The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20021654.tiff MOM MASTER TRAFFIC STUDY ST. VRAIN/ 66 METRO DISTRICT WELD COUNTY, COLORADO TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. L 2002-1654 LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 1889 York Street Denver, CO 80206 (303)333-1105 FAX (303) 333-1107 E-mail: Isc@lscden.com Web Site: http://www.lscden.com TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. November 27, 2001 Mr. Mike Siegrist St. Vrain/66 Metropolitan District, LLC 875 W. 64t Avenue Denver, CO 80221 Re: St. Vrain/66 Metro District Master Study Weld County, Colorado (LSC #010900) Dear Mr. Siegrist: -- We are pleased to submit our traffic impact study for the proposed St. Vrain/66 development in Weld County, Colorado. This traffic impact study first provides a summary of the existing roadways 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 improve- ments. We trust that our findings and recommendations will assist in the planning for the proposed development. Please call us if we can be of further assistance. Respectfully submitted, LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. _ oO.E ` 0, ite By: 0:4 a• enj in T. Waldman, P.E. 35827 a: BTW/wc F:/PROJECTS/2001/010900/F-STV66 /ONAL Master Traffic Study St. Vrain/66 Metro District Weld County, Colorado Prepared for .- St. Vrain/66 Metropolitan District, LLC 875 West 64th Avenue Denver, CO 80221 Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 1889 York Street Denver, CO 80206 (303) 333-1105 a November 27, 2001 (LSC #010900) TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Description Page A Introduction 1 B Roadway and Traffic Conditions 2 C Land Use Plan and Traffic Generation 6 — D Traffic Distribution 9 E Roadway Infrastructure Recommendations 12 F Conclusions 16 Appendix LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Description Page 1 Roadway Network and Land Use Plan 4 2 Year 2020 Background Traffic Volumes 5 3 Traffic Zone System 8 4 Assignment of Site-Generated Traffic Volumes 10 5 Directional Distribution of Site-Generated Traffic 11 6 Year 2020 Background Plus-Site-Generated Traffic Volumes 13 7 Year 2020 PM Peak-Hour Traffic 14 8 Recommended Lane Geometry 15 LIST OF TABULATIONS Table Description 1 Estimated Traffic Generation 7 SECTION A Introduction This report analyzes the transportation needs for proposed development in the area east of I-25, west of Weld County Road (WCR) 13, south of State Highway (SH) 66 and north of the St. Vrain River (see Figure 1). The area encompasses approximately 1,800 acres and consists of several parcels owned by separate land owners. Development plans for the area are in the preliminary stages and include a mix of residential and business park land uses. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. has been retained by St. Vrain/66 Metropolitan District, LLC to determine the transportation improvements that will be needed to fully develop this land area. This report summarizes the following analysis procedures which were utilized in the evaluation: • A review and analysis of present roadway and traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site and a review of planned and proposed roadway improve- ments in the general vicinity. • A determination of the average weekday and peak-hour vehicle-trip generation for the proposed developments. • A determination of the future traffic volumes in the vicinity of the site. • An evaluation of the impacts of site-generated traffic expressed in terms of the developments traffic as an increment of total projected traffic on the surrounding roadway system and the resulting Levels of Service on the adjacent major roadways and intersections. • A determination of appropriate roadway improvements which will ensure optimum traffic operation for traffic entering and exiting the site. St. Vrain/66 Metro District Master Traffic Study (LSC #010900) November 27, 2001 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 1 SECTION B Roadway and Traffic Conditions Figure 1 illustrates the location of the study area relative to the surrounding roadway system. As indicated, the study area is located east of I-25, west of Weld County Road (WCR) 13, south of State Highway (SH) 66 and north of the St. Vrain River. Although the site is within Weld County, portions of the study area are annexed or will soon be annexed to the Town of Meade. Area Roadways Major roadways in the vicinity of the site (see Figure 1) are described below: • SH 66 is a paved two-lane state highway with east-west continuity from Long- mont to US Highway 85. It is posted at 45 mph in the vicinity of the site. • SH 119 is a paved two-lane state highway connecting Boulder and Longmont and continuing east to I-25. It is posted at 45 mph in the vicinity of the site. • I-25 is a four-lane interstate highway with north-south continuity throughout the State of Colorado. There is currently a full interchange located at SH 66 and SH 119. • I-25 Frontage Road is a two-lane roadway with north-south continuity through- out Weld County. • Weld County Road 11 is currently a two-lane roadway with north-south _ continuity from SH 66 to WCR 28. • Weld County Road 13 is currently a two-lane roadway with north-south continuity from SH 60 on the north to the Denver metropolitan area on the south. • Weld County Road 28 is currently a two-lane roadway with east-west continuity from WCR 3 on the west to WCR 13 on the east. Initial Roadway System Assumptions and Future Background Traffic Conditions Figure 2 illustrates estimates of Year 2020 background traffic on the proposed roadway _ network. As this figure shows, a future roadway (WCR 9'/2 ) is planned through the development area and WCR 11 is planned to be extended to the south connecting to the future WCR 9'/2. The Year 2020 background traffic projections are based on the North St. Vrain/66 Metro District Master Traffic Study (LSC #010900) November 27, 2001 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 2 Front Range MINUTP model prepared by the North Front Range MPO with adjustments made to account for the planned roadway network, existing developments and planned developments south of the study area. a St. Vrain/66 Metro District Master Traffic Study(LSC #010900) November 27, 2001 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 3 r r S� r;tE yr z d ,rits,„� „y 4c1 ak — r a. r� t p. irr .. i 4414-4O,144------Ara s TM t- "t 'l''1„Lt., 'six' as a YYt fit':a , _.l z r, a 4,1-4,1c,-;:„. ,^_,.,1' ,—; ,#`r t ..e.. ;1;� 1.'.,aR ', - ae. q, `(-x Ft r^ + Te, n y'raf y ✓4 re Scale ,a f'` e�' / ''^"1 Y ` x"s.f t T,1, S Ct1t3C ,sT - .,`i #'-'W a.: '-cam s demta „ pa d ge,t a f ,„,,,C;41.'',..-'47p,--.1 r �R Alta 1,,,,.� h " ,w`{e #.5.i�{ �, 1 , a - a , '-,1,7,: ''..---1';:-€:-.9-'''' .x ! r ' �.L . td�T r' ft i µVi ,# ; b 4 m TTR.'r �. 4 9P¢ 3 �i FF � k Sy r `PE' '+ v- ,dtt N zx'k y ,,,- _ J� i 5 F v +.+r �,tom"'frR6Ks #' k Ph 1 F e „ # a rxi ,� y,,a,L £ ' ,-n � '' °',.. /.<4:"3/46"%. rS.�,,,, `", u 22 '�rat₹"''><.�a „3„-,,s4,:,,,:-,t *at t r = s '��,,°h�'y� s '$"e �' yi a, .di'Pdd� yL 'z JPY 4,...„.. A� 4 e y .. , ....„-,-4-:7::::,..44- 2, ,,,z;',.'—...r k � - f.tF Tritr A s* mss . s°i h Y _ . ,mss t ,¢ f, 4'"-- za �:A x , .a i'-;:-:1--,- .„, aFt }� n_ , f �'s ' xa� � ��"''S iblY �'xn. ^�' F ₹ � �k Figure 1 Roadway Network and Land Use Plan November,2001 St.Vrairv66 Metro District((SC#010900) — TA - .., November 14111154 27, 2001 Page 1 a A : tea gg vrir C N O — O to ` Z -- N — U o me o /�� o d O N O M N 0O I N O C J K J N N EL 1OM L et o an to — o .r in I I \ co .. m 1 rc a u L aOM Lo e) \ at 4oi _ m o Ni o o L o in \ M M N O V M N R Pr; — L\ J TA 61MM C O O O a O N L6 ter a O N..)- J o M ' � K V SZ-I 'ir `o — T O O V in y i 3 w v m rn a ILL Q II 1 0 O Z L? W m 0 W J — November 27, 2001 Page 5 SECTION C Land Use Plan and Traffic Generation ask The preliminary land use plan for the study area is summarized in Table 1. The 1,800- acre site will contain a variety of uses consisting of approximately 2,682 residential units and 4,735,000 square feet of business park development. The amount of traffic that will be generated by the proposed development has been estimated using trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in its report Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. The results of the generation analysis are also given in Table 1. Figure 3 illustrates the zone system used for this report. From the trip generation calculations, it is estimated that approximately 86,000 vehicle-trips would be generated on an average weekday. St. Vrain/66 Metro District Master Traffic Study (LSC #010900) November 27, 2001 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 6 — Table 1 Land Use Assumptions WCR 9 1/2 Master Traffic Impact Study Weld County, Colorado (LSC #010900; November, 2001) — Trip Vehicle- Generation Trips Rates (1) Generated — Average Average Zone# Development Land Use Quantity Units Weekday Weekday 321 South of St. Vrain River Commercial 300 KSF (2) 9.57 2871 (Background Development) Business Park 1000 KSF 42.92 42920 — 732 Lyons Property Business Park 200 KSF 12.76 2552 733 Rademaker Property Business Park 350 KSF 12.76 4466 734 Douthit Property Residential 950 DU (3) 9.57 9092 Business Park 550 KSF 12.76 7018 735 Del Camino Residential 182 DU 9.57 1742 Business Park 300 KSF 12.76 3828 — 736 E of CR 11, W of CR 13 Residential 350 DU 9.57 3350 N of CR 28, S of SH 66 Business Park 2700 KSF 12.76 34452 — 737 Adrian Property Business Park 185 KSF 12.76 2361 738 Martinez Property Residential 200 DU 9.57 1914 — Business Park 150 KSF 12.76 1914 739 S. Riverdance Residential 300 DU 9.57 2871 Business Park 100 KSF 12.76 1276 .. 743 N. Riverdance Residential 300 DU 9.57 2871 Business Park 200 KSF 12.76 2552 — 740 Hamlin Property Residential 400 DU 9.57 3828 Total Residential 2682 DU 9.57 25667 — Business Park 4735 KSF 12.76 60419 Notes: — (1) Source: "Trip Generation", Institute of Transportation Engineers, 6th Edition, 1997. (2) KSF =Thousand Square Feet '--, (3) DU = Dwelling Units — November 27, 2001 Page 7 1 A / SH 66 4- \ 734 742 Approximate Scale Scale:i'=24QT s. C P y 733 736 2 734 2 735 —II I t WCR28 I 737 I 743 740 738 _ _ — 1— / 3 739 321 SH 119 Figure 3 Traffic Zone System November,2001 -- St.Vrain/66 Metro District(LSC#010900) xoc r November 27, 2001 Page 8 SECTION D Traffic Distribution The directional distribution of site-generated vehicular traffic on the roadways providing access to and from the proposed development is a key element in the planning of the project's specific access requirements and in determining its traffic impacts on surrounding roadways and intersections. Major factors which influence the traffic ._ distribution include: • The site's location relative to the population and activity centers. • The future roadway network serving the area as detailed in Figure 2. Figure 4 illustrates the expected distribution for the site. This distribution was taken from the MINUTP model previously mentioned in this report. As this figure shows, 35 percent of the site-generated traffic is expected to be captured within the site, 25 percent is expected to be oriented to/from the south on the I-25 frontage road, ten percent is expected to be oriented to/from the south on WCR 13, 20 percent is expected to be oriented to/from the west on SH 66, five percent is expected to be oriented to/from the west on WCR 28, and the remaining site-generated traffic is expected to be oriented to/ from other paths. Figure 5 illustrates the assignment of site-generated traffic for the proposed development. This figure is based on the above distribution applied to the expected site-generated traffic as summarized in Table 1. St. Vrain/66 Metro District Master Traffic Study(LSC #010900) November 27, 2001 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 9 `r `� U Q NO /� pp z0 r c E .. i # EU z 'Q aO.L o v UD 1/4O a. e.e N M et > O I ti — \ - N EL MJM iJ \\ FJ (�' 1 \ I U � J CD - CZ - H 3 LL VDM io m % \ J ... M, N \ Xe U N fa l W.611 I O \ N _ mo_ • a9quoy SZ- _ _ - - �— SZ-I . , o C Olp C in 0 O jo a C It) U o L. V d ii E "1 Z Ix w an CD J - J November 27, 2001 Page 10 a v 8 g� O > z° t y..L - U 5 2 O de 0 O cc, to — In a O 0 < �� Z N m E • J J /J a EL IIDAN `_1 O t co o ^O W N N J o C C 0 1...N. " \ U N WC ?OaK 0 0 0 n d CIL as 0 U cel 0 N n J 0 J m M Lri t ui r,1 ) LL MOM J 0N .........%.\\ o 0 `N O -a 4 — I a J in \ O 0 '1. \ N Of _ "or .- O " O 1 J O VL6NDM m Ln tr Oo \\ L— M O �. Jo Oin in 0in Lri in 0 O N 0 CO 01 in N. N. mica p 46 ' N Y IS J �i� p ua,i sz J C U 0 ~ — 0 T N U 4 y N N 3 ... d DI 0 o a II ,a•-, 0 0 Z "? LU to CD W J — was November 27, 2001 Page 11 SECTION E Roadway Infrastructure Recommendations Traffic impacts in this analysis have been quantified in terms of average total weekday traffic (AWT) and Levels of Service (LOS) at nearby intersections during morning and evening peak travel periods. Figure 6 illustrates the expected Year 2020 background plus site-generated traffic volumes. The traffic volumes illustrated on Figure 6 are the combination of Year 2020 background traffic given in Figure 2 plus project-generated traffic volumes given in Figure 5. In addition, Figure 6 illustrates the recommended number of lanes for the proposed road- - way system. As Figure 6 shows, four-lane arterial roadways (two lanes in each direction with turn lanes where needed) are recommended for SH 66, WCR 9'/2, WCR 13, and WCR 28 east of WCR 9 1/2. WCR 11, WCR 28 west of WCR 9'/2, the 1-25 Frontage Road, and the east-west road north of WCR 28 are recommended as two-lane collector road- - ways (one lane in each direction with turn lanes where needed). Figure 7 illustrates traffic projections for the Year 2020 PM peak-hours at the inter- - sections within the study area. These traffic projections were estimated using the Year 2020 average weekday traffic projections shown in Figure 6. Figure 8 illustrates inter- _ section geometry recommendations and expected intersection Level of Services based on the Year 2020 peak-hour traffic projections. The intersection geometry recommendations shown in Figure 8 are preliminary and may change some when more detailed lane use and access plans become available for individual land parcels. St. Vrain/66 Metro District Master Traffic Study (LSC #010900) November 27, 2001 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 12 a VI 8Q _ y o Q No M d` eo o E it LE I° mew Eal Uy $y O 2 o N .V 2 o L CIS ��..// ma a .... O o O O M O O N N m PI M1 a M \ \ rei J J 2 N _ LL NOM O O O m n a co ..- O 2 M N `N N ci. NI O N O . O O re to w rZ O U R 3J in J M N Is N ) LLaDM J O n O M O N 4 in N N O 4 r o o o nT O CO in \ M b c a 4 in — O 1 711.61OM M M 0 01 O MO M .- JO O O O H Vs O O in N O M N O MII 0 0IX N o _ ��_ 'pis a9eLuoy \ SZ-I U .-------.----------- WI 0 F` O in T — M o m s V d 3 VI w _ a) C C CO O J J V Q a N _ II II II — 0 O Z M • W to (' W J :.ikff;ti November 27, 2001 Page 13 c. 4 N. •S.:-.2 8 4 v � � rt78Q _ — $Vl., i..... \ r .i. O 1 _ O 1 1 N O L zT N O . " to coo O <uli i C.-I8 o r., — co II :lin in 17n-to:// _, n ton " tD a III — at EL MOM 0 " m " / a 2m� t1n_ " m " to ` " / J L " N �. f ly a " cn 0, Y �j� " Jnj in N " J1ca ra"LLOM " 0 _ n n nr o LL 6MOM in 41 Iij Cin pow \ m n m ` PH a9nuo,i sz-1 i sri u C 6 � � 10 ~ m K � 0 2 s EL , -. o Z II Li •' :. __. 0 'n • November 27, 2001 Page 14 a tNsg _ rYi 's W .1...) " O 1141 ta -a:. z0 pa,) E 0 v. -raF ter` � � _ -)f f r � c' N 0 Et NOM y U as, -,ff LL NOM-rid) /In(.. ib_ '''. es Ei [... . ___) A 6 0' t_ -I ff i-N=^ 7x16 N3M / 7-,;›,.., Q\ CO 4- . ff r--)---Th 0 t- C' --------- sz-i U ` J �f" �¢~ U_ O C N O1 C V) - V1 O, O N O 0- m ^ o O IL. N J ` 6ffarka ii ii �� wZ J November 27, 2001 Page 15 SECTION F Conclusions Based upon the foregoing analysis, the following conclusions may be made concerning the proposed St. Vrain/66 development in Weld County: 1. The initial land use concept for the proposed development calls for the construction and occupation of 2,682 residential units and 4,735,000 square feet of business park development. It is estimated that approximately 86,000 vehicle-trips would be generated on an average weekday from the proposed development. 2. Approximately 35 percent of the site-generated traffic is expected to be captured within the site, 25 percent is expected to be oriented to/from the south on the I-25 frontage road, 10 percent is expected to be oriented to/from the south on WCR 13, 20 percent is expected to be oriented to/from the west on SH 66, 5 percent is expected to be oriented to/from the west on WCR 28, and the remaining site-generated traffic is expected to be oriented to/from other paths. 3. Four-lane arterial roadways (two lanes in each direction with turn lanes where needed) are recommended for SH 66, WCR 9'h , WCR 13, and WCR 28 east of WCR 9'1. WCR 11, WCR 28 west of WCR 9'/2, the I-25 Frontage Road, and the east-west road north of WCR 28 are recommended as two-lane collector road- _ ways (one lane in each direction with turn lanes where needed). 4. Figure 8 illustrates the preliminary recommendation for intersection geometries and traffic control. 5. With implementation of the Year 2020 traffic control and laneage recommendations cited herein (refer to Figures 6 and 8) the traffic generated by development can be accommodated by the future roadway system. St. Vrain/66 Metro District Master Traffic Study (LSC #010900) November 27, 2001 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page 16 APPENDIX Traffix Output HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: State Highway 66 & I-25 Frontage Road 11/1/2001 41— k" 4\ t t ' 1 >f �i:x� a '� :.. � aq � a k':v;�rC a� .=Y' rt,�`-• t a.a�_,.v kxst,r'. a .. ua.� `.w.J, 'kt; �i Lane Configurations 44 P 44 r P P Si n"Control r`" Free ' rree', ,. , Sto Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Votu4ie(vehlh} I.. ,_5tE r_d 1,625. 24:PT ,. , a A,ieoo .,..,_ 5 0 0 45° , 0, :-'10 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 r�toUr1itowrate(veh/h) 0 ,=1756` 33" •Q 1'7,39,.. t6 .0' 0_. ti& 0'' 0 , "ft Pedestrians .y�,� trii ) y . 2 Walking Speed (fUs) Perceta(Biaekoge ..`.s ` " �a _ ... ��F_.. __ . �_ _ .,'�� __.. ,. . tip•:' yyRight turn flare (veh) Median storage veh) VC confl2fmg Qo ufiWi.„1765 - . , :;;1709' ` S.'S 8647 S522 "` 883" 263 ''3538 `''=870 vC1, stage 1 conf vol t 2F tage 2co lfvoi ..................................................... tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 fc 2sta e s +. ,-S, x, . .1 r ❑ z: r,.,.. 4>x ��'_. _. . .," ,�7-t ; .o ,. ..sa4 � _f. z: �n''�a tc�._� :.�� -'`^., h �" tF (s) 22 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 01 peue free"3 "100 N '. , 140 ' " t <. "300 ::;100 . `5 "Vito ;., 104 95 cM capacity (veh/h) 353 339 11 6 289 11 6 295 Volume Total 883 883 33 870 870 16 16 11 Volume Right 0 0 33 0 0 16 16 11 — t ." . .., 1700 `�<47 0._ • 7001700 X700 �t70G t 289 .:w29 ...... .. Volume to Capacity 0.52 0.52 0.02 0.51 0.51 0.01 0.06 0.04 Queue L"engdi:(ft) °.. 1' J.,:; .0 ,_` Q O`;" Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 17.7 Lane;Lc3S Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 18.2 17.7 FCpproach LQ5 , C c Average Delay_ ,. .. Oclx,` Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.8% ICU Level of Service A —- - - i1 WCR 9.5 Master Traffic Study 9/10/2001 PM 2020 Synchro 5 Report Ben Waldman Page 2 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: State Highway 66 & WCR 9.5 11/1/2001 a; . x . ,t.,F ,,,. _�: ( ' L' . Lam' . " g1f ':"57 . 10 Lane Configurations 'I ++ 111 + r 4 1r 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 Caret `Util. Factor 1.00 • 0 95 1.00`_: :1.00 0.95 k ^. 0.97 1.00 '1.00 -E`-i0:`` • 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0:95` 1.00' 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3539 1583 177O 3528 3433 1863 1583 1817 1583 Fit•Permittetf 0.25 1.00 `';1(;00 0.12 1 00 • Q'95 1`:00 ':4.00 • {S'84` 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 470 3539 1583 219 3528 3433 1863 1583 1558 1583 50 885 745 165 7if 15 750 35 90 50 50 150 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) , '54 • 962 810' .. 179;, 761'` 16 .815 38 98 54- 54 163 Lane Group Flow (vph) 54 962 810 179 777 0 815 38 98 0 108 163 Turn Type..; • pm+pt. Free :pmtpt ` "' Prat Free Perm _ Free Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 Free` 8 , ' Free 6 - Free Actuated Green, G (s) 35.0 30.0 100.0 45.0 36.0 27.0 47.0 100.0 16.0 100.0 Effective Greets, ,,(s) 35.0 .•30.0 100.0`' 45.0 36.0`- 27.0 47,0 100.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.30 1.00 0.45 0.36 0.27 0.47 1.00 Y 0.16 1.00 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 230 1062 1583 269 1270 927 876 1583 249 1583 Wsifotio.Prot .0.01` 90.27 90.07 0.22'':,, ........... " 0:02 " =4 ^^ v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.51 0.23 0.06 0.07 0.10 v/c Ratio 023 0.91 0.51" • 0.67 „ 0.04 0.06 "`";0m43` 0.1,0 Uniform Delay, dl 22.2 33.6 0.0 21.3 26.3 34.9 14.3 0.0 37.9 0.0 Progression;Factor • 100 '1.00 1.00 '1.97 - 1.42' 'x k=';='{J!'..:. : .4. . s,fi2` �0 ti,' 7 1.00 � 1.00 'f00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.4 12.6 1.2 11.1 2.0 10.9 0.1 0.1 5.4 0.1 Delay (s) 24 6 46.2 1.2 52.9 39.2 �k, ,>, ti.,4.32"�`='.• 6.9 0.1 "'.s,'_5;:.433:'.=r•`�I:;1 _ CD ADD ;.;:. ...,_..,:.u •C. . A A D.....:. A Level of Service APProach Delay (s)",` 25.6 '41.8 L E 28.2 � �� x, "``'`�.?`T.� '�':•i� r Approach LOS C D C ,.. B•, . WM' �h'1�"t. *� �,'i �• � ,p7aytrY T�≥ • HCM Average Control Delay 29.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volui te.to Capacity ratio ` .. 0.75 ': ,r ti , '-::r:::•;,.f., . .., .: Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.5% • ICU Level of Service g`•s.,.agrC c Critical Lane Group WCR 9.5 Master Traffic Study 9/10/2001 PM 2020 Synchro 5 Report Ben Waldman Page 3 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis -- 10: WCR 28 & I-25 Frontage Road 11/1/2001 * k Y'N:1/11"i�'»-`zY .:�: II�� I3 `t +74 ky M tier, Lane Configurations j r ) 4 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 Lane-Util_Factor 1 00 1 00 ZEAL 1 00 AlplicninF,P0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 100 0.85 Fit Protected 0"`''.:"r _ 0.95 1,00 0,95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00,14;0() Satd. Flow(prot) )770 1832 1770 1849 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt'f erm1ttedd "7, 1.00 • 11 ' 0.22: ',r1'.'00177- ; 0.72 1.00` 1.00'0.'72' 1.00 ..: 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 931 1832 406 1849 1337 1863 1583 1337 1863 1583 Volume(vph) 15. 400; 50 350 _ 400 20 50 55 • 35O 20 55 15 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) 16 435 54 •380.; ` 435 '22 '54. 60 380 22 60. 16 Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 489 0 380 457 0 54 60 380 22 60 16 /'urn Type Prn+pt ` pm+pt • pm4pt pm+ov pm+pt Pe Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 3 1 6 Permitted,Phases 4 8 • • 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 42.0 38.0 67.0 59.0 21.0 17.0 42.0 21.0 17.0 17.0 ffective,Green, g (s) 42.0 '38.0. : 67.0''' X59.0 ,' , ,.,.n; 21.0 17.0 • 42.0 21:0 17.0., 17.0 _ Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.38 0.67 0.59 0.21 0.17 0.42 0.21 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 : 4.0 4.0 4..0:ry. r y:= 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 '4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 425 696 613 1091 298 317 728 298 317 269 vIs Ratio Prot � = X00 .7'60:27777''''.-o0.16 0.25 y c0:01 0.03 c0.13 0.00 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0 01 0.26 0.03 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.06 Uniform Delay, dl 17.0 26.2 11.5 11.2 32.2 35.6 21.5 31.6 35.6 34.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 • ° . 2.24 0.66 0.54 0.54 1.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 5.9 4.6 1.2 1.1 1.1 2.2 0.5 1.3 0.4 Delay!(s) 1, 32.1 -7.4n..•_ 30.4 8.5 t ," " 18.5 20.4 26,4 32.1 36 9 E:3.5t2 Level of Service B C C A BCCCDO Approach Delay s Y 31.6 .=7 18.5 '. • 24.8 35 6'" -.._ Approach LOS C B C D .,`. s'a b :.a....n n;.. • .. ._ 'a it 7Fxst.•.'3=- ` .,,.y;"�,3 id i:. V' .Y�.., ,.,. HCM Average Control Delay 24.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM, plume to capacity ratio € 'U.61 � ' Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.1% ICU Level of Service B , :. • c Critical Lane Group WCR 9.5 Master Traffic Study 9/10/2001 PM 2020 Synchro 5 Report Ben Waldman Page 4 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: WCR 28 & WCR 9.5 11/1/2001 ,'.S.t- . .`fy r1',#iR, ,✓ :. "'`=r�,�„R:.,fi�� .. .r-"Y6,. "4•rJ. . .Y.<.i•`' ra. .i"�'. wl. _r•F9 'C Lane Configurations T r ) ++ r vi tt r Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor . 1.00 1.00 '. 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' •1.00 tO0 4 5 4.0 4.0 4 0 4.0 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4 4 i +n � ..<.., .�:.,,:�.; 00 {1i95 1.00 1.00 0 95 .�°. 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 Fit Protected " 0.95 1.00 '1.00 0,95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1 Opp', 1'00 Satd. Flow (prof) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 cif Permitted 0.55 1.00 1.00 0 2 ''y 1.00 .' 1.00 0.49 1:00 1.00 0.24 1 0011101) Satd. Flow(perm) 1024 1863 1583 462 1863 1583 911 3539 1583 452 3539 1583 1{oltlme_(vph) 185 , 325 30 350 325" 145 30 415 350 145 # 415 185 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 Ad}_Flow(vph) • 201 : 353 33 380 353 158 33 451 380 158 451 201 Lane Group Flow (vph) 201 353 33 380 353 158 33 451 380 158 451 201 Turn Type pm+pt Perm pm+pt Free pm+pt ,.:. pm+ov pm+pt_ Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 3 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 Free 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 37.0 28.0 28.0 57.0 44.0 100.0 24.0 20.0 45.0 35.0 27.0 27.0 Effective Green, g (s) 37.0 ` 28.0' 28.0 • 57.0 44.0 '100.0 24.0;" 20.0 45.0 35:0 27.0 27;6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.28 0.28 0.57 0.44 1.00 0.24 0.20 0.45 0.35 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0" 4.0 4.0 410' '4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 446 522 443 590 820 1583 253 708 776 303 956 427 yfs Ratio Prot 0.04• ` 0:19` c0.16 0.19 0`01 c0.13 0.12 c0.06 - 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.02 c0.21 0.10 0.03 0.12 0.13 0.13 p/C Ratio 0.45 0.68"";0.07 0.64 0,43‘,49.16p443 0.64 0.49 0 52" `A„ 7 0;47 Uniform Delay, dl 22.4 32.0 26.5 14.2 19.3 0.0 29.4 36.7 19.4 24.1 30.5 30.5 .. progression Factor 0.78 0.88 0.90 0.63 0.92` `?=1.00;C1.30 1.33 2.64 . 087 ; 0,92 0:10 Incremental Delay, d2 2.7 5.8 0.3 4.8 1.5 0.1 1.0 4.0 2.0 5.4 1.4 3.2 ...................... 24.0 13.7 19.2: xw.';0.1;g;:..39.4 52.7 53:Xlig6k3 : Level of Service C C C B B A D D D C C C Approach Delay(s) 28.8 " ;F 13.5nt ::r,:.•r h 525 Approach LOS C B D C iet}}o� � `_7 gg 'tea`. :5 �(�- .4-•.. .v: .:a �:n,: tl hs = �K :�� • ".;�r`YNP i�.;r✓h . .:f.<. ,: , HCM Average Control Delay 30.6 HCM Level of Service C 1101tiM Volume to.Ca act ratio, 0.62 • Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 }ntersection CapacityUb r n 74 2% ICU.Level of Service c r>= •< ; c Critical Lane Group WCR 9.5 Master Traffic Study 9/10/2001 PM 2020 Synchro 5 Report Ben Waldman Page 5 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: WCR 28 & WCR 13 11/1/2001 Lane Configurations r ++ tt r ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 L.1900 ' 1900 LL 1900 .1906- `1900 -- Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Iane:Ut Factor 1.00 . _100�;:'.0,97�� 0.95 0.95: _tt. Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 �( AIt'Protectedj 0.95 1:00 0.95 1.00 1:00 1.00- a L t 4 ;; g ,, s.1,°lt ' '_Y `i1' Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 1583 3433 3539 3539 1583 :L u, ?a�'L•fi»:"`:cx.i 5"" F f Q .�h! `T'�.r'N,.[wa.w.••ar.+. Flt Permute 0-95 1 QQ 0.95 1:00 1.00 1:00 ,, :.= rx•- •�• ":a: ,�, . r ._; ,...,. L... .: ,u: i:,rub 'f:,y��:<x�,n .�.:.:,4; Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 3433 3539 3539 1583 Volume(vph) 355 565 ` 565 1010 . 955 355 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj.,Flow(vph) 386 614 614` 1098 1038 386 Lane Group Flow(vph) 386 614 614 1098 1038 386 Turn rTr Free. " Prot Protected Phases 4 5 2 6 errnitted:Phases v, Free' Free fi 4: VM x:"l ' rr Actuated Green, G (s) 29.0 100.0 22.0 63.0 37.0 100.0 Effective Green, g(s) 29.0:100,6,H, 22:Q Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 1.00 0.22 0.63 0.37 1.00 Clearance Time(s) _ 4-0 4.0 4.0. 4.0 , ` Tfi; Lane Grp Cap(vph) 513 1583 755 2230 1309 1583 v/s Ratio-Prot E r c0 22 150.18 0:31 'c0.29 • v/s Ratio Perm 0.39 0.24 v C Ratio 0 39. 0:81 �.taf a•p:::s_•.;:"-�•'' Y gnu es :.- x0.75 : ` 0 49: .:.Q.79 0.24 .. ��"<<s 7ri_�:.≤<-�:;i=�::...:•.'(. �._..,... M>.......�.. .v ,..:f.�:. ., Uniform Delay, dl 32.2 0.0 37.0 9.9 28.1 0.0 c+t:Y' : Y:;::.::;:lli Ri75 t..:•.:y:_:`Js�::i:. lima:i,:::1'.4:7'ir,'.'3'• �Yoi:`�:i:..."•.-.-. Progression Factor • 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.19 1.00 , r: f Incremental Delay, d2 8.9 0.6 9.3 0.8 4.9 0.4 Dela (s) �r; t,.s•c<«f ..f,rt; .::�;' ::,r, ss� - _•:,• . Y X1.3 0.6 • 46.4 10.7 38.3 0.4 S�;.;:, •-t,:.i : - -, :`r .;,-: =r:; _ �.. . .:..:.. '..�_.:C:L..�S`k.l�.�Yi•uS�•:�.:��:s��j._ :ty'�..r- �9rt�:.,2.':-..b`:Q:v�:.i'� Level of Service C A D B D A !.'s.if' _urnwiii `c'`:iC.ir,;ij,,d:<sr, :. ':-rvr i_w t Xtt._.:r::: `;{, Approach Delay (s} J2.5 23.5 28.0 `•r.E,1 :✓ .-,DF,,yi1 E T .. .._ .. �:a';,.'..,.•;�E"cil,rkc,::. .`�i:{�::.. -�.q:...'`Si�C•��ixi;'�_tir``. _�i..'.'d`_� c,. .. Approach LOS B C C a..q o��Cr �t�t� she�'}.'-�l�k e.�i a•: a f Vii,. i s � �` - *. �? t t. 's :. ..,.. .. .. HCM Average Control Delay 22.4 HCM Level of Service C .Volume(ti Capacity ratio LL 0.78 • w� rh f Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 intersection Capacity Utilization ,; •• '77.6% ICU Level ...,.:.'. :'�of Service , ,,.. F :,s:: `; ..: `. : .,_. c Critical Lane Group WCR 9.5 Master Traffic Study 9/10/2001 PM 2020 Synchro 5 Report Ben Waldman Page 6 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized intersection Capacity Analysis — 14: State Highway 66 & WCR 11 11/1/2001 t —► 1- 4 k 4\ 1 P \' l0 1 ¢ d Lane Configurations vi tat r 1 att iq I 4 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 L ne U,t1:1'ractor 4� _ ''1.00 0.95 1.00::."..1.00' 0.95 ;' X7.00• 1.00 '1.00'4 r. f Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.95 Fit Protected 0.95 -; 1:00 1.00: 0.95 1.00 0.95 , 1.00 T'.....,:ii;ir.K.9iv 0.98,':A, Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3535 1770 1650 1750 It Permitted 0.28 : 1.00: 1.00: • 0.17 • 1.00" .-. 0.75 1.00 ':-'•'1.- .-.4,-,',-.;' 096 : _`: Satd. Flow(perm) 530 3539 1583 308 3535 1393 1650 1709 — i o1ume,(vph) 5 885 "' 235' `" 15 640 : , '.5: : 235 5 •15_ .5 5',;-!'-'., 5 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) 5 962 255`. 16' ..69,5::‘,..:,:..:‘-::,- "5 255 , 5 16' 5 '5 5 — Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 962 255 16 701 0 255 21 0 0 15 0 Tun Type , pm+pt�:'' Free Apr'+ptr7r: • • ' • :.::. Perm Pei—my,--: Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 Free :.6', �. 2 • 6 •:i1 r • • 0 , Actuated Green, G (s) 52.0 42.0 100.0 52.0 42.0 36.0 36. 36.0 Effective Green, g,(s) j 52.0 .42.0- 100.0 , 52.0 . ;42,0 ``1'ik',, 36.0 ;b '.36.05;5::i. 1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.42 1.00 0.52 0.42 0.36 0.36 0.36 _ Clearance Time (s) °4.0 4.0:: : 4.0 , 4.0• . '4:0 . 4.0 . 4.6.4:7;P:•:. . Lane Grp Cap (vph) 400 1486 1583 306 1485 501 594 615 vls Ratio Prot' 0.00 'c0.27 0.01? . 0.20 0.01 i '''',4.,,i.±.. '`i,'.- '----- - v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.16 0.02 c0.18 _ 0.01 ytc Ratio: -I:4:1,,,,,:),,,9:0,17:'0.65:•-•,0:16.4.V.'05:•, 0.47 '0:51 : 0:04 t` �R', 0•0217!;!.:',C: Uniform Delay, dl 12.2 23.1 0.0 13.4 21.0 25.1 20.7 20.7 — Progression Factor 0.29 x`0.50 1.00 '1.62 - 1,10'A_ 1.06 1.21 1.00 < ; Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.3 1.0 3.6 0.1 0.1 Del, 4 r AT1`'3;5 12.9 : 0.1 22.1 30'idv.W::: tir � 30.2 25.2 f . 20 7 t ',t'4 Level of Service A B A C C CC a — Approach Delay (s) 10.2 30.2' . 29.8 . " . 20 7 ; Approach LOS B C C C ii-le ,c' ,7 Ilw41. Y„>'.. c.:..._. .. _ _ .. . . ........,i_. ..:.,..s. d ...4,_: _ _if.L.. ..-._ ,_ . .' aL ^t'B'7M1 HCM Average Control Delay 19.1 HCM Level of Service B �'§� 't: ,ur:»•5.7.i It air' �T:h"�e:C:' :E`;(.t.•f3;q<• H�Nk.�olume to Capacity ratioa:,.r.. .�t ;0 52 -z;a _..: ; Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utili ation ;'47`"`". °" ;"%tere.."�,' .•' ';,. _:1".:z 54.1% ;10E1 LevelafServiCe.<.:h��..�.w�.��:`.`s..=��z��s,.>r ,..•...._.�4 c Critical Lane Group WCR 9.5 Master Traffic Study 9/10/2001 PM 2020 Synchro 5 Report Ben Waldman Page 7 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis — 15: WCR 28 & WCR 11 11/1/2001 -ma y C 4— 4\ ty-�� P \ 4 j y .:1i it W BT P t.C F".LM 4`�. .. :R7 �!I . m.1!.:'Y B :i� .. . Lane Configurations ) +T., 'I ++ r 4r li t r Weal Flow(vphpl) ` .1900 1900' 1900 1900 1900 :1900 1900 1900 1900 190,k.„.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 Cane Util. Factor 1.00., 0,95 ` .1;00 0.95 ' 1.009» 1.00 1.00 1.00 "°1.00 '100 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 _, Fit Protected _ 0.95. '1.00 *K71V 0.95:, 1.00 ':-.1:00 _AV.- 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3532 1770 3539 1583 1856 1583 1770 1863 1583 Fit Permitted,, 0;24 1.00 '`,7 LIT'',;::::` t 0.25. 1:00 1.00 'X�. ''' 0.98 r 1.00 0.60 ` 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 442 3532 465 3539 1583 1824 1583 1113 1863 1583 _ Volume vrph). . `155... . .690 • •10 135 690' 65 10 125 ,130; ` 65, 125 155 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) 165'.'''.750 `.: 11 , 147:::•.:.:750..----::j.,71-;- •'. 11 136 ' 141 :71_ 136 168 -- Lane Group Flow (vph) 168 761 0 147 750 71 0 147 141 71 136 168 Turn Type_ , Pm+pt . : pm+pt Perm. •'Perm Perm :Perm pm+av Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 7 Permittcf Phases' ,. 4 8 '. .8 2 2. 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 63.0 40.0 61.0 39.0 39.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 26.0 49.0 precti‘rie-Gyee7n: g (s) ' y.63.0,. :40.0 ', ` F' 61 0" a', 9 0'... 39:0;72.,, ,r 26.0 26 0 ' .26 0 , 26,0: 4%0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.40 0.61 0.39 0.39 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.49 Clearance Tirrie.(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0: 4.0 :.-'4.VT'xr..`:: •,::- 4.0 4.0 . 4.0`'` 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 584 1413 571 1380 617 474 412 289 484 839 vls Ratio'Prot ." c0.07 c0.12': '-'-.71.-- 0 06''' •0 a'1_jr j ‘ - 0.07 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.10 0.04 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.06 fd+Ratio - 0.29 .0.54,: :;.::::.:;,:,-.7:.-,,,.;4.:0.26 0.54 ''0,12 .' 0.31 0.34 :-0.25 . ...0.28' .640 Uniform Delay, d1 8.9 22.9 9.2 23.6 19.5 29.8 30.1 29.2 29.5 14.4 Progression Factor 1.55 • 1.56 Y `s 0.56 112- 1.53 ,;,-.4L-.0.94 0.67 1.06 • 1.06' 2.77 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 1.3 0.9 1.2 0.3 1.7 2.2 2.0 1.4 0.5 De :s.' , 14.8 . 37.1 ,� 6 0 277'.`-•30.1 , �'{ ��' 29.8 -22.3 33.0 32.7 40.4 Level of Service B D ACC C C C C D Approach Delay (s) 33 1 .,_ r.,..x,. > ,,..,-h,::,_::: Approach LOS a .. 24.C . ...a��' :�_ ...26C 36D HCM Average Control Delay 29.6 HCM Level of Service C fiCNIV.jiiiene to Capacity ratio 0.40 .: '=k Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 . rntersection Capacity'Utilization 58.3% ICU Level of Service r Y "5' c Critical Lane Group A f. ,/1 WCR 9.5 Master Traffic Study 9/10/2001 PM 2020 Synchro 5 Report Ben Waldman Page 8 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis -- 18: State Highway 66 & WCR 13 11/1/2001 ♦ 1 Lane Configurations 'I tt r )'1 +1 V + r 4 Ideat Flow(vphpl) . ` 1900. 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1906.„.1900 1900 "' Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Cane Utrl 'Fact&or':q" : • 1.00 0.95 2 1,00 : 0.97 ' 0.95 ^ , .:.0.97 1.00 1,00 `• 1.00-17.701:t;', Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 — pit Protected - 0.95 `1:00 1.00 0:95 1,00 • 0.95 1.00 1.00 �::.-? 1 00 ; '`n: Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3539 1583 3433 3533 3433 1863 1583 1830 Flt Permitted ' 0.49 1.00 ..,:Apo :0.95' ‘1.O„.: 0.95 1.00 1.00 0 98 -...;:;-fir`.- Satd. Flow(perm) 906 3539 1583 3433 3533 3433 1863 1583 1808 Volume V h 5 -.455'. '450«' 365 ` 4w 5 450 30 350 5 40 ''- 5 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 h) 5-..,.,4951,„-i.7,489; 397 .: 457 ,.,_i..,',..,25.,. ;_489 '_33 ' 380 5 .:..:,•-43 - .5 — Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 495 489 397 462 0 489 33 380 0 53 0 Tura Type;Y`'•. ..Perm ' Free<:-77'PiOt ig ," :Prot Free Perm '1 , Protected Phases 4 3 8 5 2 6 {;r n. �t L- v.s'aK'.^:b.'tii s3'Yct �M1r a'rC ._ Permitted Phases 4 Free • to,,,:.:L::,.,6, ,. Actuated Green, G (s) 23.0 23.0 100.0 20.0 47.0 23.0 45.0 100.0 18.0 Effective Green,'g (s)• ''''a o.,,,, ' 23.0' 100.0 :20.0 47.0 <x ! 23.0 4 ,0100 0 :;'`_ 180 .-P Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 1.00 0.20 0.47 0.23 0.45 1.00 0.18 Clearance Time (s) 24.07W:.4.02,",.4.0 4.0:-. 4.0"k',,`t: . 4.0 4.0 _s '40 -':' F Lane Grp Cap(vph) 208 814 1583 687 1661 790 838 1583 325 v/s Ratio Prot w=,* c0.14 c0,12 0.13 c0.14 , 0.02 4. 4n t iit't......k'. ""' -• v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.31 0.24 6.6 V1c Ratio in 7p,"p 0.02 0.61: '0.31,-: 0 58.' 0'28" "z !'•sz "G.02 • 0.04 0.24 0 16"'. :PM Uniform Delay, d1 29.8 34.5 0.0 36.2 16.2 34.6 15.4 0.0 34.6 Progression:',Factor , 1.65 1.53` 1.00 1.00 1.00 'i 1 04 ` 1.19 1.00 1 00 =' `:.r; Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 2.6 0.4 3.5 0.4 3.0 0.1 0.3 1.1 D (S) 495...,.. 55.3 0.4 39.7 16.6` ! ` ;i{ »'j 8 18'4" 0.3 357 x ' r', e. y.Level of Service D E A D B D B A D Approach Delay(s) 28.1 27.3` xMKw ,° : f f�� F 21.9 s. F� 35 7 ` _a Approach LOS C C C... ._ . D .. ...,#d'b'�� 7 L.I'>.Y, .?i.— d+• ..� ( ;'iz``.` __i. _ ? ;�` HCM Average Control Delay 26.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Opacity ratio `,,:,. , . 0.53 r ;, :h;_.:. Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 lniieictian Capacity Utilization ,._.:‘,„,,:: ,,§,p,„04,.., .. ICU Level of Svnce_t ;h'` A . , j _''-r£ c Critical Lane Group am WCR 9.5 Master Traffic Study 9/10/2001 PM 2020 Synchro 5 Report Ben Waldman Page 9 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: WCR 11 & WCR 9.5 11/1/2001 t t P V Lane Configurations refit r ►1 14 Ideal'FIS(vphpl) '1900 K1900 1900 ''1900 1900 1,90,0;, Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane; ltil ctor ,. ' 1 Of +` ? 00 9 ,.x-100 100 •0.9 . .v. _ .'.. _ ., w Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected Satd.Flow(prot) 1770 1583 3539 1583 1770 3539 Permitted 0;95 7 L.1;00:1-.717;01(Yit1.00 x _ Satd. Flow(perm) 1770 1583 3539 1583 505 3539 Volume(vph),•, ' i '..210 5 735 210 5 735. 2. }p . , Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Ad) Flow(vph)' X28 t 5 799 228 5 793 , ' ��n'" Lane Group Flow(vph) 228 5 799 228 5 799 Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Pr1aS2Sr ary- ;i, � r �i;�8>u.� .... .. Actuated Green,G (s) , 42.0 42.0 50.0 50.0~ 50.0-.50 0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Clearance Tirrte(s) T'4.0 4.t) .h `4.0°" 4.01 4 0, '4.0=; 71'.: ` " _r Lane Grp Cap(vph) 743 665 1770 792 253 1770 u.n om. .. —'^ v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.14 0.01 v/cxRatio .,' 0.31 0.01 4,45 =029 "0.02 "y0.45'` "' v Uniform Delay, d1 19.3, 16.9 16.1 14.6 12.6 16.1 Progression Factor `;1.13,!,..130 ,1„100"= 1 00 `088 ! 051 . .2 l; . x ._.. .. Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.7 Delay_(a) 229 . 22,0 Level of Service CCBBBB Approach LOS C B B {,g,yr,g.r a 'sq- ? ,y�rf,. �$ss�m,,5 ,.r'x x$ has. "�d.'3Yw�3f " vsak _<.'z ° ,..,�; .. :•,.y,� lyri�� A3r6�,.". ... 1 �$'&6i�.Wd'`w�b�L�. `fin"8�" a V-w; x �a+ a�'.� ''`,a„wl.'xa:6s }•:��A �� 4'� HCM Average Control Delay 17.6 HCM Level of Service B HOWL Volume to Capacity ratio 747' I Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 ._r. Intersection capacity°Utilizat)0n 4 4% '`r., t01..Ovel ofService,.. 1 r AxrvK. '...._,..... '. .. c Critical Lane Group WCR 9.5 Master Traffic Study 9/10/2001 PM 2020 Synchro 5 Report Ben Waldman Page 10 LSCI NCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 24: WCR 9.5 & 1-25 Frontage Road 11/1/2001 c. k t P \* Ideal Flow v h I ' 1900 04 Lane Configurations )1i I' r 4 �.P_.P) 1900 1900' 1900 1900 1900 , ,,.,<,x. 3, ,.-4 ,h.t.,,. �}0., 5 F�• , — Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 C•¢ D LL %� Lane Util. Factor 0,97 1,00 1.00 k ` " '1;00: k•'°n 4 r r-•= t ,.•t.•.,:i.` Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Fit Protected , .•' '0.95` ': 1'.00= .1.00 1.00 ` ,..' '.._ >..., .. .. .,,.. ...r x :77�� Satd. Flow (prat) 3433 1863 1583 1863 Of Permitted• 0 .. 1.00 '1,00 - 1.0a 45 3...4rr r"s; - :a,. .c:_::- '3 r• ``≥ :";:. ;f: saki. Flow(perm) 3433 1863 1583 1863 t W 4i•, f z:. Valume.:(�ph) 97.0 Q .�.'t0 970. 0 460 ,� `�:,.�.. �:��• � � ___.,.. •• ......Y.3=[,:,.::ttl`.&:>,»,*:: d.�'S.$u xi:e:: .F:: �:...�'�::.s:!: Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0_92 0.92 0.92 ^ _ T.r'a'tf'�.t°'t x. ' 't•.,'stJi`.'f�x.SY�"'�},p`IB�Sief�:, �.�✓n^�.•irr:;;3':°dia is Adf. Flow(vph). - 1054 0 500 -1054 0, 500 f' ..,.d&; -i., 7 n ' ar, ,l r�x.::-•t�a — Lane Group Flow(vph) 1054 0 500 1054 0 500 ` .G-y'ff"g 1 �"•s�c'l�c a's 'rL''-�,� r:l=c?yoE=diriji.ri�,l ii.:7;4r tern Type � L �-- .._,! Y ..�.. �,.,.. ... - Free �wG-'t�A..f.N,�Y .3.Lv..! I�NCsei.•R'4t.{:.7..:..1r1wh,,.c.9.. Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted fitted Phases '"" ' ' Free Actuated Green, G (s) 47.0 45-0 100.0 45.0 ffechve seen (7 s 47.0 45.0 100.0 •4$ -- u •,.,. '" 15. r ,7 ( ) . .. _,?Sa�''•''�'^r�K. .l�ri...t_rt,k�.dfiu-y 9..x.}:.S.� .r f� f�i`•i Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 0.45 1.00 0.45 — Clearance llime (s) . 40 ' 4.0' ' 4.0 , Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1614 838 1583 838 .r,:.. 'v N.«rs:x�:.�.ka�r y r y��mot; > Prot '0:31-, -..:1:;:!.+ 027 '027 � � {}•s :,,.;�x u ,, ..a.nt-rw-: .. � ' � �.�.�. .: ��- ..:�. ::b_...ua.�:Fu.a`t•.`is �..L.v ._ :;....._.yi... >, f^, v/s Ratio Perm 0.67 F16Ratio - 0.65-178.4.1.0r0.60 0,67 k 3 0:60 " .... • ',f ' Uniform Delay, dl 20.3 20.7 0.0 20.7 ;'+}_} Progression Factor 062 ::, t'j'�^'„ .1,00 1,00 " :.' 1:18 `�� }4 ;ki= yi,J;,!,-F ;p•,nq <.'3 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 3-1 2.2 2-6 DelaYrr 14.5 ?� _ 23.8 2,2 ';',',4:•::'4,,:„. 27.1 ! ' 5;r 1}� ',1 ::iAr:"=`" : 4 - _!_;\-fr:n= ,y:.,�I'��, - jJ::� r•a?.rt5 . ,. \.t.. 4.,r..,. i =• Y: z«_....r..., ... Level of Service B C A C V t Yl R '; •:( Si�rk�yl::�.l,,:p.�Ly.•:i-'}�.>! r Mme: �,;"C Approach Delay (s) ..14 5 ' .. „ 9.2 �..�...r-� . ,,_, 27:1 .. . .a.......i•, :x },:F«• ._•�:' :�_: _i: ...,' . Approach LOS B A C _( W'.O4 . t. _.:•_.1- ,. . _ .. . ,.....-.._,. a4 �'�,wr :15 t.;:,,,,.:., ,,. ._._ .... ..-.,.._;.L..11: ..3.`3tT :;i::: .-.-1: :. ... HCM MAverage Control Delay 13.9 HCM Level of Service B tiCM Valume Ca aci .ratio ;"=',fti,,.;,, 0.67. _; r w r c..,'::- .,:.. f�` r. Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 0.0 fiferaction Capacity Utilization 63.1% ICU Level of Service B `k'• n ,•:`.4.1, ,- •:', s' p tyk•` ,•Lr'•�, ,. c Critical Lane Group AM WCR 9.5 Master Traffic Study 9/10/2001 PM 2020 Synchro 5 Report Ben Waldman Page 11 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: WCR 9.5 & 11/1/2001 3. ~ 4 �S,"+�-'x�kl.S ^.'x.�.:�^. tS Lane Configurations + r ._. . . ,. : . . Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume(veh/h), 9 ,. R 970 07Q` 15 Peak Hour Factor 0 92 0.92 ,0.92_ 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hoy ? oNr .S hThY c, Q54`t"1054 �, 16 5 Pedestrians x... 7 k. zsy.e v "+ n Pxu qR i {S t s .. s N.,,. Walking Speed (ft/s) perm B@ckajB 4 tZ r ar n, H a .c*^a C } . CM. } ' a,' . ., Right turn flare (veh) u k o- *r tta v""h,. t }T M 'P"- q . .rt 43v ran typ.�__ 4t i .�. l _ `t " .' ,.,. ...1 !sef. s ." ;; ,�.,ti ., a . �,. .,,_.v _ _,u .w ,.�t , ._.,... Median storage veh) 1 vC�aconflfctingvolpm 10t1t ' " . 2109 527` ' t 5 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1054 vG2 'stage2 contvoL . . .. ... 105„4 s. ti. xA -. tC single (s) 4 1 6.8 6.9 tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0*„eue fred btu' `00 a 4 r.,V V ' 1 0 ". u , li., cM capacity (veh/h) 647 155 496 � : ,..- Volume Total 1054 527 527 16 16 Volume Eef -, t 0 4 g a 0. "x•16 "„ _ . ,. 7 ' . . _ Volume Right 0 0 0 16 0 c a-i . . 1700 " 1T00 170(1 ' 1700 155 Volume to Capacity 0.62 0.31 0.31 0.01 0.10 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.9 Lai'a Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 30.9 Ave�uge Delay °, 0:2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.5% ICU Level of Service B WCR 9.5 Master Traffic Study 9/10/2001 PM 2020 Synchro 5 Report Ben Waldman Page 12 LSC I N C CS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: 1-25 Frontage Road & 11/1/2001 t N L l r L .c.v.,•- ms's. a _ i. : Y e a ...�. m� z. -. k ......,,v_4,AZ.*4;4v fssca.:a 1'44vei0:v ia, ''''.4"41;WVISIN,-.a...:. Lane Configurations i '1 1' r Su19r c0htro) }1 ,,,,. ....f r�.S.„dz4 t.. st' re872_, og,«. T efit,.' ,,yl4 altI „LFE,...._.... - t; Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 "0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pedestrians .Ct Ltlri�.r tY-MLdtil fi HYhw' ty T'� y„iry q, a*h '"7 z'+!�` il. Z,.ix�l.P f. yg4^V-V'SHy�<{' yt r.W�,,n. Walking Speed (ft/s) » z m^.t., q..,. '�x wry ist u ,'&; �„� ri n s 'BfGe:ttB(Q,c",P C i _'r iP ,6.' '#t ", t .. , t.e N �'t `" '�',₹;. :t ,.,,,Y ryI +5'jy.° �'# r. Right turn flare (veh) -. Median storage veh) vC1, stage 1 conf vol }'m 1'A i 1 rF .'I,'k�"d A t h L a 3�%`x` 3'r, ' } y"e _. .t vG2 stage� �'0�}�Y©I �;s,�:��,. ��t t�..sPs�. �x gv�x..b�r��'y.l e�s.,��e :e,�� s.w:"�;µ,. �':J",�� ' ua`�a�sr�'., .,�,_. .. tC, single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tf`z' +4� arm ay i" Y: .`.w -5ry..w ¢ § rl° r�r tcI' '• 'r.,£ i yi-A'' f'+=c '�. '"7" M. i`.�Sy„�B(g� '3 .a ae�:.�. ,°:>�'?�.�.� . :',�..,n":,T��5a:��c �...: ,�. Tis.�s:'�z . :�kgtr.. ,�..,.�_ ., ..x'�` -`s. .,.,. .. tF (s) w 2.2 35 3.3 4Ubuefree.%.'b !„ IFIM ,.t.s$t y ```z4' f e` , 'bd i Z ` ,. fn rvNR` .n'WVn" .. cM capacity (veh/h) 1064 254 571— Volume Total 500 16 500 16 Volume Right 0 0 0 16 cSH ,;_ t E5t1�P 10641,10-t ' 571 Volume to Capacity 6.29 0.62' 0.29 0.03 k5ueueEgn9thot) __ u. �3�� gvg Qw ztai„}x ', _a._a:. , _. ..,g _..,ifFPW. _. .vi �� : Control Delay (s) 6.0 8.4 6.0 11.5 Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.3 11.5 _ Sc�tin�( F ,}j } Average Delay: ..+... Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.3% ICU Level of Service A WCR 9.5 Master Traffic Study 9/10/2001 PM 2020 Synchro 5 Report Ben Waldman Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 30: WCR 11 & 11/27/2001 yep � 7 ey '9 its y�p)ea at%. - iic3 at ''' Lane Configurations ) +1. 4 9 4$ ' 1a Sign,Control Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 014,04:00.01,:::. v 5 90. 5) '. 95 r 95 4. ..165 5 :i 55 95 t. 165 65 ^. S Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Haurly+flov 'tate:(veh/h) 5 98:° 5 '103. . :103 17 5 t` 1 .,103 .,1`79 T1 5 Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blo e wYi ; Right turn flare (veh) Median storage veh) vC1, stage 1 conf vol yC2; tags 3:conf tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 M1 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 33 35 4.0 3.3 2.2 22 po'queue free% cM capacity (veh/h) 175 352 988 284 376 929 1523 1403 Volume Total ' = ,5 65 8, X07 ,;.17 : ' 79 179 76 `, .t Volume Left 5 0 0 103 0 5 179 0 VolurneRight " �', 0 r' ' , `5 `179'..:1103.1 ,u,0 0 5 . cSH 175 352 388 324 929 1523 1403 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.03 Queue Length (ft) 2 17 8 103 18 0 11 0 `;9$.'. 0.3 Control Delay(s} -a' �. 26.2 1?:5 15�.,� 33 8 Lane LOS DCCD A A A Approach Delay;(s). 1 .2 — Approach LOS C C _ Average Delay 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 481% 4 ICtf Level of Service , ;Ayr , WCR 9.5 Master Traffic Study 9/10/2001 PM 2020 Synchro 5 Report Ben Waldman Page 1 LSC I N CC S2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 29: WCR 13 & 11/27/2001 l l 4\ T id��G1°` Lane Configurations r i tf tti Sign Control,_ Stop ,ea.=�: Fre✓r, ,free . . �` .. . _" v . _ . . � ,",. _ .. Grade 0% 0% 0% Volute,(veh/hl :v. '.. `35 ....105:. 105, ;:765 .. ,775 a„ Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 .- ._ ear n ^s _ �1o6r4yflow Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Right turn flare (veh) typ Median storage veh) vC1, stage 1 conf vol — vC2, stage 2 eonf vol .'. ._ tC, single(s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 cM capacity (veh/h) 95 565 763 Volume Total f 38 114, .,194 416rtt , 416. '562��"-`319 'ti Volume Left 38 0 114 0 0 0 0 cSH 95 565 763 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume Queue Length (ft) 41 19 13 0 0 0 0 Lane LOS F B B — Approach LOS D ia z �, x xE 4 Y ,mit >t e t : .:.:n: :.w e Y 2 i 'Jti ° ° _n _"#?f �a _ tit a ai Average Delay 2.6 Intersection'Capacity Utilization. .,. a' 44 2% '' :ICU`Level tat service, A. WCR 9.5 Master Traffic Study 9/10/2001 PM 2020 Synchro 5 Report Ben Waldman Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 RiverDance PUD Preliminary Water Quality Management-Plan (QWMP) Attachment A RiverDance PUD Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (QWMP) The Riverdance PUD Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan has been compiled and appended by Tuttle Applegate, Inc. from original work by Water Engineering Technologies, with their knowledge, consent and cooperation. The intent was to best apply technical information from Water Engineering Technologies to address the specific requirements of the Riverdance PUD Weld County Change of Zone application submittal. 1. PURPOSE A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been recommended for the RiverDance PUD which is intended to reduce or eliminate degradation of water quality in the project area resulting from completion of the project. A Final WQMP would be provided with specific layout and details for construction and installation of water quality facilities. This document should address concerns regarding potential impacts of the project identified during County initial Sketch Plan review. The Water Quality Management Plan consists of a series of Best Management Practices (BMPs) which are prescribed specifically for the project. They include both structural and non-structural BMPs which, when integrated into the project, should address the comments expressed by Weld County Health Department and the Longmont Soil Conservation District and allow the project to proceed on schedule. The purpose of this preliminary plan is to provide a description of the various BMPs that can be incorporated into the RiverDance PUD. During the initial review of the PUD Sketch Plan, several comments were received related to potential impacts of the proposed development upon surface and ground water quality. Specifically,the Weld County Health Department expressed concerns related to the equestrian facilities and their effects upon water quality. They also expressed concerns related to potential sedimentation of existing water bodies during development and construction. The Longmont Soil Conservation District expressed concerns involving water quality degradation from runoff from the project and the potential for increased fertilizers and chemicals leaching into shallow ground water. The management plan outlined in this memorandum provides strategies to mitigate potential impacts to water quality and to address the concerns presented above. In the discussion that follows, features incorporated into the project which minimize the potential for water quality degradation are presented. In addition, numerous mitigation measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) applicable to the RiverDance PUD are prescribed. These prescriptions are presented for both the construction/development phase and the post-construction phase. 2. CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT PHASE WQMP Prior to the commencement of construction, a permit to discharge stormwater associated with A-1 construction activities (Stormwater Discharge Permit) must be obtained from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The permit is required in compliance with the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, (25-8-101 et seq., CRS 1973 as amended) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). The permit requires control and elimination of the sources of pollutants in stormwater through the development and implementation of a Stormwater Management Plan(SWMP). The SWMP would include Best Management Practices (BMPs), which would include pollution prevention and source reduction measures. This must constitute Best Available Technology(BAT)and Best Conventional Technology(BCT) and should achieve compliance with water quality standards. The permit would also include prohibitions against discharges of non-stormwater(e.g. process water). Adherence to the requirements of the Discharge Permit would minimize potential contamination of existing water bodies from construction-related sediment and other contaminants. Measures to control erosion and sediment loss could include both structural and non-structural BMPs. 2.1 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Numerous BMPs could be implemented to minimize erosion, soil loss, and subsequent degradation of water quality during the construction and development phase of the RiverDance PUD; including the following: 2.1.1 SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL Vegetative Buffer Strips: Vegetative buffers or filter strips could be maintained at the base of slopes and along water courses to retain construction-related sediment on site and minimize off-site transport of sediment. They would be maintained around each lake,along St. Vrain Creek, and the unnamed channel draining the eastern portion of the project. In areas where existing vegetation is sparse or inadequate, buffer strips could be created through hydro-seeding or standard seeding practices. Design of buffer strips can be integrated into the final design of the project (Section 3). Natural Vegetation: To the extent practical, natural vegetation could be preserved, particularly along and within existing waterways. Disturbance of existing wetland vegetation will be minimized. Fences or flags would be provided during construction to keep equipment and construction debris out of these areas. Phased Construction: Construction could be phased to minimize the amount of area disturbed at any given time. A-2 Dust Control: Dust from disturbed areas can be controlled during construction activities. Disturbed areas would be sprinkled with water until the surface is wet and repeated as necessary. Diversion Measures: Temporary ditches could be built to divert runoff from exposed slopes during construction. Ditches should be designed at slopes which would be erosionally stable (generally less than 2%). Specific locations have not been determined at this time. However, candidate locations include south facing slopes along the northern shores of both lakes while earthwork and construction is occurring in these locations. Sediment Filter Fence Sediment filter fence could be placed at the downslope perimeter of all disturbed areas. The purpose of the filter fence is to trap small amounts of sediment under sheet flow conditions during construction. It is important to note that the fence must be properly installed to be effective. The bottom of the fabric should be properly keyed into ground and backfilled. No loose fabric should exist at any places along the bottom length of the fence. Sediment Check Dams: Small dams could be constructed across swales or drainage ditches to reduce velocity of concentrated flows and allow retention of sediment. Temporary check dams would be constructed of rock or landscape timbers and spaced in proportion to the slope of the swale or channel. Check dams could be built such that the center of the dam is lower than the edges,the dam is properly keyed into native ground, and rock is sized to be stable during design discharges. Straw Bale Barriers: Straw bales would be used to temporarily enhance effects of other sediment control measures. Bale barriers should be properly installed to be effective. They should tightly abut each other, be entrenched and backfilled to prevent underflow, securely anchored (at least 2 stakes per bale), and maintained following runoff events. 2.1.2 CONTROL OF OTHER CONTAMINANTS The Stormwater Management Plan would contain provisions to protect surface and ground water quality from contamination from other construction related activities. These provisions generally involve "good housekeeping" practices to reduce the potential of contamination by removing or protecting a contaminant source. Concrete Wash Water: Concrete wash water would not be discharged to state waters or to storm sewer systems. A-3 Bulk Material Storage: Bulk storage structures for petroleum products and other chemicals shall have adequate protection so as to contain all spills and prevent any spilled material from entering State waters. Added Chemicals: Chemicals could be prevented from entering the stormwater discharge without permission from the State of Colorado Water Quality Control Division. Sampling: At the request of the State of Colorado Water Quality Control Division, stormwater samples may be obtained. Waste Materials: All wastes composed of building materials could be removed from the site for disposal in licensed disposal facilities. No building material caste would be buried, dumped, or discharged at the site. Off-site sediment: Off-site vehicle tracking of sediment could be minimized. Structure Disposition: All temporary sediment control features could be removed within 30 days of final site stabilization is achieved or after the temporary measures are no longer needed. 3. POST-CONSTRUCTION WQMP The RiverDance PUD integrates several water bodies into its design as amenities. It is, therefore, in the best interest of the developer to maintain the quality of the lakes, wetlands, and ponds to provide the maximum aesthetic appeal to property owners and users of RiverDance facilities. As a result, numerous BMPs and design features have been incorporated directly into the PUD which will specifically minimize contamination of water resources and maximize the aesthetic value and quality of the project's water resources. These features are presented in the following sections. 3.1 EOUESTRIAN FACILITY • All horses would be boarded at the Equestrian Center. In accordance with the Weld County Zoning Ordinance for, no horses are permitted on individual lots. • The Equestrian Center has been sited at the most hydrologically remote location of the RiverDance PUD. This placement would provide maximum protection of the lakes and St. Vrain Creek from contamination. • Runoff from the Equestrian Center could be conveyed to the unnamed swale in the eastern portion of the project. This swale currently contains wetland vegetation throughout its course to St. Vrain Creek. The flow characteristics and wetland features of this swale could be enhanced A-4 upon completion of the project (see Section 3.4). Wetland vegetation and ponding along this swale would reduce the nutrient content of surface runoff from the Equestrian Center through physical(sedimentation, filtration, and adsorption), chemical(precipitation and adsorption), and biological (plant uptake and plant adsorption) mechanisms. 3.2 URBAN RUNOFF • Stormwater detention ponds could be incorporated throughout the PUD. An objective of the developer and design engineer is to route as much stormwater runoff as possible through these features. Wetland vegetation can be incorporated within wet ponds to enhance water quality. • Stormwater runoff for the subdivision could be prevented from entering the lakes by diversion. • Stormwater runoff could be conveyed, wherever possible or practical, via grassed swales. • Sediment check dams can be incorporated within the grassed swales and stormwater conveyance features. The check dams could be constructed across swales or drainage ditches to reduce velocity of concentrated flows and allow retention of sediment. Check dams could be constructed of rock or landscape timbers and spaced in proportion to the slope of the swale or channel. Check dams would be built such that the center of the dam is lower than the edges,the dam is properly keyed into native ground, and rock is sized to be stable during design discharges. • A vegetated buffer strip could be maintained along St. Vrain Creek and all major water courses. The buffer strips could consist of native vegetation (where it exists) or an established planting which could provide a living filter to reduce sedimentation and degradation of water quality. The buffer strips could be established, at a minimum,along St. Vrain Creek and on the upslope side of each lake. The buffer zones could be incorporated into the landscaping plan for the PUD. • PUD covenants could include requirements for fertilizer and chemical usage. The covenants would not ban use of these materials but would provide guidance and prescribe limitations to their use. An objective of the covenants is to minimize over fertilization and chemical applications on lawns and landscaping. 3.3 LAKE DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT • The two lakes will be used as locations for water skiing activities,therefore,there is the potential for shoreline erosion from wake/wave action. Wave erosion from wind generated waves is also a concern. To mitigate the shoreline erosion potential, shorelines could be stabilized using structural shoreline protection measures. The specific measure has not been determined at this time, however, several options would provide adequate protection. These options include retaining walls, riprap, interlocking blocks, vegetated mats and geosynthetic erosion control mats. • Lake shore protection measures could be designed to extend a sufficient distance above and A-5 below the water line to provide a margin of safety for wave protection. • Slopes of the lake shores could be configured with slopes designed to reduce wave roll up. • Boat ramps could be designed to facilitate easy boat launching and loading without disruption of lake bottom sediments. Ramps could be constructed of concrete or wood and could extend a sufficient distance into the lake to allow launching without trailer wheels entering the lake bottom. • A gravel runout above the boat ramp could allow boat trailers and vehicles to drain over a porous surface and thereby prevent oil and grease from entering the lakes. • A "No Wake"zone could be imposed for the area surrounding the boat launch and dock areas for the purposes of safety and to minimize shore and lake bottom disturbance. 3.4 EXISTING WETLANDS • To the extent possible, existing wetlands would not be disturbed. Portions of the existing wetlands in the unnamed drainage located on the eastern portion of the PUD might be disturbed during construction and wetland enhancement activities.This drainage could be reconfigured to provide a series of wetland detention features which would increase the water treatment capability of the drainage. Existing coversoils could be stockpiled and replaced when earthmoving activities are finished. This would provide a source of live seed and allow maximum wetland reestablishment. • All wetland modification or dredge/fill activities within waters of the US would be covered through a EPA Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit(administered with the US Army Corps of Engineers). 3.5 POST CONSTRUCTION LAKE QUALITY MANAGEMENT Following completion of the project, implementation of the recommended BMPs should result in the reduction or elimination of contaminants entering the lakes as a result of the project. In the event that the lakes experience elevated trophic status or excessive algal and weed growth, further management strategies could be employed. The following management techniques and actions are generic in nature; specific strategies would be contingent upon site-specific lake study. • Implementation of Water Quality Monitoring Plan. A water quality monitoring plan could be implemented which would develop a nutrient budget for the lakes and prescribe a management plan to optimize their quality. Samples could be obtained from the St. Vrain, ditch water, and alluvial water to determine the best water management strategies to minimize nutrient inflow. A-6 • Weed Harvesting. Nuisance aquatic weeds can be removed via physical harvesting methods. Any number of methods, including mechanical weed harvesters, manual labor, dragging, or netting could be used. • Chemical Algae Control Methods. Chemical applications could be investigated. Use of chemical agents such as buffered alum or copper based compounds could be applied pending further evaluation of the lakes. • Aeration / Circulation. Artificial aeration of the lakes could be implemented. Numerous aerators are on the market which could be investigated and the proper size/capacity pump be selected. 4. REFERENCES Terrene Institute, 1993. LakeSmarts -The First Lake Maintenance Handbook. Washington State Dept. Of Ecology, 1992. Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. USEPA, 1988. The Lake and Reservoir Restoration Guidance Manual, First Edition. EPA 440/5-88- 002 Schueler, Thomas R., 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs. Prepared for Washington Metropolitan Water Resources Planning Board. A-7 +ww+w6.wd6 au SNd8IA'MI ww w :••x 6i(t66HF0U:nl nmzu au a %dna Puy NONGINOS30 O,NNO AN 31Yo ON trip'a A.a � SWUM 700LM00 NOISOME 7VOIdAI • 6.016nuoO�.=,3:•1� -- rooms-miaow, __ •Q n'a aONbGtlaAltl OdQ :CaiPe40 JO : ..,...pro-,n..-� era•auremBeiddyenun1 103 is atlno�� '9NI':a1NVdM oo j•sIVoI]s an 4WD S` RI-66 :oN Nor ga6yg 66/IO/LO :qo0 P. 0i ;;I F �5� d S 61 < ly �� ,� itzl; a E IF I g 49 gx Ce H q „ G 47 & eg A 81- I_IIIIIIII.IIII:.�• JH 0 •I„v g R I LA 872 gym$ E ^I 8$ !;ii ¢g y. 6 g sW 4 W g WHaw A- I � g 51 ®g La \ I\ \5 P 05 50 A5 V 8� amm=W R "12 .\\s ii sw3 8a . 12sm'" m � gg 4*" o5m 3'a '2 ; o' Et- 4A Ngm �•'e ii !!;tih i:ti m 8zk� n €�z°1'zwx _o $ W ma y ggi € g8 0i �`N N mm 'L gg .g m &m8m•m EN'I$m A dc o ai8 iz ;::;!j1j!;jg m -i 5am yo m .6ey egd §4WW1s ��..dam y1§mA 0, � 4: Eo ms m L4EW ymG to ss W a � a I mi S `2o'F W°d Pcli wg� &`R g,"> !clog c g34 -2 P, RN� m I zg Ez o�< i� _ mom � mm my N@w ₹ m S a m > . o ₹ 3 / 61 e is m mW W_m„W e„ Ss o= yz.c Elg 8gge g _ a .g2 =eeg„ \ N\ o€ W� 3 3 € 30 $Fm o@$mp�`L"�r Yo � N ag m &z g gg < g E2 ` 11;64I i-W a& a 5 8g DzaY go !I Egg_ @ € d s 3 e W .4 E2 305 '3zggO olo 3y � mo N� 8w ge g- Eo o 1 S 0 mp RE. w ifi ` = tl xh z 8� � r4�+ to S, zg y y� 5' g8 m z \ \ e W a m9 m Z°6 iHz voa2m �a8 i52 on 2RR <VANX-x m a We IEWOX' ; mm XSS.zK' of Y \ W < „ m t m e „ m m ' - - - 0 _0� 06. m6.64 3 6m Ly LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. M- Ng— 1889 York Street Denver, CO 80206 (303)333-1105 FAX (303)333-1107 E-mail: Isc@Iscden.com Web Site: http://www.lscden.com TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. January 21, 2002 Mr. Mike Siegrist Siegrist Companies 875 W. 64th Avenue Denver, CO 80221 Re: RiverDance Weld County, Colorado (LSC #011500) Dear Mr. Siegrist: We are pleased to submit our report of the traffic impacts of the proposed RiverDance develop- ^ ment located south of Weld County Road (WCR) 28 and east of I-25 in Weld County, Colorado. This study first provides a summary of existing and future roadway and traffic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed site. It then provides estimates of the amount and directional distribution of traffic that will be generated by the proposed development as well as estimates of existing plus project-generated traffic volumes on the surrounding road system. Finally, the impacts of the project generated traffic are evaluated and recommendations are made regarding roadway improvements. The remainder of this report presents our findings concerning the traffic impacts of the proposed development. Existing and Proposed Roadways Figure 1, enclosed, illustrates the proposed site location. This site is within the jurisdiction of Weld County, Colorado, and this report has been prepared in accordance with their require- ments. Figure 2 illustrates the proposed site plan for this development. As Figure 2 indicates, the site will have two accesses on WCR 9.5, three accesses on WCR 11, and a right-turn-only access on the I-25 Frontage Road. As Figure 1 shows, a segment of the I-25 Frontage Road is proposed to be relocated to the east of its current location to align with the existing Meade Street/State Highway 66 intersection by the Year 2020. Figure 3 depicts existing lane geometry and traffic controls on the adjacent roadway system. State Highway 66 is currently a two-lane roadway with east/west continuity through Weld County. I-25 is a four-lane interstate highway with north/south continuity throughout the State of Colorado. There is an existing diamond interchange at the intersection of State High- way 66 and I-25. The I-25 frontage road is a two-lane roadway with north/south continuity throughout Weld County. County Road 11 is a two-lane roadway with north/south continuity from State Highway 66 on the north to County Road 28 on the south. Mr. Mike Siegrist Page 2 January 21, 2002 Estimated Traffic Generation It is anticipated that 416 single-family dwelling units, 175 townhomes, and a 675,000 square foot business park will be constructed on this site. The amount of traffic that will be generated by this proposed development has been estimated based upon rates found in Trip Generation, 6th edition, 1997, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table 1 shows estimated traffic generation for the proposed site. As indicated, the RiverDance development is expected to generate approximately 13,620 trips during an average weekday (about 6,810 entering and 6,810 exiting vehicle-trips in a 24-hour period). During the morning peak-hour, a total of 902 vehicle-trips would enter the site while 452 vehicles would exit. During the evening peak-hour, a total of 532 vehicle-trips would enter the site, while 853 vehicle-trips would exit the site. Estimated Future Background Traffic Figures 4 and 5 illustrate Year 2010 and Year 2020 background weekday morning and evening peak-hour turning movement traffic projections in the vicinity of the site. In calculating the Year 2010 background traffic, an annual growth rate of two percent and five percent was applied to existing through traffic on SH 66 and I-25 Frontage Road, respectively. Turning traffic generated by buildout of the proposed Lyons Property was also added. The Year 2020 background traffic projections are based on the North Front Range MINUTP model prepared by the North Front Range MPO with adjustments made to account for the planned roadway network,existing developments and planned development north of the study area. The MINUTP modeling of this area is explained in more detail in the St. Vrain/66 Master Traffic Study, completed by LSC in November, 2001. Estimated Traffic Distribution and Assignment One of the most important factors to be considered when evaluating the traffic impacts of this development is the directional distribution of site-generated traffic onto the surrounding road- way system. A number of factors influence this distribution including the relative location of the site with respect to the area it will serve, existing traffic patterns in the vicinity, and the site's specific access plan. Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the expected distribution of traffic to be generated by the RiverDance development for Years 2010 and 2020, respectively. In Year 2010, it is estimated that 30 percent of project-generated traffic will utilize State Highway 66 to the west of the site (this includes traffic that will access I-25), 35 percent will utilize the I-25 Frontage Road to the south of the site, five percent will utilize SH 66 to the east of the site, and 15 percent will utilize WCR 13 to the south of the site, five percent will be oriented to/from the Lyons Property development and the remaining trips will remain within the proposed develop- ment. In Year 2020, it is estimated that 20 percent of project-generated traffic will utilize SH 66 to the west of the site (this includes traffic that will access I-25), five percent will utilize the I-25 Frontage Road to the north of the site, 25 percent will utilize I-25 to the south of the site, five percent will utilize State Highway 66 to the east of the site, ten percent will utilize WCR 13 to the south of the site, five percent will utilize WCR 28 west of the site, 30 percent will be oriented to/from other developments in the St. Vrain/66 Metro District, and the remaining trips will remain within the proposed development. Mr. Mike Siegrist Page 3 January 21, 2002 Figures 8 and 9 illustrate the assignment of project-generated peak-hour traffic to the roadway network for Years 2010 and 2020, respectively. These figures were derived by applying the distributions shown in Figures 6 and 7 to the trip generation data shown in Table 1. Figures 10 and 11 depict the combination of background traffic and project-generated traffic for Years 2010 and 2020, respectively. These figures were derived by combining the back- ground traffic from Figures 4 and 5 to the site-generated volumes from Figures 8 and 9. Estimated Traffic Impacts In order to assess the traffic impacts of the proposed development, related capacity analyses have been performed which compare projected background traffic operating conditions with those reflecting the addition of project-generated traffic. The methodology used is that presented in the nationally accepted 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Trans- portation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences. The concept of Level of Service (LOS) is used as a basis for computing combinations of roadway operating conditions. By definition, six different Levels of Service are used (A, B, C, D, E, and F) with "A" being a relatively free-flow condition and "E" representing the "capacity" of a given intersection or traffic movement. The morning and evening peak-hours have been analyzed, since they are the time of maximum impact upon the street network. Figures 14 and 15 show the lane geometry and traffic control that were assumed for the LOS analysis for Years 2010 and 2020, ^ respectively. Table 2 summarizes the results of the morning and evening peak-hour LOS analyses for the proposed development (actual computer analysis printouts are enclosed) and the following discusses the results of the capacity analysis for each intersection. SH 66/Meade Street: This Stop controlled intersection will operate at an excellent Level of Service (LOS"A") through Year 2020 with or without the addition of site-generated traffic. Note that this intersection is expected to be restricted to right-turns-only when WCR 9.5 is constructed. SH 66/WCR 9.5: Under 2010 background traffic conditions, this signalized intersection is expected to operate at a good Level of Service (LOS "C") for both morning and evening peak- hours. With the addition of site-generated traffic, this intersection is expected to operate at the same Level of Service "C" with increases in delay of less than one second. By the Year 2020, this intersection will likely be signalized. With signalization, this intersection will operate at a good Level of Service (LOS "C") with or without the addition of site-generated traffic. SH 66/WCR 11: Under 2010 traffic conditions, this Stop controlled intersection is expected to operate at an excellent Level of Service (LOS "A") for both the morning and evening peak- hours with or without the addition of site-generated traffic. By the Year 2020, this intersection will likely be signalized. With signalization, this intersection will operate at a good Level of Service (LOS "C" or better) with or without the addition of site-generated traffic. Frontage Road/WCR 28:This Stop controlled intersection is expected to operate at an excellent ^ LOS "A" for both the morning and evening peak-hour traffic through the Year 2010 with or without the addition of site-generated traffic. By the Year 2020, this intersection will likely be r Mr. Mike Siegrist Page 4 January 21, 2002 signalized. With signalization, this intersection will operate at a good Level of Service (LOS"C" or better) for the background and background plus site-generated traffic conditions. WCR 28/WCR 9.5 : This Stop controlled intersection is expected to operate at Level of Service "A" through the Year 2010 for both morning and evening peak-hour traffic. By the Year 2020, this intersection is expected to meet signal warrants and will likely be signalized. As a signalized intersection, it is expected to operate at a good Level of Service (LOS "C") with or without the addition of site-generated traffic. WCR 28/WCR 11: This intersection is expected to operate at an excellent Level of Service "A" with Stop control through the Year 2010. By the Year 2020, this intersection is expected to meet signal warrants and will likely be signalized. As a signalized intersection, it is expected to operate at a good Level of Service (LOS "C") with or without the addition of site-generated traffic. WCR 28/WCR 13:This Stop controlled intersection will operate at Level of Service "A"through the Year 2010 for both morning and evening peak-hour traffic. By the Year 2020, this inter- section will likely be signalized and is expected to operate at a good Level of Service "C" with or without the addition of site-generated traffic. WCR 11/WCR 9.5: This intersection will operate at a very good Level of Service (LOS"B") with Stop control through the Year 2010. By the Year 2020, this intersection is expected to meet signal warrants and will likely be signalized. As a signalized intersection, it is expected to operate at an excellent Level of Service (LOS "A") with or without the addition of site-generated traffic. Frontage Road/WCR 9.5: This Stop controlled intersection will operate at Level of Service "A" through the Year 2010. By the Year 2020,this intersection is expected to meet signal warrants and will likely be signalized. As a signalized intersection, it is expected to operate at a very good Level of Service (LOS "B") with or without the addition of site-generated traffic.. WCR 11/River Song Drive, WCR 11/Prairie Storm Lane, WCR 11/Scaring Hawk Lane, and WCR 9.5/Shadow Hawk Drive: These Stop controlled access intersections are expected to operate at an excellent Level of Service (LOS"A") with or without the addition of site-generated traffic through the Year 2020. WCR 9.5/Spirit Hawk Lane: This site access intersection is expected to operate well at Level of Service "A" with Stop control through the Year 2010. By the Year 2020, this intersection is expected to meet signal warrants and will likely be signalized. As a signalized intersection, it is expected to operate at a good Level of Service (LOS "C") with or without the addition of site- generated traffic. Frontage Road/North Employment Access: This Stop controlled site access intersection will operate at an excellent Level of Service (LOS "A") through the Year 2020. This intersection �-. should be limited to right-turns-only. r Mr. Mike Siegrist Page 5 January 21, 2002 Frontage Road/Shadow Hawk Drive: This Stop controlled intersection will operate at LOS "A" through the Year 2020. Figures 12 and 13 illustrate the broader, "average daily traffic" impacts that the development would have on the surrounding roadway system in the Years 2010 and 2020, respectively. As shown, these impacts are expressed in terms of traffic generated by the proposed development as an increment of total projected traffic. The anticipated Year 2020 roadway capacities are also shown. Recommendations Figures 14 and 15 show the proposed traffic control and lane geometry for the roadways and intersections in the vicinity of the site. The following lists the recommended improvements. Near Term (Year 2010) 1. Construct WCR 9.5 to four lanes with turn lanes where shown on Figure 4 from the I-25 Frontage Road to SH 66. 2. After the WCR 9.5 connection to SH 66 is made, disconnect I-25 from the Frontage Road south of the Lyons Property. 3. Construct WCR 11 with two turn lanes as shown in Figure 14 from WCR 9.5 to WCR 28. 4. Construct a traffic signal at the WCR 9.5/SH 66 intersection when signal warrants are met. Long Term (Year 2020) 1. Construct roadway infrastructure for St. Vrain/66 Metro District as recommended in the St. Vrain/66 Master Traffic Study, completed by LSC in November, 2001. 2. Construct a signal at the Spirit Hawk Lane/WCR 9.5 site access intersection when signal warrants are met. Conclusions Based on the analyses presented herein, the following summarizes our findings relative to the traffic impacts of the proposed I-25/State Highway 66 Commercial development. 1. At buildout, the proposed development is expected to generate approximately 13,620 trips during an average weekday (about 6,810 entering and 6,810 exiting vehicle- trips in a 24-hour period). During the morning peak-hour, a total of 902 vehicle-trips would enter the site while 452 vehicles would exit. During the evening peak-hour, a total of 532 vehicle-trips would enter the site,while 853 vehicle-trips would exit the site. Mr. Mike Siegrist Page 6 January 21, 2002 2. In Year 2010, it is estimated that 30 percent of project-generated traffic will utilize State Highway 66 to the west of the site (this includes traffic that will access I-25), 35 percent will utilize the I-25 Frontage Road to the south of the site, five percent will utilize SH 66 to the east of the site, and 15 percent will utilize WCR 13 to the south of the site, five percent will be oriented to/from the Lyons Property development and the remaining trips will remain within the proposed development. In Year 2020, it is estimated that 20 percent of project-generated traffic will utilize SH 66 to the west of the site (this includes traffic that will access I-25), five percent will utilize the I-25 Frontage Road to the north of the site, 25 percent will utilize I-25 to the south of the site, five percent will utilize State Highway 66 to the east of the site, ten percent will utilize WCR 13 to the south of the site, five percent will utilize WCR 28 west of the site, 30 percent will be oriented to/from other developments in the St. Vrain/66 Metro District, and the remaining trips will remain within the proposed development. 3. In the near term (Year 2010), a two-lane roadway with turn lanes where shown on Figure 14 will be adequate for WCR 9.5, WCR 28, and WCR 13. 4. In the short term, a traffic signal will be warranted at the relocated WCR 9.5/State Highway 66 intersection. All other intersections in the St. Vrain/66 Metro District are expected to operate at acceptable Levels of Service with Stop control. 5. In Year 2020, the roadway infrastructure recommended in the St. Vrain/66 Master Traffic Study, completed by LSC in November, 2001, will be adequate with the addition of a traffic signal at the Spirit Hawk/WCR 9.5 access intersection. We trust that this information will assist with further planning for the RiverDance develop- ment. Please call if we can be of additional assistance. Respectfully submitted, LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. - %0MASS�F Ot%4 QL• m Be jamin T. Waldman, P.E. VaQ 35827 g° BTW/SMA/wcj�'.� 41 Enclosures: Tables 1 and 2 S/f;Y;+, L. Figures 1 - Computer Analyses \\Server\d\LSC\Projects\2001\011500\Report\Rl-Riverdance.wpd O CO ii O In co N- In O Co CO tom'` _ Y CO C N Q. O CD O M N N u) P2 as c a) 0 > V 1 C N Ci)O O N LO PO r a2 N H ) a) a U s C CO CO H N N ¢ ^ CO OO) O)CD N H Co CO O CO N H N N coco O) O > cuM W r Q > Z O �. p CD CO CO P T = 0 COC0 a O O O O O O N co W N .D 1 -a c n co O Z a CO CD `"2 - O en en R W p 0 a a) a o O O rn a a) p d m V N V V c co M N o B LL " 4, 0 .c°- '5. off 0 0 O -1,7-- ...0--.. l0 N = d C H o 7O C @ t H R V cc kra 0 a c r o o co O0vr nM 0 6 e W Q > - mil ~ Q C �_ N N CO LO CO CO LC a) Y CA 6 V) F.. J j a) C U) a) O O W Q CO mC '- 3 CD OO_ = O LL CC) O C • c O O Y H oco E = CD N n o CI E a O a) ° O C._ O OY L- C E t a N O LL N a) a) c) O•C O Cn y 7) O C_ Cr C O CCO d' m co O I 0000c a d Y CO Oco >+ N N n Cl u) cv o E a) LL F- 4t it # r =O O LL O (0 N u) u) 3 F L a) 0DDDO a) CC L- -O "O 'O II ti ca 0) 3 V) D c c cam - �` V CO o CO N N COJ J JOY J \N_. .t`7_. v F Z N c`0 7 u7 O Table 2(Page 1 of 3) Intersection Levels of Service Analysis River Dance Development(LSC#011500) Weld County,Colorado �� 2010 2010 2020 2020 Background Traffic Total Traffic Background Traffic Total Traffic Level of Level of Level of Level of Level of Level of Traffic Service Service Service Service Service Service Intersection Location Control AM PM AM PM PM PM $H 661 Mead Street Unsignalized NB Approach A B A B D O SB Approach B B B B C D Intersection Delay 0.8 1.2 0.8 1.2 1.4 1.5 Intersection LOS A A A A A A SH 66/WCR 9.5 Signalized EB LT B B B C D C EBTH C C C C D D EBRT A A A A A A WB LT B C C C D O WBTH C D C D C C WBRT C C C C B B NB LT D D D D C D NBTH C C C C A A NBRT C C C C A A SB LT&TH C C C C D O SB RT A A A A A A Intersection Delay 24 27.1 25.1 27.5 24.3 28 Intersection LOS C C C C C C SH 66/WCR 11 Signalized EB LT - - - - A C EBTH - - - - B D EBRT - - - - A A WB LT - - - - B 8 WBTH&RT - - - - C C NB LT - - - - D D NBTH&RT - - - - C D SB LT,TH&RT - - - - C C Intersection Delay - - - - 16.3 30 Intersection LOS — — — — B C Unsignalized i., NB Approach C C C C — — SB Approach C C C C — — Intersection Delay 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.1 - - Intersection LOS A A A A - - Frontage Road/WCR-28 Signalized EB LT - - - - C EBTH&RT - - - - D WB LT - - - - C WBTH&RT - - - - B NB LT - - - - C NBTH - - - - C NBRT - - - - A SB LT - - - - C SB TH - - - - D SB RT - - - - D Intersection Delay - - - - 2 .6 22.6 Intersection LOS — — — — C Unsignalized • EB Approach A A A A — — WB Approach A A A A — — Intersection Delay 5.6 5.6 6.4 5.2 — — Intersection LOS A A A A — — WCR-26/WCR-9.5 Signalized EB LT — — — — B C EBTH — — — — C D EBRT — — — — B C WB LT — — — — B C WBTH — — — — C O WBRT - - - - A A NB LT - - - - C D NBTH - - - - D D NBRT - - - - C A SB LT - - - - C D SB TH - - - - C C SB RT — — — — C C Intersection Delay — — — — 24.7 33 Intersection LOS — — — — C C Unsignalized /"., EB Approach A A A B — — WBApproach A B B B — — Intersection Delay 2.2 1.5 3.4 2.4 — — Intersection LOS A A A A — — Notes: LTR-Left/Though/Right ES,WB,NB&SB=east-,west-,north-&southbound movements,respectively. Table 2(Page 2 of 3) Intersection Levels of Service Analysis River Dance Development 9LSC#011500) Weld County,Colorado 2010 2010 2020 2020 Background Traffic Total Traffic Background Traffic Total Traffic Level of Level of Level of Level of Level of Level of Traffic Service Service Service Service Service Service Intersection Location Control AM PM AM PM PM PM __ WCR-28 I WCR-11 Signalized EB LT — — — — B B EB TH 7 RT — — — — D C WB LT — — — — A A WBTH — — — — C C WB RT — — — — C D NB LT&TH — — — — C C NB RT — — — — C C SB LT — — — — C C SBTH — — — — C C SB RT — — — — D D Intersection Delay — — — — 30.2 28.3 Intersection LOS — — — — C C Unsignalized NB Approach A A B A — — SB Approach A A B B — — Intersection Delay 4.7 4.7 6.3 6.2 — — Intersection LOS A A A A — — WCR-28I WCR-13 Signalized EB LT - - - - C C EB RT - - - - A A NB LT - - - - D D NBTH - - - - B B SBTH - - - - C C SB RT - - - - A A !"-. Intersection Delay - - - - 20.5 21.9 Intersection LOS — — — — C C Unsignalized EB Approach A A A A — — Intersection Delay 0.6 0.5 3.8 3.8 — — Intersection LOS A A A A - - WCR-11 I WCR-9.5 Signalized WB LT - - - - - C WBRT - - - - - B NBTH - - - - - A NBRT - - - - - A SB LT - - - - - C SBTH - - - - - A Intersection Delay - - - - - 9.7 Intersection LOS - - - - - A Unsignalized WB Approach - - B B - - Intersection Delay - - 5.9 3.0 - - Intersection LOS - - A A - - Frontage Road I WCR 9.5 Signalized WB LT - - - - D C NBTH - - - - C C NBRT - - - - A A SBTH - - - - C C Intersection Delay - - - - 19.8 19.3 Intersection LOS - - - - B B Unsignalized NB Approach - - B a - - SB Approach - - B C - - Intersection Delay - - 9.5 9.2 - - /^ Intersection LOS — — A A — — I Notes: LTR-Left/Though/Right EB,WB,NB&SB=east-,west-,north-&southbound movements,respectively. Table 2(Page 3 of 3) Intersection Levels of Service Analysis River Dance Development(LSC#011500) r", Weld County,Colorado 2010 2010 2020 2020 Background Traffic Total Traffic Background Traffic Total Traffic Level of Level of Level of Level of Level of Level of Traffic Service Service Service Service Service Service Intersection Location Control AM PM AM PM PM PM WCR 11/River Song Drive Unsignalized NB Approach — — B B — C SB Approach — — A A — A Intersection Delay — — 4.6 3.6 — 3.2 Intersection LOS — — A A — A WCR 11/Prairie Storm Lane Unsignalized NB Approach — — A B — B SB Approach — — A A — B Intersection Delay — — 4.5 3.4 — 2.5 Intersection LOS — — A A — A WCR 111 Scaring Hawk Lane Unsignalized EB Approach — — A A — a Intersection Delay — — 1.6 1 — 0.7 Intersection LOS — — A A — A WCR-9.51 Shadow Hawk Drive Unsignalized NB Approach — — B B — D SB Approach — — B B — D Intersection Delay — — 1.0 1.6 — 2.5 Intersection LOS — — A A — A WCR-9.5 I Spirit Hawk Lane Signalized EB LT — — — — — B EB TH&RT — — — — — C WB LT — — — — — C WBTH&RT — — — — — D NB LT — — — — — B /^` NBTH&RT — — — — — C SB LT — — — — — C SB TH&RT — — — — — C Intersection Delay — — — — — 30.2 Intersection LOS — — — — — C Unsignalized NB Approach — — B B — — SB Approach — — B C - - Intersection Delay — — 2.5 7.5 — — Intersection LOS — — A A — — Frontage Road/North Emplovment Access Unsignalized WB Approach - - A A - B Intersection Delay - - 0.1 0.5 - 0.8 Intersection LOS — — A A — A Frontage Road/Shadow Hawk Drive Unsignalized WB Approach — — A A — B Intersection Delay — — 1.2 1.3 — 1.3 Intersection LOS — — A A — A Notes: LTR-Left/Though/Right EB,WB,NB&SB=east-,west-,north-&southbound movements,respectively. r o F r Approximate Scale Scale:I--1,100' xn woa II LI: UI .■■'�rJ■.. .'` I; iuwO�� V\ Li; �uuN ��A1■�� I. Lam ------- 1 ri Figure 2 Conceptual Site Plan December,2001 Riverdance(LSC#011500) VSc .tx:' i . .tr,s Avg+ k x y tr' x.- *W'+N.'..' ; - .s, t' Rrt t '''...'"e52:' x { iit k; fgs t s �, t: yt L - • s �E 0. v- Y F } l.r -, I 4 l 5 r `''LF ,w ar.. a. t �- y' {ni�+WAt 4Cif .�' 5 '"'iI e k , §+ i J k ' ₹� V �' 1 5 X r mn i. a ' sy"; a,:. n f. 'P I� - a': z45'' ',2,A;;;;,i' .�. ,,M a x E 6� Y� d0 r x. uG f' — £`^ �t /'r I— a " . 's ', 5 : r • - }� 4, P.'tizIj i; uY1, R'• 1111 vsr -.y, .,1 ,i:+g� 'a"1-2:3•4?'RYA J' ' 5 yid x ors a ro'. - 11'1?-6,, o a ar •` 'S " . j ^:N1y'41.di e °. h 1"i3 nPd ,.# p., a rc r vm 5 ' ,.sv ;' 4 "'fi 1'x' "3 1571 ii.),-.7::::,,A.,,,,,.:,:::7,.,,,,,,,, ,1 Man '-;' 9Pw x,r.w d $i 4 "> o- 'fit I t, b %c y Y[ �—ii,k1.044,01 ' ' , F * . �; - Figure 1 '— , ! 1'- , . s -•' .. 'c , Site Location December,2001 Riverdance(LSC#O11500) LAC 4 e E t.g8 N �0 — z# E � I� N t�� aOO U 1 rLt.?. a) .o. !Ia — C OR I— J I^ yI/ Ct W O i agR �— O CI I irnl ol�K -h—)i -1' 1 ra a 3 RIR +I^un�m I ��E oI m-n—c --f--_- �Ia �� I 7 � �I�pL R 2'�I ,�� { vlsa,m — .-1 \ E _ii,_ l er+ 4- savoy sri �f — szi :lima J LIB o CP uI"rIa / 'I' O o IL- ---07:1:1 If j I„ C J 7 r* flico X19 \ f I--07:2: 6 N y Y \ w 0- a a 0 0 -lo H in m a a ,i"-, z II II Z W II L. _I gin Y v--c) g8 e' CD I \ O '- -21 (His RI$ ctS n na�m1:::rm.i.: -.- nlnJ t_" rtlnIn nln Knil°11:1' ff.:1:7+ j n K.`+' R �nIIn} "I 2 oln �o a r - - r $y uaDm RIR — RIo i I ^IR 1}rrl ' v) RRgig enconm \1.4 is nnw 1 CIS_ 711 —si-" I \ St-1 ER Nit J� � � w4— E 0 try nIn 0 S®4 nIn nIn Inn O 0 nIn "iJ I L- + _ is IL C `Jln nIn n nIn _in rih a w soas--)t r-- + K z n non J nln .-44,,'4 yp 'St) P S E O w� 8 . qp i At i WI a CZ U Jul=` ...u..) -----\\ .... > be 0 O u n '5710 1,, N m Ta O w, __ o p m n ., n °} m L T SLMJM N N_ N -ell m n_ 4T N -- --.-- VI C o uaDM Ti ico Ln La n VI in W \ ♦ �- N i••• \ Kii___ 1 O1 U 6OM N 0 N N CO O O 1 N 3 Porip N \ r 9tl aYVuoH SZY SZY ------N\ \ N / A 1 \ 0 J 1 O \ " O 0 ♦• w 0 1 * ~ ~ -4- 7� N I— I Iii n c o` or J�� CI N 0 n2 t N N' " n NKri ;:Thi "cpt Nd to K-fl Ji / CL L N/ e —_ _— S 2 �� N aDri ` / Z Ito - 1 f(:C \ \ / w II N J n N n .74::. ",--94-,.... Q.) U 88 s O �' O C 15 N O L. Ev 4-ei • b"••• 1.-C3 � o ° '6 Ct a � U c g U Et)DM 6 3 - - MOM tU N 1/1 6>oM K I to 1S PwW D X N M M 'pN eiltluali Si-I ° SL-I O O L. ° O ° ° a X0 W L N in O G 13' U • Q1 4 N 76U C o • ,a�g X ^V^`` MOM CD O X g in I LOOM L 1x H I 14.1 X N - I -4. - o C UL eaJM • '15 PraW N O X X in N P I ~—� _ 'PN PSeIuo+l st-I — 0 ------/ sr-' 0 c o i U X v N Q O C N O N a O N 0 N ..••••. O II W X 0 W N J 1 yyp O U 8g •�\ t3 d �� ( N ,- G A R m N Z * a N s 7.- (II:DI?i_T.I^glz =,-.- 7, ,.,. r ,....\\ :5,, >In Q (-4, \ z c., K., ^I- il* x a� zI i� U 4. et 'g ?ell gm YM C VI^1 12I2\ < Im elC .Ia " min r �n qa LL 1DM �I�I" \ W ^ if rI" Ln =._-'Dnla OI° SIR N60M _ — I oln \J�� /`C'IA ^�L `-' �� mI2)4 ^�C YID p3 -,5,,-,, mlf l my nIN 9tl+buotlsz, \ --- WI ml• "In + L gl9 * J/ — - eIR nlm / \ w 0 i / ImJ r� IJ LI�la olm J — �Ig -In � — nln > > I' O O m+-41- 1 Ala s \ In cla "s„iI 'I° Im y Y \ �4..:11; m J !le m J rlm nn �� / �I+ a s x min ir�lm o g1=' — ^I7 I-)r • $Im- o a a nle / \ +I" w u ^h CD min rn O •U 8g c Z ft / N �► e � z.4 i � f to Et3 ° 8 mi / .0 12 I \ m to N fly � ¢ � Y m m�N n m � ID N . I. n , m ) �� 2 �' rirN m N d il W N JIJ fl+M 10 / m � ...„'ll n 00 / IL N Q3 N $ 3 K !1:m ffi °l ---11 (NJ m CN /I" \ N Ll YDM �� ALmcIN m ITO m LL6 um . � N �nm C� ` as o-w L ITTIN n m n ��— say o / it 1N L N Oa O o n w 13- / N N —' N n r �— 0 0 m N m Vn] Y S 1 mO cOi JIJ m t'm m ''`,..1.- / m 0 .- ' \ m 1 1 /�n d N J n M �f� w N `\ 1� CD m \ / n w / • J n k we O .Vg8 y . N Nr — O ct3 _ z� = " _ i l� gR k a N$y q —_ f_. 0 1 to 1 ` ^ co N 1r�� ! o `113 c no to PO in " " bN N 11 N In� O ri ke m C m m a n 1I 1 Ire to N I� N Yf\�\� \�( N O ` op )� ��< S " N Y O N \\ IN N " _J j l__ a a M —4 4— " m*---:: ��f��" N m 11 " ../ ( ‘'.4' K7" � N V - n \N 3 b ry /0", m „ N LLYJM YU3 N I 111 " m N " ' n N H W o epTi fro 1 m �I � • n }(� n lh6 3M - "�\ N "In CO m n �\ N CO IS P014 N n ;40- CO n a9nu•H SL-I Sel n n N p� j Ntio ma w nJem r, O m N H O O n N ,N y n 0 ouff -- JI I`C a �- 0 � na 0Ir1�}�I d. � W nn in --MIL: r Inlllm m " a " L n to a " < / co I'A -',/ >Lc- E II • 0 t73 KI,in n / \ / a w J " O ...?...1 to 8 n 04 c Q ��N U E i0 L ��{(w' E m O C 0 o �-ifi CD i U B "> 0 0 c. ,'n) N•) Q \ \ o O Lo CO o n n O N O \ 0 O n COpp O In CO L EL 1DM 0 \ 0 0 O N 0 O n\ ) p 0 O \ o O O O o 0 N O p) tri e- n O O a \ o O n rn \ O IOn O LO O o o n O \ \ N 4. O • ,9 \ N N r O O i O O 3 - 8 w Co N N N O /'\ 0 \ I O n n CO \ ll1fAM N O 0 to o Le)) m o o o n H \ o0 0 O \O N o n \ N ^ O Q m \ O 0 N VL610M - N L() T T 0. p n 0 -o o o o n n ISP�W I I K U co I �U o _ O Lc-- PN tl Sol O O / SL I \ 0 0 000 oo 6 � o� \tri o O I j - 0 In 6 M co oN H rn 0 0 ,_ m 0 O\ T n Ij Oco 0 0 N .- m N N O 0 oCq 1D N f \ 0 N r` CO z m W O J co ec Q 4 8 4, _ � L r v� Q ig z# — E N 4:3 E �) e'k L ?`= v a CIf V 0 OC E / O • U q-� r o4 ELIDM Y< >X X -1f- ..--- -liir I LL1DM (—'III F +± \\ Zit 61OM LL - ` 'I6 Pe+W I f; T� • ` �YC L 'PN inuD+1 SZ'I -_ _._SZ-I JII i ��L iir -)-4- F ---____..-1 C O (n w D O O F v) r II II WZ Li:- W e J • v N 8 § -- E e= iz N � E � e� � �cu c ov r:Th E ni O EL DM ?:y< >A X -I� ii�L ��` r` _,4-4- - ii - ki X7M % Y AiL iJy�� _4.- t- J H /f. !`C �\ Mr" CA 111610M � -T' IC ISPnWLL I /A., .Ptla4uoyci-I SZ I ffr- --)1f— C EP in a in 0 O- 0 I` 0 "-- Lt. d-. II W W 45 J • Counter Mealtres Site Code : PAGE: 1 • N-S Street: WELD CR-13 FILE: CR13CR28 ^-W Street: WELD CR-28 Movements by: Primary DATE: 17/05/01 Time From North From East From South From West Vehicle Begin RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RI THRU LT RT THRU LT Total 6:30 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 0 0 0 45 6:45 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 2 0 1 41 HR TOTAL 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 24 1 2 0 1 86 7:00 AM 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 21 1 0 0 0 49 7:15 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 1 0 0 48 7:30 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 1 0 0 51 7:45 1 28 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 1 0 2 46 HR TOTAL 1 119 0 0 0 0 0 68 1 3 0 2 194 8:00 AM 2 17 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 1 0 1 30 8:15 1 18 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 1 33 Break 4:00 PM 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 1 51 4:15 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 23 1 1 0 1 43 4:30 1 22 0 0 0 0 0 36 1 0 0 1 61 4:45 3 18 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 2 61 r,HR TOTAL 4 76 0 0 0 0 0 128 2 1 0 5 216 5:00 PM 1 30 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 1 0 0 75 5:15 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 1 0 0 46 5:30 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 1 0 0 43 5:45 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 15 3 0 0 1 38 HR TOTAL 1 88 0 0 0 0 0 106 3 3 0 1 202 DAY TOTAL 9 376 0 0 0 0 0 348 7 10 0 11 761 Counter Measures Site Code : PAGE: 1 N-S Street: WELD CR-13 FILE: CR13CR28 - -W Street: WELD CR-28 Movements by: Primary DATE: 12/05/01 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 6:30 AM - 8:30 AM DIRECTION START PEAK HR VOLUMES .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left North 7:00 AM 0.91 1 119 0 120 1 99 0 East 7:00 AM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South 7:00 AM 0.78 0 68 1 69 0 99 1 West 7:15 AM 0.58 4 0 3 7 57 0 43 Entire Intersection • North 7:00 AM 0.91 1 119 0 120 1 99 0 East 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South 0.78 0 68 1 69 0 99 1 West 0.42 3 0 2 5 60 0 40 WELD CR-13 N===========1 ( W ' 1w 5 1 119 0 ......... 4 —_ J 120 0 -:::::.:'.:Ti.....s..?:';'::::....':.::::/.:..:..:."-..:.. v:-... . . ii.:.: .:.:::::::::::::.::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..,.................„.„.......:.::::,:::....::: .:::.:::::...i„.........:::::::::::..........:!..::::!„::.::::::::::::::.:.:...:::::::::::.::::..........,.......:::::::: ...:„....:.::::::,::::::::::::::::::::,:::.:::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..............:.::::::.. : ::.........::::.:.....! .::;:::::::.::.:::.:.:. WELD CR-28 0 0 2 1 0 0 5 WELD CR-28 3 --- 69 1 122::.. 1 1 68 I 0 ......::::::: ::;...::.....„........:........................••••• :: 11 1.------- il WELD CR-13 • Counter Measures Site Code : PAGE: 1 • N-S Street: WELD CR-13 FILE: CR13CR28 '"''C-W Street: WELD CR-28 Movements by: Primary DATE: 12/05/01 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HR VOLUMES .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left North 4:30 PM 0.78 5 92 0 97 5 95 0 East 4:30 PM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South 4:15 PM 0.83 0 140 2 142 0 99 1 West 4:00 PM 0.75 1 0 5 6 17 0 83 Entire Intersection North 4:30 PM 0.78 5 92 0 97 5 95 0 East 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South 0.82 0 140 1 141 0 99 1 West 0.63 2 0 3 5 40 0 60 WELD CR-13 N W I C I I • { { II II ::14 3 ... 5 I 92 I 0 •• ................................. 97 4 0 Ir I WELD CR-28 0 0 3 i 0 :,::.,:::::.::::: 0 5 WELD CR-28 .- 2 --I (____ -- � 1 I 140 I 0 :94: WELD CR-13 T415 Old GR - 13 koIw toeid c - Z . Vi g 1 v I �- ( 1�, )pa_v j No 105 1 e.WJ Sp M ecol /, ' t, ,.. V � I � I Counter Measures Site Code : PAGE: 1 ' N/S STREET: CR-11 FILE: CR11SH66 '''''''''/W STREET: SH-66 Movements by: Primary DATE: 9/14/00 Time From North From East From South From West Vehicle Begin RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RI THRU LT RT THRU LT Total 6:30 0 0 0 0 121 0 0 0 1 0 42 0 164 6:45 0 0 0 0 121 0 0 0 2 0 65 0 188 HR TOTAL 0 0 0 0 242 0 0 0 3 0 107 0 352 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 103 0 0 0 1 0 46 0 150 7:15 0 0 0 0 134 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 203 7:30 0 0 0 0 132 0 0 0 0 3 56 0 191 7:45 0 0 0 0 108 0 0 0 2 1 55 0 166 HR TOTAL 0 0 0 0 477 0 0 0 3 4 226 0 710 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 1 38 0 119 8:15 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 1 45 1 127 Break 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 71 0 1 0 0 0 86 0 158 4:15 0 0 0 0 108 1 1 0 0 0 103 0 213 4:30 1 0 0 0 106 0 0 0 2 0 103 0 212 4:45 0 0 0 0 111 1 2 0 0 0 104 0 218 ^HR TOTAL 1 0 0 0 396 2 4 0 2 0 396 0 801 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 123 0 0 0 1 0 117 1 242 5:15 0 0 0 0 122 0 0 0 0 1 115 0 238 5:30 0 0 0 0 124 0 0 0 0 0 116 0 240 5:45 0 0 0 0 104 0 0 0 1 1 98 0 204 HR TOTAL 0 0 0 0 473 0 0 0 2 2 446 1 924 DAY TOTAL 1 0 0 0 1748 2 4 0 10 8 1258 2 3033 Counter Measures Site Code : PAGE: 1 N/S STREET: CR-11 FILE: CRIISH66 ' /W STREET: SH-66 Movements by: Primary DATE: 9/14/00 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 6:30 AM - 8:30 AM DIRECTION START PEAK HR VOLUMES .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left North 12:00 AM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East 6:45 AM 0.91 0 490 0 490 0 1100 0 South 6:30 AM 0.50 0 0 4 4 0 0 t100 West 6:45 AM 0.87 3 236 0 239 1 99 0 Entire Intersection North 6:45 AM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East 0.91 0 490 0 490 0 t100 0 South 0.38 0 0 3 3 0 0 1100 West 0.87 3 236 0 239 1 99 0 • CR-11 N W—}--E: S 0 0 0 _-____5 0 0 493r .............................,......„...............„. :_.......::.:„::::::::„....:.......:....:....:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:„.:.:.:.:.:.:.:....:.::.::.:.:.: .................:....... ...„:„.,...„:;:.: ::: SH-66 490 490 0 i 0 :::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::: 236 239 SH-66 23 i ... .... 3 3 3:... 3 0 0 CR-11 Counter Measures Site Code : PAGE: 1 • N/S STREET: CR-11 FILE: CR11SH66 '.--"7/W STREET: SH-66 Movements by: Primary DATE: 9/14/00 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HR VOLUMES .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left North 4:00 PM 0.25 1 0 0 1 %100 0 0 East 4:45 PM 0.97 0 480 1 481 0 t100 0 South 4:00 PM 0.75 4 0 2 6 67 0 33 West 4:45 PM 0.96 1 452 1 454 0 %100 0 Entire Intersection North 4:45 PM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East 0.97 0 480 1 481 0 t100 0 South 0.38 2 0 1 3 67 0 33 West 0.96 1 452 1 454 0 t100 0 CR-11 N 14 S 1:;•.. 0 0 0 ::461:::.. p 0 :::::: r .::::::.......„:„....„....:........................:.: .7........................:::::„:„.................:::.„...........::.:.:....::.:......,..„ .....................„.::.„:„.... .............:...............::.:::.:.:.:.:.:....„:„....„..:. ................:..... SH-66 481 480 • L 1 1 ....:.....:::........ :s::::::: 452 454 SH-66 ::: 45 _1 1 3 ---] ...-.....-.:-...... ..........: -.. . . ..... . ................ 1 0 2 CR-11 Counter Measures Site Code : PAGE: 1 N/S STREET: FRONTAGE RD FILE: FRONSH66 ' E/6 STREET: SH-66 /..'` Movements by: PRIMARY DATE: 3/08/00 • Time From North From East From South From West Vehicle Begin RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT Total 6:30 33 1 2 5 107 9 2 1 0 3 60 12 235 6:45 24 3 0 3 103 5 7 1 3 8 72 19 248 HR TOTAL 57 4 2 8 210 14 9 2 3 11 132 31 483 7:00 AM 17 5 4 . 2 86 3 3 1 3 4 87 14 229 7:15 19 6 1 3 75 6 6 3 1 5 85 8 218 7:30 19 3 0 11 129 7 4 1 2 7 90 19 292 7:45 19 3 1 6 96 6 5 2 2 9 76 31 256 HR TOTAL 74 17 6 22 386 22 18 7 8 25 338 72 995 8:00 AM 10 5 2 3 80 7 1 1 3 6 68 20 206 8:15 19 0 4 5 88 3 5 2 1 1 69 10 207 Break 4:00 PM 10 3 4 0 94 9 6 3 6 1 125 8 269 4:15 14 1 5 4 89 3 9 2 2 3 122 7 261 4:30 17 4 4 2 116 3 13 3 11 1 119 7 300 4:45 14 3 3 4 112 7 13 7 7 3 140 10 323 HR TOTAL 55 11 16 10 411 22 41 15 26 8 506 32 1153 5:00 PM 38 4 6 2 144 4 13 3 6 1 91 5 317 5:15 14 3 3 3 119 6 12 2 4 4 101 6 277 5:30 6 1 2 3 98 1 8 3 6 0 114 7 249 5:45 6 1 5 2 87 2 8 3 7 2 102 6 231 HR TOTAL 64 9 16 10 448 13 41 11 23 7 408 24 1074 DAY TOTAL 279 46 46 58 1623 81 115 38 64 58 1521 189 4118 . Counter Measures Site Code : PAGE: 1 N/S STREET: FRONTAGE RD FILE: FRONSH66 • E/W STREET: SH-66 : Movements by: PRIMARY DATE: 3/08/00 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 6:30 AN - 8:30 AM DIRECTION START PEAK HR VOLUMES .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left North 6:30 AM 0.80 93 15 7 115 81 13 6 East 7:30 AM 0.75. 25 393 23 441 6 89 5 South 6:45 AM 0.80 20 6 9 35 57 17 26 West 7:00 AM 0.94 25 338 72 435 6 78 17 Entire Intersection North 7:00 AM 0.93 74 17 6 97 76 18 6 East 0.73 22 386 22 430 5 90 5 South 0.82 18 7 8 33 55 21 24 West 0.94 25 338 72 435 6 78 17 FRONTAGE RD N II W E . i S 1:O :::;•: 74 17 6 ::468:... 97 22......:.::::::::::::„::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::„:::::::::::„:„.:.x.:.:.:.:.:....„.„.: :s..:„.....:..:.....:.. E.„.,.„:........::::::.:. SH-66 430 386 L 72 i 22 • 338 435 SH-66 :�3 2:. __1 25 33 ---i ..:•;,-..-....:.:...............•...:.:.:.::::.:::::•:7:.:::.:::::,.:•.•:.::•.:•....:::::::::7:::.::•::i.:'::',.:•.:. 8 7 64.... 18 FRONTAGE RD - Counter Measures Site Code : PAGE: 1 N/S STREET: FRONTAGE RD FILE: FRONSH66 '....--,E/W STREET: SH-66 Movements by: PRIMARY DATE: 3/08/00 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HR VOLUMES .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left North 4:15 PM 0.59 83 12 18 113 73 11 16 East 4:30 PM 0.87 . 11 491 20 522 2 94 4 South 4:30 PM 0.87 51 15 28 94 54 16 30 West 4:00 PM 0.89 8 506 32 546 1 93 6 Entire Intersection North 4:30 PM 0.59 83 14 16 113 73 12 14 East 0.87 11 491 20 522 2 94 4 South 0.87 51 15 28 94 54 16 30 West 0.80 9 451 28 488 2 92 6 FRONTAGE RD N W I E S .....,..-/..7..- 5..................,....... 83 14 16 :: : .. 113 11 602 :::::i.:::::::::..:*::::::.:::*:::::::::::::::? :.::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::•::::::::::......:::.:.:::. r SH-66 522 491 L 28 i 20 451 488 SH-66 518:::.. 9 ) 94 J ...... ... 28 15 51 43 FRONTAGE RD Counter Measures Site Code : PAGE: 1 N/S STREET: MEAD DR FILE: MEADSH66 E/W STREET: SH-66 -^ Movements by: Vehicles DATE: 9/14/00 Time From North From East From South From West Vehicle Begin RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT Total 6:30 18 0 7 10 126 0 0 0 0 2 42 31 236 6:45 21 0 5 18 95 2 0 0 1 1 68 44 255 HR TOTAL 39 0 12 28 221 2 0 0 1 3 110 75 491 7:00 AM 30 2 5 . 15 97 1 0 1 0 10 51 26 238 7:15 31 3 7 20 96 1 1 1 3 4 57 35 259 7:30 34 3 6 21 111 2 0 1 2 8 55 24 267 7:45 17 4 5 9 90 1 0 3 1 5 54 29 218 HR TOTAL 112 12 23 65 394 5 1 6 6 27 217 114 982 8:00 AM 35 1 4 13 62 2 0 0 4 4 40 21 186 8:15 10 0 4 14 73 1 2 1 1 4 43 38 191 Break 4:00 PM 40 2 9 6 65 0 1 0 8 3 81 35 250 4:15 44 1 12 7 62 1 0 2 2 6 95 36 268 4:30 55 0 27 12 79 1 0 0 4 5 81 45 309 4:45 45 3 17 10 66 0 1 1 0 3 91 35 272 HR TOTAL 184 6 65 35 272 2 2 3 14 17 348 151 1099 5:00 PM 60 1 16 16 73 1 0 4 5 4 107 44 331 5:15 63 1 17 9 83 0 0 1 0 4 104 38 320 5:30 36 0 15 9 63 0 2 0 3 3 107 39 277 5:45 50 0 12 10 64 0 0 0 4 3 93 36 272 HR TOTAL 209 2 60 44 283 1 2 5 12 14 411 157 1200 DAY TOTAL 589 21 168 199 1305 13 7 15 38 69 1169 556 4149 Counter Measures Site Code : PAGE: 1 N/S STREET: MEAD DR FILE: MEADSH66 ' E/W STREET: SH-66 /^ Movements by: Vehicles DATE: ,9/14/00 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 6:30 AM - 8:30 AM DIRECTION START PEAK HR VOLUMES .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left North 7:15 AM 0.87 117 11 22 150 78 7 15 East 6:30 AM 0.88. 63 414 4 481 13 86 1 South 7:15 AM 0.80 1 5 10 16 6 31 62 West 6:45 AM 0.85 23 231 129 383 6 60 34 Entire Intersection North 6:45 AM 0.85 116 8 23 147 79 5 16 East 0.89 74 399 6 479 15 83 1 South 0.50 1 3 6 10 10 30 60 West 0.85 23 231 129 383 6 60 34 MEAD DR N W I E S 206 116 8 I 23 ........... L i 147 74 r .....................„:„..„...,:,.,:,:,:,:,.,:,:„..,:,:,:.,..:,....,.:,:,::.::::::„.....:,:::::::.:::::......::::,:,.::,...: :::::.::::::,::::::::::.::::::::::„:::::::.:::::::::::::::.:::::.:.:::....„.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. ,r.........,::„...3.,:::.:: _:.::.:4.:.:::.: SH-66 479 399• L 129 i 6 231 383 SH-66 <:2 55' . `:. 23 10 ii 37 ... 6 3 1 MEAD DR - Counter Measures Site Code : PAGE: 1 N/S STREET: FRONTAGE RD FILE: FRONCR28 ' E/W STREET: CR-28 ^ Movements by: PRIMARY DATE: 3/08/00 Time From North From East From South From West Vehicle Begin RT THRU IT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RI THRU LT Total 6:30 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 23 6:45 1 21 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 1 29 HR TOTAL 1 41 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 2 52 7:00 AM 0 11 0 - 1 0 1 1 4 1 1 0 0 20 7:15 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 7 7:30 3 10 1 1 0 0 0 10 0 1 1 1 28 7:45 0 14 1 1 0 2 0 9 0 0 0 0 27 HR TOTAL 3 38 2 3 0 3 1 26 1 2 1 2 82 8:00 AM 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 16 8:15 1 7 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 0 16 Break 4:00 PM 0 14 0 0 0 0 1 17 0 2 1 0 35 4:15 0 8 0 0 1 0 1 14 0 0 0 2 26 4:30 0 8 0 0 0 0 2 25 0 0 0 0 35 4:45 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 35 HR TOTAL 1 40 0 0 1 0 4 80 0 2 1 2 131 5:00 PM 0 8 1 0 0 1 1 27 1 1 0 0 40 5:15 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 1 0 0 26 5:30 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 22 2 0 1 1 28 5:45 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 17 HR TOTAL 1 25 1 1 0 1 2 72 4 2 1 1 111 DAY TOTAL 7 160 3 4 2 4 8 197 5 7 4 7 408 • Counter Measures Site Code : PAGE: 1 N/S STREET: MEAD DR FILE: MEADSH66 ' E/W STREET: SH-66 ''` Movements by: Vehicles DATE: 9/14/00 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HR VOLUMES .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left North 4:30 PM 0.93 223 5 77 305 73 2 25 East 4:30 PM 0.95 - 47 301 2 350 13 86 1 South 4:00 PM 0.53 2 3 14 19 11 16 74 West 5:00 PM 0.94 14 411 157 582 2 71 27 Entire Intersection North 4:30 PM 0.93 223 5 77 305 73 2 25 East 0.95 47 301 2 350 13 86 1 South 0.44 1 6 9 16 6 38 56 West 0.90 16 383 162 561 3 68 29 MEAD DR N W I E S :2 1:5;... 223 5 77 L 305 147 533 :::::: r .::.:::::::::::::.„..............................:..........:::: :„..„.„,...•,,,.....,„,,.,,,.,.,.,.,....„.„:„......„...:::„.„::,.......::::::.:::::„.::::::::::„.„:„:„: ::,::::.:„::::.:::::.•.:::„.::::::::„.„:„......::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:...:::,:::,. ....,:::,:,,,.„:.„:„....••• .......• ..............:::::: ..,...„..7:::.:::: 5H-66 350 301 L 162 i 2 383 561 SH--66 ::::: <461::... 16 15 - 9 6 1 MEAD DR Counter Measures Site Code : PAGE: 1 N/S STREET: FRONTAGE RD FILE: FRONCR28 • E/W STREET: CR-28 ,,.."` Movements by: PRIMARY DATE: 3/08/00 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 6:30 AM - 8:30 AM DIRECTION START PEAK HR VOLUMES .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left North 6:30 AM 0.64 1 55 0 56 2 98 0 East 7:00 AM 0.50. 3 0 3 6 50 0 50 South 7:30 AM 0.80 1 31 0 32 3 97 0 West 6:45 AM 0.58 3 1 3 7 43 14 43 Entire Intersection North 7:30 AM 0.77 4 40 2 46 9 87 4 East 0.42 2 1 2 5 40 20 40 South 0.80 1 31 0 32 3 97 0 West 0.33 1 2 1 4 25 50 25 FRONTAGE RD N W # { S 34 4 40 2 46 2 '..'..7.•:::-:•:•!.......!:.':.::::'::7:::::7::::::::::::,..:......:..:::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::.:...,......2....: r ....„.....„:::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::„,:::::.:„..................„.................................„:„. ........ .::::.::::::::::::: CR-28 5 1 L 1 i 2 2 4 CR--28 ... __1 1 r32 0 31 1 FRONTAGE RD • Counter Measures Site Code : PAGE: 1 N/S STREET: FRONTAGE RD FILE: FRONCR28 • E/W STREET: CR-28 . Movements by: PRIMARY DATE: 3/08/00 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HR VOLUMES .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left North 4:00 PM 0.73 1 40 0 41 2 98 0 East 4:15 PM 0.50. 0 1 1 2 0 50 50 South 4:15 PM 0.82 4 90 1 95 4 95 1 West 4:00 PM 0.42 2 1 2 5 40 20 40 Entire Intersection North 4:15 PM 0.82 1 34 1 36 3 94 3 East 0.50 0 1 1 2 0 50 50 South 0.82 4 90 1 95 4 95 1 West 0.38 1 0 2 3 33 0 67 FRONTAGE RD N W f -CS 92:•: 1 34 1 1 L 36 0 .......:.::::.::::„.:::.:::.:,::::.:,:::::.:::,:::::,..::::::::::.:.:.:::.:....:.:....:,...:....:.:.:.........:............ .....„.., :::,.:-,::,::,..., CR-28 2 1 2 1 10 3 CR-28 1 95 —7 .::::::•::.:::.:.:::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::.::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:..:...::::.... .r :,:-.....::::::::::::::::::.:::„.„:„:„:„:„.:.:.:„.....,.....„,......... .. 1 90 4 3 .....„.„ FRONTAGE RD Site Code Counter Measures PAGE: 1 N/S STREET: CR-11 FILE: CR11CR28 E/W STREET: CR-28 Movements by: PRIMARY DATE: 3/08/00 Time From North From East From South From West Vehicle Begin RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RI THRU LT Total Break 6:45 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 HR TOTAL 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 7:00 AM. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 7:15 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 5 7:30 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 7:45 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 HR TOTAL 1 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 2 0 4 1 13 8:00 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8:15 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 Break 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4:15 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:30 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 ^4:45 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 TOTAL 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 9 5:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Break 5:30 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 HR TOTAL 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 DAY TOTAL 4 1 3 3 8 0 0 0 2 0 10 3 34 • Counter Measures Site Code : PAGE: 1 N/S STREET: CR-11 FILE: CR11CR28 • E/W STREET: CR-28 .• Movements by: PRIMARY DATE: 3/08/00 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 6:30 AM - 8:30 AM DIRECTION START PEAK HR VOLUMES .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left North 7:15 AM 0.38 2 0 1 3 67 0 33 East 7:30 AN 0.44. 2 5 0 7 29 71 0 South 6:30 AM 0.50 0 0 2 2 0 0 x100 West 6:45 AM 0.50 0 4 2 6 0 67 33 Entire Intersection North 7:00 AM 0.25 1 0 1 2 50 0 50 East 0.50 1 3 0 4 25 75 0 South 0.50 0 0 2 2 0 0 x100 West 0.42 0 4 1 5 0 80 20 1 III CR-11 N il W C S 2. 1 0 1 1 L 2 1 -::::::::••••••••••••.',..!.......::••!..........,.......,..?.....:•:.•:••.•::::::::::::::::::::::::::..........„:„..:........,... r :::::::::::::::::: `:.: CR-28 4 3 1 i 0 ::::::::::::::.:::.:. 4 5 CR-28 0 2 `-1 0 I I I II CR-11 • Counter Measures Site Code : PAGE: 1 N/S STREET: CR-11 FILE: CR11CR28 • E/W STREET: CR-28 ,.--. Movements by: PRIMARY DATE: 3/08/00 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HR VOLUMES .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left North 4:15 PM 0.38 1 0 2 3 33 0 67 East 4:00 PM 0.38. 1 2 0 3 33 67 0 South 4:00 PM 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West 4:00 PM 0.50 0 3 1 4 0 75 25 Entire Intersection North 4:00 PM 0.25 1 0 1 2 50 0 50 East 0.38 1 2 0 3 33 67 0 South 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 West 0.50 0 3 1 4 0 75 25 CR-111 N w } -E k i 4 S L 1 2 .....-.ii....,:;,..y.-.....i-...-..:-..-ff-::-:::::-..,ii.-..... r CR-28 3 2 • 1 i 0 3 4 CR-28 0 II 0 --1 ... .. o I o 0 I CR-11 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: State Highway 66 & Mead Street 12/20/2001 -� " r ` 4- 4 h T ti j 4/ Lane Configurations 14 r 1� Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume(veh/h` 0 11625. •350 _ 0 ,1 00, 30, . e Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 ,0.92 0.92 .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 t ou lyflowrate•(veh/h). :`' 0.., 766 3$t "';j 0 .1739_, ,. . Q` 0., , 20 Q', f}.. .109 Pedestrians La l�ilidth(ft) Walking{Speed (fUs) PercentT]IockagC .1 Y .r , 4 ki Right turn flare (veh) Medtanty �' '` � rtv��'v,k".�,;� .w s��.;.. � ' ' � � . $.,_ : One .. �;` +, ,� ' Nc•ne Median storage veh) vC}'con8'ic€ing"volume ';1772 :'2147 2745 0538 883 2742 '3886 = 870 v�C51, stage ry1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 con vol .`, [S! M1 fi... tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0"queue free% 100 4 100 1,00 ; 100 59 100'E; 100a 63 cM capacity (veh/h) 347 248 6 6 289 6 3 295 S ;.. 'x5 ilal�Y fedlf A .2 Y:`. � . r y�yg jjgf:. ��_6.'' '�. ^.,a Y: 6' Volume Total 883 883 380 870 870 33 120 109 Volume Celt ;;+ 0 ! Volume Right 0 0 380 0 0 33 120 109 cSH ` Volume to Capacity 0.52 0.52 0.22 0.51 0.51 0.02 0.41 0.37 Gtt+eue Lengtft(ff) 0 0 0. r Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.0 24.2 Lane LOS D,' C Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 26-0 24.2 Approach LOS q �� ".". ` : .-. ,D• C _. ENL1Z,rialatlift-:`E :: FE°`. iffaZthlcfiiailt, , 6$7 -'9 zfratititsAve€age Delay; 1.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.9% ICU Level of Service B River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2020 PM Background Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: State Highway 66 & WCR 9.5 12/21/2001 r— f —♦ - ' f ~ & `\ t P Y 7 r Mo"e e , r L' `'.rte E13F ; tBL' `WgT3Vt31 T9NE 7 B"t Lane Configurations Ideal.Ftow(vphpl) ,11900 1900 1800 '1900` 1900 ' 1900 1910; ;190il 0 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 . :,.,,,,,a,:‘,., 1:00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95, 1.00 0.97 1.00' ; 1.00 : 1.00 1:90 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 • 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected '. ," ,�r ., ..0.95 1.00 1:00 0.95 1.00 • 1`0'0' '0:95' `1.00 tX.00 0:97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 1863 1583 1801 1583 Fit Permitted ^„ 0.20 1.00 1.00 0.13 : 1.00 1.00 0.95Y 1.00.•.,'1,00 , 0.78 1.0Q Satd. Flow(perm) 373 3539 1583 248 3539 1583 3433 1863 1583 • 1448 1583 Volume (vph) t A,.:' °,' 200 860 650 155' 670 75 600 '25• 80 100 .45 150 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 Mj. Flow(vph) : 2.A7;;;;;- :,935 707 168 728 82 652 ,,,,,i 27 87 10.9 49: ;163 Lane Group Flow(vph) 217 935 707 168 728 82 652 27 87 0 158 163 Turn")'ype i pm+pt Free pm+pt Perm Prot t,1 Free Perm ' Free Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 Free 8 8 Free. .6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 44.0 32.0 100.0 40.0 30.0 30.0 24.0 46.0 100.0 18.0 100 0 c1 * >h,,{s) , 44.0 32.0 100.0. ' 40.0 30.0 30.0 2401k .'46.0 100.0 : 18.0 100.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.44 0.32 1.00 0.40 0.30 0.30 0.24 0.46 1.00 0.18 1.00 ictearattce:`lme(S)",0!,;;.5,:f,k . :4.0 4.0 - 4.0 4.0 4:0 4.0 4)'''!''4.0 4.0 ::< Lane Grp Cap (vph) 332 1132 1583 251 1062 475 824 857 1583 261 1583 vie Ratio Prot .- c0.08 c0.26 • 0.07 0.21 c0.19'..:1:: 0,01 ' v/s Ratio Perm 0.21 0.45 0.20 0.05 0.05 c0.11 0.10 vie Ratio "' ,""' ' 0.65 0.83 ,0.45 0.67 0.69 0.17 0.79, ',0.03 ' 0.05 if ' 0.61 0.10 Uniform Delay,dl 32.1 31.4 0.0 37.8 30.8 25.B 35.7 14.8 0.0 37.7 0.0 Frog ressiokf.4,0 r' ;':''S_'"I 0Q;z,.1.00 ` 'f•_00 0.87 0.71 0.36,..,0.46'''',I''`0.50 1.00 ,;. 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.6. 6.9 0.9 12.3 3.3 0.7 6.9 0.1 0.1 10.0 0.1 Delay (s) °:';_r . 417, Y;"38.4 _0.9 45.0 25.1 10.1 23.5 .:: 7.5 0.1 47 7 :' ,',?.1-0.:1 Level of Service D D A DC BC A A D A Approach Delay (s)- ! :max 4 24.5 2731 TMY 20.3 ;`. :.,'- =,�t _� _,�� ' 236 Approach LOS C C C C rnterectioil7Sttnt ow..- > :' F f7.7.;,7-i.,,,,.ti *,' . ".- ` . on" � r` a 1, '� :. ,1 .�� r�' " : "( ��M4E� ;3 S -SIB' '� t:,.r bit ?c:Sv�e`�: �� HCM Average Control Delay 24.3 HCM of C LevelService' HCM,Volume.to Capacity ratio:' .`..._ 0.73 , ._„t.. 2, <<E' ` .. ... Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 intersecf on Capacity Utilization 70.4% , '-r' ICU Level of Service ' ; , f, 2 C `i:;:1,;}.gigli c Critical Lane Group River Dance Development( LSC# 011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2020 PM Background Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: State Highway 66 & WCR 11 12/12/2001 l l F ~ t `\ t P " 1 d Lane Configurations ?Tr) +1a v 1. 4. Ideal Flow(vphpl), '1900 ,1900 1{900 ;;1900,, 19 ...00 1900` 1900 "1900 190q„ 1900',;, 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 eUtil Factor; ; 3,33,3.1.11,00;33:310,45 100, ': 100 w;095 ,; : 100 `,;100 . 1,00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.95 F(t Protected, „0.95 :1.00, l 00 ;0.95 f{n 1.00 v 095 9 00 .t, '°: i, 0.98 „ Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3535 1770 1657 1750 Fit Permit :d , `, . .029., , 1.O0 . 1 00 ; b'1,8 1.1.00 ,.0.75 ,:7`t 00 4 „ ` 095 ' ' Satd. Flow (perm) 548 3539 1583 326 3535 1393 1657 1708 Volume(vph) ' .k, r, 5 , t 875 217 ,w 12; ;632' ,Syr 217 5 ;13 5 5....'.;-,1-; 5 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 h)` .__.. . .`s,..5 951 ,236. . 13 7 687 , ;*a. 5t , 236 ''i 5.. ''.:14 ;5 ., 5`.::: _5 Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 951 236 13 692 0 236 19 0 0 ,. 15 0 Turn:Type ' ":'pm+pt '`'Free pm+pt Perm Permt53 . Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 ,. Free 8 2 6 . Actuated Green, G (s) 54.0 43.0 100.0 54.0 43 0 34.0 34.0 34.0 Effective Green,!g(s) 54 0 '43.0 100.0` 54 0 .;;40 0 r. 34.0 34 0; i .:; 34 0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.54 0.43 1.00 0.54 0.43 0.34 0.34 0.34 Clearance l:MtIs) , .,:t4.0.' ''"4 0 '' -'34:03:1'33.4.0 ` `' . 4.0 ,o4.0 i. "-4.0 `. ' Lane Grp Cap (vph) 430 1522 1583 335 1520 474 563 581 v/s;;Ratio Prot 0.00" c0.27 ti. : 0.00 ;:;0 20 7 :::: :;.::,;;;;P:81:/,;1;.:Y!.:::;:',',` , . v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.15 0.02 c0.17 0.01 v/c.Ratio' :0.01, 0.62 015 7;) 004. 0,46 0 50::,,.A 03 . : "_ n 03. ;' Uniform Delay, dl 11.2 22.2 0.0 12.3 20.2 26.2 22.0 22.0 Progression; 'actor :0.28 `0.44`. 1.00',;:,',1,00::':"1..b0-11 30�.ti1.47, ;`y 1.00',.;;,` incremental Delay, d2 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.2 1.0 3.7 0.1 0.1 Delay(s) ,:", : `:;:3,2' .;11.1 0.1 12.5.`.21.2 .:'37.8 :-`,325 ..`;: 22.1 Level of Service A B A BC D C C Approach,Delay;($) ' . " . 8.9 ., � ,. ;21 0 ;37 4 �': ... 22-1'. Approach LOS A C D C ,. ., -. fit;'. v iR i$!. .5; wtt,,,2. ' :.„ m . £= 3 HCM Average Control Delay 16.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to'Capacity ratio 0.5t .."'":,..-':;.:::...";:,;(':':.'".."2::': "' . -. Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.7 c '+ iCi Level of Service; , `r .7 A . , c Critical Lane Group River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2020 PM Background Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 2 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: WCR 28 & 1-25 Frontage Road 12/20/2001 -• "\T c ~ kh t /* `► l J Lane Configurations 'I t. '9 14 vi v t r vi 4 r ideal,Flow(vprpl), „, , 1,900_ 1900 1900:;;;1900 ,19,00,, 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 Lane Utit Factory ,_ ,1,00 X80 1 00 .,1.00, ,,i , 1,'00 . 100 ,4 1.00 ' 100:", 100 , °1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 FIt Protected r. _ ' 0`95 1.00 _ .. 0195. '1 -, f a5 ,k100._,1:00 r 0 95 100 ";1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 1831 1770 1852 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 FltPermitted, 5( }: 10.51 C"1.00? "`1 :(023 n 1.00 s` 0.72 ° 100y :1:00 '0.72:: 100 ,,x1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 957 1831 422 1852 1337 1863 1583 1337 1863 1583 Volume(vp47"v =. _ 15 f :382 50 ` 350 ' "3777 16 31 55 `. i 350.. ,."412 ;. , 55 :., .; 15 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..Frpw.(vPh).x ., :k ,.16. m_415 , 54_i, 360 °"..4.t4.f., :1.7' " . 34,. -'..i.'...1-P9,-;,-1-.2-380 v '_. 13 60 r"',:i 16 Lane Group Flow(vph) 16 469 0 380 427 0 34 60 380 13 60 16 _}: m+ t. . t .'-,,,-',..0 m+ " rir+oV m:+ t Perm Tue��L'ype � _ P�ttsf ,. . .`a."" .�P. P - � �' � ,.P P �R�:_ Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 3 1 6 Pera tted.Phases,. 7_ ` _i;. `. .. _...: 8 : ' 2 >; ".°2 _.. °6; 5 Actuated Green, G (s) 41.0 37.0 66.0 58.0 22.0 18.0 43.0 22.0 18.0 18.0 EffectiveGreen,9(s), .':410 . 37:0, , 66.0 y<580 , ', .22.0' 180 ' x'43',0 ,21:0.,,:-,..15:9:,p:18:0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.41 0.37 0.66 0.58 0.22 0.18 0.43 0.22 0.18 0.18 Clearance Time(s) , ' ,'4,0 .,.=40 40:` !40 4.0 .t.i. 4.0. , 4.0 `" 4.0:` 4.0::.';:4..0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 425 677 616 1074 311 335 681 311 335 285 v/sRatio Prot ; .F5-.%:''.2:1,'::::::::51,40u 'c0.26 c0 157 0."23 co.00 9 03 c0.14. 0,00" 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.25 0.02 0.10 0.01 0.01 v/c=Ratio 0.04 "'0.69 .."i .62x,0.40 :: "x'0,11' . 018' t. 0.56 004:- "0.1a'' Q.06 Uniform Delay, dl 17.6 26.7 11.6 11.5 31.2 34.7 21.4 30.7 34.7 34.0 Progression Factor ]::,,t1",7„'1-3:10';',1:,:1,;.01:f;::,,,:-/- ..:12.11,2:!:..-0.66, ,::, 0.57 0,71.`' 0.50 1.00';` .1.00 .. 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 5.8 4.5 1.1 0.7 1.1 3.1 0.3 1.2 0.4 Delay(s) ` ;' ` ' ,n177 ;:324 ;295 „109 `"' :18.4 '25.6" .13..9.<-81,0 35.9` 343 Level of Service B C C B BC BCDC Approach"Delay (s) , . '.--;-'?-,1.1:-'.230_,., ,`, # -.( 1,-,,,,,:7` -115 7 : 34.9, Approach LOS B B C HCM Average Control Delay 22.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume toCapacity ratio 862 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization ", ,62 0°t4 ICU Level of Service. B c Critical Lane Group River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2020 PM Background Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: WCR 28 & WCR 9.5 12/12/2001 r O t 1 rw--. � ";' gym . „T' Lane Configurations ) + r vi t r ) 4f r ) 4f 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 Facto , 4 00 1 00 t 00' .1 A0, °1.00 , 1.00•, 1.00 'T O`95 ` 1 00 , 1.00 Vo,',D5 1.00 Fri 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 „0'96 = ,100 1100:, ` 0 95 r, "100 °1.00 „ 0''95 . 100 ` ,x.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Plf Permitted,: : ' 54 ;1`:00 ,,",1,00 028 lliE00 _100 058 ;100 . 15,00 '0 22 100 .1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1008 1863 1583 517 1863 1583 1085 3539 1583 417 3539 1583 S/nrtiM*(V'phy::;lV;lLf,i::l. :::;'llf.05,l:;!lrl'tia.2::Zlr,:e,7,,- :T;g057, ii;'.aRA,.i'A::,to4.goLN!}::4:,r:,.u,:f:4„.o o,:lg37:;::;:;q:y,1:,§zz,:'Th::.;:?sa.: :;:;:;:i5 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 AdjµFlow-(vph .;v , , 201 "'350 , 8 314_ _;3 .., 51 ,, 146', ,4,,°,: ' :=: 505258, ,136"y 275 ,.;201: Lane Group Flow (vph) 201 350 8 310 351 146 4 505 258 136 275 201 TurnType „ .:f "Pi?1+pt ', 4Perm'"pm+ptr Free; pm+pt~«1m , .pm+ov=pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 3 1 6 Per 4 tted Phases ." 4 4 8 Free` 2 : . 2 ` , 6. 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 41.0 30.0 30.0 55.0 40.0 100.0 27.0 22.0 43.0 37.0 28.0 28.0 Effective Green g(s),' ; 41 0'.''30.0- 30.0 55 0 ,'40 0 100.0: 27 0`" 2 0 . X3:0 37.0 l` 28.0 ',,28,0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.41 0.30 0.30 0.55 0.40 1.00 0.27 0 22 0.43 0.37 0.28 0.28 Clearance Time'(s) " 4 0 4 0. : 4.0`." 4 0 ' : .;4 b ,,, " ,,,.4.0- -=4.0"$ : 4.0 4.0 ' '4.0' 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 497 559 475 547 745 1583 327 779 744 303 991 443 v/s Raato Prot : r:0 04 :co.19 °',co 12 ;0.19 !, 0.00}c014 0.07 c0.053, _` 0,08, v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.01 0.19 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.12 0.13 v/c Rana .. "'r 0.40-:. 0.63 y0.02 : 57' ' 0.47 .i0'.09 0 01 ,r b 65 ::0.35 .°0.45;;, 0 28 m 10.45 Uniform Delay, dl 19.6 30.2 24.6 14.3 22.2 0.0 26.7 35.5 19.1 22.6 28.1 29.7 Progression Factor =: 0.86 ' :0.81 , 0:81`i 073 ,'. 4 02 ...,1.00 1 00 100 :1.00 .0.87', 10.92,` ;0.72 Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 4.4 0.1 3.8 1.9 0.1 0.1 4.1 1.3 4.2 0.6 3.0 Delay (s) ' ` 19.0 ', 28.7 20.0" 14,3 ,246 .�:0.1 2G8 ,>'39.6 `204 24.0` 26.5:::/.24.3 Level of Service B C B B C A C D C C C C Approach Delay(s) . 25,1 1s 2 ' 33.1', 3 25,2 Approach LOS C B C C HCM Average Control Delay 24.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM VolumektorCapacity ratio i :0.60' Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 intersection Capacity'.Utilization 70.4% ":, ' ,ICU; ,evel of Service: , '`; , C " c JCritical Lane Group River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2020 PM Background Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 4 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: WCR 28 & WCR 11 12/19/2001 is —gyp f 4h tt " 1 J Lane Configurations 11 I + li tt r 4 r ) T r Ideas Flow(vphpl) ... , ','1900 ;:1900 1900:,11900,. 1900 1900 1900' :1900 , 1900 '.19007;,1900 , 1900 Total Losttime (s) 4.0 40 40 40 40 40 4.0 40 4.0 4.0 Lane;Elgl Factor . „ 1 00, 0 95 , ' 1 0O, `₹f 95 , . 1 Q4'[ s. : 1 00 1 00 .100 1t 00 ':1".00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 100 0.85 Fit Protected r 0`95 1`.00 ` =095' 1.00 1.00' ` 098 1:00 ' 095x'` 1.00 1;00 Satd. Flow (Prot) 1770 3535 1770 3539 1583 1817 1583 1770 1863 1583 Fit Permitted ' : 0 25 26 , . 1.00` .1100 '01 93 ,`I 1`.00 0.7 ;h.1`00 1:00 1>fI0 s�,;.a:0 Satd. Flow (perm) 458 3535 483 3539 1583 1737 1583 1399 1863 1583 Volume(vph) , : ."103 :-'638 ;,,w..k 5.',:" 84 664 :),,:t.,...,:615';;Iii,,,'-.5 5 :5 55 35 :. 121 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.reFlow,(vph) n ..,.._ `112. ,-i693 . ,r 0..,= . 91. .,..722 ,._ .71 .,.., 5 5, . :i5',°.. 71,`_ 438 ..132 Lane Group Flow(vph) 112 698 0 91 722 71 0 10 5 71 38 132 TumType :a. ' pm+pE . ..' pm+pt ~Perm; Perm' °? .., . ,Perm Perin.` ' :Pm+ov Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 7 Perm tted Phases 4 ' ' 8 ':°:' € 2 -.=4 2 6'i` 6 wu. ; Actuated Green, G (s) 63.0 37.0 63.0 37.0 37.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25 0 51.0 Effective Green,"g(s) a;.,:63.0'. .37.0 63,0 37.0 -(1,3746:: , 25.0 ,'25.0 25.0'` 250• .,51.0 Actuated gib Ratio 0.63 0.37 0.63 0.37 0.37 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 6.51 Clearance Time(s).; 4.0 =4.0 r' .4.0 4 0" ' 4.0 4 0 ':4.0 4.0 ` 4.0' 4:0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 630 1308 639 1309 586 434 396 350 466 871 v/s Ratio Prot'. :c0.05 ; 0.20. ,;' 004 'cO20 . ... w ' 0.02.", 0.04 ., ., v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.01 0 00 c0.05 0.04 yip:Ratio' `,0/18,:!::0:83',..,:;2.:-r: : 014 ';;0.$5; :.0.12 :`. 02 ';:6.01 6.20'; 0.08 0.15 Uniform Delay, dl 8.3 24.7 8.1 24.9 20.8 28.3 28.2 29.6 28.7 13.0 Progression Factor , 1.23 1.37 ''-0,59::-11.110C1 1,64 ° .-1, .00 ' 100":",1.01 - 0.991 3.98 Incremental Delay, d2 6.6 1A 0.4 1 4 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.3 0.3 0.4 Delay(s) 10.8; ' 35;3' ,° `:: ::':',:-.3.,5,- --.',21.5-,:-:!::::5,4'.5--.7::.: ,''28.4; :' 283 31.1.7. 20.8"':'.'52.2 Level of Service B D ACC CCCCD Approach Delay (s) 31,9 :':"254 . 28.‘6/. 3,' 42.3` Approach LOS C C C D HCM Average Control Delay 30.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM:Volume to Capacity,ratio ; `' ",..0.34 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Inte section Capacity Utilization: . 46.7%" :, ICU Level`of Service - .'.'A c Critical Lane Group River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2020 PM Background Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: WCR 28 & WCR 13 12/12/2001 4\ t 1 r , .. . ,.�.,.m�r , Lane Configurations r �� tt tt r ideal Flow(vphpl): 1800 '.1900 „1900 "1400` :19Qf}', 1'900" Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lance Utrl Faetdr 1;00 1:00 tf 9, °,'085 a 95 1,00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 FltProtected Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 1583 3433 3539 3539 1583 Fit Permitted " €}95 1.00 095';`100 ;1 00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 3433 3539 3539 1583 Volume(vph} .:' 342 480 511 1010 4 955 :;35tI "' Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Lane Group Flow (vph) 372 522 555 1098 1038 380 Tarn Type Free Prot r ;Free: ,.._ . Protected Phases 4 5 2 6 Permitted Phases Free fee Actuated Green, G (s) 29.0 100.0 21 0 63..6 38.0 100.0 Effective Green,g(s . .. 29 0 �� 100'.0. X 21 fl s= 63 0. '3$tl 100.0 . r Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 1 00 0.21 0.63 0.38 1.00 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 ' 4.0' . 4.0 '4 tl' Lane Grp Cap(vph) 513 1583 721 2230 1345 1583 vls Ratio Prrot ,:' .. _", 66.21 c0,16` _ 0.31 'coi29 ` v/s Ratio Perm 0.33 0.24 v/c Rats x`_0.73 = 0. x ;tt.77f:' 049 ;'0.77. 0.24" Uniform Delay, d1 31.9 0.0 37.2 9.9 27.2 0.0 Progression Factor •::,',"-f)".727:2 1.00 1.00:`;,; 1 00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.2 0.5 7.8 0.8 4.3 0.4 Delay(s) ' 31.0 .` 0 5 Level of Service C A D BC A Approach Approach LOS B C C . HCM Average Control Delay 20.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity Iatio 0.76. Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Ufil ation .., ,:75.1�h . ICU Level Cr Service i C c Critical Lane Group River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2020 PM Background Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 6 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: WCR 9.5 & 1-25 Frontage Road 12/19/2001 I ti t t V Lane Configurations vi) t r t Ideal_f v hpt) 1900, '1900 _1900 :1900, 1900 1190p _.. r,. . Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util,Factor i?,4 . , 0.9"7 p , ,1 pp . 1.40 1.00 s >,.. ._ 1 w Fri' 1.00 1.00 0.85 1 00 Ftt,Pro'tected „ .g5 n t 101) 1 Oil t . .. ... m Satd. Flow(prot) 3433 1863 1583 1863 Flt Permitted `:Ei 0,95 ,,,G Ms 1 Y 0 A'i t 00 ,•-';n .1,.Od # ° ,j P` °r .. :Ti ' . N..max Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 1863 1583 1863 Volume(Yp0) a._ . 757 0 x .440. 700 461?.;,, a y . < �, Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Ad,g,fjow{uphrA: R23S 0,,,$78 ; 76t �0 5 00; Lane Group Flow(vph) 823 0 478 761 0 500 _r ys ,? 4 , :;pis rz )Free .c r , ^1a. '.,-. 1 Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases` t 2 FreB t . Actuated Green, G (s) 44.0 48.0 100.0 48.0 EfYe�tfve'Gr eep,≥9(s).b, '4 4p y� <�s'd 48A p00 , � < . �-� .a, � . ': � ' . r.�i ., Actuated g/C Ratio 0.44 0.48 1 00 0.48 Clearance Time(S) t .11 i';, j ";'4 . - r 1;4. 'g ii ` . .a, Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1511 894 1583 894 v/a'Ratio,Prot. e t` „in 0126 . �c02}' . ,as, '. ._l,a. ., �vo v/s Ratio Perm 0.48 v/c,Ratiio c 54, m.•'.r_ 2O53:`x0.48 '..., . 004 . ..,,f.' ,,`.:, Uniform Delay, d1 20.6 18.2 0.0 18.5 Progression Fa0tor '_;' 71 .; ,100 = 1 00`i 0.97; Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 2.3 1.0 2.3 Delay`(a) 3.:'',`,36.6, t 420,5 1 11 Y _ 20:2'4 . , . Level of Service D C A C Approach DeTay(a) " 66 `85 `., 120.2! Approach LOS D A C r HCM Average Contr of Delay 19.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to,Capacity`ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity.Utilizafion ' .. 3 56 5% lCU Level tiff Service"" 'A c Critical Lane Group River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2020 PM Background Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 52: Shadow Hawk Drive & 1-25 Frontage Road 12/12/2001 t t ti Yy � Lane Configurations r T '1 t Grade 0% 0% 0% 60 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pedestrians f) { 4 Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage " ... . ., Right turn flare (veh) Mediantype _ r None Median storage veh) vC,conf icting volumem `r ib ,:478" :. {4 8 t x: vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage'2 canfvoP,, tC single (s) 6.4 6 2 4.1 tG,2 stage(s} w tF (s) 3.5 3.3 22 p0 queue free: p 100 72 1 cM capacity (veh/h) 197 587 1084 Volume Total :=:162 47 92,{, 500 Volume Left 0 0 92 0 Volume Rightzc - , cSH 587 1700 1084 1700 Volufnefof'Calfaclty ``'.'0.28`= 0.28 0tf9'' 0.29 " Queue Length (ft) 28 0 7 0 Control Delays) 134' 00 S.6 `0.Z? Lane LOS B A Approach Delay(s). :': 13.4 . 0.0 1.3 Approach LOS B ( " fit � " ,' Average Delay 2.4 Intersection Capacity UtiN₹ation ' ;i 41.9°% `. ' lOU,Level ofServicC '_ River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2020 PM Background Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 9 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: State Highway 66 & Mead Street 12/20/2001 } Lane Configurations tt r tt r r SignControl Free Free , Ito Sto Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pedestrians Walking Speed (fUs) P€rcent Right turn flare (veh) None. Median storage veh) vC conflicting volume. P'1964. °y ' . s . °''2263' '` ,u 2953 ,:;384"7 941 2985': 4'187 . 962 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol � tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 75 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tF (s) 22 2.2 3540 3.3 35 40 3.3 pO9uoue free°f 100 100 ` 100 ''"100, . `, 5 10O' 100 58 cM capacity (veh/h) 292 223 4 4 264 3 2 256 Volume Total 941 941 380 962 962 40 120 109 Volume Right 0 0 380 0 0 40 120 109 cSH ,' 1:700 1700 '1700 � 1700' '"1700' 1700 ''264 r;��256 Volume to Capacity 0.55 0.55 0.22 0.57 0.57 0.02 0.45 0.42 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.0 0 0 0.0 29.4 29.0 L,ane'LOS Approach Delay (s) 0.0 u 0.0 29.4 29.0 Approach LOS _ te,;ri Avetage Delay': Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.6% ICU Level of Service B River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2020 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: State Highway 66 & WCR 9.5 12/21/2001 is —• 'p C 4— 4 " 4\ t P \ d Lane Configurations III at+ r 1,1 iit r Iiii t r 4 r Ideal Flow(vphpi) 1900 .:1900, 1900 1900 ',1900 1900f.i 1900 =''1.900 1900 . 1900 ' 1900 ,,;1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 40 4.0 4.0 4.0 40 4.0 40 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane-Util `Factor; : 1.00. :,0:05 ,100 'too,: 0:95 1.00"s (t 97 .1.00 :1:40 , ,.''.'-r. 1.08'4 i 00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.60 1.00 0.85 1 00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00'` 1µO0 r'0 95 ;'1.00 100` 0.95 ''`1 00, :t0° nt"',0.97,. -1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 1863 1583 1816 1583 Flt Permitted'.. ' ," 0;13 ''1.00 1 00 '.015 t 1.001.';',1.002p,96, '....top:' ;1;00", '-N,.Q 83 1;00 Satd. Flow(perm) 248 3539 1583 276 3539 1583 3433 1863 1583 1547 1583 Volume(vph).._.` =200 '``. 875 1;.745-",„';.162•. .692 '75,"-.`':75C'1-',352.'".1,,,100 :52,., 50 :,. 150 Peak-hour factor, PI-IF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 A.d.i.fFiow(vph) '„- . 217,„.“.9§1.,, 810; ,>::176..;.,.75 ,::-„,?,2,82`i',...';122'. 38 109 57,; - .. 4'.'" 163 Lane Group Flow(vph) 217 951 810 176 752 82 822 38 109 0 111 163 Turn TYpe , ,,p +pt' FrreeEpm+pt Perm' Prat.';'`,` ,"Free' "Perm ;; Free Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 Free:;; 8 .:' :-8: % `. _` Free 6"' free Actuated Green,G (s) 46.0 30.0 100.0 40.0 27.0 27.0 25.0 45.0 100.0 16.0 100.0 Effective Green,g(s) °,450; 30.0 100A`f,: 40,0 27.0 r. 27.0 ''''":25-.0"' "„45.0, 100:0. :`,. :,.16.0 x:100.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.30 1.00 0.40 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.45 1.00 0.16 1.00 Clearance Time'(s) . '4.0 ' ''4:.0 '4.0' . :4 '0, •;'4.0` 4.0 '4.0'1'1';." - -':', 40 '? Lane Grp Cap (vph) 358 1062 1583 305 956 427 858 838 1583 248 1583 vts Ratio Prot y ,' :c0.10 c0.27 ' '- 0.08 ' 0.21 .:q0:24``:0.02, . :.,- .0,,, v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 0.51 0.16 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.10 v/c Ratio .; ...1 -0.61 0.90.. 0.51` 0.58 :.0.79 0.19; 096 `,'005' ;0:.07 045 0.10 Uniform Delay, dl 19.4 33.5 0.0 22.4 33.8 28.1 37.0 15.4 0.0 38 0 0.0 Progression Factor' ' 1.00 1.00 1.00: ; 1.62 0.70 0.36',',""0.55 `I 0.55 , 1.00 :.''' 1,00 i'' -1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.4 11.6 1 2 7.0 5.9 0.9 19.5 0.1 0.1 5.7 0.1 Delay(s) ; " ;26.8 45.1 . 1.2 43.3 :29,4'' '11;0.; .44.0 ' S.5:` ,_0.1 " ``: ,43.7 ` ,:'0,1 Level of Service CD A DC BD A A D A Approach Delay (s) ' ' -25.1 30,4 '' `,..°'34.3 r ,. '"c 17.8 ` .".'`' Approach LOS C C C B HCM Average Control Delay 28.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to?Capacity;ratio' - 0.77. .. . -, ; `rI '.' Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization ; 76.2% ICU.Level of Service- . C c Critical Lane Group River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2020 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: State Highway 66 & WCR 11 12/12/2001 is —D" -\' C k- 4\ t `► 1 d :5.ti isfi i " a....--":3'"..k ii. iti-'i-.1:4;fiz stt:1:' : �.°ia � ,qi a, : iii<iii , Y" `„)::!y.�*i .'i . pit, , . ._....,... Lane Configurations �r 44 r '1 tt+ i 11+ 4+ deal Fto!N,�vphpl)„ - 1,900 1900 1900 `.;1900 :. 9,00 19001 =1900 ,1900,'t.'1900."' 1900. ;'1900 . 1900 TIotal Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 LanereUtirFactor`; 100":"",0.95.:;,",,.00 top;:,:::::4:)-45',.:,:::..),,?:1-.:1-i.,,-,:.:,,,. :;` ;1..00 S bo s, 100' , '': '; Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1 00 1.60 1 00 0 88 0.95 FIt Protected .1 ..r.�. �095 ,;4:Ow1, _140„_ 095 1b(k . ;41. (f_95_:'.r'100_ .� ":- ;" U98 :y: : Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3535 1770 1637 1750 Fit P,ermitted -:029 1.00 100<<'017 : `i 00i .4";__.075 `"100 U,'• . = k 0.96. <: Satd. Flow(perm) 531 3539 1583 311 3535 1393 1637 1707 Volume(vph) 3. . ... . 5 ::881 :.,'.232 17 °;"639 5,; ,_239. 1! 5 .,;:19 5 5'-i.,..--. 5 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.(vpt�), . . . .'F 5.,,;`"958.' .252.- : . 18:.: 695 5' ?...6:5;-';',`":":", 5 `.'`2'1 - .. 5 . :5 ' 5 Lane Group Flow(vph) 5 958 252 18 700 0 260 26 0 0 15 0 Turn Type. '':=Pm+pt '+ Freevpm#Pt ' Perm .Perm'- Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 PeermittedPhases °" 4 ii Free 8 £,._. . ,:2: : . , 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 52.0 42.0 100.0 52.0 42.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 Effective Green,;g(s),..;,,::,;`62.0±, 42,0 .100-,0,,,,,,, .52...p.:;6,2,..0:- 36.0 , 36.0 " ' ''`' '- 36.0, .' . Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.42 1.00 0.52 0.42 0.36 0.36 0.36 Clearance Time'(s) . . ..'.'4 0 . '4.0 "2-'2-'4.0 7-: `:4 0 t;.;;-":"44.0-,- 4.0 " 4.01, Lane Grp Cap (vph) 400 1486 1583 308 1485 501 589 615 it/s'Ratio Prot , , "9 00.,c0.27„,:-"-:',... :::,0,01;',' 0.20 0.02 : v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.16 0.02 c0.19 0.01 Vic,Ratio ` ,u r 0101 -0,64 ` 0 16 006 ;0.47:,,,ti ." 0.52;",.0,04 'n 002 : '1. Uniform Delay, d1 12.2 23.1 0.0 13.4 21.0 25.2 20.8 20.7 Progression Factor ` 2.28 :1.76 100 :'.1.00 ':1.00 �:" 1.30'' -1,79; 100 :;. .. Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 1.5 0.1 0.4 1.1 3.7 0.1 0.1 Delay ter.'?":' `'-' = . 27.7 .'42. ' 0.1:`. 13,8` ,22.0- ' 36,4' , 37.3 _ 20.7 : ,' Level of Service CD A BC D D C Approach Delay(s) 33.3 = , 21,6- 36.5 ; "' 20:7 ._ " '. Approach LOS C C D C HCM Average Control Delay 30.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio ., : , ,0.52, ; . ` ' , • ' , Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Ca'a iy Utilization` '' '54.2%;`pY ICU Level of Service , ' A ' c Critical Lane Group River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2020 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: WCR 28 & 1-25 Frontage Road ` • 12/20/2001 :i..n Ae Y... .' .. ..i ,s. .n... Y 3e. ♦^Rk, � z",Fr%,4ry .. Lane Configurations ' its i _ t+ t e ii T r ideal Flow(vphpi) 1900 -1000 1900:.'1900 "./1:900:":„. .15902 1900,.i'. 1900;.,`1900 1900'a-1900 a 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 Lane Oil, Factor 1.00 1.00:, r.: 1,00 ''..,..„1,00”, ,1 00 4.-4,"71-:',1',00_ ` ,100 7,1.00 . 1.00. 1.00' 4:1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected ? n 0.95 1.00, n.._ 0.95 , 100 095 1.00 . 1'00, .0 95 :? 10.0,,..4,-Log Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1827 1770 1849 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Fit Permitted,. , 0:50 1 00, r,;; t, © 1a '',1:60 , '„,;-i..0.714":1:00 , 1'.00 '0.71 ;" tea: 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 933 1827 240 1849 1329 1863 1583 1324 1863 1583 Volume(vph),' '. `."..'15 401 .' 58 388 4'397 20 54 4 :'' 65'.!' 470 ` ,20, - 62' ; 15 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).';_ ,';'16 ,,, a 436. ._ .63 ....',,....:4.22,74,32::::'1_.,?-22f 4{',. 59 ' 71 511 .4..22 67 ' =:16 Lane Group Flow(vph) 16 499 0 422 454 0 59 71 511 22 67 16 Turn Type , iaa Pm*pt ,, prtt+pt 4 : 'pm+pt .:- v pm+ov'ptri+pt ' . ". Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 3 1 6 Permitted Phases ' ;4--'1. ' " ' 8 ,. .2.. . s: 2 6, .'.' g Actuated Green, G (s) 35.0 35.0 59.0 59.0 21.0 17.0 45.0 21.0 17.0 17.0 Effect veGreeri, gr(s)' -315.04'. -35:0 `° 59:0 ..",:,59.0:44,?;',": , ,21.0 - .17:01: '45.0', 21.0 ; 17.0 17;0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.35 0.59 0.59 0.21 0.17 0.45 0.21 0.17 0.17 Clearance Time:(s) ,.: 0 :,4 0 0 ;:_ 0 . ', 4.0 ,-:4.0 "I 4,04_ .4.0` '4.0 : '4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 360 639 570 1091 297 317 776 296 317 269 v/s Ratio Prot."' 0.00' `c0.27 : 'c0.21". 0.25 ` c0.01 '.0.04 c0.18": 0.00' 0.04 ' v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.23 0.03 0.14 0.01 0.01 v/a Ratio ,'"'„,i4„-` 0.04 ,'.;0.784:0.74-"';0.42 :::r0.2.0.: ,0,22 0.66 0.07 0.21 0.06 Uniform Delay, dl 21.5 29.1 22.8 11.1 32.3 35.8 21.5 31.6 35.7 34.8 Progression Factor ,. ., 1.00 ' 1.00 ' '0 79 :.�i1.38' " " 0.95 0.90 -'.0.02 . 1'.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 9.2 8.1 1.1 1 4 1.5 4.0 0.5 1.5 0.4 Delay (s)' `. : 21.7 39.3 : -,26 0 16 5 i `;: 32.0 33.6 416 32.1 37.2 35.2 Level of Service C D C B C C A C D D Approach Delay(s) ;' t' 37.7 ' -21 1 i.r 10.3 : :,T. 4 ' 35.9 Approach LOS D C B D HCM Average Control Delay 22.6 HCM Level of Service C HUN Volume to Capacity ratio'. " 0,73 s, Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection'Cepacity''Utilization,` 71.7%`.- a: a ICU Level of Service .' " ' C "' c Critical Lane Group River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2020 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: WCR 28 & WCR 9.5 12/19/2001 f 4\ t ,* f ir d . C Lane Configurations ) + T " + . r vi tt r t+ r Ideal Flow(vphpl);, .. 1900 1900 , 1900 1900 " 1900 "'1900. 1900 1900 1900 ' 1900 ' 19007'1966 :'190;6 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 lute'Utii, Factor `.: 1.00 100 "i Q 1.00 1.00 1:00: 1.00 0.95 1.00 - 1:00 :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 ' -0:9 "1'.00 fAi:00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted x 0.W.-1.00 1.00 014 1.00 1-00 0.41 ir 1.00 1.00 {?20 : 1:00 `,,'!i.4-..00 Satd. Flow (perm) 821 1863 1583 257 1863 1583 760 3539 1583 375 3539 1583 > + Iume(vph) > 246 375 39 •345 332 .: .145 48 67$ 324 145 399 194 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 Aci 2Flow(vph), . :267: 408 42 375 '3617'158 52 737,.•' 352 158 434 211 Lane Group Flow (vph) 267 408 42 375 361 158 52 737 352 158 434 211 Turn Type pm+pt .Perm.,pmp pt ,Free ,pm+pt 4. pm+ov prn+pt Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 3 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 , 8 Free . 2 . '.V,r''' 6 6 Actuated Green, G(s) 38.0 25.0 25.0 50.0 33.0 100.0 38.0 32.0 53.0 38.0 32.0 32.0 Effective Green,g s) 38.0 25.0 25.0 50.6 703.0 03.0 100-0 38:0 32.0 53.0 38:0 , 32.0,, 32.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.33 1.00 0.38 0.32 0.53 0.38 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 0.: 4.0 4.0 4.0 X4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4 0 _ 7'; al! Lane Grp Cap(vph) 435 466 396 446 615 1583 349 1132 902 226 1132 507 v/s Ratio Prot " : 0.08" 022:1k:5 c0.18 0.19 0.01 0.21 0.08. c0�04 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.03 c0.24 0.10 0.05 0.14 c0.22 0.13 v/c Ratio 0.61• . 0.88 0.11 0.84 0.59 0.10 0.15 0.65 0.39 '0.70 • 0:38_ 0.42 Uniform Delay, dl 22.8 36.0 28.9 25.3 27.8 0.0 20.0 29.2 13.9 22.7 26.4 26.7 Progression Factor 0.98 0.90 0.84. 0.76 ' 1.14 ' 1.00!;),,!: 1:97, 1.63 0:26 0.92 0.95 0.96 Incremental Delay, d2 4.9 16.2 0.4 15.7 3.7 0.1 0.8 2.4 1.1 14.1 0.8 2.1 001ay,(s) ,.,,,,,,,:,,,,,,,,27.2 41 :7 24:7 34.9 35.4 ,,.... 0.1 40.2 , 50.0 4.7 35.0 25.9 27.8 Level of Service CDCCD ADD A DCC Approach Delay(s 39.3 7.F'.r; . 29.0 . .;. 856 28.2 Approach LOS D C 0 C ter5- .T17- �7rn,„ �"� 77' ., ;fix �' 7. 77. ',727�R _ "- .711i,"t"` .erseo"n"'�u"�m arl�''� :�;�. � � ��-, � .,.�z� a., . >� ;� � .- .. - . HCM Average Control Delay 33.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volur0e toCapacity rate. ` °';;'0.77 , 1, r 4,=,;ti;;, .;i n. Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection.Capacity Utilization 84.7% ICU Level of Service ° ii, .-.';' _e E: w r--. l..,', c Critical Lane Group River Dance Development( LSC# 011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2020 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: WCR 28 & WCR 11 12/19/2001 f -+ IT c & 4\ t P \* 1 d . n �£'Rlen��t:.'.. -. :9 ,. , . . ._ . �ire: i P ,�.� F { M i�� ISET.. .. - . - Lane Configurations '1 ft. 1 ft - , r 4 t. r Ideal Flow(vphpt) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19007 -1 q00-`."1900, j O''.: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 Lane Utrl`Factor 1.0a 0 95 1,00 ,0.95 1.00 •:1:00 .1.00 1'.00 1.:00'. .1'.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected :t ,,k r:`.. 0,95 -'1 00 0.95 1:00 •1:04; 0.99 1:00: 0:95 .''f.00`771-..00 `1-.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3513 1770 3539 1583 1840 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted '"Y K 0.23 1 00 ti ?r 0.20 1.00 1:.00: ' 0.93 1.00 0.69 ' 1.00 1.9g Satd. Flow(perm) 429 3513 378 3539 1583 1727 1583 1279 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 165 . 704 37 132 692 • 65 22 67 69 : ' 65 , 82 , 156 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) . 179 765 40 143 . -752 ' 71,_ 24 73 75 .--,71_ 89 , 170 Lane Group Flow (vph) 179 805 0 143 752 71 0 97 75 71 89 170 Turn Type- prn+pt Pm+pt Perm:: Perry: _� ' Perm Perm ,, • pm+ov Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 7 Permitted Phases l..° 4 8 8 . :2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 63.0 37.0 63.0 37.0 37.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 51.0 Effeftive hen,"g(s} 63.0 37 0:, m f-;;i,. �' :63.0 37.0 37.0:) `r 'N °:25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 51.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.37 0.63 0.37 0.37 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.51 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) 619 1300 600 1309 586 432 396 320 466 871 tits-Ratio PFOt c0.08 c0.23 -:"3 '`0.06' 0.21 'f'` 0.05 0.05 ---. v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.09 0.04 c0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 tFc Ratio :;x0.29 0.62 0.24 0.57 0.12:‘•,7:419V., 0.22 0.19 0.22 • 0.19 0.20 Uniform Delay, 81 8.9 25.7 9.0 25.2 20.8 29.8 29.5 29.8 29.5 13.3 Progression Factor • 1.06.1. .A.22 -'1.1Air. 0.36 1.05 '-1.71.124:13•0.80 0.90 1.09 1.08 2.99 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 1.8 0.8 1.5 0.3 1.1 1.0 1.6 0.9 0.5 Delay (s) . 10 4. 33 2 ..,4.0 27.9 ,35.91;1A,42. 24.9 27.5 33.9 32.9 40.4 Level of Service B C A C D CCCCD Approach Dela s s . : 25.0: ..` F'; li.i!:`'' ; 26-0 i ,'! ;�.. - 37.0 ,,.: 29.1 �x Approach LOS C C C D Iritersectaa>-,Sumffial"'� `" ;k` t ' -. .. . ,. 1-47— I t t HCM Average Control Delay 28.3 HCM Level of Service C Y- •HCM Volu fo Capacity ratio t 0.41 :. r: f _ . Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.3% ICU Level of Service • v ..,. c Critical Lane Group River Dance Development( LSC# 011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2020 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: WCR 28 & WCR 13 12/12/2001 J 7 t Lane Configurations f +1' tt r ideal Flow phpt) 1900 ;1000' 1900 ;,"1900 x 900 X9001 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane"Util Factor: ' :'.1 00 ,n 1.00 '0 97 0955 ;10.95 100 : ;,.r, Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit 09 :1:130.'/F 095 . .00 ' t;AQ. . 1 00 . ,. _ Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 1583 3433 3539 3539 1583 Flt Permitted{,• "::-:-`0:961.- 4:00 r 0.95 '.`100 " 100 "1.001' a ` Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 3433 3539 3539 1583 Volume,(vph) : ;. :358' :..36 565' 6101 °. 055 y 355 ,i Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 hid). Fow,(v h ;;' „.'":;r:"."3.3.7,:/,";:s. 397', 614 1098 x1038„ 38fi Lane Group Flow (vph) 387 397 614 1098 1038 386 Turn Type '' ° Free Prot': Protected Phases 4 5 2 6 Perrrritted Phases Tr; Free 1 ree' Actuated Green, G (s) 29.0 100.0 22.0 63.0 37.0 100.0 Effective:Green, g•(s17. ':20 0 00.0 ;22.0: ?.63 0 37 0 100.13;, Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 1.00 0.22 0.63 0.37 1.00 Clearance Time'(s) 4.0 .?1.0. i 4.0- 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 513 1583 755 2230 1309 1583 v/s Ratio Prot- ' - c0.22 _.�40.18 �= 0.317" v/s Ratio Perm 0.25 0.24 vfcf2aho ".075 /n.25 ._.. . Uniform Delay, dl 32.3 0.0 37.0 9.9 28.1 0.0 Progression Factor - 0.60:. .1.00 1 00•`� 1.00 4.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.8 0.3 9.3 0.8 5.0 0.4 Delay�(s3 7;:"28.2 ` '0.3 :45.4 /0.7 ' 33 1 ..`"07.4 , Level of Service C A D B C A Approach Delay(s) 14,1 23.5 242 Approach LOS B C C P Y ,'7/"° .,ViiS ti- ' ' i HCM Average Control Delay 21.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 i . .- Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.7°%a =`_ ICU Level Of Service ` , ' C . c Critical Lane Group River Dance Development ( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2020 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: WCR 11 & WCR 9.5 12/12/2001 Lane Configurations r tt r ' tt Ideal` low(vpttipi) 1900 19017 19001; 190`0 1800 `,19`00, . .,. . Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor,` 1°00 1.00 O 95. .#1+,00 "100 , 0 95 „ Frt 1.0b 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(prat) 1770 1583 3539 1583 1770 3539 Fit Permitted "' 0 98 1.00 .1 00,''1 00 ,0.22 100; ,; . a Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 3539 1583 413 3539 Volume (vph}.:. ,i 209 81 968 227 >:: 149. 727;. Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Ad"Flow(vph ' 227 B8 .1052, 247 'w'.162 790„. . .. Lane Group Flow(vph) 227 88 1052 247 162 /90 Turn Type Perm PermPerm a. , Protected Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 16.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 Effective Green,g(s) `, : 6 0 ..16.0 ,,36i 0 ` 38.E 38 0 36 0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 472 422 2123 950 248 2123 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.16 c0.39 ., Uniform Delay, d1 18.5 17.1 6.8 5.7 7.9 6.2 Pro r 'q esSigir Factor,,,, Incremental Delay, d2 3.5 1.1 0.8 0.7 12.6 0.5 Level of Service C B A A C A Approach Delay Approach LOS C A A �r : ,.`p-r vK- �z,`4,..�A v_` x _. �,�� r`;�,x`�:.Vr� �"at �°�' I HCM Average Control Delay 9.7 HCM Level of Service A HCM Jolume to Capacity atio =0.6© Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersecfon Capacify Utiliz tion 60.6°!0';; ICU Level`of service 'B ' c Critical Lane Group River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2020 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSC I NCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: WCR 9.5 & 1-25 Frontage Road 12/19/2001 .A g _ .if,r•t vat t .'i alb" ' *_ =I ` ,. Lane Configurations II) t r at Ideal;Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 '..1900 1900 1900':o ` " ' Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane`Util Factor; w0.97 100 ``°t00 , , ate 100'`' ` '` : j, w. , .� ,' Frt y} Y0 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 F FPot{ect: z .a�b� a , .95 ws. 0a t 1006 +L 1O0'tY r +' Y ,t9: :t i,z W_53.. . Satd. Flow(prot) 3433 1863 1583 1863 Fit'Permitted;m .R 0,95 *t 100 ~ 1 00 ' 100: _ y ''„ k, ,. M #, Satd. Flow(perm) 3433 1863 1583 1863 Volur?e(vph) , 948 „( 440 827 0r= A0 Peak hour factor, PHF -0.62 0.92 6.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Ad, Flo v h 1030 „ .8 99 A'- 0 "533 ' e :: Lane Group Flow(vph) 1030 0 478 899 0 533. " n e 2 ',x Flee. ,t4i, te:: ;itC C7:x Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases ;'1 ree = i ,a Actuated Green, G (s) 46.0 46.0 100.0 46.0 Effective Green,g (s) : :.46 0 ,+ `46 0 100.0 '' L.- ' , 11E 48 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 u.46 1 00 0.46 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 . ., .4.0 z, 4.0 ., . =ff Lane Grp Cap(vph) 1579 857 1583 857 v/s Ratio Prot :c0 30 "0.26 c0. ..�. ' . .{ , v/s Ratio Perm 0.57 'v/c Ratio x '` 0 66 056 "'5 457 0 62 , 'if " Uniform Delay, dl 20.8 19.6 0.0 20.4 Progression Factor 135 ` ° itt,:DV::.3'O)0 , °-1.18 4' ' , Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 2.6 1.5 2.7 Delay(s) . A30 0 . ;,, 22 2', `,. 1 5 `. 26.2, , Level of Service C C A C A roach Deta s .'30 0 8.7. :3 , t Approach LOS C A C as ... k , it . ..... .. . R :i. t ry- iit a) ait :Ala it litit deifal Oki ii HCM Average Control Delay 19.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capac !ratio 0:64` Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization, ' 64.1% ICU(Level.of Service r B c Critical Lane Group River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2020 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 30: WCR 11 & River Song Drive 12/12/2001 r � -a f 44\ t t 1 r Lane Configurations '111 '1 1. Sign ontrol Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly'flow rate{ueh/h) , 83 , 225: 102, ' 27' :246 53r 0 15 1 i Pedestrians Lane Lehi.. ,, vf(i�Itt%(fk)' Walking Speed (fUs) Right turn flare(veh) Nlediap type_,. . : � .w �•' { ' .°,`hlone;... r: �. : o -. Median storage veh) vC conflicting volume 248 . - . a .! 327 ` , . 784 . 743 ' x 27 i 7`07 793 ' :247 vC1, stage 1 conf vol VP:1109012 confvol . tC, single(s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6 5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC,`2 stage(s):: tF (s) 22 2.2 35 X40 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 po queue free"lo_ . X94 8 81 L, < 00 98 ;100'; -~1 d0•'•;1:1:94, cM capacity (veh/h) 1318 1232 275 314 763 321 294 792 Volume Total 83 327 27 248 53 15 1 42 yolur a-Left 83 0 27 ` 0 .;.r`53 0 .., 1 Volume Right 0 102 0 2 0 15 0 42 c5H 1318 1704 `:1232." 1700` - Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.19 0.02 0.15 0.19 0.02 0.00 0.05 Queue length (ft) 5 ;.•-"w0 :'2.; r,:2, Control Delay (s) 7.9 0.0 8.0 0.0 21.2 9.8 16.2 9.8 LaneLOS A A" " C ,'A ., G A<` Approach Delay (s) 1.6 0.8 18.6 10.0 Approach LOS , C A Average Delay 3.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.7% ICU Level of Service A River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2020 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 31: WCR 11 & Prairie Storm Lane 12/12/2001 Lane Configurations ►( 1. 'I 1. I 1. '1 1 Sign Control ' Free` Free " 'Stop Stop.. ` Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume(veh/h) 42 :131' 50 24; 188 15'i 26 " . 0 ,. :13 8 0 21 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Right turn flare(veh) Median a „N N Median storage veh) vC"conflictingvolume X221 19F 540 534 170 , 512 "i: X53 :212 vC1, stage 1 conf vol tC, single(s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC 2 stage(s) k, tF (s) 2.2 . : 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 cM capacity (veh/h) 1349 1376 422 429 874 446 418 828 Volume Total 46 197 26 221 28 14 9 23 Voturr Left Volume Right 0 54 0 16 0 14 0 23 cSH �1349 1700: ,13`/6 :1700`,.422 • '874: X346.':.`828 : Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.12 0.02 0.13 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 Queue Length(ft). 3` 0 Control Delay (s) 7.8 0.0 7.7 0.0 14.1 9.2 13.2 9.5 Approach Delay (s) 1.5 0.8 12.5 10.5 AypproyaiecthLOS :, - H. ..s. .:... .- '? pi {�f•� }Cf'^'T�. tl 4v i • • .. ., .. Average Deiay 2.5 . � Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.7% ICU Level of Service A River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2020 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 32: Scaring Hawk Lane & WCR 11 12/12/2001 l -"Sr 4\ t d Lane Configurations ►Ti t t n Control ,- fi' Stow, F=ree Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 itt6,41101-0,741t$4\11ftti:t4,77,,17ZIIIiallt Pedestrians Lanel 'V Yidt C`(ft d E -.h g P +� 5 ,e , •., > a ., .., Walking Speed (fUs) Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) _. vC1, stage 1 conf vol tC, single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tF (s) 3 5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free% 97 99 9g f � � ,_ cM capacity (veh/h) 587 798 1290 Volume Left 17 11 0 0 0 cSH 626 1290 1700 1700 1700 Volume to'Capacity` (t 04' 0.01 .'0:09 ' 014 0.02 Queue Length (ft) 3 1 0 0 0 Control Delay(s 11.0 7.8 0.0 0 0 . 0,4' ' ' Lane LOS B A Approach Delay`.(s) .- - ;110 �'Os 0 0 Approach LOS B Average Delay 0.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization ".; r. 22.7% ICU Level of Service A River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2020 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSC I NCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 33: WCR 9.5 & Shadow Hawk Drive 12/19/2001 C 4— t `\ t t `► I Okata3 t} s , :a - �i .$'( - , i t :t°, �, orr— s s a-g f ,-1 . Lane Configurations tit r tit r Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume(veti/h).:V Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 -6.92 .6.92 0.92- 0.92 0 92 0.92- 0;92 —6.92 0.92 Pedestrians ,,, Latle�itit4£1k� ;�� i. ;. �. i �._P-[2;';�. ..... . _ "'f�-�.�� ... _� � " :�. Walking Speed (fUs) Perc it Blocke § L. , ' n ,.. �., x. h -t m a ,. . " t t a.. Right turn flare (veh) µ �y Median storage veh) 1 1 vC, conflicting volume 1022 905,'{" ,t 1423,'194 9 s '`444 ..1.546 h ,1922 ', "489 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 888 888 1016 1016 vC2,,stage2tconfvol ,,, e . ' , r .i 535Fa'1061 . ,,L '. 529 905 te, single (s) 4 1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tG�2, ,stage s} ( ',.- . ' 6 tF (s) 22 22 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p;queuefree% r Y ' , . 97 ,`:., . '41 81 :r "73' .`89 ' 82 `; 91 :`. 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 675 747 205 175 561 159 175 525 r^ Volume Total 444 444 17 20 489 489 45 38 109 28 15 Volume Left t . .. ., .. O 20 =' 0 ,0. 11 .,. 0, Volume Right 0 0 17 0 0 0 45 0 62 0 0 CSl1 1700 1 00 .,170€1 747 1.70010 MGT 1/90: 205 ;:'288 a 159'3 '175` . e Volume to Capacity 0.26 0.26 0.01 6.03 0.29 0.29 0.03 0.19 0.38 0.18 0.09 Queue Length(fl} _ xp ., `0 `, .. 42 16""� 7 Control Delay (s) 00 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.5 24.9 32.5 27.5 _ .., LaneLOS A'. D , Approach Delay(s) 0 0 0.2 25.3 -30.8 Approach,LOS-. . .. �a. .r:g, _. D . D ' Average Delay ' 2 5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.9% ICU Level of Service A River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2020 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 34: WCR 9.5 & Spirit Hawk Lane 12/19/2001 t - . l I `- 4 . 4\ t P ti d (t a rf s rl. 10c 1 74 e41:rs i. d!% . Ffn r ' (a n`ic 1:A 'n Lane Configurations 'I t'(. ' tt ' 1' 'I A ►deal'.Flow(vphplj . . ., 1900 ,1900_ . 1900 1900 1900 1900,". 1900 `'1900 1900 1900 X900 ;1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 L 1 00 u 1 00 an�.11tif Factor,; , . w�1=00 ,`,0.90 , -x.`100 C�95, ,, ` '1.00 .`�00.,�3,, .. ' .. Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.06 0.85 Flt Protected' tF , 0;95 . 1.00,' 41 P`095 1`00 `.' 0.95 1,00 „' r�" 0.95 K ₹ 100 R,. Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3535 1770 3482 1770 1583 1770 1583 Fit Permitted i°` -0;14 ,:1.0f0 -0318 .1.00 0 66.. '100 . , d3 70 1 00 Satd Flow (perm) 270 3535 340 3482 1233 1583 1300 1583 Volume(vph) ,: K37 ,848 E 27 811 98 ' 23V:s 0 84 257 `; 0 s'11$ 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 Ad).Flow(vph)'= :`*t0 922 ,..x ,8.,.. ..29 , .H882. _107`,. 25. . .,0_., w91..., .279n .. 0 ..128 Lane Group Flow(vph) 40 930 0 29 989 0 25 91 0 279 128 0 Turn Type . : x_`3 . .. prm+pt . . " ; .. nPn?*pt ...., m r , •r,. ° . ' Perm ., , Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted'Phases _ :; 4,,r `r- ' 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 51.0 42.0 49.0 41 0 38.0 38.6 38.0 38.0 Effective Green, 9(s)m-_: .510 42 03 t , ;. of:, 49 0 ,..'4t 0 38 0, r 38 0 ,°"_r 38.0;' 38 0 ; ' ,.. Actuated g/C Ratio 0.51 0.42 0.49 0.41 0.38 0.38 0.38 0. 8 ClearanceTime:(s) '„.4.0r 04O `.i= 4.0 .4.0 ' 4.0 40 3 :14.0r` 40 „<' `,T. Lane Grp Cap (vph) 273 1485 281 1428 469 602 494 602 v/s Ratio Prot` ' ,. c0 01 ;0.26 , 0.01 f.:40 28 ., " 'P 06 "` 0.06:': ; ' v/s Ratio Perm 0 06 0.04 0.02 c0.21 v/cRatio , Q 10w 0.63 , h, ,f 010 . :0.69„ i U 05 '015, x,_.,... 0 56,=. 0 21 Uniform Delay, dl 14.7 22.8 14.7 24.3 19.6 20.4 24.5 20.9 Progression Factor :; 1 00 ;1:00_, , 140 1';49 :, 1 00 : 1 00 1.00V-41;00 . Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 1.S 0.7 2.6 0.2 0.5 4.6 0.8 Delay:(s) 155 `24.6 "212; 48 9 .19 8 , -20 9 29.1 ': .21,7 .' Level of Service B C C D B C a C Approach;Delay-(s) 24.2 , 38.3 . .;20.7 ,,- i , 26.8 , Approach LOS C D HCM Average Control Delay 30.2 HCM Level of Service C • HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0 58 >r" "' Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.6°%s ICU:Level cf Service . .` ,A f,, ; c Critical Lane Group River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2020 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 51: Frontage Road / North Employment Access & 1-25 Frontage Road 12/12/2001 t t t b �p a_ Lane Configurations r t r t Sign Control Stop Fregn.. Free` Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume(veh/h)`x Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 6.92 0.92 0.92 Pedestrians tan ` dtfx:(ft� Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage ._. r,. .Right turn flare (veh) Median type None ; " ' r Median storage veh) vC,`conflicting volume .1125, ; 57 ' : ., • vC1, stage 1 conf vol tC, single (s) 6 4 6.2 4.1 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue tree% 100 $6 as r �i, _,. . cM capacity (veh/h) 227 521 1001 Volume Total 73 '.571 1 > 55A " ,, ., Volume Left 0 0 0 0 cSH 521 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity Queue Length (ft) 12 0 0 0 Lane LOS B Approach Defay:(s) 13 0 r '0 0 0O Approach LOS B Average Delay 0.8 intersection Capacity"Utilization 41.2% 'ICU .evel of,Service. A River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2020 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 52: Shadow Hawk Drive & 1-25 Frontage Road 12/12/2001 g ig t 1 P \ Lane Configurations r 4' '1 4' Sign Control Stop. Free :11'4 . . . " , Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Vorume(veh/h) ter; 0 - 440 �0 '39 ` ,47d.G Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourl` at"r' te veh/h 0 91'`.. 478 , "`q2 Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage ; • Right turn flare (veh) Median type None Median storage veh) vC';cf nflicing volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2,-stage 2 cbflf vol ±. . tC, single (s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 RP queue free Flo cm capacity (veh/h) 234 587 1084 d. . s' ^3'E W .€., '.`�i.' F.: ?:71? Volume Total , _ ' 191, ' 478. 42 : 511 . ,;, '- Volume Left 0 0 42 0 Volume Right 91 ;if � ; cSH 587 1700 1084 1700 Volume to Capacity . 0.16 0.28, 04 03fY:. - Queue Length (ft) 14 0 3 0 Control belay (s 12.3 a �'b_0 ` =8:5 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay 12.3 �Ba? 0.6 .... .' Approach LOS B OffiSe Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37 Salo `rt't , ICULevel of Service `t"s . A River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2020 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: State Highway 66 & Mead Street 12/20/2001 t 1 >< 4— t 4 t P �• 1 d xt.z. Lane Configurations Tt r tt r r Sign Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume(veh/h}.. U -.§-2,2"-r- 75, �1. . 575 25: 0 0 35 " 0 ` 0 :75 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flan[ Pedestrians La // Vr4 neWd Walking Speed(ft/s) tPet5-ebt Right turn flare (veh) r Me � � �Na,e ` Noted dian a Median storage veh) vC,conflicting volume• ,652, '' 859 ,... `: 545.'' '1103',` 226 889 '1484 ; "312 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 21 cgof tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC,2 stage (s) " „ ..11111.14 44 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 P._q euefree`% ©0 88 cM capacity (veh/h) 930 778 225 210 778 226 124 683 Volume Total 226 226 408 312 312 27 38 82 Volume Left .1A 0 0 /P111,1111:1101:411:;i:0+ , <;f 1W 0: r 0 '° .'. . , Volume Right 0 0 408 0 0 27 38 82 cSH ;, ` , 700 ::1700 1700 ;1700 . X1700 ,r1700y 778;' 683 Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.13 0.24 0.18 0.18 0.02 0.05 0.12 Queue Length:(ft) 0 0 10u.' .. _ . Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 9 11.0 Lane LOS,: A B „ Approach Delay (s) 6.0 0.0 9.9 11.0 Approach LDS A, _ B Average Delay r 0.8 ! Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.0% ICU Level of Service A r River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 AM Background Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: State Highway 66 & WCR 9.5 12/20/2001 29 ..A..,'.}�f ,t �' ; N '.EBR74 }fy�07 o1F4 rr' .8'811 1111pvert��. '.,. �. M .,._ � �: ��.-�- F2:' 11��'[' 't5�3T""` � Lane Configurations It ++ r ' ++ r II) Ideal Flow(vphpl) • 1900 190O 1900 1900 1900 1900 '1900 1900 -1.900 .`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 Lane Ott: Factor 1.00 0.95 , 1:00 .1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 ' C 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected _... f4� 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95, 1:00' 1.00: 0.95 1.00 -!‘-!::,Z03,1'''.'-':'' 0.98 1;00 ,u r Satd. Flow(prof) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 1811 1827 1583 Ft}Permitted 027 '1 QO 1.00 O55;.,. 1.00 1.00 0.95 1 Ofl�r, :`= n::'�;ri ,:�'°k: .., 0.92 1;00 Satd. Flow (perm) 494 3539 1583 1033 3539 1583 3433 1811 1712 1583 Vp1U e, v h 205 300 25. 60 , 490 . 75' 90 20 .. 5 35' . 55 120 Peak-hour.Pa - at 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 Mj Flow(vph) '223 i 326 27 , 65'. 533 82 , 98 22 5 38 60 130 Lane Group Flow(vph) 223 326 27 65 533 82 98 27 0 0 98 130 Turn Type pm+pt Free.. pm+pt Perm:. ..:.Prot ,pm+pt Fr 9 Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 Free' ,.> 8 78 "'_ u,r\ `W 6 'Free Actuated Green, G (s) 54.0 39.0 100.0 39.0 28.0 28.0 12.0 24.0 k 32.0 100.0 Effective Green, 4.:( ) 54.4g.,0%0 100.0,,i„,.:39.0 28.0 ' 283 0 12.0 24.0 r a . . „32.0, ..100:0. Actuated g/C Ratio 0.54 0.39 1.00 0.39 0.28 0.28 0.12 0.24 0.32 1.00 4 0 � ,�.;, ` k4,0 4.0 4.0,:ii, 4.0 '.! '^ , 4.0' ., , -,_. Clearance Time{s} 4:0 4 a,;.�,.. Lane Grp Cap(vph) 547 1380 1583 484 991 443 412 435 559 1583 vJs Ratio Prot c0.09 0.09 0.01 :c0.15 c0.03=.;,••007 ,. °__,g:: ._ 0.02, ,. . v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.02 0.04 0.05 c0.04 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.41 .. .0.24 0.02 .0.13 0.54 0.19 0.24_, 0.06 0.18' 0.08 Uniform Delay, dl 13.3 20.5 0.0 19.3 30.5 27.3 39.9 29.3 24.5 0.0 cession Factor 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. �1`,0'J 1;.00 '...', , ;'� 1.00 .,.,1.00 Incremental g Delay, d2 2.2 0.4 0.0 0.6 2.1 0.9 1.4 0.3 0 7 0.1 Delay.(s) ,„,,,..,,........,..,,1,$;.C.1,!,:20.9, :.. 0.0 19.9 32.6 28.3'1,741.4'; 'S..20..6L Y ,. 25.2 a 0.1 Level of Service B C A B C C D C CA Approach Delay (s) . r :17.8 `' 30.9 ::..t ,,,, ., '38.7 10.9 PP '. Approach LOS B C [nfersecl°io(Wriimaryr,7M,�' ,. . ,; ,,,!;4:,., .,.,„- .,. . .. _ ,EV.,.- Ri?%7 , HCM Average Control Delay 24.0 HCM Level of Service C . .....::::..:.:':=:.Vii.. ..�;:::. rati 0.37 - ' HCMllblume to Capacity o�.�-- -� -� " ` Actuated Cycle Length(s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 4 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization ` -= 46.5% ICU Level of Service :: i!0 .:•.W.A. :' "tirt :, .r•. c Critical Lane Group River Dance Development ( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 AM Background Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: State Highway 66 & WCR 11 12/19/2001 ft t4\ t '► 1 Lane Configurations ' 'Ft r i +1. '1 A 4. Sign Control .. Free' ... w Free ` top '.;Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume(vehlh) 5 ,`290' 5 5 , 600 5'= 5 ` 5 5 ,5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly ft,6ur!Pie 00411'7 ..`7'315'''-',;- ::5 5..,.:652 _.. .5' , .,5 ",. 5 5 5 r 5° 5 Pedestrians .;w y :4:37%77: p.,•r'. Lane'V₹Vidth(ft) .`? �' Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage =`. s �. .. Right turn flare(veh) Median type ,. . _ . None, , '. 1 .. ` 'None= Median storage veh) vC, conflicting`volume 658 :',-+! 321 671 ;':995 ;158.72;7642.- `329 vC1, stage 1 conf vol '.;: , vvC2,stage 2 conf vol. tC, single (s) �4 1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC,=2 stage (s)`7 , tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 po gueuelree C99 100 -'98.. ' 98 99 98,:7"--'987:77 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 926 1236 331 241 860 249 240 667 Volume Total 5 158 158 5 5 435 223 5 11 16 Volume Left; 5 , 0 0 0 T.,0: 0 , . , 5 .' `0 ' `5 Volume Right 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 5 5 cSH 926 '1,700 1700• 1700 1235,771706-' 1700' . 331 375/ ;310 Volume to Capacity 0 01 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.13 0.02 0.03 0.05 Queue Length(ft). . 0 0 - 5, 0 - p. .... 0 0 ; 1 `2 :: 4 ,-. Control Delay (s) 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 9 0.0 0.0 16 1 14 8 17.3 Lane LOS . A. .A/7" C B ,C ' Approach Delay (s) 0.1 0.1 15.3 17.3 Approach LOS C C. lne . u+ aa +g .. t ' h Average Delay'; 0.6 - Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.2% ICU Level of Service A River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 AM Background Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 3 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: WCR 28 & 1-25 Frontage Road 12/20/2001 f _ r 4-- 4\ 1 p Lane Configurations I 'I ) + r vi it r Sign•Con6ot-. Stop 7'::_'4,-i yStop _.wit;np':'''' 24,,'. Freer 4 .:��_ xfr" Free F .. .. Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume(veh/h 5 : 5- .: 5 5•` .5 : 5 •_ 5 5 5 5. 5 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hoot 1flow,rate(veh h) '"4' 5 i,i, 5 i,�.^5 5,r n_5_ .5. _ .5 5 :; 5 " 5 Pedestrians ft t 9)'L:'. & jY.F(!i�S"• '.. ;�1�4-.;�.:-:,M#'^•xfi�yr<yr�r.'i.i"'�,k��"`�i'"�7'+r.:cS.'�7S' jt?.h>hr" :bx.�Fp`��siL^f�,'9 Lane Width (ft) �,��,.?tr l,� =r i `) r f r;, 1e.Y:•.' F, 'i,* .i. "t�is :.. ,� ". }; Yii :s W`" ,,_ .:.._ :.:� -' �; Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage t:<* x "r a Right turn� flare (veh) Mediaii `l p .--.1I.:212: :::: .a t.?�S°er!i '--Non�ie I+es>.v,5fi�.,.7:N-`•x3FE+fi;.�, .._ ' f _ n e � None: ,r�Kr� iu' 6IP'.�.;y:s�» !u?r,!'?:u::�Ai,t-�4 J I _ rid i"fs._. ... . ...._... Median storage veh) vC,conflicting volume 41 ,: .; 38,' 5.„:r.::241'.:, 38: S'..:'':11'''",'''-':2s: fI•M`* .si :i` vC1, stage 1 conf l "� vol Y .h _ ,J". .ti S f•1 ...s., ja...a.e::�F+T(.. 1 .:r••?_.i•NY:RX:i_^_ :s: . st ie�.2 conf .+ �'a _...�2. s rte: tC, single(s) .�� 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC((�� - - ^Fi4.. �,:.,I T�.tpr r _-S �r',�.4 ,� iit�`.'w�j..kti:,ti:.•�•• :�i'�gn ai`n,Rt+�' '.a:l'-.� 2.stage tt��••11'_• e:'fS�:':�i :<₹I:yy:n -, e0:i��+c₹ ..i,:. .0iii �i g4 �:t•v. tF(s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3.' 2.2 2.2 0 , N I_ '- .., t'F. a it:Ti . ,cka' :fj 7r $';.t. iV:d 7b.'I;.• 1�-�!�eue free /o _ �._',�._ �� 9� 99 99 99`" �9': � '10Q„<3�'`:�';:_f.��: `�,�;•�1=% �.::;��;.,., �„ :, �. cM capacity (veh/h) 949 848 1078 949 848 1078 1608 1608 . r f--- Volume Total.,;,„.„,,,,;::,,,,„,:,,,,,,e,;',,:. 5 11 ., 5 11 5 5 ' 5 :5 . 5 5 Volume Left 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 Volume Right + 0 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 • 5 : ' ` cSH 949 949 949 949 1608 1700 1700 1608 1700 1700 110',! to Capa . , .0.01 0.01 0.01 0"01 0.00 . 0.00 0"00 0:00 0.00 0.00 4 '": :'. i.::< Queue Length (ft) 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) > ,psi£.. `. 8:8 8.8 8.8 8.8 7.2 0:0` r.::0.0 7.2 0.0 0 0 a�«:i-r.:≤:•=,.F:, Lane LOS A A A A A A �Cp.....,..-- -,'..ill o, uH ' - ,1 w'2 4,i. , -e:.".=•k?; 2.4 MFR'`:,;•:f, =�..y? �:i{i1, ;:it,:, ,�t�ach C)elay (s) � 8 8 8.8 , �.,... •.:� : ....._...:<<1:;�":;,:,: _ ,..__ _<•c,=,=,, • �!� ... `<:-: .,. Approach LOS A A Average Delay 5.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization .. .20:0% ICU Level of Service A , .•.. , `6.0-?. = River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 AM Background Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: WCR 28 & WCR 9.5 12/21/2001 �dYmie 11 ec dtl a; "t , WO Lane Configurations ) Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Right turn flare (veh) Median storage veh) vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 oonf vol ! tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 • tF(s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 po.queuefreeb ... .. 99.f` r9T9 99,: 99 99 `x'99; '100" 400 cM capacity (veh/h) 792 732 988 792 732 1009 1523 1544 ... � � .vim.... - qry Volume Left 5 0 5 0 5 5 Volume.Right 0 5 _ 4 'r 5 5 5.'�' cSH 792 841 792 848 1523 1544 Volumeto Capacity 01 : 0.01 '. :0.01" 0.01, ;v 0;00 0.00 Queue Length (ft) 1 1 1 1 0 0 Lane LOS A A A A A A Approach LOS A A Average Delay 2.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 14.5°/a''` • ' ' ICU;Leve of,Service A River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 AM Background Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: WCR 28 & WCR 11 12/19/2001 C 4- k 4\ t r Lane Configurations .1 ts 13 Sign ControE" :Free Ff ee Stop : _'Stop- Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 0'• . 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pedestrians LanelWdtfi.(ft) ,. �r.Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage g'' Right turn flare(veh) Median storage veh) vC, vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Th,tC,2 stage(s) • tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0.queue free°lo- 100 100 " 99 " 100 100 99 :. 100-1-'! 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1608 1616 975 863 1078 984 866 1074 D. Volume Total 5 5 0 11 5 0 5 5 Volume Left ' 5 13 .0 ` 0 5 ;0 S . 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 c,SH 1608 1700-..,1700' 1700 "19 5 „1700 984; :'1074 : "r Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 ouere Length ) ��% ' 0` , ;r0 0' 0 0 ',- 0 0. 0, : Control Delay(s) 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 8.7 8.4 LaneLOS 7 A ` ' ;'F' �::,A "A A Approach Delay (s) 3.6 0.0 8.7 8.5 Approach LOS; y� . `� g' A A .r . .., i l' :141 ry3St,„GI Iary ::..R'� .. +ti S' ':= '"" 'B.�'v 2 �*.a " 6R 7c,3,P11:70,....... , ..." 'NS :.t.a '...i-h+AS`k Average Delay 4.7 . ,31 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 AM Background Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 6 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: WCR 28 & WCR 13 12/19/2001 1 t 1 d Lane Configurations t r Free Free ; Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume(vehlh)," 7'1--11 5 1;. 5 5."` '''701.11120--1. °51 ._ . .. _ Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flo ate" Veh/h) . . 5. , Pedestrians Lane`4Vidth'(ft}.^r Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage "111;2', Right turn flare(veh) Median type. , Bone°, ." Median storage veh) vC,conflicting volume' "217 - 130 `136, =' , kr- vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,=stage 2 confvot tC, single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC.;2 stage(s). era tF (s) p0 queue free%11:, 99 ..??1•1“ '`:100 ' 1111?-";11'11.- ..? . . : ` ., cM capacity (veh/h) 768 919 1448 : ;eta, . w' .& . -„.1' Volume Total . .5 . 5 : 5 76 .130. ,;�:5 "'° Volume Left 5 0 5 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 ' 0. ? 0 > € ... : ' cSH 768 919 1448 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.01: 0.01' 0:00 0.04 0.08 :'0100',"111'...:".• Queue Length (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 0 Centro'Delay (s) 917 ' 0.9 ` 7.5 '. 0.0 0.0 0:0 1, Lane LOS A A A Approach Delay(s) ' s 9.3`• ' 0.5 0.0 ' ; :i Approach yLOS A PIN"y' , h' * "' J S,�T, z! .¢5wl Pa n Average Delay 0.6 Intersection capacity Utilization 16.9% ICU Levet of Service iA -, River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 AM Background Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 7 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: State Highway 66 & Mead Street 12/20/2001 M ent Lane Configurations 'H +44r Sign Control s ft Free Frees Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% ( ) 1,,' Volumeveh/h 0 _ ��'' 550 145 0 1020 ' 15� -�' :01,!;,T:. 0 105 . 0 85 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly'fiaw rate(veh/h) ( 0 598 158. 0 1109 16 0 0 114 0 ay.A.92 Pedestrians t �.lh 1 P (F• ..$%>:y� r$''4 J:�`i.� — ._.S,'t`F !'3 '[}i'}.. r.f5r tC,Y•"I::f�: �4:1.N. ,t k�,L.��l'-x•k.,:,. 1.a e.1�lti .:��l.:•rl. .� �-.�(x ...::..: .;::,t...._::.a��(t� _.., >��i� Es.::;�' - ,�:.: :.'.. �........:. ( 1.. '..:•..:'S.............:C.::S.z'.4'(,`t'.: (:,z:(..,i,..:..a.....'f.;, :.....ti .. I.....R ...:..(.....,x.. ! .�. .., ..x. t.. �[..1�-'tr`r.•-.., t ..c....1. .( Walking Speed (ft/s) :.. .:........r.....+. ...,w':C.M..}:''<'.'':E:i.[I':::.:Z.- •,Y;:,::T�`kfL"'<S::..,-.S5:?•;,�x.',c.,.:.:� :,:l...h:!Sb�.:::.:::x..,i._v.....kS.ta:l,:j,1�S.!:•<e', •.^.:R"+�..n 'R:`E'. .t.,z.,i.::'.::.:.,E::S{.,,;,;: .".en....:•si.. :(:.pp:r_•;S:::. •n .3..:r.• ��is.a":ti ('s" :,xr'::�:s: [ - - .,.rtF.... .... ...s.....,..�::.::.:::. F.. .k. ..f'..( ..;.cis`...:. F �(. ..�✓'<:c::r ::..r::�.A.r.�'i�t`CV-l:` i:21'�' sl:•. }t.. etcent Blocks a ......................��,.... .._....,...1..(...::•.,..,,.5.1 ,.,,...�...,. ,::•..�... .t.....,..... .. . ...... ... . Right turn flare (veh) _...._. ::G,:'t w.�-h:,.;:�:::v:a,... —:e• ...n::.::p..F...�:aa�°5.1'�S•i�ti"i.. -_ ��.rt:"-t4: '••trp;r...r�ic4n - -�'a≥c;:;t:.: ':k'?�4!d:..eti:•...._e,r.:-:.::e_�?,:'{,�:erxf�:.,a::•..�...1..-:.........+i:x- s.`.:'�ri�s`ic>k^=,Sua. '�!f: ir�:�.."i:'.,":'E'.�;•• �t %?2:��y;,;;�(y, :x'...: Medran 'JP a .o. ....,. a...... ...r:::;P.,i!:::.•.(..:_•' q rF:F}'.^.. .i'i.:�,'r !, ::3"`�u' �4'Ci .r•. :. .... ....u..r.....:._�,,.....-.,-, :....�.......',kS.M...,.z.t.<.. ,:. � �t .'xw0.'3 7:...... �y: tS{�Ai�_.s..4'.z.iF'5r �Y .,.—...st ,-t`-.... :.11f':1xYu<,::.'C::•.' Median storage veh) V �:.C ....;<:.i1�f:`i':!?S-t.. ...,r.:.:.:..:..::: ."F::'xni•' iR F?.t;;: ?I.? C':': s.lf., 4s. conflicting n volume :1125.: : .,_; •...:_:',::,..t ...�.fi. .,;:,....;_.....�:,, ...,:.�,.:r:,�,.,:�'f2��`��_'��;�:€? ..1�;:-� - '�,�. • "�.`�: .... ,.. - ..-.:. .::'iq::'s`'�t• :'.S`r' ...... _.....,,..;.: .........._-",z.(. ....... ............a...._:5••k�.:t,t.,.. m ::�:.(.L:i.:. .:.:.. z............. ��. vC1, stage 1 conf vol ..... •s,i_:.,;.,.3 r .': � y':'c rzi_sa^:�^Sr≤.,:%i.'.:'T•i--.s _%t F• t _ t♦ :. o . 9c2,stage 2 conf tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 t 7.5 6.5 6.9 • pi $ -:: '�f�,� F ; � �:•� .:•.i�i..l � :�. Y��?�f =.i vi �'.S'��irr.,' tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 PO queue free A " ::.,•,`'`"'::° � �i, 1 ao �'�� ;" 100 " � w,_:��-,,;_;V1 ao 10'0 84 100 100 ',',,P4:1',111: cM capacity (veh/h) 617 851 105 88 697 68 72 476 '-" Volume Total 299 299 158 554 554 16 114 92 Volume'Left r. r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 158 0 0 16 114 92 ASH 1700 ,':1700 1700 1700 1700 1700A; ;..,697:4,::::: 476 Volume to Capacity 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.33 0.33 0.01 0.16 0.19 Queue Length lft) =!r 0 0 0 0 0 0 15': 18 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 14.4 LaneLOS :.....:.:_.......:,._ .: ....:�........ . .,...:• .. ...... .,.....,a.:., ni:ei S,.zz....t, B Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.0 11.2 14.4 �^ OS �,_ .,.....,.:, .•:i<.. .,'.;z. w B B [nters o` ,$umrrra ~'^ , emu' . , " :tt . 7t7,77:7,. �...- :1i Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.0% ICU Level of Service A r1 River Dance Development ( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 PM Background Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: State Highway 66 & WCR 9.5 12/20/2001 k 1 t P �► 1 d Lane Configurations '1 ?T r ►t tf r 4 r idealgFlow(vphpl) '? `'}900 .:1900 ` 190,0 "1900 1900 t .1900! 1900„u1900,' 19.00 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 LanerUti1 Factor ..,. .... '€ 00 0 95= 1,00 1.00 ,0 95 , 1.00.• 0 97 ;'h1 00 1,00 ;1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 6.85 1t w. Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 1841 1794 1583 Fit Permitted `€13} 100r..s1 OO :u 043 „1300 1:00 11195. r;1 00 r :; � T 0.75 '3`' .00 Satd. Flow (perm) 576 3539 1583 806 3539 1583 3433 1841 1395 1583 30 225 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 Ady'.';Flow(vph};- , ._6v . 212,,,.. ., r.22 rt 27 ,..402_ , 54ii _386 60 . ;: a. 109'r.. .s33 , 245 Lane Group Flow(vph) 212 582 82 22 27 402 54 386 65 0 0 142 245 Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Y•,f Free' 8" 6 ' Free Actuated Green, G (s) 46.0 33.0 100.0 31.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 33.0 29.0 100.0 Effective Green,9(s k i6 0 .'33.0 100 0`.` 1,•0 22 0 ,22.0. Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.33 1.00 0.31 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.33 0.29 1.00 4.0 ` ` 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 504 1168 1583 337 779 348 755 608 440 1583 v/s Ratio Prot, ' c0 08 co.16 :: 0 01 "v'ft [1 c0.11 '0.04 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.01 0.02 0.03 c0.06 0.15 vlCRatio: ` 0.42 ":0.50 0 01:".' 0 08 052 , 0"16 "-,0.51 ,. :0.13 '..`'' ,. 0.32 "-0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 17.3 26.9 0.0 24.2 34.3 31.5 34.3 23.3 27.8 0.0 Progressiort'Factor 1 00 °"f.00 _1.00= 1.00 1.00. x1.00.,. 1,00 1.00. �,; 1.00 ;`1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.6 1.5 0.0 0.5 2.4 0.9 2.5 0.4 1.9 0.2 Delay(s) ' , 39 8 28;4 e'"4 0' =;,24.6 -36.8';';',412,4;;;H3.5..7 :''23 6 , 29.7. 0.2 Level of Service BC A C D C D C C A App�aach Delay(s) .'`25.4 X35 6 x:34.9 ` 11.0 Approach LOS C D C B �:_ u w _,r" 9. Q, . to-�� ... _. �. .��;-, v_ HCM Average Control Delay 27.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio .„, 0.46 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity:Utilization "' .''' 50.5"� -` '"` ICU Level of Service :" R c Critical Lane Group r River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 PM Background Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: State Highway 66 & WCR 11 12/19/2001 . � vv � l sg v�- Lane Configurations �t ft> '1 1' 4' Sigh Control Free .; :Free ' `,Stop: Stop . Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume(veh/h}. ..555 „"."5.,`",,„! 5: 565 5` ",. 5 5`" 5' 5'' 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hoiartyflov tatej'(v h/h) .;'' '5 ;,603 5 - 5 ,:; 635 5 5 : 5 . : 5 5 5 :?' .'`5 Pedestrians LaneWicith'(ft),' „' ". Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent 3t("4kage � . ' ! x Right turn flare(veh) mediae type ' '-` None None Median storage veh) vC,conflicting volume 609 ':` , . 951 ;1266," 302. 97{}', 1269 321' vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,'stage 2 conf vol tC, single (s) 4.1 �w 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC,2�stage(s).'„ .".;;_ . tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free%e . :I:' 99._ 99 '11 ° .'` ` 97 97, 9g ";' 97 ' 97 ' , 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 939 966 205 166 694 199 165 675 1 :i. s+ ..:. .. : ,'f: Tfi: 'A 9 ,. , sue _` x710' i Volume Total 5 302 302 5 5 424 217 5 11 16 VolumeLeft 5 0 �0.:: ,0 ' . 5_ : =0 0 5 '0i ' ..5. Volume Right 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 5 5 cSH ;939,1'1700 1700' ;1700• `966';1700 4700 205:, 268 239 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.01 0.25 0.13 0.03 0.04 0.07 Queue Length-(ft): . Q :: .0 0 0 0 k `-,0 0 2 .. Y 3..:` ' 5, Control Delay (s) 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 23.0 19.0 21.2 LaneLOS <.. 'A :. A .): C C °` C Approach Delay (s) 0.1 0.1 20.3 21.2 Approach LOS � � C � C ` ' t"„'*' $ ta ,3 1` ? $ ', x "`'�a°L�i' Is` r a�.. ''"S `iEtir-I`k Average Delay , ` ::, .0:6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.7% ICU Level of Service A r River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 PM Background Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 3 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: WCR 28 & 1-25 Frontage Road 12/20/2001 l l C t 4\ t P " i d : 4. Lane Configurations ' � 1. ) t �+ �i t r Sic,"nControt" :` Stop SWWF Free = Free' Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume(veh/ti) 5 5 53 5 5 ' 5' 5 , 5 5 ' .`'5 1 ;_5•;i:`;. . 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hodriy flow rata`(veh/11) 5 '•-•- 5 5 5 5_ 5' ' 5 '`5 ' 5 •, "`5 Pedestrians Lane Aiidtfi'ft)` °� Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None ^$ .None Median storage veh) , vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf yo7 tC, single(s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2stiage(a).. tF(s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 paqueuefree%Q 9024 99,. ,--,'"90.7,"?.99 L "99,:= 100 . '100 „- cm capacity (veh/h) 949 848 1078 949 848 1078 1608 1608 s - VolumeTotal , 5: `, 11 T,5 < 1t • 5 5 " -5_ 5, `5 5 Volume Left 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 cSH 949 949 949 949 1608 1700 1700 1608 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity `".0.01 0.01 • `0.01 0.01,1'0.00. 0.00 0.00 `0.00" 0 00 ' 0.00 Queue Length (ft) 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delays) x.;8,8' 8:8 ` 8.8 8.8 7.2> ` 0.0 `'•0.0, "`7.2 `•'0.0 ` ,0.0`s Lane LOS A A A A A A Approach Delay(s) .8.8 8.8 `;" . 2.4; `"2.4 - Approach LOS A A Average Delay 5.6 Intersection`Capacity Utilization 20.0% ;.' ICU Level of Service A River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 PM Background Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: WCR 28 & WCR 9.5 12/21/2001 f t 4\ t ti 1>1 �°� gym - :3C 1 :r- Lane Configurations ►t 1 'I 1. 4, 4+ 83§3„4-2.0.011#§11:-. Stop ' Stop -Free-' Free.` Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% .6U'.: :'5 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 .92 0.92 Hourly flow"rate.(veh/h , ', 5.. . : `�_ 5 ,a 5 '" ., 5 ` t 5; (63 .. a5 5,`:: • 65 5_ Pedestrians Land Width(fit}~ Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage )); Right turn flare(veh) Median type ' � �.,. .� None aFle .. .. Median storage veh) vC, conflicting volume 264, ' ` 55 fib 264 253'." 166; 71 . t68r vC1, stage 1 conf vol :C2,stage 2 conf voi tC, single (s) .F 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC,2 stage tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0'queue free 99 99 "� -99". :. % .9 = 99 ---;:-100,-7 cM capacity (veh/h)% 677 641 995 677 641- 879 1530 1409 Volume Total 5; 11 5 u :+11 174 - .- 76 Volume Left 5 0 5 0 5 5 Volume Right 0 `5 0 5 : ..„5" 5 cSH 677 780 677 741 1530 1409 Volumeto Capacity - 0.01"- 0.01 '0:01-,--0.01 ;--0.00• >`0.00;°- Queue Length(ft) 1 1 1 1 0 0 Control`Delay(s) ,104 :, 9.7 10.4 9:9 ,6.3' 0.F Lane LOS B A B A A A ApproachDelay(s) 9.9 `. 10.1 " i),3 . 0.6' Approach LOS A B Average Delay 1.5 . lntersectlnri'�apacwfy Utilization �: 19.8% =. � ICU Levei-ntS�?ice ��A . River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 PM Background Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: WCR 28 & WCR 11 f 12/19/2001 • yy� f '_ '� `\ I �'' \* O' a-: . n r; 1 �'"-� ry, ®�l` 6�!" ll" ® 2t'� ,_' m amt"(". :14:4".-e: tr. Sart Lane Configurations II t 11 1+ 1 % 1+ Sigh Control.;: ; ;Free , Free: Stop ` ' Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Val�rme(vet4lh} - 5 5x O ' 0. , : 5 .,. •5: , 0 ' :.0 5' 0 n `5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 Hourly flow,rate(veh/h : ` 0' O ;`' ! 5 5 . 5 0 0 h w 5 ; 5 Pedestrians La'ne.Oilidtn f�) � �r� Walking Speed (ft/s) PercentBlocka e Right turn'flare(veh) Medi n d. e typ, .,.,,: . �. ; '::None. . .Median storage storage veh) vC, cenflictirig`r`volume• 11 5 .. 2,7' 27° vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage`2 eopfvof .`, . tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2:stage`(sj', tF (s) 2.2' 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3 3 pO queue free%p, " 100 "°: '` 10O = ' 99 100 : 1010 .99 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1608 1616 �y� 975 863 1078- 984 866 1074 Volume Total 5 5 0 11 5 0 5 5 Volume Left: 5'` ` .6 0 , 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 cSH i . 1608 1700 1700= '1700 "975 1700, 984 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 Queue Length'(ft) ' 0 0 ,' O",'- 0 "0 0 0' 0 Control Delay (s) 7.2 0.0 0 0 0.0 8.7 0.0 8.7 8.4 Lane LOS A" ` A A>. •' A" A' Approach Delay (s) 3.6 0.0 8.7 8.5 Approach LOS':.' . A. , . ` A . • ., .. taR S`. ,� 7CYi'' £ "o `M Y..'� �{m3�� u`rz. . .4i+G?rs. �.+"�,n •.x'k . , �"� i il...ra e.�ka'. Average Delay'::: 4,7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 13 3% ICU Level of Service A River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 PM Background Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 6 LSCI NCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: WCR 28 & WCR 13 12/19/2001 T d Lane Configurations r t r HY #r.,,>r,» ., Sign Control Stop . '.: _,` K.. . .r, Free Free •,.`.. Grade 0% 0% 0% V —r- 1h 5,;:51!,7,7"'5''''':!—"'.5 140 95 J: ,ems fi f:.t:''?ar,F€: .��. iU��1,r-e.,hArs₹•` : ;-::. :ter. Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 152 5 e ;� 's =: ;ri �•�;::'' 't "=":r:..�•.�, Hourly flow rate(veh/h) 5 ,, 5 5 103 :r• A; ... .. _ Pedestrians : . � .. ...,,.;..._,..........r.,..,.., ...:a.- a.:.....x.eq:-::c:rc.,...,.7r'.::kq!L.x':Y•'.:>'a....:S=iFi^':::�ii:'9₹x'- .#.^:::ai:�a.! ,3{r? .','#:r.#:!)i"z":: - ...R,rJ.F`d'a:^?•" Frti' ::-: „ .. .:::::. .....:.:.�r.;r x!•:^.., G..:..;;..... ._:.I`.Lti .,•',� ,1,. r'tf�S�',ir .t.,S..;i^z�`. ,s. �=i7:.`F: ,„! Walking Speed (ft/s) ..._ J.._e. ,.. .•,}::::':•:::.�.:5"......�:!..}i:. .;, _.. ..,:::r,i ;'#'i�,'�s i':I.`� �rY'i:::.x:'."^::�+`.fi:::{' ��::i" Giir'�� ^.:i.. ':,._ ...- ...e..,.....•....:txr. •r::.......;�.........,..t,:.: ,x.a.,.'.,r ...1wr! c.{.. )_,. ,..L: - -..:f•:'::i....:.a,�..:�:...:'.. ..:..lt:'�•il::.,J••x.......₹.......,-. ..:......:i., _ .:<S�Y.r.i::f �..✓'':' g .....:... ::•r .. ..--,::?. ...:..: .:.[::.•:.x.�,..,,. ...:........i.'..z_�... ......, ..tiC.t'.=G.;!::.c _ „f a<r"r�=::3.'.' ::�:;=�^ p' nt Blockage Right turn flare (veh) ..e7'.!.i..i,•>f,'�,_ rC':�7:i�' _e'' i t.: .:?�i:'�:f�':-: c;F•`,;:.I Median type -•.... .�. �::__ _. .. Median storage veh) ...: _;.,.,.._....Iq:::`; ... .!x'.v:,':�••(_ .-:,,..-.u•ift•)i ..._ ,��-.t:.^; '.gi�il'•;:�;<:,: ir~':,<:�.�5�' vC, ....r.. . :;: :�c7 F , J...F.•:r�:h t�r.�i'. r 'sr r,. r;,�_... ',ti,,'n ✓>.��.'� '� =c'. _ conflicting volume 266 : ::... .; ,"i rw;._. i." ' , . riJt.• i ... .._.._.::i, ::: ., . .. . vC1, stage 1 conf vol .<,,.•. ,:,.:: _ s: : .w.:,. . ,i_.i :₹ .,.g„ t ..•�€~a as ix vC2 stage 2 conf vof -•��`!��'�°�"�•°.... .....}....,.�r..:.!,.r_ex..............'•#_..•...:,u,-,:.`.,.....,..,.r.....:........:.- .. .,. �t;n nr'�a::.ah:'°, Tye.......c .tiFr: tC, single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 .. .:!..t,`.:,. ..., .�:•: "":.f•+ ... i 7itF' .₹t.. •','•' .rdx..:S, !ii:';^.. �::.,J;........ .......:.,.?:::�....+�.n?.:�₹. r r�x:•r 4 ..: ..r., :r.o; s ��;ri'i::r `hy�, (}�S.O `e.r.,s•.;., ...-',T::..:+..:. ,,.....s.,..._.m:,t....,.:._.�+:.�r: s�f`:I:c. ::I�'i'is?'i:",.• .. .:';�i• ?ii:.:�...[_ ^,rl .7 T;,t1��/•...7xrr• ::::..t:•,...::� .,t;:..f..: is _..�......tii,.....�'....�•7 ,»....':t:�: ......... .:..... ....... .............. �"'S` :.... tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 .....:,..:.rr.:r'::.J.sr.....;.....Jw�C - - ::t.rt•.: �,�4::srr: T:1�7;::,.:'(i p ::� .:v•,X: ..•Ed. .. ..... .E ..�{ ! ;.0 i, StG^hit's... -..._.f:_:s{r.�: ...�.,rr. :�:C?�a3r: ...:'r§a:::�c�t{Yc. ' _.>,...::<�r:,. 99 99 100 ,._...,.;..>..:,,. � ._ °�M�F��::.° - _ 0 queue free /o... . ... ,:,.,.,:..::.J�,.. •..<_!'_.�:-.{�x,:'<,:�4:� ,'Y.:.::::... . r .�:�_.�,, , .. .. ._..cM capacity (veh/h) 720 952 1482 EB 1 1:8.8, .=N81': NS2_e 813;1- TSB:. ., `t`` Volume Total 5 5 5 152 103 5 Volume Left 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 , ......: 0 5 0 Volume Right, .,..... _._. ,..., _ ...._ .... . ._. - . ..x ... ... . . .. cSH 720 952 1482 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity':,..:•., :.'0.01 0:01 0.00 0.09 0,06 4.00 « ,:. _... £ -., „-..,_:.. .... .._....... . .i....... . ..... --i'i Queue Length (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 8 7.4 ,0 ntrorb�la (s) :.,,.:_,... .0 8. 0 Lane LOS B A A . . ,.-i'.:.:.:- :�:.... ,..:•.>.t:'...'_;.,••:vats:�.+h.= e:J::y..f':.:': '"f:{'•:':;'� s,.₹";' _::•1:".:•.+,f:;r,: .�::i ....:7. is^:..;... x..... .y...•. .r.�'%:cr:�;';_} — "4� roach Delay (s)A,!:"'. 9.4 ,�.>...:, 0.3 ... ;.a.�.. �.. - . . Approach LOS A �� .,r:..,- a «l;,'znr t� ��r r, s hierse tan'Sufr r 47;:. 4 .,;..� � ; �W<< �: ' �' Ki,,, : Average Delay 0.5 n Utd� �..... . .:� :D�. . . �t�l�ttev��.d n Ito . ._. J,: . _._ s .. _. x. • .. ......t. •. . ... ...... ... ..:.... ... ..:.:.....:. River Dance Development ( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 PM Background Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 7 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: State Highway 66 & Mead Street 12/20/2001 `r f ~ t `1 t P v 1 d r ai . 'i'F %Jitlial, _,_ g R .at a >x z 's`' �3'a ' jag Lane Configurations 14 r r r r Sign Control Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%'. Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hoptlit flow`rete(veh/h) ' , 0' = 478 408 Pedestrians Lane==00-6±0)"^ Walking Speed (fUs) Right turn flare(veh) Median storage veh) vC,conf acting volume 720 '+ 886 , ,;' " ,: 905`f,1198 ;:'239 968':? 1577 t:' 346 vC1, stage 1 con"(vol vC2 stage 2cQi fvol . ,,.-.r _ ' tC, single (s) 4.1 41 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 65 6.9 tf.;=2 stage Cs) .� tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 33 3.5 40 3.3 87 cM capacity (veh/h) 878 760 202 184 762 198 108 650 s - . ; L. °furs .' r c ' 'aid: c tm _ "gym .d..,.,e ' i-t — Volume Total 239 239 408 346 346 28 38 82 Volume Left 0 tl 0 0 0 y; .0 ,` 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 408 0 0 28 38 82 cSH.` .. = ' .17QQ'' 1700 ` 1700 ..1700 :1700 ' X00 , 762 650 Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.14 0.24 0.20 0.20 0.02 0.05 0.13 Queue Length(ft) 0 0 e,.e 0 0 � 4 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 11.3 Lane Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 10.0 11.3 Approach LOS '' ` A< Average Delay: 0.al`'I " Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.8% ICU Level of Service A River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 AM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: State Highway 66 & WCR 9.5 12/20/2001 Lliairaltittratatfaig.a4 ru, yc._ t q Lane Configurations '1 ft i ft r 4 r Ideal Flow(vphpt) 1900,,. 1900 . 1900 .;.1x00 °19bb' 1900: 1`90° ' '1900 1800.` 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 L„06,k tit Factor 00,, .'0,95 7 00, `: 1 fld 5495 ...1.. (, x0 97 . 1 AO Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 100 0.96 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected , ''0.95 1.00 100 ' 0 95, 1.00 r"1.00 0x90 " ;1 00 ". U 0 98' :n .00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 1782 1827 1583 Fit Permitted•`;:s '`:#125 .00 1 t)0a`' b 55 1.00 :1.00; d 95,:"10D. ,_ `) D 92 ., •1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 458 3539 1583 1016 3539 1583 3433 1782 1705 1583 Volume(vph) ' X09 x.:316 14 - 61x` �.51 75r 125 20 )8 35 55 120 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 Ad):Flow.(vph ` 223 3 3 11 ' ,,6 ,t„ ,..:,,,8 . , 136 22 ,_ `9 38: 60 ` 130 Lane Group Flow (vph) 223 343 11 66 562 82 136 31 0 0 98 130 Turn Type." ptn+pt ' Free pm pt Perm Prot, :`._ pm+pt' . ,..., , Free Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 Free' ' 8 'i ' 8 6` ' Free Actuated Green, G (s) 53.0 39.0 100.0 38.0 28.0 28.0 13.0 26.0 31.0 100.0 Effective Green g (s) .' �53 b "`39.0 00 0 " 38 0 ;3 8 0 t 28.0' 13.0 'i26 0 31.0 100.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.53 0.39 1.00 0.38 0.28 0.28 0.13 0.26 0.31 1.00 Clearance Time'(s)• 4 0 1 ,: 0 4 0 €0 ,"'.4.0 4.0 l' 4.0 Cll," d.0 ' Lane Grp Cap(vph) 518 1380 1583 461 991 443 446 463 540 1583 v/sRatio`Prot -.c009:`, '0.10 0A1 „ct).16 c0.04 ',0.02 . 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.05 c0.04 0.08 Vic Ratio; ' ' 0 43". 0.25 0,01' 014.``,055,7.,. ,0.19 :.0.30 . '0,07 '0.18: 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 14.0 20.6 0.0 20.0 30.8 27.3 39.4 27.9 25.2 0.0 Progression Factor "1.00 '1.00- ;1,00 • 1 00 x1 00 ;1.00 1.90,:.71 00 " ": 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.6 0.4 0.0 0.7 2.4 0.9 1.8 0.3 0.7 0.1 Delay'(s) ' • "°16.6,:y21 0 0.0 20.6 "`;332.`;'28.3, 41.2 28.1 26.0" 0.1 Level of Service BC A CCCDC C A Approach Delay(s) • 18.9 31 4 ' 388 11.2 Approach LOS B C D B HCM Average Control Delay 25.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volumeeto:Capacity ratio' 0.39 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 484Ja ICU:LevelofService ; c Critical Lane Group River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 AM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: State Highway 66 & WCR 11 12/19/2001 r t h t P '- 1 4/ Lane Configurations TT e ) tt 1a 4. SigI},,control :_Frei ` .. Free " '' :I: r Stop :, . ' , ,Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume(ve41fi) 5 292 21 ,,." 6 ; :501 5 w . 32 , . 5 r: . 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly,flow rate(vehfh) `s 5 '':318 ,v 23 7 nn 653 5 ., 35 5 . _ 9 5 5, ,..? 5 Pedestrians Lane lllidth"(ft _ Walking Speed (ft/s) PercentBlockag '2271::-.71: 2,; ' ; Right turn flare(veh) Median type_f None ,```None" Median storage veh) v0,conflicting;volume." :659. 341 ' :',E174"2"41001:= ;159 ." 851`-..1021'e.. 329 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2;;stage 2 co fool `y ' tC, single (s) 4.1 41 75 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC,2stage(s) .y �.... tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 PO:queue flea°l ;.T; 99' ` k_ ' 99, .> s `83'. , 98 " X99 , 98` '9$a.` 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 925 1214 327 239 858 245 232 666 Volume Total 5 159 159 23 7 436 223 35 14 16 Volume Left: '„- 5 ' ! ' - 0 0 7 ' ` "0, 0 : ' 35 , "•;'0 5 Volume Right 0 0 0 23 0 0 5 0 9 5 cSH ''. '.:'925 1700 1700'"'_1`700":1214 1700 1700' 327 `429 , 303 tli' ' 4: Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.13 0.11 0.03 0.05 queue Length(ft) « ` -' 0.. . 0 ' 0 ' 0 _. ". 0 . s . 0 0; ;_g 3 4 :. Control Delay (s) 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 17.3 13.7 17.5 Lane LOS ' ;' A';; _ i .. A.i C B C v . Approach Delay (s) 0.1 0.1 16.3 17.5 Approach LOS' C' C y 1ia . :fa R i :� �,,`"'t, trifofrIlit.L47 Vt1 ^ n' '; n r,' Average Delay 1 1' ` Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.2% ICU Level of Service A e River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 AM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 3 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: WCR 28 & I-25 Frontage Road 12/20/2001 FIR17e`►nen 7'," '"''7'.-R l.L '' 'I '" . . . t., . _. Lane Configurations VI � �► �r + r Sign Control t u 'y stoo Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume(veh/h) ? :"=':1t` 5 5 26 5i5, ilai •r 5. 11 . 9 -+;5 ".,;. •ts Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 .kr .:t-... .fir..i�,�, r ,.��.�y. �s.--,��:�a.� r��.�•s �r �i, � F ourfy awirate , .• ;t.==. 4'tili :::, Rs�r=��.ti.u�x•28 5' s` �� 7 x� 12 Pedestrians ..o-. ) ........._ vv :::1::Fgryt••C:W t ..a::: �..:ret::�=isrr.::�,•eer=v:v.;..�...i.,�..r:.. ...uc.^::r::—.J::era:r�e�,.:r-...�re:.-- .,:;<. •rr. ... .- ..;.:ii�f'i••'!�"'SiF:>i��t �:•:R'...... •.. u:Yf.CriMf. �•.. 's. b �5 s... .rfsrw'�_ .,..f.:.. F._ }ty. .. :r.._.% rr. i.. �t�, .,r_.:s ch,6.,,»...e.:k•.:..,k.. .�'• .4 ri i._•.;.. aaY .�k'.' .::Ri. 'C - - ,P t. '.t :.£�:Srxl ...?'n: ti:::ir':::xt:!s:.).>: Sµ'` .' :r3F..', ';`ig V VFUt}� ....:4.'.. ....: ....:f::,Sn-r... ..�.....t..1.. _ :. ...�...�Y.:_.a•s_.'•:E ,.h+.. ::,>s r ;:.4.. - o.t ,t,rr �..Sr"Gs.._.a4•.?.4�Jx.mt"'1�_s...vte'�. ..,....J r<:..... r�_=e.�x.,n::.:�.'sCr�:e,;se`i�- :..A.,..as�r::.....•.....,�....�;::•-:.'�:'i 13'i-, .r ::�,E:;�,;<:..... Walking Speed (ft/s) ...er .—r...<....F_.,, .._L. ...3. ,=.wtiP...'t><:N`" ::`ii`iY i.z y4.,: _e:'y:.�'i^.ip:i`t0::�'=:y�i.^?°:ri:jgek::::ivr_Gd'A;C::F:i:.:.ieyy?s:.r:ue.L.�w:'._:�:;:_Y:;•s t:.?r::c s-oFri^.1. 1i 'T' ...:":4ii:F:x,".:�:•.:; ... s•c:'ii'"...4aFE% - u'_'•r�.i :s 2•.,..: ,�.t,,,...[:-::,? `' .;,t:::.: --,:;..+... !{ ... �• Ioctca a .:,>t:...:..t....tri,..x.:2':J,,.� .x�.�.Ma......:.rati.{•,.Y:�F ye'',..:..,�.;'� .'! .:,�� .r.q:a•ls�` ' ..x[,�i..:.:.ca/:, xr�. � �rl .� g .t...�,..:. : _t.i'. . , •::.••:::a......::- �. >,,.k,.:•::..•�r,.,r .t<. p ,i.::_ z'a- . w.t.._...�.... ._,. .�,:,a:;.i._.,,o.,.t......h,.:::,t:a....:.,.pr*.::...u.t............r.,:r:::x,r,-.C:aT:,.:,t,:.,.,....i.r�`....r��n:'�rti—:.:.f?>�•,hi�....:e. . r:e'7�i..... ...e:�'.1,1._....,... :..,,...'ta't:............. .... Right turn flare (veh) rt a'4.� p ≥*,�.,•'i.','.:^if T .r 'i^R'xif�;=.i.1;,:�i�it:•i�:7i!' •! ...r+'w�e,,?,:t,&•?,la.i�a.�J aim::t;.:n�*i�: - None' zet#ian type. � :None - ��.e .`„ ..�.��: €' �':'�.�.�:=s:�a: ':4r..,.;,'-� �_.-:::�,�::_:.:;1�t;:.�.:•�.., Median storage veh) VC, conflicting volume 62 53 5, 49: 47 .5 •• 11 . h N Y:�• `,` . �. T:,�,:',-:ir..?;,, vC1, stage 1 cont vol VY:.C.. 2t stag:... ...; :'•� ''�..li:'Yi.t�i<�a`a rit F,₹_. :,t•:. .-.,: ... ).:..J,•. •.e::['*,.�.., i .::ttn.:i:.. �i:..l'S t ''✓M ��k:=jY•- - e 2 co {y• �':r.: :e.: 1r:":, s,, .ss::f.i ' .•, :<r.';yi xj; i''1...�•.:•�.i�Y:c:}:::.....t.:•t.,• -.r ?:. ... ' '��.;.. ::;:.::. 2.IS F£. .s3�. ;i� ..:r•:. ... ..... _:.��: .z...n.. .�.:. •.er:.n... i:....r,.r...•...;.......j�...r':iJ�..;..�.:::x.i7�:;r�.<�.::::..:;'f.:n`l.`iT':.:•...:...•��'. "� ' tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 .. r::..,,,�r:n:er.3.. -.x:::,..ti-r'.t+.•-il.i:::..•.<?:"::.::•.- '... -L.`''::',•r:ill�::,�:A.r::�y.nt:t. :•i:::�,: ,.4.:::'":i.:T^:-;_ ,....r..._e't.. r t•:�; u[ ........_— ::>r-'m:: }.M._s:J,e:::�(i. ;.,�: xz, tC, 2 stag (§) tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 que*free% 99....,; 99 99 97 99 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 905 830 1078 934 837 1078 1608 1600 t ,... TrAi i i .i.,tz %..y y. ..t r•s a= ...�_ F •: Vt�B3";n 2 tit z 1; ,2�- 8$ - 7.$B 1 Volume Total 5 ,. 11 28 24 5 5 12 10 5 5 Volume Left 5 0 28 0 5 0 0 10 0 0 Volume Right 0 5 0 18 0 0 12 0 0 cSH 905 938 934 1011 1608 1700 1700 1600 1700 1700 Vd1 me to,Capacity' ;. 001 , :0<01 0.03 0.02 :o.00 ;,o.00 ; 0.01 001 o.aa o.00 '.:.:..::. .. . Queue Length (ft) 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) ' 9 0 ' '.'`8.9 9.0 8.6 ' ,7.2 `:0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A A A A A A Approach.'DeIay(s) 8.9 ... .. 8 8 Yr i.7 rkF. 3.4 .. �:. ;., _ ,.. Approach LOS A A ME. '"!Y�*�yy 9y�,r; ` .. t . e -.i t t�ti 2•e- ' ' p'!.i d -,3 ,' - 7 1*-r ti[4Wi� $ .t E "t ,b.. a> , ... Average Delay 6.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.0% ICU Level of Service River Dance Development ( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 AM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: WCR 28 & WCR 9.5 12/21/2001 C 4— t `\ t P �► ird � ._ �o l' Lane Configurations ►`j 1. if 1. 4+ 4. Sign ontrol I Stop Stop . 'Free' Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume(veh/h,) 0 -7 3 _ {45 :: 5 ; " 4 4,74T 1 1 ; "74 :` ' i 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourty Row rato(vehfh) ." 0 f 8 ., 3::. 49 27 ,. .,`a4 3 a. 91 '--/-17 21.,.,. .,.1 ''r . 80/24,•:-'•' 0 Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage 2:1 Right turn flare (veh) Median fype . Nopg, , . Median storage veh) vC,conflicting`volume_' '217 ,'`'210 8,0'r 207"'' 199 ` '1.02: 80' 4 112 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage'2coralvol = �`... tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2L 4.1 4.1 tC,2"stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0Olueuefree'% . COQ, ,,"�99` :,100 cM capacity (veh/h) 710 683 980 739 692 954 1517 1478 Volume Total 0." : 11 49:' 32 120 ,•` :821,, Volume Left 0 0 49 0 8 1 Volume Right U' •3 '0, 4 .':'21 ; t) cSH 1700 752 739 720 1517 1478 Volume to Capacity "- 0,00 ;0.01' " 0.07 ' 0.04' . 0.01 Queue Length (ft) 0 1 5 3 0 0 Control Delay(s) . 0.0 -9,9, 10.2 102' ` 0.5- . 0.1 ' Lane LOS A A B B AA Approach Delay(s) 9.9 10.2-:: . ; 0.5 0.1 Approach LOS A B Hs ,„4',:.x . „ , _,, Average Delay 3.4 Intersection Ca a ' tilization pciU ty' ,ICU LevelefService°"`' � � `A Th.4,N1 River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 AM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: WCR 28 & WCR 11 12/19/2001 f 4 `\ t / \ d Lane Configurations 1 to 1a 1 TO Sign'Controt Free '',Free ,`444:::1;;;;,,;4::"."`; 4 Stop , Stop . Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume(veh/h) ! 5 . 25 7- 52 ,. "56,:-;441" 29 31 48 ,.5 ;„ 17,., 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly!fowl.* -'•-•;5' 27 8 :% 67 °.'61 ;,5 ‘4.4'.15,2" .' ,.34 52 5 ' '18 _ 5 Pedestrians Lane Width`(ft1:` Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage4 -44 :( a _,,.v Right turn flare (veh) Median type" 1 .... {,�'.�x .. None Median storage veh) vC,conflicting volume-. 6G _`j " 35 '`, .' „ . 252"'4`4;4:243,:::- i 31 305 `'244 - •64 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol ::; `° tC, single(s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC 2'stage • I ; ; tF (s) 2'2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 PO queue free% 100 96 ~95 95 95- 93 : 97 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1535 1577 658 628 1043 569 628 1001 0, mi xa.; 4 '#+t ` • ti.'9.';1:21, V Ot' . rO, `. ::t ' J,'e.�. K..' , .. w x7i't i.7 1 Volume Total 5 35 67 66 32 86 5 24 Volume Left 6 ; ., 04' 67` 0, '324: 4;,:,40<:<",-„,',. 5' 0 ' Volume Right 0 8 0 5 0 52 0 5 cSH 1535;``1700 1577.'11700 4- '658 ',4"2<829-<". 569, . 886 ° Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.10 0.01 0.03 Queue Length (ft) A `.0 :,3.. 0 . 4 `"' . . .; 1 -43 Control Delay (s) 7.4 0.0 7.4 0.0 10.7 9.8 11.4 10.4 Lane LOS A ;,. A '' : . : . B '. A , ` B" B Approach Delay (s) 1.0 3.7 10.1 10.6 Approach LOS ' ' B B Trz - a Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.0% ICU Level of Service A River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5.00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 AM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 6 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: WCR 28 & WCR 13 12/19/2001 •� '�► 41 t Lane Configurations '1 t + r Signt,Control Stop wig'Free `F, e ", . Grade 0% ry 0% 0% Volume4vehlfr},;. 7 tit . ..a99a 7f ° 120ar, 13. y Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Right turn flare (veh) Median storage veh) " . . . . ,. hitk• 5 'a , vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2,conf vgf sur tC single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 pC!;Guuefref cM capacity(veh/h) 545 919 1438 Volume Left 8 0 108 0 0 0 Volume Right;. 0; " ; 66 0 cSH 545 919 1438 1700 1700 1700 1./Ofurnd to Capacity : 0.01 ..0.07 007, ; 0 tt4 0.08 , 0.01`; '-' k Queue Length (ft) 1 6 6 0 0 0 , Lane LOS B A A Approach Delay(s) '_ ,. 9 5 ;'r 4.6:' '0 0 , . '! . Approach LOS A Average Delay 3.8 intersection CapacityLitilization :,... 262°(a,'` ICU;Levelof6ervice '' A " River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 AM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized intersection Capacity Analysis 17: WCR 11 & WCR 9.5 1/17/2002 Lane Configurations ' + �t nr,, "-;d y s,:c.:a-7'� s 'i, ?K�;L?4;..a. aSii,�r,'iad1.:=.r'ki— '1:=�Yr:•. %l�' '�%F" 4"�K:.:+::�� ₹: s.o, 0.1. }n COntroi .wY ;F?top �:: ree- , `u, �, . t. ,w•� a- •:�,;r;,«wi- t ;• �-,.,r 7?�i'J� ,.. : d ... S�i +••.. -. "`6c�>�u r�.I�':i,.. ,a,T=h:,•.cwEPtr'.� .. 'F+Si='�•<'::`F-�::n::. _ Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume veh/h 196. 52 68 15 107...• 49 �,•..:.�.,.::..,.,::�<.:. t:�•�.�;��:;��ti:��:�:�,.�"z��u= Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 ....y y. ..,"....�:.,.,,.r.. • ._.^Exwq-v rc• 'ihr". i*Pig::.t!t t•ilit t 9r'.-i:-�.,-n:7' •r•7. Hourlyflt�W�rate(vehlh) 213 57 ��`"' 53' 16 116 , re � :.,,�°: _�_� ., ..._...,... .�..,.. ......_ Pedestrians t �}E e'F: t •:f� �w t .c N r• Y - -:,,.. h�L'Y-'t.u;�x: ,^�.•,S-ir.,r ,e+..,:y Lane Width (ft) {x t. • Walking Speed (ft/s) 1ht43`l �=�:sx •u�,�t."t 3q �'S�!`E•�',r;Fifu�=pL'r'- r�� a -R 'h Lac`+ S� "'� �1'.,:: ,Y Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median typeNone a, 7 ar , Median storage veh) •?iE� NY ",t"rai.'.�.Y d':E: art r:. r,'l'�5k+3s.F�:z•i-r r k �..cxi,::r,..�:•:.:•}�.,,,. vC,conflicting volume 212 63 i �.,:.. ._. � :.: ,; :,:: vC1, stage 1 conf vol -, F .f,'`: zn�?R"'".,u xxa� x r s f•"`,S F.<.r ;.r::F,, vC2,stage 2 conf vol d Fe �,l }' .cJ -V:Y: W TRA br} FL` �� ....) 5�' . + i::'?i•f'.r'x;;�;-,�." i'•c ..� _ b 1 3 ,i v�...,6 r t :7 �•-�?w. tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 pp 4.1 F - of� ;.te r i.,�T.{`rpii '= ,y,, •• - • _-. r i! 4 • :,� y`�•S''f:} tF(s) 3.5 3.3 22 {ue a free /° .3T' ° '"3 •ttC 72 �. 94 'j��'� �u..� � ��'�.=i,�; ._.,. ` ��. ... .S��z2e�{'ry•17.�i .f.,.. ,. .'4,...r... CM capacity (veh/h) 768 1002 1472 - ��q _ ,7j Q-y� D VFIiiJ[!�O_.1 yk6e-Y 74 755t .VWf.fa , $i # 0 ' 8',[gi D.-X;!�'i7SD7.2Ry' 'C_F. T.=.„i )Volume Total - ' -: 213 57 63 53 - 16 116 Volume Left 213 0 0 0 16 0 •�:_ .,.�^;Ytr.:s r,+�' - ' :,�3`� �:E°dd;+l'�:'4�e::w-'+ExC."':°aiT.s::fri:,:�Y;Sr•7Frk+.;; °*.�5,•,a;�q:.; Volume RF ��_ .. 0 57 0 53 0 cSH 768 1002 1700 1700 1472 1700 :.„lP;., `:;i':it.: i t.r s:i:K' ,'•n::N3>:g:P.xrc,i-i. <i•.1i ,.;s.. Volume to Capacity 0.28 0 06 0.04 0.03 0.41 0.0T tr, ... Queue Length (ft) 28 4 0 0 1 0 Control Delay (s) , ,} Y , f'.'�,. ,, ..:.. 11.5 8.8 0.0 0.0 7.5 0;0 r -s '� � *::,r :=r-::t�,, .r..a:..�-.. Lane LOS B A A ,[F .r '�r h x74 .: •• i'].:'-i'�. Approach slay {s} 10 9 E ,:r 0.Q z � 0.9 °7ru._ . , 4i' rE k..FL. ...• ..•. ..*::... Approach LOS B ?L�6.� a'��'� :.,��1.�1�.i4z"r�ir. A��%x'��.__ ,._.:_� ••.,,.7.:�': ._. ._.._ ... t _ ''. .. .�2 ��sMl r_s_ `��i�"�._�.� _.. _ :�• Average Delay 5.9 IntterSectien Capacity'Utilization' 24.6% 1CU Level of Service " . } • River Dance Development( LSC# 011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 AM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: WCR 9.5 & 1-25 Frontage Road 1/17/2002 4 T P ti► Lane Configurations 11 t r t Sign`Control .. Free Stop ._ Sto „ s , Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pedestrians Land°W a ,� Kn ?e r Walking Speted((yft/s) Right turn flare (veh) Median storage veh) vC1, stage 1 conf vol tC, single (s) 4.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6:5 tCr 2`stage(sj, �: : tF (s) 2.2 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 cM capacity (veh/h) 1623 462 1085 199 462 Volume Total 207 83 272 11 Vo„lume Leftf 2 , .. 207 . d 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 272 0 eSH' < 1623 462` 108S''. 482 "' Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.18 0.25 0.02 QueueLength(ft) . 11, . ,..1 Control Delay (s) 7.5 14.5 9.4 13.0 Approach Delay (s) 7.5 10.6 13.0 • a1 YYY S"4 7e fi5eelii is Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.5% ICU Level of Service A River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 AM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 30: WCR 11 & River Song Drive ` 12/19/2001 / `— ■•- l -• ■ • ` `\ t Lane Configurations ) ) Sign Control • 7.Free ` `Free ; - ` Stop : Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume(vetf/ll) 6 ';;'"32 17 .4 7 '711344' 1 55 „ 0 22 4 =: TT 0 ', 60 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate'(ueh/h)- 17 , a 35 18 8 _-1;46 t=i 6(t '. 2 , .`-:.4 7, 0 65 Pedestrians Lane"WvidfhQ� .: Walking Speed (fUs) Petsent 6ippkag� ,. . . , `i� � ...4 , .. Right turn flare (veh) Medi type Median storage veh) vC,conflicting volume_ 147: .53 r` 305 :``241 '`x`44 '`255e= ,.249`,r 146 vC1, stage 1 conf vol v42,stage 2 conf vol y, r h ,`` tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 ,6.2 tC,2otage (s) ,r ' ? tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free% 'R 99 100 • i.'„ 90 _` 100 °: 8 n 99 100,, , 93 cM capacity (veh/h) 1435 1552 593 649 1026 673 642 901 F .,is C ;' . _^ Volume Total 17 53 8 147 60 24 4 65 Volume Left 17 0 8.777- 0 •` 60 ',° ` 4 p; Volume Right 0 18 0 1 0 24 0 65 cSH ₹435 1700 .1552 1700 593 .1026 673 ;; 901" . Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.07 Queue Length(ft) � � 1 0 , 0 :_: 0` . . 6 Control Delay (s) 7.5 0.0 7.3 0.0 11.8 8.6 10.4 9.3 Approach Delay (s) 1.9 0.4 10.8 9.4 Approach{ra LOS B A` �` ntYn IJ �s 3 ✓ I#;, �t� �*'4& !Y n.M- ,t d... �.a .• Average Delay;, , 4.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 18.4% ICU Level of Service A River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 AM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 10 LSCI NCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 31: WCR 11 & Prairie Storm Lane 12/19/2001 f — i' `- t 1 t t ti 1 -' Lane Configurations ) j, ) 1a 11 A '1 A Sign:Control - . `. Free Free Stop '= Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume(veh/h) q 9 38 .. 9 6 74-43-.4,11:,44'.. 31 " 0 17 -425:4\ 6-4 37 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourlyyflow rate(veh/h) 10' 41_ 10 ` - 7' 80 '`8 ' 34 0 • .18 `27 "' ` .0 40 Pedestrians Lane width gt). `: Walking Speed (fUs) percent Blockage,, Right turn flare(veh) MediantYPe' � , : v _ 'None� -f�fone ': Median storage veh) vC, conflicting volume ��.88 :171 51, 166T'. 'j 167 '.44467.4117 ; :168 84 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2,'stage 2 conf vol; � ' .: t; , . s . tC, single(s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 s ^ tC, 2 stage,(s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free%, 99 100 .``, 95' ' 100 98, 96 ; '100 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 1508 1555 722 718 1023 765 717 975 ithe 't,-�� am �;c� Mkt 'ys°�. t w .. ;'.i �.^re ___"9 xaa ap;r e, bi'./ Volume Total 10 51 7 88 34 18 27 40 Volurne Left" _ 10 ' ' ` 0 7 - 0'. .,44: ::. 0;'" 27 " • 0' Volume Right 0 10 0 8 0 18 0 40 cSH '; *.1508'•1700, 1555 ` 1700 722 .1023: •765: :975 , . . Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.04 Queue Lengtht(tk) 0 '. '0" 0 s` , 0.' a,4 1 3 • 3 Control Delay (s) 7.4 0.0 7.3 0.0 10 2 8.6 9.9 8.9 Lane LQS A A. B ' A A A Approach Delay (s) 1.2 0.5 9.6 9.3 Int'e x„ to r"'+« +.I7'' ,s '^°'"fi.-R Average Delay _ ' 4.5 +� Intersection Capacity Utilization 14.7% ICU Level of Service A r River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 AM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 11 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 32: Scaring Hawk Lane & WCR 11 12/19/2001 W!• ;.. £ K t-J- .®g" -'N8 '..K._�. ,. '"- , r 'm `mod �4. .i t@� ` `z s.� . k7,371- i;',. Lane Configurations ►yr t t r Sign'Cvontrol ; Stop 'Free ;Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume(veh/h) 25 7 > ' 78 78 f ' .s. . - � Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate_(veh/h) "'27 , 2 . �. 85 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft). = �. . `. Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage „ , Right turn flare(veh) Mediantype .None K Median storage veh) vC,conflicting'volume (7S. 86. g3 ' ' , 444.44443 n'y ' vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2 stage 2 eonf vol tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC,`2stage'(a) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% " 97 `:99 S00 ',"_ r cM capacity (veh/h) 814 $ 973 1501 Volume Total ;35",; "2 85 . 86' 8. ' Volume Left 27 2 0 0 0 Volume Right "; 8' 0 ' 0 0 :8 cSH 844 1501 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity . 0.04 ` .0.00 "0.05,.; 0.05, -000 Queue Length (ft) 3 0 0 0 0 Control Delay(s). 9.4. 7.4 0.0 . i 0fl 0 U Lane LOS A A Approach Delay'(s) - ' 9.4' .O. 0 0 Approach LOS A S ,w au ET Kai_;, Average Delay 1.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization `? 14.5%.: i, ICU'Level'of Service A River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 AM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 12 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 33: WCR 9.5 & Shadow Hawk Drive 1/17/2002 G'i}l�,C+�1P` t�....'-:h.,7,'.'Y•N".L'.i.J4 74r .4t.4^;8ini7V.C/B, •1„ .IME... K-..iJ:it iq✓ft. VL V t*-5$•t Lane Configurations t 11 14 $ti re Contko( a , Free r Sto 4 "�" Stop 'f Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Vtl ame`(veh/h) 0,,, 191 59 ,22 179 3 11'. 1 4 .5 6 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 HotHIy f or..+ rate(vehth) , ° �. 208 64 24 195 . 3 12 1 4 5 7 0 Pedestrians Caine Width (ft) _ • ... .`.. i' uo, ... i -�. .,..^ ,�'. . ,`;Y t 'Sa•r ' ,b :.t..t, _ ,. . , ,c.. .r ,. . . ,r Walking Speed (ft/s) .. .�,.-�., t ra _ -` a ]`q it t �'r �i`i'•-:1:o- Z ;.`F- J'ti) ?,i• fjlfF : ,;:.ry y +i a ,y4>, Percent Bt/��/�{y�FR0� e , , .i....'.]:,7:' g .. ,. Right turn flare (veh) Me ion e, ..• ..alp ,,-.. . a •= �r�a •._ _�',. ,�� .. �� _. , ��.F�_ Median storage veh) 1 1 VC,-conflicting volurne .19$ f� :� r , Y�.'' - s� >,� ;+ 453 ~ 453 208'.; _455 514 195 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 208 208 242 242 vC2-stage 2 conf vot ';�° �r : rry u.. i s y: _ ;_ 246 246 212 '272 . � ,.... .. ::Y.a1 f<..._rtl .,xnirw ..:� .. :.:......... �-��..,-�. .•,...._,Y• L. .w'-.,.a`::. tC, single(s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 g ( ,I .4.^r.s'.der'Gfl. L...').y s'�Fl..l�y• !:.t.:rfC-'S. t tC, 2 stage s * �' ��...�:: _._. `Y.�,,��'_.,�_,..�•�,�4..•Y�:�;:.x� rt�, :�:,s,:,t_�.. 6.,1 5:5 6.1 5.5 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue firee% 1.',tc,..,;., 100 ,s' ",- . f`.'�:,:9.r,F_Yh� N Mp,%V E i,sj� 98 • 100 99 99 99 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 1375 1292 578 548 833 574 516 847 Volume Total 208 64 24 195 3 12 5 5 7 Volume Left 0 0 24 • 0 0 12 0 • 5 0 :. F Volume Right 0 64 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 cSH . 1700 1700 ..-;'1.p2 1700 1700 578 754 574.1P'.'516 -t.<_ > :z::•,: `,: Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.04 0.02 0.11 0.00 0.02 0,01 0.01 0.01 Queue.Length (ft). .., 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 Control Delay (s) 0,0 0.0 7,8 0.0 0.0 11.4 9.8 11.3 12.1 Lane I �5' : -.rb..._i,.,= A B. AB E B • 1>. ... " . Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.8 10.9 11.7 Approach LOS '., �'' 'gip ' ", B Average Delay, 1.0 • .,,, _.._ ... Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.9% ICU Level of Service A X:. s. ':,� Yr V t ;'-:,F ,s?�.�✓%u :�?e�.ui,�rt 'i' < ' River Dance Development( LSC# 011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 AM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis • 34: WCR 9.5 & Spirit Hawk Lane 1/17/2002 { Lane Configurations II to '11 1 11 1. TO Sign Conntrol Free° Free,.";,, Stag. . Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 82 '.'. .;44,, 31:, ,178 9374 , ,+ 0 k: , ..7 1,1,$,. . .,.0 18 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Ho rly low rate(,veh/h) 80 89: 48 'x;34 rr190_, '10'l.az ' 9 0 .;a ,' 8 4 x 20 : . . 0 26 Pedestrians m a!TM a Lane dth.(ft) ' it:::V . _u r- .n., . ,i_ ;z�e ,�. ... 2,..�..� Y�ir, n .. . . ` f Walking Speed (f/s) Percent Blockag F1, s 1. : t o , Pa, .,.;.Ks. <p ₹ .• W';: Right turn flare (veh) u a T.e + LAi t` of -."X y'+ r wr v^: 57 • r f.af�; 44 Medran,tYPe . 1v��4�'�...a. ._�_.� -"�'�. `�` .t�_ .��a. r�� ,,a.=��"�.x��E, ;� aLse��.��.,r� �$.;00140965:7: Median storage veh) 1 1 vC,,conftictingvolume , 295U,.. .'' 4 13 554' ;636 „ h13.w 569,;;`) 09 " °":244 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 274 274 311 311 vC2 stage 2,confvol =„r;.: _ ., ' -., ,, ::�. s.f>: 0 1362 ; ' •`268 ,'a'498� tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 711 6.55 6.2 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0'4ueue.free°lo?. .. 94 93 .,�� n. � . 98,•.`100 , z`99 96'140x.';'98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1267 1447 478 426 940 489 451 795 Volume Total 80 137 34 295 9 8 20 20 4 Volume Right 0 48 0 101 0 8 0 20 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.08 0.02 0 17 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.02 Queue�Length(ft),r ' _ 5 0 2 0 1 5 Control Delay (s) 8.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 12.7 8.9 12.7 9.6 Approach Delay (s) 3.0 0.8 10.9 11.2 Approach LOS ;v B B Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.1% ICU Level of Service A r River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 AM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 51: North Employment Access & 1-25 Frontage Road 12/19/2001 I t f P \ Lane Configurations r t r Sign"Co€ntrol a Stop; Free';:" Fref'' ` .' Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourtyflovv.ate( eh/h) 0 1 • 8, j 80 � ' 2d:? , .. Pedestrians Lane dth(£t), Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage M Right turn flare (veh) Median type: None . Median storage veh) v conflicting volume ;i 32 r -8 "88 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 caflf vo# tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage(s) I tF (s) 35 X3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 00 ° . 100 ji x.:100 . cM capacity (veh/h) 982 1075 1508 7 t,4k u.'. 5 a -I .i .��,'Tr'..'.ih�sc.l„k,#,�t ia�s +xA,v�be,aru Volume Total , 1 : 8 " 80 ", 24 " '. I; ; Volume Left 0 0 0 0 Volume Right' i 1 -0 "s80 0 ":'" ' " cSH 1075 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 • '0.0 " 0.05',`.0,01 • Queue Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 Control Delay(s)? ' 0.0, 0.0 • 0::0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay(s) `• ; 8.4 0,0." 0.0 ' Approach LOS A ,` Average Delay 0.1 Intersection"Capacity Utilization - ." 13.3% -; ICU Level of Service A' River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 AM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 15 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 52: Shadow Hawk Drive & 1-25 Frontage Road 12/19/2001 t t l �• 1 0{ ' 8 ,r 4 1 .. 41. « r�. ii'... . • 3 Sn • rvJi•_•4 Lane Configurations + t Sign ontrol ., „ S(op tree ';1 Free; Grade 0% 0% 0% Volurrla vekiih.),! .';',`"%-;;,4 ,44-4;'0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourlyflowrate'(veh/h) 0,, 5 . 83 0 x; 2 11 " , ' ', Pedestrians Lprte,Wrdth{ft)','�` r " ° Walking Speed (ft/s) Pefcent Blockage . _.! n , Right turn flare(veh) Median type ' ` ; None x, �. . . Median storage veh) vC, conflict<rrg volume "`117 " ,2'83 ;_ 83 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 coif vol "" tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage(s) :.. tF (s) 35 3.3 22 pioqueuefree`% 100 9 " '99 r '.;. cM capacity (veh/h) 872 977 1515 Volume°Total ; , 5 -4" 83 , 12 '" x,11 Volume Left 0 0 12 0 Volume Right ` 5 „ cSH 977 1700 1515 1700 Volume to Capacity 0 01 ,0.05° '0.01 0,01 Queue Length (ft) 0 0 1 0 Control Delay(s) '8.7 ; •p.o,•• • ,7".4 "` 0.0;4 . Lane LOS A A Approach Delay;(s) ' 8.7 0:0 8 9 :; ` Approach LOS A R , ) Average Delay 1 2 Intersection Capacity Utilization • 14.3%',' 'r�"° ICU Level'of Service River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 AM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 16 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: State Highway 66 & Mead Street 12/20/2001 Lane Configurations tat r T? r r r Sigi Control free Fret , ., Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 8 0 5 Peak Hour Factor .92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent,Btockage Right turn flare (veh) Mediialtype Median storage veh) vC,;conflwtingvolume '1172 797 ,..'" , .7309 1"811 .:320 , 1588" `')951 '577 vC1 stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage2con₹vcrt „` tC, single (s) 4.1 41 75 6.5 6.9 7.5 65 6.9 tC,2�stage(s) tF (s) 22 2.2 3540 3.3 35 4.0 3.3 po queuefree Yo: cM capacity (veh/h) 592 821 93 78 676 60 64 460 Volume Total 320 320 158 577 577 17 114 92 Volume Left Volume Right 0 0 158 0 0 17 114 92 cSH 1700" 1700 1790' ,1700 1700 1700;= 676= 1460 Volume to Capacity 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.34 0.34 0.01 0.17 0.20 19 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 11.4 14.8 Lane LOS B g Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 11.4 14.8 Approach L,OS. _ r;.lBB Average Delay; 1;2: a " ' Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.3% ICU Level of Service A r River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: State Highway 66 & WCR 9.5 12/20/2001 .— f I 44— 4 t P \* j d Lane Configurations 4 ) tt r ) 1t r 'II 1a 4 r Ideal Flow(Yphpl) "1900' 1900-_1900 1900 '49°°--:" 1900 1900,. 1906'7 4900 "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 _.. Lame Uqi Factor. .".1:00 0;95; V1 00, i�1 00 0 95 150:, Q.9T',- 1.00.7,, "'`-7,, "' 1,00•,,:'1.00 0 Frt 1.00 1.00 .85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected - '`'0:.95 1.00! 1 00• 0 95 a 1,00 1 00 0 95`"- 1.00- ,,. ' 6:66-f..-1.00 Satd. Flow(prot) 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 1830 1794 1583 Fit Permitted _- , :,029 . ;1.00; ,'1.00" Q42 ;`1.001'100"§ 095`; 400 .'. `075 .;.°1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 536 3539 1583 781 3539 1583 3433 1830 1390 1583 Volume(vph) . 195 '''.'090:-.=.4,:7,38 " ;,,,2844-;:"..393',',",7,-.;.50 375 `" 55 7 100 302 225 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 92 b.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Ad),F ow(vph) .'' , ` ., .Z1212-1----614:-,../.'1; 41:1-...:1"_SP.,:: 427 54,;, 408 *:3 60, ,. ,, 8 42.,::10,91.:23.-,,,33.2, -245 Lane Group Flow(vph) 212 614 41 30 427 54 408 68 0 0 142 245 TurnuType 'pm+pt Free pm+pt °." -C'Perm";=,Prot- x ;, pm+pt Free Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 ._ "` " Free : 8 " 8 ), '6 '.` Permitted Phases 4Free Actuated Green, G (s) 45.0 33.0 100.0 30.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 36.0 29.0 100.0 Effective Green,g(s) ; ' 45.:0) 33.0 100.0 34.152„4. 22.a'.`22.0';, 22.0 - '35.0 ,_":29.0" 10,0.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.45 0.33 1.00 0.30 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.35 0.29 1.00 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 s 4.0 ` '" , 4.0 ... .4.0 4.0 :. 4.0 . 4.0 '. :.. : _ 4.0 , Lane Grp Cap (vph) 476 1168 1583 313 779 348 755 641 435 1583 v/s Ratio Prot :`,c0.08, c0.17 ' _001 ,0.12 '." 'c012 " 0.04 "-0.03 = v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.03 0.02 0.03 c0.07 0.15 v/c'Ratio 0,461:--,0.53: 0.03" "0.10i,-1"0:55:`'." 0,16 60.54 : 0.11 . 0.33 ;. 0.15 Uniform Delay, dl 18.0 27.2 0.0 24.9 34.6 31.5 34.5 21.9 27.8 0.0 Progression Factor 00, , 1.00 1.0 0, °'1 00 '1.00." 1,00; ' 1,00- .?1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.0 1.7 0.0 0.6 2.8 0.9 2 8 0.3 2.0 0.2 Delay(s) 21.Q.„:28,9 0.0 25.5. :37.4 A 132.4 37.3 `. 2233 ° 29.8 .':0.2 Level of Service C C A C D C D C CA Approach Delay (s) 25.6 36.1 '" ., , " 35.1 " ' 11.1' Approach LOS C D D B filar TT�h� . - k,� �. . _ ,°: rum � S.m•,.. z s . df .,:�•;r.n HCM Average Control Delay 27.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio „ " 0.48 `+'` . t.'_ Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization •`' 51 8% ICUtevelofService `':°` ", ' 'IA ;_ .' ,_ ' . ' r,. c Critical Lane Group River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: State Highway 66 & WCR 11 12/19/2001 Lane Configurations T1'+ ) 1. 4' Sig Controt Free. , oP top ' , _ Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volurt e(veh/h);,: 5 ' 557: a5 r .; 9„.7,! 8 8 5 : " 8 5 5 5 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly:,flow rate('veh/h) ` Pedestrians t x r Walking Speed (ft/s) Right turn flare(veh) Median storage veh) vC,conft ting'volume.. a'645. ..° . :' ., .,,,' X43 f= 964:.°' 280 .`..303 985°u.1316 322 vC1, stage 1 conf vol tC, single(s) 4.1 4.1 75 6.5 6.9 7.5 65 6.9 tC;2;stage(sj tF(s) 2.2 22 35 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 85 7 :f)9 97 96 99 p0,qu�uefree�g �: - �99 :�a� ." ^� . . ° '.' � .99 �'" ;. ,.. =, 9. cm capacity (veh/h) 936 937 200 162 693 193 154 673 i i e `g yuis F .. a ,, t ' r1 a ad' • �a c S ^r .' Volume Total 5 303 303 38 10 426 218 30 13 16 30 Volume Right 0 0 0 38 0 0 5 0 8 5 cSM i; 936 .1 0 1700 x1700 937'';1700 1700', a'200" 293 228'x', Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.18 0.18 0.02 0.01 0.25 0.13 0.15 0.04 0.07 QueueLength(€t) 0 0 Control Delay (s) 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 0 0 0.0 26.2 17.9 22.0 LarieLOS A R,, . Approach Delay (s) 0.1 0.1 23.7 22.0 Approach LOS C G ` , Average Delay 1.1 . " Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.8% ICU Level of Service A River Dance Development ( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 3 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: WCR 28 & 1-25 Frontage Road 12/20/2001 I test `7. R ., c,8.11. 8T .`:" t- €.:.':s Vg ` WO ,7I .1 _�ND`�'-� ;•fit$ r °4- ` 13K Lane Configurations 1 ) 1. 'I + r ) + r n Control rf ; Stop'' ; ` ' '' 1.r Stop iv`' Free 1n; '> ai f `Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) L +t 5, 5 5 14 5' 12 5 't,; i-i< '28 ' 18 ' • 5 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 ' 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (veh/h) '''''''''''61.„i:,*-,,;-. 5 _ 5 15.5 13 'N5 :;,i, :�54-r m20 5 5 Pedestrians q' t.�,. L•5 ' 't `,::} .e,e r4 rig•Y•i<eq"tt-r./f',' •',j zr:.: ,',',.V.7-.‘. .. .. 1 > ne Width.;(_ . � ,, , T;'„+s r Ear ..A;�r , ` v•t11.z;•:•:!:: ,'..,..•._.., 2.. . . 4':.. Walking Speed(ft/s) ,,;.-: t `a<�.t�r,:�t,2ir'' .a 'v-'i';'::. a - � t (;^c'.i.,,_t: ''' +:. r,Y4w:�.w'�_ ..:.may, :.ref$';i:::�:;.: t:;1�{if:,`.. .r 1 T r,, `4 t S 'w�t,a'i�,:y<R1 .4: .:-:.1' Percent Btock�ge E �•� � _ � ,. En:::�:•1.+.�^�.`�n�...,.._ .. .. .n..... ;.,6;i,r.�ir;,. y ....{:...f. a .t.t»r.. ..... �j'":-�:. •... Right turn flare (veh) . . 1�i',':i'3}i2`R y, i 9K'✓,Fa :i; r..? 'fh•'iX:"� .c. E a. ]-.r; ::i' �; titsflan.type ,.... i� „'t :; I7fif.,e ,.-,• .,••.� K..:.... Nonv. ._... i:_. '_._1, .. , ,,,.::-*-1:!,.r..... •.. . ._ . Median storage veh) .- .... ,. ., _:.. }w ,y:. r x tryi� ,]... �i: ;,Y.• l'.i M.i:ri?'.��t .. k .'. r:r: »y34fir,9}. ':r...s,�i 'r�?c .tt :�.ft2 s '$i.•• vC, confl cting volum _ ��r��•. � i '�,• ��,••,:. ... �.� _r� .,fir,_ .�.��_:... _...... ::, ...f::Y«:J_.til.:n Y.{L.I:.:.:' �1..-s.;.r..a l;..x'S .I(f' 3. v9t v. t:•:i::..' ..y ...r a �. �'l�Jr .Ji.. �.t:ti?:C'::::Y::..•...........e:..6 .S'a':.a••ii:ir vC1, stage 1 conf vol ;:p"."1.... .....,iY1:u.?C:'l:i•ft'..K, ..-_',... � •ie.", "rey -ti ,.,,.;•:he :<i:.it;.:..{�tt� y'W:q-:::ge,.:R F. :k+•.:. - 7 rL'!t•wr;"k1i- ...i .E .� cis' ey`7�{�fi�r 4rFFf::�:':i:14��`. i-' '.E..-'Fv.s t, t i' .₹F Hg-f,.,. r,!S.i.;:'• 'H'. .:.t.: V2 sfa e 2 conf vol �;r' •. ,r_'Y:'.•. �f r::� :- i: ,•., �a +. g .r.z��.. ....:.....2 '. ::�i?�.s.'-''tai+"'�1:-"?�j,::k'Stx.fe•.:�uz. 6t .v��9ci- •'��;�1�• ..:..-�.ki>•.4 ,<.i .;:xsAkn ....._. ...._.. tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 .!;:;::�z..:.'1:g..,f.:'_.,,rr r..:. ;,.._,kf:�r 1.r. � ;.. ,.v.,: S3:=kY's4'r.of tili5f iiirlG'• ,Y"iA .at;,P.: C".ran?;o-4,474ip,:kii',..v .e ahi 2 E .. • i ! T4 Y { 3 ] •{k f ! ...t L'!..fit.,r YY f F .i' •�.."�'.'+f •. r•r.•.$ tC stage (s) .:F ; �' '., r'r't M,uL ', l..y. i ..s4 r<?,r` r,,,,, '.C,.; :t l t 1•J]:_ y %,!..' •' ✓:Y t 7 � .� ..,., t�..,.`-. '; � : : r'' r3it,:_t...... .....6si . .... ..d.s2 `.I3. ^r:5„r. . ..• tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 ,. 2.2 yr:,. sY.' queue free % 99.4 .99 99 99 98 `99 99 "'1 4 wt:,'`"1,... .-,viz, _•1. cM capacity (veh/h) 886 786 1078 903 811 1078 1608 1575 •44,,],,,,,' ,( 4ir,I r .itr'k.4r. t,e Z t i.0, 1 -, ] .J a + •.t ,a t '. . . barea.6.7..apeg.., t r _' M " ,Zx' Bn161112 tS10:1`"141 2 ,.14W:$7`SS V2 {.',,.,M1,77:7771 Volume Tot•al 5 11 15 18 5 5 30 20 5 5, Volume Left 5 0 15 0 5 0 0 20 0 0 Volume Right i. 0 5 0 13 0 0 30 0 0 5 t •',:, cSH 886 909 903 983 1608 1700 1700 1575 1700 1700 Volat le to Capacity ₹ 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 =:0..01 0.00 0.00 f:''''`' 'i: Queue Length (ft) 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Control Defay (s).. „ » `9.1 9,0 9.1 8.7 7.2 ,0-0 . .._, .- . ;: 7.3 0.0 0 0 . Lane LOS A A A A A A Approach Delay (s}: r•r•. 9.0 . ... .. . ... .8.9 it.,..... .'. 0 it . :.-.. 4.7 K ... rt. Approach LOS A A 1.-r...,.. •a'i i .' n t t om' k `j< c ? t ;s�•• r.er a ,F..., ..r:>r '`c. •. ak , Average Delay 5.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.0% ' ICU Level of Service ', • .. ,.r. ''•'.:' . ':/ ;; ' ; - River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: WCR 28 & WCR 9.5 12/21/2001 t , \ 1 1 Lane Configurations II t, A «'� 4) Sign ' Contro "',, , t StoPz ' Stop .Free a': Free. Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume(veh/h) ` :' 0 2 9 : 25 11 c'..?;'',.,$;," ' 5:. ;170 ' ;40 "5 rv> 96 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.62 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly.flow late(veh/h}: pc ,; �3 i0b, ';, 27 ';12 3' 5 x`:185 ': ',4 104 ._' Pedestrians Lane Width(ftj Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Right turn flare (veh) Median type None` �� phone , _ 'w " Median storage veh) VC conflrctingvtalufne ;342 3g4 104, .: 357 =3 =20.7" vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf val ;, tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4 1 tC;,2 stage'(s) _ tF (s) 3.5 4.0 33 35 40 33 2.2 2.2 p0',yueue,free°fa" '.100 95 99' 95 ,:'0$ 100 100=_ ; cM capacity (veh/h) 597 567 950 565 583 834 1487 1340 P ty Volume Total 0 t.39 27^ .15 234 110! Volume Left 0 0 27 0 5 5 Volume Right (t`, .. :10 0 . '. : 3 43 ,. . 0 cSH 1700 630 565 623 1487 1340 Volume to Capacity ': 0.00',.Y.0,06';'.0.95: 0.02 '.-0.00 ' Q0o ' . Queue Length (ft) 0 5 4 2 0 0 Control Delay�(a) ;(;D 0 :x,11.1' ,11.7== 10.9 ; 0.2 0.4.<' Lane LOS A BBB A A Approach Delay(s),` ` • 11 1 a " ' 11.4. sl' ;' a2 0.4; Approach Los B B Average Delay 2.4 Intersection Capacity Utiization x` 23,6% r ICU Level of Service A . " 4- River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: WCR 28 & WCR 11 12/19/2001 C t 4\ t t ti 1 J Lane Configurations ►t 1 i+ Sign Control Free Free Stop Sfop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (vehlh ; . Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pedestrians LaneWiidth(ft). _.x ° . Percent Blockag Walking Speed (ft/s) Right turn flare (veh) Median type ' s Median storage veh) vC,_cohfticting volume 3T . . 84 � '° r 255° �X37. ,70 304';�a' ,448 34 vC1, stage 1 conf vol v02,stage 2,conf"vot` ' ` tC, single(s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC,2.stage(s)`e tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free ct -; 0p + 96 97 X96 ' 99;- 94 : .99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1574 1513 641 635 993 563 626 1039 r- Volume Total 5 84 60 37 21 98 5 42 5 ' 0 Volume Right 0 28 0 5 0 71 0 5 cSff',� '_t574 ,;X706 1513 :, t700 :641` 859' ;fir 563 660 ' Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.11 0.01 0.06 Queue'Length ($l: - '0 . :. .,q . .. 3 0 ? 2 10 [E, 5 Control Delay (s) 7.3 0.0 7.5 0.0 10.8 9.7 11.5 10.8 Approach Delay (s) 0.4 4.6 9.9 10.9 A �,� .. :. Approach LOS ` B Vd . ,. sa Average_Delay 6.2 : Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.1% ICU Level of Service A r River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 6 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: WCR 28 & WCR 13 12/19/2001 l l 4\ t d , Lane Configurations r 4' t r Sign control Grade 0% 0% 0% -98 72 :'..140 ' r95 ' $'_: ..P' x 14 t Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly;flow rate(vets) . . 14. ;107 78 152 .`..103 9 Pedestrians Lane)l(fidttr( . Walking Speed (ft/s) Right turn flare(veh) Median typii ^None Median storage veh) vC,"conflicting volume =412 103 112 r ` ". �__ ' ` vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage2 confvol �._ . r< tC, single(s) 6A 6.2 4.1 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 cM capacity (veh/h) 565 952 1478 4•F . VolumeTotaJ i 14. . .107::--,•••••:.711:':•:.:11:42,[1.,,,:-..10.3 3 Volume Left 14 0 78 0 0 0 Volume Right 0:',1H107 i:: 0 C),:! ' 0 "� 9 cSH 565 952 1478 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity :0.03 (t 11 0.05. 0.08 `:f7 06 *.(7 01 Queue Length (ft) 2 9 4 0 0 0 Control Delay (s)' 11.5 9:11'; Lane LOS B A A Approach Delay'(S) 9.5 , µ. :2:6 D 0 Approach LOS A Average Delay 3.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 210% ; ICU Level of Service A es- River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 7 LSCI NCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis • 17: WCR 11 & WCR 9.5 1/17/2002 t t :v�'r'i""�fi"yp.' z ! � ,.a I�b?�� "� , °�W d .�., t .. . .�V,.... ... . .S's Lane Configurations r m 1 r '1 tom. Sign Control Stop; '.. free '- ree . Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly fiow'rate(veh/h) , 91 3h' 199 "207 ,. °63`' , . '78 Pedestrians Lane Wdth (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Right turn flare (veh) Median storage veh) vC,conflicting volume. 403.._. .19$-. '405 ,. , `: �, vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf voi ;`� ; tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% , " '84 96 . , 95, :a cM capacity (vehih) 570 842 1153 { 5[ AY t F Volume Total 91 '" 34 199 : 207,.E . 63,-,:, 7$i Volume Left 91 0 0 0 63 0 VolumesRight x ,. . , 0 3q sY`"! 2177 0 0 ` . ' cSH 570 842 1700 1700 1153 170O VolumetoC.apacity ,'; �0-:'f(i``�'0.,04' 0.12 .`0.12; 0.05, X0.05 �` Queue Length (ft) 14 3 0 0 4 0 Control Delay:(a ; '12.5 < .5 .T0.0 .0.0 -� 8 3 0:0 ' Lane LOS B A A Approachi, 11.7' 0.0 37 ` Approach LOS B fl1 �y :.7 ,11,7 .fit . , r. ,..., t n , , s�'M''G ykf "; � .,, , "^[.: e, „ . Average Delay 3.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization " 290% ICU tatter,of.Seivice '' ' A River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: WCR 9.5 & 1-25 Frontage Road 1/17/2002 t `- Lane Configurations r T �Grade {y Yy0% �{ 0% yy +y 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hour flow rate(veh/h) . 296 0 ' 32 r 3,18 0 Pedestrians t, Walking Speed (ft/s) PercentBlocka Right turn flare (veh) pi,Median storage veh) vC co flicting vC1, stage 1 conf vol tC, single (s) 4.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 tF (s) 2.2 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 cM capacity(veh/h) 1623 343 1085 141 343 Volume Total 296 32 318 7 Volume Volume Right .. 0 0 318 0 `e ! 1623 343 1085 343, _ . cSHb :: ,x x Volume to Capacity 0.18 0.09 0.29 0.02 QueueLength(fft X17 �8 31 1. , _ ,. Control Delay (s) 7.7 16.6 9.7 15.7 Approach Delay (s) 7.7 10.3 15.7 flitafigRnagirltiffiNWPWrIMMOgraleriWaiWalMOMMI.WMIMMagiVi Average Delay.':: 9.2;, Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.4% ICU Level of Service A River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSC I N CCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 30: WCR 11 & River Song Drive 12/19/2001 r -i. 1- \• 4\C t P ti 1 d Lane Configurations 'I 1+ ' ', II 1, " 1 Sign,Gontrot,: `"s ` Free ', ... .Free ... n Stop ., `: ii:k; $.-610-'',„'",..: Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume(veh/h) " 62 x 126 60 24 '.': :53 4i , 31 ?f 0 14 2, ₹J ;: 3,1 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate(veh/h) 67 137 65`,,1 „ 26n.. ;58 ' 4`. 34,.. _' 0,,., "15 2` 0 41'34 Pedestrians C44 R Lane Width(it) �`. ' , _ 4. , . ,'� r t . .. . Walking Speed (ft/s) . z ,gas Peri;eat Blockage 7= s .., :f �r� - .. . . Right turn flare (veh) Median type , , _ . -,.1 , .t..., , rt,. .None _ t� . '' None Median storage veh) vG conflicting volume ; 62 " 202 , ,„" ,f` 448 , '4418 " 170 399,- 449 ',"`' 60 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vG2,;stage 2 coif vol i tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC.2 stage(s) ' x '., 4 a,•; ,''':'2,-:1"1.4i:"-7: ' tF (s) 2.2 2.2 35 4.0 3.3 3.5 40 3.3 p0 gueuefree%--- "',, 96 98 " ',... 93. " 100 '98 100': 100; <. 97 cM capacityy- h"(veh/h) 1541 1370 480 493 874 526 474 1006 S}' `iY b#! ..v". c° i ilt Aid :7'Sl ice a .,. 3 iat a 's`e;' Volume Total 67 202 26 62 34 15 2 34 Vokuine Left 67 0,l' 26;: 0 ,:34. :.0. «, 2 0'''''',.':!:,.> Volume Right 0 65 0 4 0 15 0 34 cSH'- ` ' 1541 . 1700 :1370`.,700' '48(t 87,4.. .526 ''10 06 Volume to Capacity 0.04 0.12 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.00 6.03 QueieLength (ftj : .. 3 ' <;`,0 1 ,: 0'_' .°. 6 " ; 0` -' 3'' , Control Delay (s) 7.4 0.0 7.7 0.0 1'3.1 9.2 11.9 8.7 Lane"LOS. ' A'. ,` ` A 3 'rB-� A .:, B A3-4',,:: Approach Delay (s) 1.9 2.3 11 9 8.9 Approach LOS ',-,,''::,,,t,-, `> Average Delay „ '..;-';';:e.''''.2-7,'-.,',4?..'.'-'...a.6.: ;:f-,',,-!'"'.:-;- : Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.2% ICU Level of Service A River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 10 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 31: WCR 11 & Prairie Storm Lane 12/19/2001 Lane Configurations ►) 1. �® f. '1 1. 'I it Sign Control , :'free Frye Stop ` : ? fop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume(veh/h) .._ 37, , 72 33 19 46: 27'.... 17r" 11 14 0 19 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourlyffa rate;vehh 40 , , ,78 36., . 21 rxrv50 ";29" 18 ;"s 0 i2 15 0 . "` Pedestrians Lane_Wid h(ft), . x A Walking Speed (fUs) Percent Blockacge . Right turn flare (veh) Median storage veh) vC, confliicting volume ``78 v 1 (4 289 `1297, 95 277`_ 301 " ' 65 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 coif vol tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.'41 6 5 6.2 tC,`2 stage(s):'_ tF (s) 22 22 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 -1::;::9a::;!'.3, cM capacity(veh/h) 1519 1475 630 590 960 647 587 999 Volume Total 40 114 21 79 18 12 15 21 Volume -eft, Volume Right 0 36 0 29 0 12 0 21 cSt-t; , 1519,..17001:1475 • Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.02 0 02 Queue Lengtt?(ft) 2" 1; s 0 `'', 2 . 1 2 2 , Control Delay (s) 7.4 0.0 7.5 0.0 10.9 8.8 10.7 8.7 Lane LOS A. x, 13 6. A Approach Delay(s) 1.9 1.5 10.1 9.5 Approach'LOS B A Average Delay 3.4` Intersection Capacity Utilization 16.3% ICU Level of Service A River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 11 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis - 32: Scaring Hawk Lane & WCR 11 12/19/2001 NI 0 0-MRIPITERZMI.f, BL EBR 'N,L VB'C';t r ;S, ., ._ a. ., . . -, . .. Lane Configurations V " ♦ + r :. .. <,i. ..,....s.,..,i.,.;� , by i.�v ;.'..�; •: ... !E,t v,k,:-`•�,.;."„ ::'i:> Sign Control .,... "` Stop ....t:.., , '`. Free Free .1....._.f "'` `.:.'r ::. g w • ' I °':, . .. r Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume(vehth) x •a^.�;Y•, xr.�:s . i.- ` ' ._.. 14 r: 4:�r>•F :� 89 89 ?�26= "' �, �:-.:�� !:�: :;i alp Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 8 97 97 28' � �.. s��Fr�;,.,::�;..�,` ��a,��;Fi•r- ='tai ;•:�,,��:�� Hourly flow rate (vehfh) 15 4 7 `'`sµ •i .``{;,` r' a'�£4?� ti`s'/E,I££..a E .f T'k,-. .�-k x .., Pedestrians ..<. ,.i.:.•.i•k.,.....K.M., .,.. .. .•r I:.. �• � _ ... .: Lan�ltlfidth (ft) � n .. �£:� i•-•a..�.�:::;�.,nr.t� �._-;�. ...,.i,_�,. ..,f ,r......:I��..�=-s.�s�` .�li�::. .i,.. �F:.:..' .. t.y .,, Walking Speed (ft/s) . .:::•a`rrr..s•.:,:i r:?•:.<.`�•i_,:.f.r..,"•.,i::i,.,;a:, .S..:.�..s.,:..,.;, , ..n.!•:-::'z-C::,:: i:IxeL'!r.'swi.x�',;•'• i!:r rci£�v"''"S'',': :-.�rx;r f,�..:t r ,�. of• .,t i :.',ii6- � i....r.,'x,.... n. " ".. ; ..:r ii.,. E 4�tx h C�3�i g :,:"e-3`:: ` , . .:. . ._ Percent Blockage :�::�x;.-:.. r ,.,,..:,;_...,usti..5:.�i�i�£ �. � i.� .... .. .�.�ti rM.:. �a� "..••. �:,.,:.,,.;' _ �� .t::. i.. l.i...ii.r.,..F":..a ....:.:,E.,':...3.:.li'. ;:J '£ti� .Ft i.�•S..S.... :C::..i .�C:^.... ,r d C ,.• Right turn flare (veh) t _ e •.. :^c '"i"5,�'s?.� «�.{r;t .i,Tii:i:y�t�r .',1 si I[Nii �i.,4,1rti .JT +,v, iif0 •�•F e-+t t�' Med{1 �.- ;�IVonG <�_�,a._,�,.:.� i�,:.: i.v+t:l:i:Cx,.,:'I.s -:17. •'.�tT'.t'h�.x• �+......i v..m.,s _.:...r:'r.'''•,.... .. : . .., .. an•typ : .�:�,:;.�......>r..t_,.,<iM,_�:..,z:�..,.,.•._.-`-•x<,..�..=:K:.E::i.� :.�,,:�..rt:=^_,.. w, Median storage veh) .,.�. e:rm...,,w.,.-.��:"t£.. ij" .:�,t .m.,... •Flet:•,y:::t.; i +:f 'illi .r.x r •4.u..:.≥:1.x.5 Ii <• ". ., ;;/{S• vC, conflic ng',volume 209 97 �£'��.:'_.. ..::�.s�£�•; �:: _!:�,: . .�.. -,•.r .�;� � vC1, stage 1 confvol ......... ::.. ... ...:-........t..�;•:,cr:t:'"....,i.....a.:...,.. ...`ft'::'J:�:i::�:'5.•F::::•:";S: .`"�^J•:iE'1r iug:r: Ir(: ::it'(�i•:.Y,"y.r:•'.:i., ~_y. x.:r •.k.;4i� .t r;£ c.� :: ..4! :•:^ ,S ,•:•'zx�:.»!i i'•v r'�:i'r x vC2, stage;• 'x r.:> 1`i.`�` _. ,:.,£ ^: _ r.£1.:. ;x:: �s k t .. i:.,` .£'.. . i r _ tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 _ :ti ...0 s ;:... r.. ,. :9....s ... .. -:. •�:.+. . v,V, -�yt:.:..mss.i;,j�.-rsrli`! ._...::! �. .•..:..: ..r ..2•c. ... __,r< :.4. 'e::.........:: •:i::.;• :�'...d E2�,;;l�4icTe:��S`:F7... :f ..;I':::. :£n:. .;L"'s:,ia?::�z.�^:`•[::U''i��r= - \ ._i..,.rr: 0 1f;..,: .:�3:?,.r r...h.;!,....::: ............r!�:s.»::a£..• .n,: f:•'�4i�:E� .:rl,:' :t,,,.:r.. tf✓:2 sta e_((s ... ,E..:....,. 1<. ...: _:...r... .....�:.r._........., F ....,i..:;•. .:. r -.�. .:....... =:a=::..v_...,., ., . tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 P queue free t t ...,, .• r... .. .,., ... �,. ,.. ,.:........, ..i cM capacity (veh/h) 776 960 1462 40 •u •r art"•F+. .r..,.,.p -b'T ". '4 -- tli a 157-11 Lane# :a-Ea 1•• tl.1 2` ,813 'E .-ScEM7..- `r '. "'• N; - Mf , Volume Total . 20 8 97 97 28 Volume Left 15 8 0 0 0 M Volume Rigl►t:.` 4:::!-i!:::: ' 0 0 0 28 �_`r .'. .. .. { r� .: , ,, ` ,;. cSH 810 1462 1700 1700 1700 Voluni ....,.:. _..._. 0.02 :.. .... .. _ .....- . .. .._. 0.06 0.06 . .. __.t ..... .._..• . . e to Ca ac .•_....0.02 U.Q1,., ...._,..._ ,t... .... ..... .. ........ .... .... . •... . Queue Length (ft) 2 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) ...,..._ ,9.6.T:, 7. _.. . 1 :....... ._. . ... . .. ... ,...., .., r .. . Lane LOS A A roach Dela s) ::_ 9.6::;11 i. • . .... .............. • _.. Approach LOS A rrlfersecha ?5" <,'n'' ' sr. �. `r 't. •..,t Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 15.1% ICU Level of Service :..: :':' _.:A,, . : .` ' River Dance Development( LSC# 011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 12 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis R 33: WCR 9.5 & Shadow Hawk Drive 1/17/2002 s -0. c ♦— & t f \* 1 4/ VlovemTe''gr- }7' 2r -" 1 L :` 13T ; 5.SR =WBL7;r' qv-i o CVE"' gig- $ *$,f _,, 3i Lane Configurations + ) + r ) 1 Sign Contrpf 3≥ . .Free tt Free ,: r&:,:.,„_ ;Stop ` '"" '' op ti. ;:err Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/li) `0 278 ,.` 15 -8., •-223 5 , 49 tp ,5.7p;',-1-9-- ' .4 • 2 -:n. Peak Hour Factor 0-92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly, ttow'rate(veh/h) 0".. .;302 7. 242, < 5 53; 5 , ,. 21. _ .:4„ 2_._.,.. .0'` Pedestrians r.W.:�:<TY�.. ..r.,�.r ...� ,yy.•l,:�:'r��.��••.Y„°V l•.LYj,}'Y•'P.:w.; YS "�•+�.:f5:'�..... �.Krer� N:M v,.:'�'`^.�:. r ...„..,ys,. -F1r t gi4.• .4:. �: =v;r.;F gff- z•.?;:t:"':_._. •e,•I,r..'`.�^. 4 .f t t.�,'u'::: r. _7..•..: Lane Width (ft) ,'x_- ; _,-.".• �,• ..,� � �.f. ...;,:,• ,, i �� . �'�,:,�:` ��¢�,:,; ,,t ,r.�y ..•� :•�"t'• ,_ „' .. Walking Speed (ft/s) P ✓•_..,;,..,y:;�.e.:;�:::,.trti,.. .:xY�[:`?� %M5. c/t� .if.y.:n ,rte::.' '.'1 TT .1•,:..1 ..t,... ,.....rfF:-'�'4.;,r;,_4 L^J:»:_ ..! ,.Y., .... •• t'z11.":r�:'�'. '•I:._�,e�iF ilt;t lir lip _:r V..:f:t:.:....:.�� :..,r.:::...:ae::::..:. :rfr::r+,,.s..rr::E:te.:-F, :r�+14:g:;;',.4i..:rit-S. x•:_r.:;-.,�:r.'b'.a.....it.. ...S r- _.. BF C .y::.-+:,:>ro::r.�;.n.:.::-.•r..,..,.C::r.,i•a.,. ,...da...:.F...h.� «.L..'r Jn..�.t.� .' :: ref lQ ka e - - ..lfstttr-; ^ct.»• ::4:• - .frt: AF? :: rT'e:... .. �'..TZf.f.,, .+7 .__�. .. _..,..�'�rii:..,....._....�: �. ..-.. » v.....f__._._:.._._._3._....._..i_..1._._.i. ..�s._...._..>•.___.. ' ..._ , : Right turn flare (veh) dian type • .. Raised Rai fix:,`:;�l sed `` y�` Median storage veh) 1 1 x �„nflicfin_ ,,volume 248 f ': `1. W" 318 '� �' ,° i- ' x 559 563 302 581 ' 574 f vC1, stage 1 conf vol 302 302 255 255 vC2, stage 2 conf vol.. r , t ha'.k''..; 257-' 261 :.- ' 326 .; °318 `` tC, single(s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 •` err;;.:,; ' r; n .,::t: i^ < `- xti ,• : s j tC, 2stag . t �' f 0tr, c -9::.' �:�.,:"�:-,:::r.,>;.,•.,t., �' ,, .6,1 5.5 6-1':',11.•5.5 tF (s) 2�.2t�� 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Y I.Kr. 1'Y-. 't Y}r'i��:h�;,.:.r':e�::'f•-••Y 1 ? h queue11.010 lni:• ':��r:,,::,-,PAil.:�;. ,,;r;�� R 99 .• _..y .� ".,_.,.. 90 • p9 97 99..,::,..'(00 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 1318 1242 529 506 737 503 499 796 r rx ^+•:.c Fr7 Y -.s_s. �. f • . 'It' ^Y% t % 4 r ,k �c. '., y,«y 1•,. a4 ✓ Volume Total 302 16 7 242 5 53 26 4 2 Volume Left r«:, 0 0 7 �w 4, rr�n,. ,,,�•K .,, •-. t t7., n .53 0 '4 � 0 ;,.w., Volume Right 0 16 0 0 5 0 21 0 0 cSH`' ' t '"•,� ,.,.1700 1,700. 1242 1700 1700,,,i,,,,„ 29 673 50373,5i".:.499 iK y,»s':5 •:`hr.,.7;t `"6' Volume to Capacity 0.18 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.10 0.04 0.01 0.00 Queue Length (ft) i_. ;;f « ;r`..'g.t'ik:F--0 . 0 0 8 3,:,:.'i:,.. .c1:, 0 :_;,,'°: t i r: : Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 12.6 10.6 12.2 12.2 Lane LOS ' :.y:afi,;. :: <<e! tx x-0..', A .. .... B B $ ..'�fi. r' R,;.: Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 11.9 12.2 .e_ f. ir. r' Approach LOS ,:, ,_. .. :.�.:.....,., •.,r•,. - j:0' Vic-:"hill[']ki _ ,,' t:i. r,• . sC ..er r rIFF :`:. r, x C^ 7-,. l Average Delay 1.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.9% ICU Level of Service A ... ..: ^"-:,r . ::.` :h.. i. of , .. .. ,. •........__ ,. .L:. .. .: ..., . . „. . f .. River Dance Development( LSC# 011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSCINCCS2-ST51 ▪ HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis • 34: WCR 9.5 & Spirit Hawk Lane 1/17/2002 1 :gwr Lane Configurations 11 1• '1 T. VI T. 'f T• Sign Control Free Free Stop /stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pedestrians LaneWidth,(ft) n. ��', Walking Speed (ft/s) Right turn flare (veh) Median storage veh) 1 1 vC,conflicting volume , -=1'60 307 : .,: 677 :'1519 „301 :,529. ,511 .':'146 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 340 340 166 166 vC2,hstage"2 conf voG ,x_ h 337 , 170 , ' ' F;₹363'' 346 tC single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 33 35 4.0 3.3 cM capacity (veh/h) 1419 1254 332 511 739 508 512 901 a .::r",, Volume Total 20 307 10 160 39 29 82 287 Volume Right 0 12 0 27 0 29 0 83 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.18 0.6i 0.09 0.12 0.04 0.16 0.49 Queue Length(lt 1 . '' O 1.. Control Delay (s) 7.6 0.0 7.9 0.0 17.3 10.1 13.4 17.0 Lane LOS; A 'S �A' �C B:n ' . 0 Approach Delay (s) 0.5 0.5 14.2 16.2 Approach LOS .. B �'. . Average Delay ; 7.7 ` Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.7% ICU Level of Service A River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 1 LSC I NCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis • 51: North Employment Access & 1-25 Frontage Road 12/19/2001 Lane Configurations r t r t Sign Control Stop Pree`� Free> Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume(veh/h):: . 0 jr "3._. , Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0 92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Right turn flare (veh) Median type None '. . ;,Median storage veh) vC,,conf acting volume =36, 23 42 , . ; vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf yol tC, single (s) 6A 6.2 4.1 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 po queue'free% 100 ". 10(I �. "100 cM capacity (veh/h) 977 1054 1567 08" .* tea ., 1w '' . . '. Volume Total , 3 23, 2O v 13 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 Volume Right ,':! 3 _ 20'.` cSH 1054 1700 1700 1700 Voluri a to Capacity' . ©00 ;:0.01- `0.01 0.01 "'.: Queue Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 Control Delay(s 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' Lane LOS A Approach Delay(s) Approach LOS A Average Delay 0.5 intersection Capacity Utilization' ' ? 13.3% " ICU Level of Service ' '"' ' r River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 15 LSCINCCS2-ST51 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 52: Shadow Hawk Drive & 1-25 Frontage Road 12/19/2001 Lane Configurations r ' F Sign C dtrol :Stop' Grade 0% 0% 0% µ Peak Hour Factor 0.92 092 0.92 092 0.92 0.92 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft)°� � Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blocka � , , ; Right turn flare (veh) { .t } } 1 ' F,4L. Y 1}: Median storage veh) -j1`.4.6 vC1, stage 1 conf vol . , , _ vC2 Stager, fuel,. > ,..,. tC, single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tO, 2`stage(s)`. � . . w - tF (s) 35 3.3 2.2 0 uetrefree/a . 00. 9 t00 cM capacity (veh/h) 892 977 1515 rdt . , t ' > ... , ., ,, .sm_.. ", a Volume Total ,'; 11 83 .; 7 7 r . , Volume Left 0 0 7 0 Volume.Right', 11 tl ;" 0 0 447 cSH 977 1700 1515 1700 Volume to Capacity' �y 01 .(kQ5` O100 e 0,00 _' • • z! t Queue Length (ft) 1 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 22 -8,7 0,tlf: : 7.4 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay(s)-:- y87 .0.0 , 3.7 Approach LOS A ,t #:s ;:x,,, , _..`` Average Delay 1.3 Intersection.CaiacityUtili anon 1436/0" ''- 'IOU Level of Service• A River Dance Development( LSC#011500) 5:00 pm 9/10/2001 2010 PM Total Synchro 5 Report Alam SM Page 16 LSCINCCS2-ST51 Hello