0 o a r — O II o O O CM vi op N ":151n LC •' v� t. _ W E 0 M w s — September 19,2005 Page 24 SECTION G Access Recommendations Figures 11 and 12 show the recommended Year 2010 and Year 2025 traffic control and lane geometry at the major intersections serving the Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake development. As shown, both site access intersections will require separate southbound left-turn lanes. The required lengths are 270 feet for the north site access and 220 feet for the south site access and both include a 120-foot taper length. These recommendations are based on Year 2025 total traffic volumes shown on Figure 10 and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) State Highway Access Code, March 2002, assuming that WCR 7 is classified as major collector roadway (NR-C) with a 35 mph speed limit. Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake(LSC#050380) September 19, 2005 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 25 SECTION H Conclusions Based upon the foregoing analysis, the following conclusions maybe made regarding the Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake development: 1. The proposed development will contain about 424 single-family residential dwelling units and a 20-acre park site. These uses are expected to generate about 4,104 total vehicle-trips per day (2,052 entering and 2,052 exiting vehicles in a 24-hour period). These include about 88 entering vehicles and 240 exiting vehicles during the morning peak-hour. During the evening peak- hour, there would be about 280 entering vehicles and 161 exiting vehicles. 2. The development will be served by two full movement site access intersections on WCR 7 south of SH 66. 3. It is estimated that 15 percent of the project-generated traffic will be oriented to and from the south on WCR 7 and the 1-25 Parallel Arterial; five percent will be oriented to and from the north on WCR 7; 20 percent will be oriented to and from the west on SH 66; 45 percent will be oriented to and from the east on SH 66; about five percent will be oriented to and from the north on County Road 5.5; and ten percent will be trips internal to the nearby mixed use developments. 4. Traffic control and roadway geometry assumed for Years 2010 and 2025 are illustrated in Figures 11 and 12. All intersections are expected to operate acceptably through the Year 2025 with the exception of the SH 66/WCR 5.5 intersection during the Year 2025 evening peak-hour. However, these poor operations are primarily due to the background traffic and not due to the traffic generated by the proposed development. 5. Separate southbound left-turn lanes should be constructed on WCR 7 at the two site access intersections. The required lengths are 270 feet for the north site access and 220 feet for the south site access and both include a 120-foot taper length. 6. Traffic associated with the construction of the Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake residential development can be safely accommodated by the adjacent roadway network with the improvements recommended herein. Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake(LSC#050380) September 19, 2005 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 26 APPENDIX A Existing Traffic Count mous 12-12-2004 t+" hotly Sugary For fleet Of February 8, 2004 t** 09:23 PI 2 __Pile: I0204001.P11 Sta: 020957000000 Id: 020951000000 Could: 01 :ityllon: u1D County: IUD acation: S1-66 110 CI-7 Potent: Dir ,uela: 2-1 —liroatios: Ease 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Daily Ikday Rend the Su los He led Ma Fri Sat lug. leg. Ivy. 11:00 - - 29 - - - - 29 29 ` 12:00 - - 19 - - - - 19 19 13:00 - - 10 - - - - 10 10 14:00 - - 17 - - - - 17 11 — )5:00 - - 61 - - - - 68 68 16:00 - - 287 - - - - 287 287 17:00 - - 517 - - - - 517 517 )1:00 - - 627 - - - - 627 627 -- 19:00 - - 501 - - - - 501 501 10:00 - - 376 - - - - 376 376 11:00 - - 367 - - - - 361 367 ▪ **MO - - 419 - - - - 419 419 J0 - - 414 - - - - 414 414 14:00 - - 439 - - - - 439 439 _ 15:00 - - 472 - - - - 472 472 16:00 - - 582 - - - - 582 582 17:00 - - 647 - - - - 647 647 18:00 - - 683 - - - - 683 683 — 19:00 - - 465 - - - - 465 465 20:00 - - 275 - - - - 275 275 21:00 - - 207 - - - - 207 207 -- 22:00 - - 171 - - - - 177 177 23:00 - - 103 - - - - 103 103 24:00 - - 53 - - - - 53 53 - totals - - 7754 - - - - 7754 7754 0 — % lug May - - 100.0 - - - - % lug Day - - 100.0 - - - - u Peak It lone lone 08:00 lone lone lone lone Il Cout - - 627 - - - - PI Peat Ir lone lone 11:00 lone lode loaf lone -- PI Coast - - 683 - - - - CDusl 11/30118 12-12-2004 etf lastly Usury for leek Of February 8, 2004 elf 09:23 Pg 1 _ rile: 90204001.111 Eta: 020957000000 Id: 020957000000 Could: 01 :ityltou: IUD Couty: IUD ;ocatiom: E1-66 1/0 Cl-? lariat: Dir :awls: 1-1 — lirectioa: lest 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Daily Itday head Tile he Sou Tie led ills Fri Sat Avg. Avg. ►vg. 31:00 - - 36 - - - - 36 36 — 12:00 - - 27 - - - - 27 27 13:00 - - 14 - - - - 14 14 14:00 - - 24 - - - - 24 24 — 15:00 - - 69 - - - - 69 69 16:00 - - 124 - - - - 124 124 17:00 - - 491 - - - - 491 491 38:00 - - 719 - - - - 719 719 -I' 09:00 - - 571 - - - - 571 571 10:00 - - 424 - - - - 424 424 11:00 - - 390 - - - - 390 390 -----00 - - 386 - - - - 386 386 .00 - - 425 - - - - 425 425 14:00 - - 411 - - - - 411 411 15:00 - - 426 - - - - 426 426 16:00 - - S57 - - - - 557 557 17:00 - - 578 - - - - 578 578 18:00 - - 662 - - - - 662 662 — 19:00 - - 462 - - - - 462 462 20:00 - - 229 - - - - 229 229 21:00 - - 187 - - - - 187 187 _ 22:00 - - 164 - - - - 164 164 23:00 - - 112 - - - - 112 112 24:00 - - 66 - - - - 66 66 Totals - - 7554 - - - - 7554 7554 0 — k leg lkday - - 100.0 - - - - 4 Avg Day - - 100.0 - - - - .. Al Peak Dr lose lose 08:00 lone lose tone lose Al Cout - - 719 - - - - FI Peak it lose lose 18:00 lose lose lame lose -- PI Cout - - 662 - - - - COUNTER MEASURES -42-12-2004 ttt Weekly Summary For Reek Of February 8, 2004 ttt 09:21 Pg 2 vile: 10204002.PR1 Sta: 020972000000 Id: 020972000000 CommId: 01 j ity/Tova: MEAD County: REED ocation: CI-7 $10 SE-66 Format: Dir .aae/s: 2-1 Direction: North 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Daily Wkday Wkend __Time Sun Mon Tae Wed Thu Fri Sat Avg. Avg. Avg. J1:00 - - - - - - 02:00 - - - - - - "13:00 - - - - - - 4:00 - - - - - - 05:00 - - - - - - -46:00 - - - - - - 17:00 - - - - u8:00 - - 1 - - - - 1 1 09:00 - - 1 - - - - 1 1 10:00 - - - - - - 11:00 - - - - _ - 12:00 - - - - - - _�r'-e - _ _ - L. .J - - - - - - 15:00 - - - - .J6:00 - - 1 - - - - 1 1 17:00 - - - - - _ 18:00 - - - - - - 19:00 - - - - - - "'20:00 - - - - - - 21:00 - - - - - - 22:00 - - - - - - --23:00 - - - - - - 24:00 - - - - - - __Totals - - 98 - - - - 98 98 0 % ►vg Vtday - - 100.0 - - - - -% Avg Day - - 100.0 - - - - AM Peak Er None None 08:00 lope None lone None !M Count - - 13 - - - - PM Peat Er lone None 16:00 None lone lone lone PM Count - - 11 - - - - COOITII NIASOISS -12-12-2004 *** weekly Sunny For leek Of February 8, 2004 *** 09:21 Pg 1 tile: 10204002.81 Sta: 020972000000 Id: 020972000000 Could: 01 gity/Tou: NIAD County: WILD oocation: Cl-? S/0 SI-66 Format: Dir .ale/a: 1-1 Direction: South 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Daily lkday Ikend _Tine Sun Non Tue wed Thu Fri Sat Avg. Avg. Avg. 33:00 - - - - - 02:00 - - - - - ')3:00 - - - - - - 14:00 - - - - - - 05:00 - - - - - - —06:00 - - - - - D7:00 - - - - - 08:00 - - - - - - 09:00 - - 1 - - - - 1 1 10:00 - - - - - - 11:00 - - - - - - 12:00 - - - - "J' 1 1 15:00 - - - _16:00 - - 1 - - - - 1 1 17:00 - - - - - 18:00 - - - - - - 19:00 - - - - - - 20:00 - - - - - 21:00 - - - - - 22:00 - - - - - - —23:00 - - - - - 24:00 - - - - - Totals - - 112 - - - - 112 112 0 0 Avg Vkday - - 100.0 - - - - -% Avg Day - - 100.0 - - - - AI Peak Ir tone lone 09:00 lone lone lone lone _AN Count - - 14 - - - - PM Peak Sr lone lone 13:00 lone lone lone lone PN Count - - 12 - - - - — Counter Measures 414,Code : 2 PAGE: 1 I, 'RIIT: CI-1 FILE: CI-78166 ...J/V STREET: 88-66 Movesents by: Vehicles DATE: 2/10/04 line Pros 'birth Prom last Pros South Prom Vest Vehicle "login IT TIRO LT IT TRIO LT IT TIRO LT IT 1110 LT Total 6:30 16 1 3 0 126 0 0 0 1 1 144 6 298 --6:45 42 1 8 1 135 0 2 0 0 0 141 7 337 OI TOTAL 58 2 11 1 261 0 2 0 1 1 285 13 635 7:00 AM 33 0 4 0 120 0 2 3 0 0 172 S 339 -- 7:15 28 1 6 2 134 0 1 4 1 0 144 4 325 7:30 37 0 4 4 159 2 0 1 1 0 139 6 353 7:45 23 1 3 1 149 0 0 0 0 0 143 11 331 --9R TOTAL 121 2 17 7 562 2 3 8 2 0 598 26 1348 8:00 1N 26 4 3 5 125 0 0 1 0 0 116 7 287 _8:15 28 0 S 0 107 0 1 1 0 0 110 S 257 Break — 2:00 PM 14 0 1 4 81 0 1 1 0 0 86 10 198 2:15 1S 0 0 3 87 0 0 1 2 0 110 15 233 2:30 15 2 2 1 102 0 0 1 0 1 108 14 246 ., v-14 16 1 4 3 92 0 0 2 0 1 92 16 227 6. !AL 60 3 7 11 362 0 1 5 2 2 396 55 904 3:00 PI 12 1 1 0 90 0 1 4 0 0 113 19 241 • 3:IS 18 3 2 6 107 1 0 4 0 0 129 17 287 DAT TOTAL 323 15 46 30 1614 3 8 23 5 3 1747 142 3959 Counter Retinues -ate Code : 2 PAGE: 1 /s.STRRT: CS-7 PILE: CR-75166 I 'RENT: SR-66 _ Movements by: Vehicles DATE: 2/10/04 PRIX PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR TEE PERIOD: 6:30 Al - 8:30 Al DIRECTION STAR? PEAR 1R VOLUMES .... PERCENTS ... PROM PEAK ROOK FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left North 6:45 Al 0.80 140 2 22 164 85 1 13 East 7:15 AN 0.88 12 567 2 581 2 98 0 South 6:45 Al 0.63 S 8 2 15 33 53 13 Vest 6:30 AN 0.88 1 601 22 624 0 96 4 Entire Intersection North 6:45 AM 0.80 140 2 22 164 85 1 13 East 0.84 7 548 2 557 1 98 0 South 0.63 5 8 2 15 33 53 13 Rest 0.87 0 596 22 618 0 96 4 CR-7 I i`•ir; N WTE :•:::::5 i:iirir: •i:? _ ..—., ii titit:::::::i :.•3vi�i i 8ttvii•iiig iiir iifi ••::r••itin i � titt• 140 2 22 1 :';r #':`:'::":'r:?' ''.r :ii kti i :7ti iii t*tZ iiic liii::•ii: ti; ::::a::t:;,t. :'rtrdr:iixif.••ki;S;it: 164 7 xtttt ii:C ig:::i tiF4 64.6r •••5:....•:.tii:�A�tk;:ltitii jtt.[i:t�iiii:• Jkiiiiil•ii}• •••• xtiil SH-66 557 548 22 L 2 _ g ii:r: 596 618 811-66 '::::::;:; - 0 15 •°viii"•tri}s}}kii'ttcttthiti:::. it$:::::::v�:.v::uxfiikii'i:ii'rvi:• siii�f� ij4ii}}j(j :ii�vktti: : ~ i::�•iii»ix'i:::iti:::}:;rfr: 2 8 5 — •:::ytaiii..••• :ix rt•i 4 ...::k a t. .tJ{i::. t{tlt'•:'•tt:ttti:i:tttttfKiii:i::::. t: ••:••1Ib'tA:::::Nt:t•I ttttl:.tLHit:..:.tt::ti;:t'15:A...iiglltiiif:L:t:ti ti't( Yai iA . 1•— '. •.•.tn CR-7 Counter Measures -lite Code : 2 PIGS: 1 IbtalEl: CI-7 PILE: CI-75166 E !RSET: 511-66 DATE: 2/10/04 Movements by: Vehicles PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR TEE PERIOD: 2:00 PM - 3:30 PM DIRECTION START PHI It VOLUMES .... PERCENTS ... PROM PERI NOVI FACTOR Right lhru Left total light Thrn Left — North 2:30 PM 0.84 61 7 9 77 79 9 12 East 2:30 PM 0.88 10 391 1 402 2 97 0 South 2:30 PM 0.60 1 11 0 12 8 92 0 Vest 2:30 PM 0.87 2 442 66 510 0 87 13 Satire Intersection North 2:30 PM 0.84 61 7 9 77 79 9 12 East 0.88 10 391 1 402 2 97 0 — South 0.60 1 11 0 12 8 92 0 test 0.87 2 442 66 510 0 87 13 — CR-7 :::at N ,•;x}}::. SITE YV•Y'•1:::.. aiii ;; ;r::rx: c?rtr?:?..?ccct ;?> 7 10 =':::tit :::r ::#?t: :?:43 }}t:::::}:? r :::::, SH-66 402 391 — 66 L 1 442 510 SH-66 :':; — :::d5'2:}} ;y{c : : :::;ty}'}}: 2 i r 12 7 1111111:3111111:11111111 -----lv ':titi}i}}'L'r:::}}}}fsi::::i}:i 0 11 1 i... itii - t':•:x}}} CR-7 J?t Counter Measures PAGE: 1 Mite Code : 00000000 PIGE: C11SA66 I .,SUET: CA-1 I 1111: S1-66 D1iB: 211104 8ovesents by: Prisary ise Pros North Trot East Pros South Pros Vest Vehicle __ells 11 1810 LT 11 1810 Lt IT 1818 LT IT 1118 L1 Total 4:00 P8 10 2 1 4 136 1 0 0 1 0 116 24 295 4:15 15 2 3 5 124 1 0 4 0 2 142 19 317 "4:30 15 1 2 2 140 1 2 2 0 1 148 22 336 4:45 19 1 2 5 145 0 1 2 1 1 169 21 367 1 TOTAL 59 6 8 16 545 3 3 8 2 4 575 86 1315 5:00 P8 1S 1 4 2 177 2 1 2 0 0 163 24 391 5:15 20 0 2 2 172 0 0 2 0 1 155 23 377 5:30 14 1 3 1 138 0 0 0 1 1 145 28 332 "5:45 9 1 1 3 128 0 3 4 0 0 170 33 352 1 tOTAL 58 3 10 8 615 2 4 8 1 2 633 108 1452 SAP TOTAL 117 9 18 24 1160 S 7 16 3 6 1208 194 2767 Counter Measures —1te Code : 00000000 PAGE: 1 ISs8RRE?: CE-7 PILE: C118866 IEET: S1-66 DATE: 2111/04 _ Movenents by: Prisarp _ PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR TIE PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM DIRECTI01 STRIP PEI( 11 VOLUMES .... PERCENTS ... PION PEAS 1001 FACTOR light Thru Left Total Right thru Left North 4:30 PM 0.93 69 3 10 82 84 4 12 East 4:30 PM 0.90 11 634 3 648 2 98 0 South 4:15 PR 0.94 4 10 1 15 27 67 7 Vest 5:00 PM 0.92 2 633 108 743 0 85 15 Entire Intersection forth 4:30 PR 0.93 69 3 10 82 84 4 12 East 0.90 11 634 3 648 2 98 0 South 0.81 4 8 1 13 31 62 8 Vest 0.95 3 635 90 728 0 87 12 CR-7 [tEEili:i N :::5::. W+Pi tiiigi 1t1:eg:•:{:titt':Y1A5S ::•M::'yl:•gY.t:•Nti:ti:.tl•J• 69 3 10 .......r:•:.— rf ir:;g::::::x; x<::::K:m s rrn:::: L._ 82 11 :::33Ksioti:Kati::::i:):::::::::....n!......,...,n):::.::: NJf�: .):::.:(.:.:.:.:.):.:.::::::::::::::::::::gagi:Emi.::::::i: ;itti SH-66 648 634 — 90 L 3 635 728 SH-66 " ; .xy — ';t.;r;,:::• 3 J 13 -....::;:....:a tt i<,: k t•;:; x• in :ti?tiy;: �•ii:ir::: iiS:S:}}si:ti?ti•:�i.Y. — ...... :...:.:>: i<:'r' • c .:.}ti..ig xtctsclsc :I,:t::: t{':Jtit' .;:::n;;.; CR-7 �r�Yti•. - APPENDIX B - Internal Capture Summary , § _ i[1°, 2 : •. DhtQu - t t 1® ! ° \\) _ OOO32 � ,; ! e < e < | ° nau § �, � , f !, , & /! 1! 1 ! /! 1 � , I � I . 2 . 2 k oo, �� _ & M. : M . . | \ » _ 2zw — [I i � $##E �k§k : it IL El �\a , mR _ 9 2 2 2 a S/ | , | ; • ' ii \ .§ § | ,, , 0 , 11 77 _ . ! ii _ )�` . - M7 ) ■#(# ,\)\! - ) \$$g !®` ka ! © `| 2 )R§2( — — - MR §!17 2I $ cc :: !2 � � §3S2§ ' !7§/§ i // cc ■ /� Pill— e eg keg` C. )k — go &go Co kk I | k § / en 1[21 k § � } & Lif, $ APPENDIX C Level of Service Analyses _ HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis a 1: SH66 & WCR7 4/21/2005 is —• ( ~ k- 4\ t P `► 1 d Lane Configurations 1 t r II t. 11 t e vi f r — Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 — Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1859 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.24 1.00 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 444 1863 1583 362 1859 1405 1863 1583 1400 1863 1583 Volume(vph) 35 790 114 29 710 9 68 8 61 27 5 174 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 — Adj. Flow(vph) 38 859 124 32 772 10 74 9 66 29 5 189 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 0 155 Lane Group Flow(vph) 38 859 80 32 782 0 74 9 12 29 5 34 Turn Type pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 62.0 58.0 58.0 62.0 58.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Effective Green, g (s) 62.0 58.0 58.0 62.0 58.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.69 0.64 0.64 0.69 0.64 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 — Lane Grp Cap(vph) 365 1201 1020 312 1198 250 331 281 249 331 281 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.46 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.05 0.07 c0.05 0.01 0.02 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.10 0.72 0.08 0.10 0.65 0.30 0.03 0.04 0.12 0.02 0.12 — Uniform Delay,dl 6.9 10.6 6.0 8.2 9.8 32.1 30.6 30.6 31.1 30.5 31.1 Progression Factor 0.82 0.71 0.53 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 3.3 0.1 0.7 2.8 3.0 0.2 0.3 1.0 0.1 0.9 — Delay(s) 6.2 10.8 3.3 8.8 12.6 34.6 30.8 30.1 32.0 30.6 32.0 Level of Service A B A A B CCCCCC Approach Delay(s) 9.7 12.4 32.4 31.9 Approach LOS A B C C Int-eligrt)oj$um[liary t-, -<.,.- t HCM Average Control Delay 14.5 HCM Level of Service B — HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2010 AM Peak Background (Discontinuit¢ynchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 1 LSC, Inc. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis a 2: SH 66 & WCR 5.5 •• 4/21/2005 4— ` t t `► t r Lane Configurations ? r R f r vi f r vi f r Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.18 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 0.76 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 337 1863 1583 545 1863 1583 1409 1863 1583 1400 1863 1583 Volume(vph) 30 625 29 14 799 86 61 8 53 138 2 30 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 33 679 32 15 868 93 66 9 58 150 2 33 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 12 0 0 34 0 0 47 0 0 27 Lane Group Flow(vph) 33 679 20 15 868 59 66 9 11 150 2 6 Turn Type pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 61.0 57.0 57.0 61.0 57.0 57.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 Effective Green, g (s) 61.0 57.0 57.0 61.0 57.0 57.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.68 0.63 0.63 0.68 0.63 0.63 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 --- Lane Grp Cap(vph) 292 1180 1003 424 1180 1003 266 352 299 264 352 299 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 0.36 0.00 c0.47 0.00 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.01 c0.11 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.58 0.02 0.04 0.74 0.06 0.25 0.03 0.04 0.57 0.01 0.02 Uniform Delay, dl 8.9 9.5 6.1 6.2 11.3 6.3 31.1 29.7 29.8 33.2 29.6 29.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.58 0.57 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.8 2.0 0.0 0.1 3.4 0.1 2.2 0.1 0.2 8.6 0.0 0.1 Delay(s) 9.7 11.6 6.2 5.3 9.9 3.7 33.3 29.9 30.0 41.8 29.7 29.9 Level of Service A B A A A A CCCD CC Approach Delay(s) 11.3 9.2 31.6 39.5 Approach LOS B A C D Intifse-Okifiliiirnfilaiii , -- HCM Average Control Delay 14.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2010 AM Peak Background (Discontinuit%nchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 2 _. LSC, Inc. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: WCR 5.5 & WCR 7 4/21/2005 4— t J Lane Configurations + r f Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume(veh/h) 37 30 30 130 156 64 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 40 33 33 141 170 70 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ff/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 174 146 33 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 174 146 33 tC, single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free% 97 79 93 cM capacity(veh/h) 1403 822 1041 _. ` i .� '�., ._f.�°mss yx' ,.x 3 Volume Total 40 33 33 141 170 70 Volume Left 40 0 0 0 170 0 _ Volume Right 0 0 0 141 0 70 cSH 1403 1700 1700 1700 822 1041 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.21 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 19 5 Control Delay(s) 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 8.7 Lane LOS A B A Approach Delay(s) 4.2 0.0 10.0 Approach LOS A hiielsY etmmary ,. Average Delay 5.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2010 AM Peak Background (Discontinuit¢)ynchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 3 LSC, Inc. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: WCR 7 & WCR 28 4/21/2005 4— k. te e ,. 4. _-, Lane Configurations + t f '1 r Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume(veh/h) 116 51 56 3 3 164 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 126 55 61 3 3 178 Pedestrians Lane 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 64 368 61 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 64 368 61 tC, single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free% 92 99 82 cM capacity(veh/h) 1538 580 1004 Datw;;.,:*t4tgeant2eAviszateasa, - B Volume Total 126 55 61 3 3 178 Volume Left 126 0 0 0 3 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 3 0 178 cSH 1538 1700 1700 1700 580 1004 Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.18 Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 0 0 0 0 16 Control Delay(s) 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 9.4 Lane LOS A B A Approach Delay(s) 5.2 0.0 9.4 Approach LOS A IntersectionSymmary Average Delay 6.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2010 AM Peak Background (Discontinuit¢aynchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 6 LSC, Inc. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis — 1: SH 66 & WCR 7 9/15/2005 f - l ( 4- 1 4\ t P 1, d Movement EBL .EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ►) t r 1 vi f r q f r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 — Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 — Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1859 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.22 1.00 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.74 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 417 1863 1583 331 1859 1399 1863 1583 1384 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 35 790 145 68 710 9 152 20 169 27 9 174 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 38 859 158 74 772 10 165 22 184 29 10 189 - RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 147 0 0 151 Lane Group Flow (vph) 38 859 98 74 782 0 165 22 37 29 10 38 Turn Type pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Perm Perm Perm — Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 60.0 56.0 56.0 60.0 56.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Effective Green, g (s) 60.0 56.0 56.0 60.0 56.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 — Actuated g/C Ratio 0.67 0.62 0.62 0.67 0.62 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 338 1159 985 285 1157 280 373 317 277 373 317 — —' v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.46 c0.01 0.42 0.01 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.06 0.16 c0.12 0.02 0.02 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.74 0.10 0.26 0.68 0.59 0.06 0.12 0.10 0.03 0.12 — Uniform Delay, dl 8.0 11.9 6.8 9.8 11.1 32.6 29.1 29.5 29.4 29.0 29.5 Progression Factor 0.80 0.71 0.63 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 3.8 0.2 2.2 3.2 8.8 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.8 Delay(s) 7.0 12.3 4.5 12.0 14.3 41.5 29.4 30.2 30.2 29.1 30.3 Level of Service A B A BB DCCCCC Approach Delay(s) 10.9 14.1 35.2 30.2 Approach LOS B B D C — Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 17.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 — Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group — Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2010 AM Peak Total (Discontinuity) Synchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 1 LSC, Inc. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis — 2: SH 66 & WCR 5.5 9/15/2005 Movement EBL EBT EBR,: WBL WBT WBR NBL :,,NBT NBR SBL- SBT SBR Lane Configurations ) t r 1 sir vi f r vi T r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 — Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 — Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.15 1.00 1.00 0.28 1.00 1.00 0.76 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 280 1863 1583 523 1863 1583 1409 1863 1583 1400 1863 1583 _ Volume (vph) 30 643 29 21 847 108 61 8 56 146 2 30 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 33 699 32 23 921 117 66 9 61 159 2 33 — RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 12 0 0 43 0 0 49 0 0 27 Lane Group Flow (vph) 33 699 20 23 921 74 66 9 12 159 2 6 Turn Type pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm — Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 61.0 57.0 57.0 61.0 57.0 57.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 Effective Green, g (s) 61.0 57.0 57.0 61.0 57.0 57.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 — Actuated g/C Ratio 0.68 0.63 0.63 0.68 0.63 0.63 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 256 1180 1003 410 1180 1003 266 352 299 264 352 299 — ^ v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 0.38 0.00 c0.49 0.00 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.01 c0.11 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.59 0.02 0.06 0.78 0.07 0.25 0.03 0.04 0.60 0.01 0.02 — Uniform Delay, dl 10.3 9.7 6.1 6.4 12.0 6.3 31.1 29.7 29.8 33.4 29.6 29.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 2.2 0.0 0.2 4.1 0.1 2.2 0.1 0.2 9.8 0.0 0.1 Delay(s) 11.3 11.9 6.2 5.3 12.1 4.4 33.3 29.9 30.1 43.2 29.7 29.9 — Level of Service BB A A B ACCCD CC Approach Delay(s) 11.6 11.1 31.6 40.8 Approach LOS B B C D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 15.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 _, c Critical Lane Group — Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2010 AM Peak Total (Discontinuity) Synchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 2 LSC, Inc. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: WCR 5.5 & WCR 7 9/15/2005 t— t ti d Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL ; SBR Lane Configurations ii t t r Ii r Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 37 30 30 143 193 64 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 40 33 33 155 210 70 Pedestrians Lane 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 188 146 33 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 188 146 33 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 97 74 93 cM capacity(veh/h) 1386 822 1041 Direction,Lane# EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 SB 1 , SB 2 Volume Total 40 33 33 155 210 70 Volume Left 40 0 0 0 210 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 155 0 70 cSH 1386 1700 1700 1700 822 1041 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.26 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 25 5 Control Delay(s) 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 8.7 Lane LOS A B A Approach Delay(s) 4.2 0.0 10.3 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2010 AM Peak Total (Discontinuity) Synchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 3 LSC, Inc. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: South Site Access & WCR 7 9/15/2005 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 28 81 146 13 29 214 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 30 88 159 14 32 233 Pedestrians Lane 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 461 166 173 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 461 166 173 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 94 90 98 cM capacity(veh/h) 546 879 1404 Direction, Lane# WB 1 -NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 118 173 32 233 Volume Left 30 0 32 0 Volume Right 88 14 0 0 cSH 760 1700 1404 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.16 0.10 0.02 0.14 Queue Length 95th (ft) 14 0 2 0 Control Delay(s) 10.6 0.0 7.6 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay(s) 10.6 0.0 0.9 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2010 AM Peak Total (Discontinuity) Synchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 4 LSC, Inc. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis — 12: North Site Access & WCR 7 9/15/2005 t P \* 1 Movement ,WBL WBR NBT N(3R SBL' SBT Lane Configurations f, 'I t Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 25 127 214 12 48 168 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 27 138 233 13 52 183 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 502 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 526 239 246 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 526 239 246 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 r- p0 queue free% 94 83 96 cM capacity(veh/h) 492 800 1320 Direction, Lane# WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 , ^ , Volume Total 165 246 52 183 Volume Left 27 0 52 0 Volume Right 138 13 0 0 cSH 725 1700 1320 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.23 0.14 0.04 0.11 Queue Length 95th (ft) 22 0 3 0 Control Delay(s) 11.4 0.0 7.8 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay(s) 11.4 0.0 1.7 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2010 AM Peak Total (Discontinuity) Synchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 5 LSC, Inc. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: SH 66 & WCR 7 4/21/2005 Lane Configurations ►I it F ►I I, 'I it F ►( At r — Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1859 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.08 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 141 1863 1583 226 1859 1399 1863 1583 1402 1863 1583 Volume(vph) 125 915 146 79 932 12 88 7 38 12 9 103 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 136 995 159 86 1013 13 96 8 41 13 10 112 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 92 Lane Group Flow(vph) 136 995 102 86 1026 0 96 8 7 13 10 20 Turn Type pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 64.0 58.0 58.0 60.0 56.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 — Effective Green, g (s) 64.0 58.0 58.0 60.0 56.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.71 0.64 0.64 0.67 0.62 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ^ Lane Grp Cap(vph) 209 1201 1020 219 1157 249 331 281 249 331 281 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.53 0.02 c0.55 0.00 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.42 0.06 0.24 c0.07 0.00 0.01 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.83 0.10 0.39 0.89 0.39 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.07 Uniform Delay, dl 17.8 12.2 6.1 12.6 14.3 32.7 30.6 30.6 30.7 30.6 30.8 Progression Factor 1.20 0.84 1.57 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.97 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.8 5.4 0.2 5.2 10.1 4.5 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.5 — Delay(s) 33.1 15.6 9.7 17.9 24.5 36.6 29.9 29.5 31.1 30.8 31.3 Level of Service CB A BC DCCCCC Approach Delay(s) 16.7 23.9 34.2 31.2 Approach LOS B C C C Itlt t aiv t , , . ._ 1 `. HCM Average Control Delay 21.4 HCM Level of Service C ^ HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 — c Critical Lane Group Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2010 PM Peak Background (Discontinuit$ynchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 1 LSC, Inc. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: SH 66 & WCR 5.5 4/21/2005 — f l I ~ t 4\ t l b I I Lane Configurations 1t r ►( t r ii t r li it r — Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 — Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.21 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 395 1863 1583 299 1863 1583 1403 1863 1583 1389 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 30 817 64 46 737 136 139 17 98 139 6 30 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 — Adj. Flow(vph) 33 888 70 50 801 148 151 18 107 151 7 33 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 26 0 0 56 0 0 86 0 0 26 Lane Group Flow(vph) 33 888 44 50 801 92 151 18 21 151 7 7 — Turn Type pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 60.0 56.0 56.0 60.0 56.0 56.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Effective Green, g (s) 60.0 56.0 56.0 60.0 56.0 56.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.67 0.62 0.62 0.67 0.62 0.62 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 — "' Lane Grp Cap(vph) 324 1159 985 265 1159 985 281 373 317 278 373 317 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.48 c0.01 0.43 0.01 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.03 0.12 0.06 0.11 0.01 c0.11 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.10 0.77 0.04 0.19 0.69 0.09 0.54 0.05 0.07 0.54 0.02 0.02 — Uniform Delay, dl 8.3 12.3 6.6 10.3 11.3 6.8 32.3 29.1 29.2 32.3 28.9 28.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.46 0.43 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.6 4.9 0.1 0.9 2.0 0.1 7.2 0.2 0.4 7.4 0.1 0.1 — Delay(s) 8.9 17.1 6.7 8.9 7.2 3.0 39.5 29.3 29.6 39.7 29.0 29.0 Level of Service A B A A A A DCCD CC Approach Delay(s) 16.1 6.6 35.0 37.5 Approach LOS B A C D �e eY ry�pry t +v23vbt� �t�Ft`•JY+`I'.`,4'b x ,_ t- '`i.-s k'^' . . 1-€5; HCM Average Control Delay 16.0 HCM Level of Service B — HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 — c Critical Lane Group Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2010 PM Peak Background (Discontinuitjaynchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 2 — LSC, Inc. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: WCR 5.5 & WCR 7 4/21/2005 t . sy✓3'._, s, aC L'''f: xna3®Il .mow-- r' _ ,.�. � ,< �... _ Lane Configurations ►t + + r r Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 62 30 30 212 177 79 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 67 33 33 230 192 86 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) — Walking Speed (f/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 263 200 33 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 263 200 33 tC, single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free% 95 74 92 cM capacity(veh/h) 1301 748 1041 _ � tR3 � .,. . ? Volume Total 67 33 33 230 192 86 Volume Left 67 0 0 0 192 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 230 0 86 cSH 1301 1700 1700 1700 748 1041 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.14 0.26 0.08 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 0 0 0 26 7 Control Delay(s) 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.5 8.8 Lane LOS A B A Approach Delay(s) 5.3 0.0 10.6 Approach LOS B Intersectign-Surr[mary ` . Average Delay 5.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2010 PM Peak Background (Discontinuitfynchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 3 LSC, Inc. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: WCR 7 & WCR 28 4/21/2005 Lane Configurations ►� t t m r P Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 162 112 86 3 3 176 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(vph) 176 122 93 3 3 191 Pedestrians Lane 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 97 567 93 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 97 567 93 tC, single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free°/0 88 99 80 cM capacity(veh/h) 1497 428 964 e ` 3 i Volume Total 176 122 93 3 3 191 Volume Left 176 0 0 0 3 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 3 0 191 cSH 1497 1700 1700 1700 428 964 Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 0 0 0 1 18 Control Delay(s) 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 9.7 Lane LOS A B A Approach Delay(s) 4.6 0.0 9.7 Approach LOS A Intersection,Summary Average Delay 5.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2010 PM Peak Background (Discontinuitiynchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 6 LSC, Inc. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis — 1: SH 66 & WCR 7 ` 9/15/2005 t -- l `' . A k- 4\ t ! `► r Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations li f r i I+ vi t r ll s r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 — Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 — Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1859 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.74 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 182 1863 1583 133 1859 1380 1863 1583 1392 1863 1583 — Volume (vph) 125 915 243 204 932 12 145 15 111 12 23 103 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 136 995 264 222 1013 13 158 16 121 13 25 112 - RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 111 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 0 92 Lane Group Flow(vph) 136 995 153 222 1026 0 158 16 22 13 25 20 Turn Type pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Perm Perm Perm — Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 57.0 52.0 52.0 66.0 57.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Effective Green, g (s) 57.0 52.0 52.0 66.0 57.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 — Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.58 0.58 0.73 0.63 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 203 1076 915 279 1177 245 331 281 247 331 281 — v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.53 c0.09 0.55 0.01 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.39 0.10 0.49 c0.11 0.01 0.01 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.92 0.17 0.80 0.87 0.64 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.07 — Uniform Delay, dl 15.5 17.2 8.9 26.6 13.5 34.4 30.7 30.8 30.7 30.8 30.8 Progression Factor 0.95 0.80 1.47 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 12.4 11.5 0.3 20.5 9.0 12.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 Delay(s) 27.1 25.3 13.4 47.2 22.5 46.7 31.0 31.4 31.1 31.3 31.3 Level of Service CC BDC DCCCCC Approach Delay (s) 23.2 26.9 39.6 31.3 Approach LOS C C D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 26.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 — Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 — c Critical Lane Group — Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2010 PM Peak Total (Discontinuity) Synchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 1 LSC, Inc. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis — 2: SH 66 & WCR 5.5 9/15/2005 _ ^ -1 1 te 4- 4%." 4\ t t ti i .I Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ►j t e vj f e 'life f r Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 — Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 — Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.20 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 - Satd. Flow(perm) 372 1863 1583 250 1863 1583 1403 1863 1583 1389 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 30 873 64 51 769 150 139 17 106 164 6 30 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 33 949 70 55 836 163 151 18 115 178 7 33 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 26 0 0 60 0 0 93 0 0 27 Lane Group Flow(vph) 33 949 44 55 836 103 151 18 22 178 7 6 Turn Type pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm — Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 61.0 57.0 57.0 61.0 57.0 57.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 — Effective Green, g (s) 61.0 57.0 57.0 61.0 57.0 57.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.68 0.63 0.63 0.68 0.63 0.63 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 314 1180 1003 237 1180 1003 265 352 299 262 352 299 — v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.51 c0.01 0.45 0.01 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.03 0.15 0.07 0.11 0.01 c0.13 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.80 0.04 0.23 0.71 0.10 0.57 0.05 0.07 0.68 0.02 0.02 — Uniform Delay, dl 8.3 12.3 6.2 11.4 11.0 6.5 33.2 29.9 30.0 34.0 29.7 29.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.58 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 5.9 0.1 1.3 2.1 0.1 8.6 0.3 0.5 13.3 0.1 0.1 Delay(s) 9.0 18.2 6.3 11.1 8.5 4.7 41.8 30.2 30.5 47.3 29.8 29.9 Level of Service A B A B A A DCCDCC Approach Delay(s) 17.1 8.1 36.5 44.1 Approach LOS B A D D — Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 17.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 "" Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 — c Critical Lane Group — Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2010 PM Peak Total (Discontinuity) Synchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 2 LSC, Inc. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: WCR 5.5 & WCR 7 ■ 9/15/2005 Movement EBL EBT -WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations ►) t t r P Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 62 30 30 254 202 79 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 67 33 33 276 220 86 Pedestrians Lane 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 309 200 33 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 309 200 33 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free% 95 71 92 cM capacity(veh/h) 1252 746 1041 Direction, Lane# EB1 ' EB2 WB1 .,WB2 ;SB1 SB2 Volume Total 67 33 33 276 220 86 Volume Left 67 0 0 0 220 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 276 0 86 cSH 1252 1700 1700 1700 746 1041 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.16 0.29 0.08 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 0 0 0 31 7 Control Delay(s) 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.8 8.8 Lane LOS A B A Approach Delay(s) 5.4 0.0 11.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.0% ICU Level of Service A '• Analysis Period (min) 15 Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2010 PM Peak Total (Discontinuity) Synchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 3 LSC, Inc. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: South Site Access & WCR 7 9/15/2005 Movement WBL, WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations V t Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 13 56 208 23 97 249 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 14 61 226 25 105 271 Pedestrians Lane 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 720 239 251 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 720 239 251 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 96 92 92 cM capacity(veh/h) 363 800 1314 Direction, Lane# WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 75 251 105 271 Volume Left 14 0 105 0 Volume Right 61 25 0 0 cSH 652 1700 1314 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.15 0.08 0.16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 0 7 0 Control Delay(s) 11.2 0.0 8.0 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay(s) 11.2 0.0 2.2 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2010 PM Peak Total (Discontinuity) Synchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 4 LSC, Inc. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: North Site Access & WCR 7 9/15/2005 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations '9 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 11 94 227 20 153 378 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 12 102 247 22 166 411 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 502 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1001 258 268 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1001 258 268 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 95 87 87 cM capacity(veh/h) 235 781 1295 Direction, Lane#, WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 114 268 166 411 Volume Left 12 0 166 0 Volume Right 102 22 0 0 cSH 628 1700 1295 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.18 0.16 0.13 0.24 Queue Length 95th (ft) 16 0 11 0 Control Delay(s) 12.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay(s) 12.0 0.0 2.4 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2010 PM Peak Total (Discontinuity) Synchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 5 LSC, Inc. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: SH 66 & WCR 7 4/21/2005 Lane Configurations ti ft r 'Pi it r f r f r Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.74 1.00 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 1381 1863 1583 1358 1863 1583 Volume(vph) 84 1477 36 66 1269 116 64 40 174 144 22 304 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 91 1605 39 72 1379 126 70 43 189 157 24 330 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 0 0 117 Lane Group Flow(vph) 91 1605 39 72 1379 126 70 43 80 157 24 213 Turn Type Prot Free Prot Free Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases Free Free 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.0 56.0 100.0 7.0 54.0 100.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Effective Green, g (s) 9.0 56.0 100.0 7.0 54.0 100.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.56 1.00 0.07 0.54 1.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 309 1982 1583 240 1911 1583 345 466 396 340 466 396 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 c0.45 0.02 0.39 0.02 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.08 0.05 0.05 0.12 c0.13 v/c Ratio 0.29 0.81 0.02 0.30 0.72 0.08 0.20 0.09 0.20 0.46 0.05 0.54 Uniform Delay,dl 42.5 17.7 0.0 44.2 17.3 0.0 29.6 28.8 29.6 31.8 28.5 32.5 Progression Factor 1.16 0.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.96 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 3.0 0.0 3.2 2.4 0.1 1.3 0.4 1.1 4.5 0.2 5.2 Delay(s) 51.2 9.8 0.0 47.4 19.7 0.1 29.5 27.9 27.9 36.3 28.7 37.7 Level of Service D A A D B A CCCDCD Approach Delay(s) 11.7 19.4 28.3 36.8 Approach LOS B B C D intei'eektitl'f Sutttmary ,° ` HCM Average Control Delay 19.0 HCM Level of Service B — HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2025 AM Peak Background Synchro 6 Report Bail Przybyl Page 1 LSC, Inc. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: SH 66 & WCR 5.5 4/21/2005 } 1 ( 4 t P ',, j I Lane Configurations ►)►) T4 r ►1 tt r r )1 ff r Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 - Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Volume (vph) 112 949 400 213 1270 106 611 302 521 101 344 107 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 122 1032 435 232 1380 115 664 328 566 110 374 116 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 122 1032 435 232 1380 52 664 328 566 110 374 116 Turn Type Prot Free Prot Perm Prot Free Prot Free Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Free 8 Free Free Actuated Green,G (s) 4.0 38.0 100.0 9.0 43.0 43.0 21.0 30.0 100.0 7.0 16.0 100.0 Effective Green, g (s) 4.0 38.0 100.0 9.0 43.0 43.0 21.0 30.0 100.0 7.0 16.0 100.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.38 1.00 0.09 0.43 0.43 0.21 0.30 1.00 0.07 0.16 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 137 1345 1583 309 1522 681 721 1062 1583 240 566 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.29 c0.07 c0.39 c0.19 0.09 0.03 c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.27 0.03 0.36 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.89 0.77 0.27 0.75 0.91 0.08 0.92 0.31 0.36 0.46 0.66 0.07 Uniform Delay, dl 47.8 27.1 0.0 44.4 26.6 16.8 38.7 27.0 0.0 44.7 39.5 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.20 0.68 0.91 1.16 0.84 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 52.0 4.2 0.4 11.4 7.0 0.2 17.3 0.7 0.6 6.2 6.0 0.1 Delay(s) 99.8 31.4 0.4 64.9 25.2 15.5 62.2 23.3 0.6 50.9 45.4 0.1 Level of Service F C A EC B EC A DD A Approach Delay(s) 28.2 29.9 31.6 37.7 Approach LOS C C C D Intersection i sf (!t tSr.'_ ._. _ 4 . HCM Average Control Delay 30.7 HCM Level of Service C _ HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2025 AM Peak Background Synchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 2 LSC, Inc. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: WCR 5.5 & WCR 7 4/21/2005 ~ r Lane Configurations ' ft ft 1' r Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3539 3539 1583 3433 1583 Flt Permitted 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 373 3539 3539 1583 3433 1583 Volume(vph) 266 582 706 294 385 394 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 289 633 767 320 418 428 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 224 Lane Group Flow(vph) 289 633 767 320 418 204 Turn Type pm+pt Free Perm Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 4 Free 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.0 26.0 16.0 50.0 16.0 16.0 Effective Green, g (s) 26.0 26.0 16.0 50.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.32 1.00 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 362 1840 1132 1583 1099 507 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.18 0.22 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm c0.32 0.20 c0.13 v/c Ratio 0.80 0.34 0.68 0.20 0.38 0.40 — Uniform Delay, dl 8.5 7.0 14.8 0.0 13.2 13.3 Progression Factor 1.91 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.7 0.4 3.3 0.3 1.0 2.4 Delay(s) 30.8 5.3 18.0 0.3 14.2 15.6 Level of Service C A B ABB Approach Delay(s) 13.3 12.8 14.9 Approach LOS B B B (rrtaq(iori inmary r 1 HCM Average Control Delay 13.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2025 AM Peak Background Synchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 3 — LSC, Inc. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: WCR 7 & WCR 28 4/25/2005 1 ♦- t \S r Lane Configurations ft ff f r Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume(veh/h) 101 459 669 71 27 111 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 110 499 727 77 29 121 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type Raised Median storage veh) 1 Upstream signal (ft) 851 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 804 1196 364 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 727 vC2,stage 2 conf vol 469 vCu, unblocked vol 804 1196 364 tC,single(s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 _ tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free% 87 90 81 cM capacity(veh/h) 816 286 633 Volume Total 110 249 249 364 364 77 29 121 Volume Left 110 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 121 cSH 816 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 286 633 Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.21 0.05 0.10 0.19 Queue Length 95th (ft) 12 0 0 0 0 0 8 17 Control Delay(s) 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.0 12.0 Lane LOS B C B Approach Delay(s) 1.8 0.0 13.4 Approach LOS B LrY : '��l `'+, 3 :mom .�� ,. . ..9'°' .$tea`. -•k iW.`s &"s."' c '.`'y ^;+`sra �'. Average Delay 2.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2025 AM Peak Background Synchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 1 .— LSC, Inc. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis — 1: SH 66 & WCR 7 9/15/2005 f 7 x 4- k 4\ t t `- 1 1 — Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations "vi tT r vi fi jr ) f r ) t r Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 — Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 — Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.74 1.00 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 1377 1863 1583 1340 1863 1583 — Volume (vph) 84 1477 64 106 1269 116 142 53 283 144 26 304 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 91 1605 70 115 1379 126 154 58 308 157 28 330 — RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 143 0 0 157 Lane Group Flow(vph) 91 1605 70 115 1379 126 154 58 165 157 28 173 Turn Type Prot Free Prot Free Perm Perm Perm Perm — Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases Free Free 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.0 69.0 120.0 13.0 70.0 120.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 Effective Green, g (s) 12.0 69.0 120.0 13.0 70.0 120.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 — Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.58 1.00 0.11 0.58 1.00 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 343 2035 1583 372 2064 1583 298 404 343 290 404 343 — v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.45 c0.03 0.39 0.03 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.08 0.11 0.10 c0.12 0.11 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.79 0.04 0.31 0.67 0.08 0.52 0.14 0.48 0.54 0.07 0.51 Uniform Delay, dl 49.9 19.8 0.0 49.4 17.1 0.0 41.5 38.0 41.1 41.7 37.4 41.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 3.2 0.1 2.2 1.7 0.1 6.3 0.7 4.7 7.1 0.3 5.2 Delay(s) 51.8 23.0 0.1 51.5 18.8 0.1 47.7 38.7 45.8 48.8 37.7 46.6 — Level of Service DC A D B A DDDDDD Approach Delay(s) 23.6 19.7 45.6 46.8 Approach LOS C B D D — Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 27.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 — Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 — c Critical Lane Group — Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2025 AM Peak Total Synchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 1 LSC, Inc. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis — 2: SH 66 & WCR 5.5 9/15/2005 t —, l te t 4\ 1 P ' 1 d — Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations WI ft r In tt r ti tt r vi tt r Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 — Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 — Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Volume (vph) 112 965 402 218 1315 127 614 302 523 108 345 107 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 122 1049 437 237 1429 138 667 328 568 117 375 116 — RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 122 1049 437 237 1429 66 667 328 568 117 375 116 Turn Type Prot Free Prot Perm Prot Free Prot Free — Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Free 8 Free Free Actuated Green, G (s) 4.0 38.0 100.0 9.0 43.0 43.0 21.0 30.0 100.0 7.0 16.0 100.0 Effective Green, g (s) 4.0 38.0 100.0 9.0 43.0 43.0 21.0 30.0 100.0 7.0 16.0 100.0 — Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.38 1.00 0.09 0.43 0.43 0.21 0.30 1.00 0.07 0.16 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 137 1345 1583 309 1522 681 721 1062 1583 240 566 1583 — "` v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.30 c0.07 c0.40 c0.19 0.09 0.03 c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.28 0.04 0.36 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.89 0.78 0.28 0.77 0.94 0.10 0.93 0.31 0.36 0.49 0.66 0.07 Uniform Delay, dl 47.8 27.3 0.0 44.5 27.2 16.9 38.7 27.0 0.0 44.8 39.5 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 52.0 4.5 0.4 16.6 12.5 0.3 17.8 0.7 0.6 6.9 6.0 0.1 Delay(s) 99.8 31.9 0.4 61.0 39.7 17.2 50.5 26.4 0.6 51.7 45.5 0.1 Level of Service F C A ED BDC A D D A Approach Delay(s) 28.5 40.8 27.3 38.0 Approach LOS C D C D Intersection Summary - HCM Average Control Delay 33.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 — Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 — c Critical Lane Group — Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2025 AM Peak Total Synchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 2 LSC, Inc. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: WCR 5.5 & WCR 7 9/15/2005 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations ►j ft lit r r Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3539 3539 1583 3433 1583 Flt Permitted 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 373 3539 3539 1583 3433 1583 Volume (vph) 268 582 706 308 422 401 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 291 633 767 335 459 436 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 224 Lane Group Flow(vph) 291 633 767 335 459 212 Turn Type pm+pt Free Perm Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 4 Free 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.0 26.0 16.0 50.0 16.0 16.0 Effective Green, g (s) 26.0 26.0 16.0 50.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.32 1.00 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 362 1840 1132 1583 1099 507 — v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.18 0.22 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm c0.32 0.21 c0.13 v/c Ratio 0.80 0.34 0.68 0.21 0.42 0.42 Uniform Delay, dl 8.5 7.0 14.8 0.0 13.3 13.3 Progression Factor 3.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 15.0 0.4 3.3 0.3 1.2 2.5 Delay(s) 41.5 7.5 18.0 0.3 14.5 15.9 Level of Service D A B ABB Approach Delay(s) 18.2 12.6 15.2 Approach LOS B B B Intersection Summary. _ HCM Average Control Delay 15.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2025 AM Peak Total Synchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 3 LSC, Inc. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11 : South Site Access & WCR 7 9/15/2005 t P \ Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations V 1. '►t t Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 33 78 248 15 28 136 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 36 85 270 16 30 148 Pedestrians Lane 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 486 278 286 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 486 278 286 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 — p0 queue free% 93 89 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 527 761 1276 Direction, Lane WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 121 286 30 148 Volume Left 36 0 30 0 Volume Right 85 16 0 0 cSH 672 1700 1276 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.18 0.17 0.02 0.09 Queue Length 95th (ft) 16 0 2 0 Control Delay(s) 11.5 0.0 7.9 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay(s) 11.5 0.0 1.3 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2025 AM Peak Total Synchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 4 LSC, Inc. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: North Site Access & WCR 7 9/15/2005 t f P \ Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL . SBT Lane Configurations ►� 1, ►� � Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 27 124 353 13 47 149 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 29 135 384 14 51 162 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 502 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 655 391 398 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 655 391 398 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 93 80 96 cM capacity(veh/h) 412 658 1161 Direction, Lane# WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 164 398 51 162 Volume Left 29 0 51 0 Volume Right 135 14 0 0 cSH 594 1700 1161 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.28 0.23 0.04 0.10 Queue Length 95th (ft) 28 0 3 0 Control Delay(s) 13.4 0.0 8.2 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay(s) 13.4 0.0 2.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2025 AM Peak Total Synchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 5 LSC, Inc. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis — 1: SH 66 & WCR 7 4/21/2005 is —w r ~ k- 4\ P . h ` 3r4,6 s S St 4ti . _wBT '<SBR Lane Configurations V ft Pin tt r ii f r vi f r — Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fit 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00 — Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 1335 1863 1583 1341 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 230 1729 121 197 1813 317 56 52 119 317 57 202 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 — Adj. Flow(vph) 250 1879 132 214 1971 345 61 57 129 345 62 220 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 0 0 180 Lane Group Flow(vph) 250 1879 132 214 1971 345 61 57 24 345 62 40 Turn Type Prot Free Prot Free Perm Perm Perm Perm — Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases Free Free 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.0 68.0 120.0 18.0 67.0 120.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 — Effective Green, g (s) 19.0 68.0 120.0 18.0 67.0 120.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.57 1.00 0.15 0.56 1.00 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 —.— Lane Gm Cap (vph) 544 2005 1583 515 1976 1583 245 342 290 246 342 290 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.53 0.06 c0.56 0.03 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 c0.22 0.05 0.01 c0.26 0.03 — v/c Ratio 0.46 0.94 0.08 0.42 1.00 0.22 0.25 0.17 0.08 1.40 0.18 0.14 Uniform Delay, dl 45.8 24.0 0.0 46.2 26.4 0.0 41.9 41.3 40.6 49.0 41.4 41.1 Progression Factor 1.14 0.57 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.5 5.9 0.1 2.5 19.7 0.3 2.3 1.0 0.5 203.8 1.2 1.0 — Delay(s) 53.6 19.5 0.1 48.7 46.1 0.3 41.2 39.5 36.1 252.8 42.6 42.1 Level of Service D B A DD A DDD F DD Approach Delay(s) 22.1 40.1 38.2 158.0 Approach LOS C D D F — tnteaiftilM Y "., f , . . _ - - HCM Average Control Delay 45.9 HCM Level of Service D — HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2025 PM Peak Background Synchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 1 — LSC, Inc. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: SH 66 & WCR 5.5- I4/21/2�0005 ,::,,- i, A.i ;'° "sp,,t "`4 7:7:" :" ' ' 1 LiT;I .E �, <a_;..e`&J �__;-til�385 Fl..At4.y ..- ,.. t'5T --er: Lane Configurations v Me » tt r 'r it r 'r it r — Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 — Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 — Satd. Flow(perm) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Volume(vph) 232 1329 689 611 1120 186 621 465 477 204 442 235 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 — Adj. Flow(vph) 252 1445 749 664 1217 202 675 505 518 222 480 255 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow(vph) 252 1445 749 664 1217 98 675 505 518 222 480 255 Turn Type Prot Free Prot Perm Prot Free Prot Free Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Free 8 Free Free Actuated Green, G (s) 17.0 48.0 120.0 18.0 49.0 49.0 22.0 25.0 120.0 13.0 16.0 120.0 — Effective Green, g (s) 17.0 48.0 120.0 18.0 49.0 49.0 22.0 25.0 120.0 13.0 16.0 120.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.40 1.00 0.15 0.41 0.41 0.18 0.21 1.00 0.11 0.13 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 486 1416 1583 515 1445 646 629 737 1583 372 472 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.41 c0.19 0.34 c0.20 0.14 0.06 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm c0.47 0.06 0.33 0.16 _ v/c Ratio 0.52 1.02 0.47 1.29 0.84 0.15 1.07 0.69 0.33 0.60 1.02 0.16 Uniform Delay, dl 47.7 36.0 0.0 51.0 32.0 22.4 49.0 43.9 0.0 51.0 52.0 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.24 0.39 0.30 0.80 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 3.9 29.2 1.0 135.7 2.4 0.2 54.0 4.3 0.5 6.9 45.8 0.2 — Delay(s) 51.6 65.2 1.0 199.1 14.9 6.8 93.4 46.9 0.5 57.9 97.8 0.2 Level of Service DE A F B A F D A E F A Approach Delay(s) 44.2 72.9 51.2 62.5 Approach LOSt m,evl-:e D E D E — 14 tNt x ^.�',d ? a5 `^.r'`.i4.. . ,--',-s-,---4,-.017,:t.- .,+ HCM Average Control Delay 56.6 HCM Level of Service E _ HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.08 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.4% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 — c Critical Lane Group Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2025 PM Peak Background Synchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 1 — LSC, Inc. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: WCR 5.5 & WCR 7 4/21/2005 - r _ .i,e Lane Configurations ►( ft it r if) i" Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 - Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3539 3539 1583 3433 1583 Flt Permitted 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 355 3539 3539 1583 3433 1583 Volume(vph) 492 823 790 480 443 379 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 — Adj. Flow(vph) 535 895 859 522 482 412 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 302 Lane Group Flow(vph) 535 895 859 522 482 110 Turn Type pm+pt Free Perm Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 4 Free 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 36.0 36.0 17.0 60.0 16.0 16.0 Effective Green, g (s) 36.0 36.0 17.0 60.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.60 0.60 0.28 1.00 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 567 2123 1003 1583 915 422 v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 0.25 0.24 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm c0.33 0.33 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.42 0.86 0.33 0.53 0.26 Uniform Delay, dl 14.0 6.4 20.3 0.0 18.8 17.3 Progression Factor 1.43 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 16.8 0.3 9.4 0.6 2.2 1.5 Delay(s) 36.9 4.9 29.7 0.6 20.9 18.8 Level of Service D A C A C B Approach Delay(s) 16.9 18.7 20.0 — Approach LOS B B B Intel on Stiff tary ;` . . r HCM Average Control Delay 18.3 HCM Level of Service B 4 — HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 — c Critical Lane Group Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake(LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2025 PM Peak Background Synchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 3 LSC, Inc. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: WCR 7 & WCR 28 4/25/2005 — .— t b J Lane Configurations ) ft ft r v) — Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume(veh/h) 134 838 665 48 80 156 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 — Hourly flow rate(vph) 146 911 723 52 87 170 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) — Walking Speed (fVs) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Median storage veh) 1 Upstream signal(ft) 831 pX, platoon unblocked — vC,conflicting volume 775 1470 361 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 723 vC2,stage 2 conf vol 747 vCu, unblocked vol 775 1470 361 tC,single(s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage(s) 5.8 —^ tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free% 83 61 73 cM capacity(veh/h) 837 223 635 Volume Total 146 455 455 361 361 52 87 170 Volume Left 146 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 170 — cSH 837 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 223 635 Volume to Capacity 0.17 0.27 0.27 0.21 0.21 0.03 0.39 0.27 Queue Length 95th (ft) 16 0 0 0 0 0 43 27 — Control Delay(s) 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.0 12.7 Lane LOS B D B Approach Delay(s) 1.4 0.0 18.9 Approach LOS C — Average Delay 3.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2025 PM Peak Background Synchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl LSC, Inc. Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis — 1: SH 66 & WCR 7 9/15/2005 l -- C '- t 4\ t , ', 1 — Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ill TT r 'I'I ft r 1 4 r '1 sr Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 - Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00 0.71 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 1298 1863 1583 1331 1863 1583 - Volume (vph) 230 1729 211 322 1813 317 108 60 192 317 71 202 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 250 1879 229 350 1971 345 117 65 209 345 77 220 - RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 169 0 0 178 Lane Group Flow (vph) 250 1879 229 350 1971 345 117 65 40 345 77 42 Turn Type Prot Free Prot Free Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases Free Free 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.0 63.0 120.0 22.0 66.0 120.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 Effective Green, g (s) 19.0 63.0 120.0 22.0 66.0 120.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 - Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.52 1.00 0.18 0.55 1.00 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 544 1858 1583 629 1946 1583 249 357 303 255 357 303 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.53 c0.10 c0.56 0.03 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 c0.22 0.09 0.03 c0.26 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.46 1.01 0.14 0.56 1.01 0.22 0.47 0.18 0.13 1.35 0.22 0.14 Uniform Delay, dl 45.8 28.5 0.0 44.6 27.0 0.0 43.1 40.6 40.2 48.5 40.9 40.3 Progression Factor 1.14 0.44 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 17.3 0.1 3.5 23.6 0.3 6.2 1.1 0.9 182.4 1.4 1.0 Delay(s) 53.6 29.7 0.1 48.1 50.6 0.3 49.3 41.7 41.1 230.9 42.3 41.2 - Level of Service DC A DD A DDD F D D Approach Delay(s) 29.4 43.8 43.7 143.3 Approach LOS C D D F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 48.7 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98 — Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group — Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2025 PM Peak Total Synchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 1 LSC, Inc. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis — 2: SH 66 & WCR 5.5 9/15/2005 Is —• Z C 4— k* 4\ t t ' 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations V►j ft r vi tt r vi ff r vi ff r Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 — Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Volume (vph) 232 1381 693 614 1150 200 623 465 482 229 443 235 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 252 1501 753 667 1250 217 677 505 524 249 482 255 - RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 252 1501 753 667 1250 217 677 505 524 249 482 255 Turn Type Prot Free Prot Free Prot Free Prot Free Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Free Free Free Free Actuated Green, G (s) 11.0 46.0 120.0 21.0 56.0 120.0 21.0 26.0 120.0 11.0 16.0 120.0 Effective Green, g (s) 11.0 46.0 120.0 21.0 56.0 120.0 21.0 26.0 120.0 11.0 16.0 120.0 — Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.38 1.00 0.18 0.47 1.00 0.18 0.22 1.00 0.09 0.13 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 315 1357 1583 601 1652 1583 601 767 1583 315 472 1583 -- v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.42 c0.19 0.35 c0.20 0.14 0.07 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.48 0.14 0.33 0.16 v/c Ratio 0.80 1.11 0.48 1.11 0.76 0.14 1.13 0.66 0.33 0.79 1.02 0.16 Uniform Delay, dl 53.4 37.0 0.0 49.5 26.4 0.0 49.5 42.9 0.0 53.4 52.0 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.26 0.35 1.00 0.84 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 18.9 59.0 1.0 58.5 1.2 0.1 73.9 3.7 0.5 18.1 46.9 0.2 Delay(s) 72.3 96.0 1.0 120.9 10.4 0.1 115.4 43.9 0.5 71.5 98.9 0.2 — Level of Service E F A F B A FD AE F A Approach Delay(s) 65.1 43.9 58.9 66.4 Approach LOS E D E E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 57.7 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.10 — Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group — — Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2025 PM Peak Total Synchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 2 LSC, Inc. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: WCR 5.5 & WCR 7 9/15/2005 —. 4— ak. s• r Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Ft ft r (r Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3539 3539 1583 3433 1583 Flt Permitted 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 355 3539 3539 1583 3433 1583 Volume (vph) 499 823 790 522 467 383 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow(vph) 542 895 859 567 508 416 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 305 Lane Group Flow(vph) 542 895 859 567 508 111 Turn Type pm+pt Free Perm Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 4 Free 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 36.0 36.0 17.0 60.0 16.0 16.0 Effective Green, g (s) 36.0 36.0 17.0 60.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.60 0.60 0.28 1.00 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 567 2123 1003 1583 915 422 v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 0.25 0.24 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm c0.33 0.36 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.96 0.42 0.86 0.36 0.56 0.26 Uniform Delay, dl 14.2 6.4 20.3 0.0 18.9 17.3 Progression Factor 1.43 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 18.5 0.3 9.4 0.6 2.4 1.5 Delay(s) 38.8 4.9 29.7 0.6 21.4 18.9 Level of Service D A C A C B Approach Delay(s) 17.7 18.1 20.2 Approach LOS B B C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2025 PM Peak Total Synchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 3 LSC, Inc. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: South Site Access & WCR 7 9/15/2005 >< t t P ti 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL _ SBT Lane Configurations Y t Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 16 54 222 28 93 339 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 17 59 241 30 101 368 Pedestrians Lane 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 827 257 272 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 827 257 272 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 94 92 92 cM capacity(veh/h) 315 782 1292 Direction, Lane# WB 1 NB`1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 76 272 101 368 Volume Left 17 0 101 0 Volume Right 59 30 0 0 _ cSH 584 1700 1292 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.16 0.08 0.22 Queue Length 95th (ft) 11 0 6 0 Control Delay(s) 12.1 0.0 8.0 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 12.1 0.0 1.7 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2025 PM Peak Total Synchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl LSC, Inc. Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: North Site Access & WCR 7 9/15/2005 Movement WBL WBR NBT; NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations t Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 12 92 268 22 149 455 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 13 100 291 24 162 495 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 502 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1122 303 315 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1122 303 315 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 93 86 87 cM capacity(veh/h) 198 736 1245 Direction, Lane# WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 113 315 162 495 Volume Left 13 0 162 0 Volume Right 100 24 0 0 _ cSH 561 1700 1245 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.20 0.19 0.13 0.29 Queue Length 95th (ft) 19 0 11 0 Control Delay(s) 13.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay(s) 13.0 0.0 2.1 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake (LSC#050380) 4/18/2005 2025 PM Peak Total Synchro 6 Report Bart Przybyl Page 5 LSC, Inc. Hello