HomeMy WebLinkAbout20030832.tiff 2. SERVICE
PROVISION IMPACTS
A. Schools
B. Law Enforcement
C. Fire Protection / Ambulance
E. Transportation / Traffic Impact Analysis
G. Storm Drainage - Separate Exhibit
H. Utility Provisions
I. Water Provisions
J. Sewage Disposal Provisions
BEEBE DRAW FARMS
and
EQUESTRIAN CENTER
FILING NO. 2
2003-0832
i^"
Component 2
SCHOOLS
•
y
J
COMPONENT TWO-SERVICE PROVISION IMPACTS
The intent of this component is to ensure that the service provisions for Filing 2 have
been adequately planned for and are available to be served now and in the future. Beebe
Draw Farms' managers have met with the proper authorities of the schools, law
enforcement, fire and ambulance protection over the last several months to review the
plans for Filing 2 and have received positive responses from each of these service
providers.
A. SCHOOLS: Representatives from Beebe Draw Farms met with Jo Barbie-
Redmond and others from her staff for the RE-1 School District in April to
discuss the changes in Filing No. 2. RE-1 is currently serving Filing No.1 and
will be serving Filing No. 2. Jo is looking forward to seeing the final plans for
the filing and reviewing the placements of the school bus pickups. A potential
school site was dedicated and deeded to the Weld County School District RE-
1 on May 15`", 2001 in consideration for Filing Not. A copy of the recorded
warranty deed is attached. Copies of the letters of agreement signed by the
School District regarding the donated school site as part of approving Filing
No. 2.
Weld County School District RE-1
Gilcrest• LaSalle• Platteville
PO Box 157
14827 WCR 42
i iilcre_st,CO 80623
Jo Barbie-Redmond, Superintendent Phone 970-737-2403
David H.Seiler, Superintendent Emeritus Fax 970-737-2516
Bj Stone,Director of Curriculum and Staff Development Metro 303-629-9337
May 16, 2001
RE.1. Limited Liability Co., LLC
11409 W. 17 Place
Lakewood, CO 80215
Attention: James W. Fell, Development Manager
Dear Mr. Fell:
We have the following comments in regard to our agreement dated January 15, 1998:
1. The site will be deeded to Weld RE-1 on or before the recording of the plat for Filing N.). 2 in the PUD.
2. The 36 acre site, more or less, is located on the site plan. A certified survey will be prepared at your
expense and furnished with the deed.
3. The site will be accepted by the district and the district is under no obligation to build a school on the
site and may use the site for any purpose. The acceptance of the site will not alter the o ligation of the
district to provide public education to residents of Weld RE-1. The deed shall convey tile site free of
any mortgages or deeds of trust and taxes will be paid to date of closing.
All communications with Mr. Morris Burk and yourself have been very open and cordial. You hay e met each and
every request positively. You have provided a central pick up point for current students and will pt ovide
additional ones, with our approval, as the project develops. It has been a pleasure working with you and your firm.
Sincerely,
David H Seiler
Superintendent Emeritus
Enclosure
CC: Jo Barbie-Redmond, Superintendent
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Jack Baler Cynthia nochmiaer Larry A.Ewing Karl Yamaguchi Grant Ritchey Audrey Gal el
Presides Vice President Sea-sary Treasure Director Director
R.E.I. Limited Liability Co., LLC
(-- 11409 W 17th Place • Lakewood, Colorado 80215 • (303) 232-5349 • Fax (303) 232-5451
January 15, 1998
Weld County School District RE-1
1065 Birch
Gilcrest. CO 80623
Attention: David Seiler, Superintendent
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to the subdivision regulations of Weld County, we are requesting that you confrm to the
Board of County Commissioners our mutual understanding with respect to our agreemeit to
donate to you a potential school site at Beebe Draw Farms.
Our understandings are:
1. The site will be deeded to you on or before the recording of the plat for Filing No. .? in the
PUD.
2. The site, consisting of approximately 36 acres, more or less, is shown on the new master
sketch plan for the PUD and is located in the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section Five and the
NW 114 of-the NW 1/4 of Section 4, Township 3 North. Range 65 West of the 6th P.M. A
certified survey of the site will be prepared at our expense and furnished to you with the
deed.
3. You acree to accept this site with it being understood that:
(a) You shall be under no obligation to build a school on the site at any time or use the
site for any purpose
(b) Your obligation to provide public education to residents of District RE-1 shall not be
affected by your acceptance of the site.
(c) The deed shall convey the site free of any mortgages or deeds of trust. Taxes will be
paid to date of closing by R.E.I., LLC.
Weld County School District RE-1
January 15. 1998
r^ Page 2
If the foregoing correctly states the terms under which you have ag'eed to accept a deed to the
site please so indicate by signing below. A copy of this letter will be submitted to Weld County to
indicate your agreement to accept the site.
Sincerely,
R.E.I. Limited Liability Co.
J s W. Fell, Development Manager
APPROVED:
Weld County School District RE-1
By
David Seiler, Superintendent
alc
-- -
imamsrefIntulnWIIIIIlil
? 707 OfitR •Q1f; 1 0.00
,02:45P0ld41 Said Cp Ihnoto
SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED
-7j 7
THIS DEED, made this IS-
day of May;2001; between REI LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY, a Wyoming limited liability company qualified and doing business in
Colorado as INVESTORS LIMITED LIABIUTYCOMPANY,Grantor,and WELD COUNTY
SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-1, whose legal address is 1065 Birch Street, Gilorest, Co orado
80623, Grantee;
No nF WITNESSETH, That the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Less Than
Five Hundred Dollars, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledge i, has
granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell,
convey and confirm, unto the Grantee, and Grantee's successors and assigns fore%er, all
the real property, together with all improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the
County of Weld, State of Colorado, described as follows:
Parcel 1 —School Site
Legal Description of a parcel of land being a portion of the Northwest Quarter
of Section 4 and the Northeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 3 North,
Range 65 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado, being more
particularly described as follows:
m Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Section 4 and considering the
North line of the Northwest quarter of said Section 4 as bearing North
89°45'43"East and with all bearings contained herein relativethereto,thence
> along said North line North 89°45'43"East 844.05 feet;thence departing said
North fine South 00°19'37" West 30.DD feet to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING; thence South 00°19'37" West 674,51 feet to the beginning of
a tangent curve concave to the Northwest having a central angle of
10°04'02" and a radius of 435.00 feet; thence Southwesterly along the arc
of said curve 76.43 feet to the end of said curve; a radial line passing
through said end of curve bears South 79°36'20"East;thence departing said
curve South 39`45'34" West 2157.24 feet to a point on the East line of the
Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 5; thence along
said East line North 0°38'58" West 748.22 feet; thence departing said East
line North 89°39'41"East 1332.98 feet;thence North 89°45'43"East 643.75
feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
also known by street and number as: Vacant Land.
TOGETHER WITH all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances the reto
belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and
E: srgryei1°n srn°01 iwiw°°5,11/01
Cr
leases now of record or visible on the ground.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Grantor has caused this deed to be executed •m the
date set forth above
REI LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, a
Wyoming limited liability company qualified
and doing business in Colorado as
INVESTORS LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY
By: i 1
/dares W. Fell, Manager
STATE OF COLORADO )
19p,111.6—
) s8.
COUNTY OF r
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1s day of May,
2001, by James W. Fell as manager of REI Limited Liability Company, a Wyoming imited
liability company qualified and doing business in Colorado as Investors Limited Liability
Company.
Witness my hand and official seal.
"nrtunl3sion Expire£12/13!2004
My commission expires:
;01.=`•\C E Notary at (/
s n4 n,.wncca+oai swc.wpp5miM ` f•a••,1 • 2
•
/.
Component 2
LAW ENFORCEMENT
COMPONENT TWO-SERVICE PROVISION IMPACTS
B. LAW ENFORCEMENT: A meeting was held April 18'", 2002 with Kim
Fliethman, the Business Manager for Ed Jordan's Office of the Sheriff for
Weld County which serves Pelican Lake Ranch. The Sheriff's department is
pleased with the ability to use the Gate House, located at the entrance to
Pelican Lake Ranch, which provides the officers with a nice facility for their
use which includes a restroom, desk, and telephone. Each of their patrol cars
have a key to access the gatehouse. The Law Enforcement Authority is also
receiving funds via taxes paid by the residents in Filing No. 1. I have attached
a letter from the Weld County Sheriff's office summarizing these facts and
stating that they look forward to a continued working relationship with Beebe
Draw.
L
C
OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF
•
fl'0/111(
COLOy
Ed Jordan
April 18, 2002
R.E.I. Limited Liability Co.
Att: Christine Hethcock
3600 S. Logan St., Ste. 200
Englewood, CO 80110
Dear Christine,
Thank you for introducing yourself today. I enjoyed talking to you and Mr. Fell about the
developing taking place. I am in hopes you will make use of our Community Resource Officers
at you next community meeting. Deputy Les Weimers is assigned to your area and he can also
help get your Neighborhood Watch Program up and running. Again, I wanted to thank you for
your efforts in securing the availability of the gate house,for our deputies to use in the course of
their daily duties. Each and everyone of our patrol cars now have a key to access the gate house
so I am sure you will be seeing cars using this facility when the need arises. Having a desk and
telephone available in this area is a benefit for the deputies working that area.
We have also checked with the County Finance Director, Don Warden and was advised some of
the funding from the Law Enforcement Authority had been received. This should continue to
increase as your development evolves.
We look forward to a continued working relationship with Beebe Draw.
Sincerel
Kim Fliethman
Business Manager
Greeley Mee. 910 10th Avenue. Greeley, CO 80631. (970)356-4015 or 1-800-136-9276, FAX (970) 353-8551
North Jail Complex. 2110 O Street, Greeley, CO 80631., (970) 356-4015, FAX (970) 304-6460
Ft Lupton Sub-Station, 330 Pork Avenue. Ft Lupton, CO 80621. (303) 857-4334. FAX (303) 857-3027
Component 2
FIRE PROTECTION
& AMBULANCE
COMPONENT TWO-SERVICE PROVISION IMPACTS
C. &D. FIRE AND AMBULANCE PROTECTION: The La Salle Fire
Protection District is the provider of fire and emergency service at Pelican
Lakes. We have had several meetings over the past four months with
representatives of the La Salle Fire Department to review the plat and water
and fire hydrant placing in Filing No. 2 and are in agreement with the plans
for Filing No. 2. Attached is a letter from David Eckhardt, the Fire Chief,
approving the design of Filing No. 2. Pursuant to the subdivision regulations
of Weld County, a site for a possible future fire station was identified and
conveyed with a special warranty deed. Attached is a letter from the La Salle
Fire District accepting the site and agreeing to serve the project, along with a
copy of the recorded deed conveying the property in Filing No. 2.
C
,Ca Salle lire Protection District
PHONE: 284-6336
July 15,2002
Christine Hethcock
Gibraltar Equity Invesments
3600 S.Logan St.#200
Englewood. CO 80110
Dear Christine Hethcock:
Subject: Fire hydrant locations for Beebe Draw Farms, Filling 2
The La Salle Fire Protection District accepts the Fire hydrant spacing and locations for Beebe Draw Farms.
Filing 2. from the drawings the Fire Dept. Received on 6/28/02.If them is any changer from the drawings
please contact the Fire Dept.
Thank you.
David Eckhardt Fire Chief
La Salle Fire Department
C
118 MAIN STREET °.O. BOX 414 LA SAL LE, COLORADO 80645
R.E.I. Limited Liability Co., LLC
11409 W. 17th Place • Lakewood, Colorado 80215 • (303) 232-5349 • Fax (303) 232-5451
` i
April 18, 2001
Mr. Gary Sandau, Marshall
LaSalle Fire Protection District
119'Main
LaSalle, CO 80645
Dear Gary:
It was a pleasure visiting with you last Monday. I will attempt to outline our discussion and
agreernent.
1. We have conveyed the site that we ag-eed to furnish you in our development free and clear
( of any encumbrances.
S—) 2. You will continue to serve ow development subject to your approval of the water system
and fire hyd&ant location as the development prog-esses.
If this letter covers our discussion please sign the acknowledgement below and return one copy to
me."viti-14117-111
(James W. Fell
Development Manager
Approved:
La Sale Fire Protection District
By: =-c _. `O . - �1---
C
SEESE CRAW LAND COMPANY. LTD.
T55, LARIMER.SUITE 2706
OENV!R COLORADO 90232
PHONE 62Go9e7
rune 19 . ?9a5
LaSa_:e Fire prctec=i=•• District
, _9 M
La Sale , CO 80645
Att=nt4on. : Robert Sanaau,
President
Gentlemen:
pursuant cc the subdivision regulations of r•,el± Count., ,
we are recueseting that YOU confirm to the Board o-
Commissioners our mutual understanding with respect toliour
agreement to furnish you with site for eLr
loca-
tion of a fire station .
pC551'?1e r_t-re
0_r understandings are :
1 . The site will be deeded to you cn or he*cre the
recorf:.n, of the plat for Filing No. 2 in the POD
2 . The site, aoPrcxi:9atc
--dated _ Tc'n . Sv one acre in size ,6West
will 172
P.M. ,
i < •• Section4 , - snia 3 North , Rance 65 rdesL 6th Weld County , Colorado , at t _
the southwest corner of the
n`erscrcti or. c: Held Count_i
dowr. the centerof Road 36 and the �•reszat road running
Section 4 . The location e
leca_ _•• described by vey __ar. of the site i•;'-i2 he
furnished to Yo + with a he certified survey, a cony O. which L:'
..L the deed.
3 . You a:ree to accent this site with - t
chat - _ e..._ L`,^,r?e rJ .;OC
la.) The acceptance of a deed to the site in no tgaV or.its
r-•-• a
the District to construct `
fire - _ _ station or any other
fighting facilities cn the site.
ij The deed of conveyance will contain a covenant
racL_ _c__nc use of the site to fire nrctect--'n
' and
_e-. __d uses or those Permitted
cresen.t zoning regulations for an u1_under Neld s
- -ass=--i --=ion
C
-2-
(c) The deed of conveyance will
a_-:v mortgages or convey the site -tree
deeds of trust. e- of
I�� have the
ae'aeregoint correctly states the terms upon which
you
by accent a deed to the site"`'`^_inc below. A copy of this letter will
to 2su so te'r tc to
Weld County indicate your agreement be t site..
tc
Sreemea , to accent the s_te.
Sincerely,
BEE B DRAW `_:D CnY..D?3c°. -^n
f .
By
`?orris Burx , G2n_ra- Para _
APPPO17y :
LA Seil,i.,E Fl2E R0TTCTTCN DISTRICT
X1,"7 14. � . ,.�S!cc.c.:_ - r"J , // 1
rn
111111 hill vioii II omii11 IIII 1[iii III ultl Iii Iii
28497ei 06/11112001 02:46P JA sat TsoNeeotc
i or 2 R 70.00 D 0.00 Weld County Co
SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED
�ULe
791
THIS DEED, made this 13"day of May,2001,between REI LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY, a Wyoming limited liability company qualified and doing business in
Colorado as INVESTORS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,Grantor,and LASALLE FIRE
No D7 PROTECTION DISTRICT, whose legal address is 118 Main Street, LaSalle, Colorado
50645, Grantee;
4MTNESSETH,That the Grantor,for and in consideration of the sum of Less Than
Five Hundred Dollars.the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, has
grarted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell,
convey and confirm, unto the Grantee, and Grantee's successors and assigns forever, all
the -eal property, together with all improvements, if any, situate, lying and being In the
County oMeld. State of Colorado, described as follows:
Parcel 2—Fire Station Site
Legal Description of a parcel of land being a portion of the Northwest Quarter
of Section 4, Township 3 North, Range 65 West of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows:
a
co
Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Section 4 and considering the
North line of the Northwest quarter of said Section 4 as bearing North
CD 59°45'43'East and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto,thence
along said North line North 89°45'43"East 924.06 feet;thence departing said
North line South 00°19'37" West 30.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING; thence North 89°45'43" East 400.02 feet thence South
00°19'37" West 404.39 feet; thence North 89°40'23" West 400.00 feet,
thence North 00°19'37" East 400.44 feet to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
also known by street and number as: Vacant Land.
TOGETHER WITH all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto
belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and
remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof; and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim
and demand whatsoever of the Grantor, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above
bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances;
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described with
the appurtenances,unto the Grantee, and Grantee's successors and assigns forever. The
Grantor, for itself and its successors and assigns, does covenant and agree that It shall
"wabn IVe rue w°e Ell MI
c
I111111111111111111I1111111nu111111lu ERN 1181III
C49706 05/18/2001 D2:45P JA Suld Tculatmoro
2 of 2 R UUSD D 0.00 Weld County CD
and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above bargained premises in the quiet
and peaceable possession of the Grantee, and its successors and assigns,against all and
every person or persons claiming the whole or any part thereof, by, through or under the
Grantor,EXCEPTeasements,rights-of-way,restrictions, reservations,encumbrances.and
leases now of record or visible on the ground.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused this deed to be executed on the
dale set forth above
REI LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, a
Wyoming limited liability company qualified
and doing business in Colorado as
INVESTORS LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY
By
J es W. Fell, Manager
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OFrrit
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /O>day of May,
2001, by James W. Fell as manager of REI Limited Liability Company, a Wyoming limited
liability company qualified and doing business in Colorado as Investors Limited Liability
Company.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission liras 12/132004
My commission expires:
L/97/&I-ertia
Notary Public
,I�v N"
Elnt'WYYW fl ire lxtl.r'00 iM IM., 2
L
r
Transportation
L
MEMORANDUM
di
CO
In
OD co TO: Jim Fell
• to
David Clinger, David A. Clinger & Associates
o m Christine Hethcock, Gibralter Equity Investments
cc Weld County
o p
O N.
rn FROM: Matt Delich '!tl%L7}/ry \J
• iz
o LL DATE: August 1, 2002
w SUBJECT: Beebe Draw Farms, Filing 2 (File: 9813ME04)
O
J
•
p A reduction in the number of dwelling units in the Beebe Draw
> N Farms, Filing 2 has been proposed. This memorandum addresses the
o ch
cia change in trip generation due to the reduction in the number of
z m dwelling units compared to the forecasted trip generation contained
c o in the "Beebe Draw Farms Traffic Impact Study," May 1998. Filing 1
= c' has been approved and contains 188 dwelling units, however only a
wz to z portion of these lots have been built upon and are occupied.
w O
N d Filing 2, as analyzed in the cited traffic impact study,
contained 495 dwelling units and an 18 hole golf course. Table 1
N shows the trip generation that was forecasted and analyzed in the
cited traffic impact study. It was forecasted that Filing 2 would
generate 5385 daily trip ends, 410 morning peak hour trip ends, and
550 afternoon peak hour trip ends. As reported in the traffic impact
study, all key intersections would operate acceptably with stop sign
control in the long range future (2020) with full development of
Beebe Draw Farms.
Filing 2 has now been proposed to be 406 dwelling units with no
golf course. Table 2 shows the trip generation that would be
expected at this new level of development. It is forecasted that
Filing 2 would generate 3885 daily trip ends, 304 morning peak hour
W trip ends, and 410 afternoon peak hour trip ends.
CC
z
w CONCLUSION
= w
z With the current Filing 2 proposal, there will be a reduction
V z
W of 1500 daily trip ends, 106 morning peak hour trip ends, and 140
Wo afternoon peak hour trip ends. This is a significant reduction in
F trip generation associated with the Beebe Draw Farms development.
C3 g Since all of the key intersections were shown to operate acceptably
• O with the higher traffic volumes, it is concluded that they will
'7 m operate acceptably with the lower traffic volumes. An agreement has
a been reached between Beebe Draw Farms and Weld County with regard to
h-
the timing of road improvements to off-site roads based upon actual
Ili oa traffic levels in the course of development.
fr 0
a �
1i/ 2
, .d ei.n :an 2n rn 9nH
TABLE 1
Beebe Draw Farms, Filing 2 Trip Generation
(from "Beebe Draw Farms Traffic Impact Study")
AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Code Use Sty
Rae Trips Rate In Rate OS Rata In Rate Out
210 Single Faniy 495 D.U. 9.57 4740 0.19 94 0.56 277 0.65 322 0.36 178
430 Golf Course 18 holes 35.74 845 1.75 31 0.47 6 1.21 22 1.53 28
Total 5385 125 285 344 206
TABLE 2
Beebe Draw Farms, Filing 2 Trip Generation
With 406 Dwelling Units
AWDTE AM Peak How PM Peak Hour
Code Use Size
Rate Tripe Rate to Rate OIR Rata h RW Out
210 Single Faintly 406 D.U. 9.57 3885 0.19 77 0.56 277 0.65 264 0.36 146
R 'd ein :an 7n rn 2nu
� t��
4411 % ;
MEMORANDUM - -
l\(111---- \0 I'
TC', Monica Daniels-Mika, Director DATE: July 12, 1599
■■■l FROM: Donald Carroll, Engineering Administrator "I
SUBJECT: S492: Beebe Draw, 2nd Filing, Sketch Plan for PUD
COLORADO •
The Weld.County Public Works Department has reviewed this proposal. This project fails primarily under the
purview of the Weld County subdivision Ordinance Standards and Section 28 of the zoning Ordinance Standards,
Our requirements are as follows:
1, Internal Road System: item#28.3.17 is a general statement describing the vehicle circulation
system of local, collector, and arterial roads. In the questionnaire, the applicant is indicating the
streets will be designed with a normal 80 feet of right-of-way width and SC feet of paving; including
shoulders. An internal traffic analysis shall he performed to determine street classification (in
accordance wth current standards) including right-of-way widths, depth of asphalt and base or full
depth asphalt, and land and shoulder widths.
2. Off Site Improvements;A Road Maintenance and Improvements Agreement shaii be required.
The following shaii be included in the agreement:
WCR 39 at the intersection with Beebe Draw Parkway:
a. Prior tc issuance of the 47th building permit. improvements to the entrance shall commence.
b. Time schedule for completion shall be 75 calendar days.
c. Construct accei/decel lanes and a left turn lane in accordance with the State Highway access
` code.
�/ d. Provide an additional 15' of right-of-way or easement adjacent to WCR 39, Filing 1 on the
plat.
intersection improvement at '✓WCR 39 and WCR 32:
a. Prior to the issuance of the 92nd building permit, a south bound fight turn lane from WCR
39 tc 'NOR 32 shall be installed in accordance with AASHTO Standards.
Filing 2 Commitments in this Agreement:
a. Describe. an additional 15 of right-of-way adjacent to 'NCR 38, Filing 2 on the plat.
b, Prior to the issuance of any building permit in Filing 2, amend the Improvements Agreement
to address improvements on WCR 32 (turn lanes) at the intersection with the development
road accessing WCR 32.
c. Prior to the issuance of any building permit in Filing 2, amend the Improvements Agreernere
to upgrade and pave WCR 38 from WCR 39 easterly to the intersection with the
development road accessing WCR 38.
cc: S-492
7:an=6
•
•
COMPONENET TWO
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
C
C
BEEBE DRAW FARMS
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
MAY 1998
Prepared for:
James W. Fell
11409 West 17th Place
Lakewood, CO 80215
Prepared by:
MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E.
2272 Glen Haven Drive
Loveland, CO 80538
Phone: 970-669-2061
FAX: 970-669-5034
TABLE OF CONTENTS
�^ Page
I . Introduction 1
II . Existing and Proposed Conditions 3
Existing and Proposed Uses 3
Site Access 3
Existing Land Uses 3
Existing Traffic 3
Existing Operation 6
III . Trip Generation 8
IV. Trip Distribution 10
V. Traffic Forecasts 12
Background Traffic 12
Total Traffic 12
VI . Transportation impacts 22
Signal Warrants 22
Geometrics 22
Operation 22
VII . Recommendations 33
kille LIST OF TABLES
Table Ease.-
1 .
Existing Peak Hour Operation 7
2 . Trip Generation 9
3 . Year 2001 Background Traffic Peak Hour Operation 24
4 . Year 2003 Background Traffic Peak Hour Operation 24
5 . Year 2004 Background Traffic Peak Hour Operation 25
6. Year 2005 Background Traffic Peak Hour Operation 25
7 . Year 2006 Background Traffic Peak Hour Operation 26
8 . Year 2001 Total Traffic Peak Hour Operation 27
9. Year 2003 Total Traffic Peak Hour Operation 27
10. Year 2004 Total Traffic Peak Hour Operation 28
11 . Year 2005 Total Traffic Peak Hour Operation 28
12 . Year 2006 Total Traffic Peak Hour Operation 29
13 . Long Range Background Traffic Peak Hour Operation 29
14 . Long Range Total Traffic Peak Hour Operation 31
LIST OF FIGURES
CFigure page
1 . Site Location 2
2 . Site Plan 4
3 . Recent Peak Hour Traffic 5
4 . Trip Distribution 11
5 . Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic (Phase 1) 13
6. Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic (Phase 2) 13
7 . Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic (Phase 3) 14
8 . Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic (Phase 4) 14
9 . Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic (Phase 5) 15
10. Year 2001 Background Peak Hour Traffic 16
11. Year 2003 Background Peak Hour Traffic 16
12 . Year 2004 Background Peak Hour Traffic 17
13. Year 2005 Background Peak Hour Traffic 17
14 . Year 2006 Background Peak Hour Traffic 18
15 . Long Range Background Peak Hour Traffic 18
16. Year 2001 Total Peak Hour Traffic 19
17 . Year 2003 Total Peak Hour Traffic 19
18 . Year 2004 Total Peak Hour Traffic 20
19. Year 2005 Total Peak Hour Traffic 20
20 . Year 2006 Total Peak Hour Traffic 21
21 . Long Range Total Peak Hour Traffic 21
22 . Short Range Geometry 23
23 . Long Range Geometry 23
L
APPENDIX
A Recent Peak Hour Traffic
B Current Peak Hour Operation
C Year 2001 Background Traffic Analyses
D Year 2003 Background Traffic Analyses
F Year 2004 Iinrkgrniind 1'rnfl is nualyr,r'n
F Year 2005 Background Traffic Analyses
G Year 2006 Background Traffic Analyses
H Year 2001 Total Traffic Analyses
I Year 2003 Total Traffic Analyses
J Year 2004 Total Traffic Analyses
K Year 2005 Total Traffic Analyses
L Year 2006 Total Traffic Analyses
M Long Range Background Traffic Analyses
N Long Range Total Traffic Analyses
r
I . INTRODUCTION
This traffic impact analysis for the Beebe Draw Farms residential
site addresses the capacity, geometric, and traffic control requirements
related to the proposed development. The Beebe Draw Farms development is
located east of County Road 39 (CR39) and north of County Road 32 (CR32) in
Weld County, Colorado. The location of Beebe Draw Farms is shown in Figure
1 .
This study conforms to a typical traffic impact study format. The
study involved the collection of data, a review of previous developments
and studies in the area, trip generation, trip distribution, trip
assignment, and the operation analyses of the key intersections in the
area. The operations analyses were performed for the existing conditions,
a number of short range futures, and the long range future (2020) . The
scope of this study was discussed with the developer and Weld County staff.
ISO
v
g AS
g N
`1\ Ault /•
f W E
/ .. L111 Wve 1t�'�3� Aack, �f Vs491 �.
'�' osston P
' •�1 1` sonn Eat.p Ditch Gsk\ \ 5f
,. ' l th 197 w Hurrich akeef t I
• Harn r - I^ -ve' ice 8391) \ aleton •t .'Corresh
a
Tr lly Cot Gaa �') \ N /' 0 SK
�� ^ri.I' t� r ,� � Oreeleo _No �'��rn_ � 39i JN•�� Oct .I
391 • • ` Bracewell° t I, \ I- Barnesville 1
B cc L'1' d s • Far .ers ,, Gill
k 6-� 19 /a H0W A,ver�, _7-�1p �
YI 02h. • \ �.V van �� w� P/a/
-• '• t ' Eln , LA Sal 61, , ► °I rdin RIVERSIDE
- • _ k`.-': _ •i • o ` RESERVOIR
tr�1 • i illi D nt ^ ( o ' ` Canton .."y
A Glcres� �R m earl
v 56
o
° , �-r .• � '^' CaF Beebe Draw
I ? • (I ;.:.,�•:.', I d Farm O
• ead �- .. Lake /a-
0 r M 1 coma � '•��i.°•,'{:
//++vv�� , I. ., S t/
• .wan. ` w /c` 6
.'' I r� .t•n J t ?
0
ak .> G �._:•.:
kse ;1 .ggen r3
e `�mc �Klug Lake Tampa ltd]°r)
;00° X91 la r 4 p a
tt u 3ci `•'O6 0e o I` ., a ��» Kee lesbmg Z • ) • South Rog
4. S / h ('959) m : •a'
ill ilk
`s � � _ �� 9,4)alp � ,
\J 41 5
`J 'r ns ect Valley
• �• 5051 19q`91
►.� ainl Via' -r
Prospect O'.1 alte to 1,6 ``c' /� 6 .. 66 l e 64 �° •3. _6_
li yet - Ir ,-2-- ' - Pi,' 1 01/�/ --•1f Horse Greek l
sae)
�c • V// Reservoir
I o`� la /j •� .
�A rr La
o° •T
.e o /t� /;:•�.' Bali Lake 1 j.
.Take • ` •
2 m 'e
� 19
Broo • ' Henrler,/IYyi ' I / j
�6t � • )� ��� i X10 � ;. \ f j h:
- al • ( Clt► r —7 \ " ".c. 1 A( D A M) '`
�.
• hl l:lr
C .
a ,te 'w by /� , 1 V ` \
t. ► -.' I 1
CNO SCALE
SITE LOCATION Figure 1
2
II . EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS
r,rte Existing and Proposed Uses
The land for this development is currently undeveloped. Figure 2
shows the site plan for the Beebe Draw Farms development. The existing
road system in the area of the proposed development consists of CR39, CR32,
CR38 , and the site access collector street.
The Beebe Draw Farms development is proposed as a residential
development, consisting of single family detached residential units. Some
lots will have the opportunity to have horses. For analysis purposes, the
First Filing of the Beebe Draw Farms development was divided into five
phases . The phasing program is shown on Figure 2 . It was assumed that an
absorption rate of 30-50 units per year would occur beginning in the year
2001 . Under this assumption, the initial five phases would be built and
occupied by the year 2007 . This study utilized information contained in
the "North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan, " (NFRRTP) and
engineering judgment in developing traffic forecasts at the key
intersections. Beebe Draw Farms is part of a larger marina/golf
course/residential project. There are a total of 683 lots in the overall
development. The long range analysis covers the full development on a
cursory basis . Full development, as well as, the initial phases of
development are subject to market and economic conditions.
Site Access
Initial access to the site is proposed from CR39 . CR39 is a paved
two lane, north/south road with a rural cross section within the study
area. It connects to US85 in LaSalle. Coupled with CR41, CR39 connects
to SH52 east of Fort Lupton. CR32 is a paved two lane, east/west road with
a rural cross section. It connects to US85 in Platteville. CR38 is a
gravel, east/west road that serves adjacent agricultural and oil/gas well
uses.
Existing Land Uses
The land surrounding the site has primarily agricultural and oil/gas
uses . The terrain is rolling, typical of the high plains of Colorado.
Existing Traffic
Current (1998) peak hour traffic counts at the key intersections in
the area are shown in Figure 3 . Peak hour traffic data was collected at
the CR39/CR32 and CR39/CR38 intersections in March, 1998 . Raw traffic
counts are provided in Appendix A. Recent daily traffic counts are also
shown in Figure 3.
3
s
a
d
AS
N
NO SCALE
c
I
- - __�-
�%` N ''�
. ase 3 ;C•w
u 4
P
i :\
kw rcL _______ _ ,
O ----F \
il --(4.
. ,, a 3
, i\-\\ . „
Ihor
SITE PLAN Figure 2
4
0
C
o/o
IONN X1/2
C. /`—3/1 Co. Rd. 38 —AI—
o/1-1 f r
z/1 - om-R,
0/1-h (%J
0
In
M
It
�
3/1
N
\N
988 + 2/1
/r—°/° Co. Rd. 32 329_
4/7
I/4 f r
7/5 Th., Ln
AM/PM
Doily
RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3
Existing Operation
The existing peak hour operation at the key intersections is shown
in Table 1 . Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix
B. The intersections were analyzed using the unsignalized intersection
techniques from the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (1994 HCM) . As shown in
Table 1, each of the existing study intersections currently operates at
acceptable levels of service. Acceptable operation is defined as level of
service (LOS) D or better.
L
6
Table 1
Existing Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
Tntersection
CR39/CR38 (stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT A A
WB LT/T/RT A A
NB LT
SB LT A A
A A
CR39/CR32 (stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT A A
WB LT/T/RT A A
NB LT
SB LT A A
A A
r
III . TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a
development on the existing and proposed road system. Trip Generation, 6th
Fd tioII, ITE was used to forecast trips that would be generated by the
proposed Beebe Draw Farms development. A trip is defined as a one way
vehicle movement from origin to destination. Trip generation for Beebe
Draw Farms is shown in Table 2 .
r
8
Table 2
eiN
Trip Generation
Daily A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
Land Use Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips
in out in out
FILING 1
PHASE 1
Single Family - 32 DU 305 7 18 21 12
(Rate) (9.57) (0.19) (0. 56) (0. 65) (0 . 36)
PHASE 2
Single Family - 51 DU 409 9 29 33 17
(Rate) (9.57) (0.19) (0 . 56) (0. 65) (0 . 36)
PHASE 3
Single Family - 31 DU 300 6 17 20 11
(Rate) (9.57) (0. 19) (0. 56) (0. 65) (0 . 36)
PHASE 4
Single Family - 45 DU 430 9 25 29 16
C (Rate) (9. 57) (0.19) (0. 56) (0. 65) (0 . 36)
PHASE 5
Single Family - 29 DU. 280 6 16 19 10
(Rate) (9.57) (0.19) (0.56) (0. 65) (0. 36)
SUBTOTAL 1805 37 105 122 66
FILING 2
Single Family - 495 DU 4740 94 277 322 178
(Rate) (9. 57) (0. 19) (0. 56) (0. 65) (0. 36)
Golf Course - 18 holes 645 31 8 22 28
(Rate) (35.74) (1.75) (0. 47) (1 . 21) (1 .53)
SUBTOTAL 5385 125 205 344 206
TOTAL 7190 162 390 466 272
L
9
IV. TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Trip distribution for the Beebe Draw Farms development was based on
existing/future travel patterns, land uses in the area, and in
consideration of trip attractions/productions in the area. The existing
roadways in the area also play a role in developing the trip distribution.
The trip distribution is shown in Figure 4 .
C
10
f
C
n
N
M n Co. Rd. 38 NOM_
i ' — �
-1 Site
Cr)
Ccc
a
U
25% Co. Rd. 32 f10M.
0
TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 4
V. TRAFFIC FORECASTS
S
Trip Assignment
The trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are
expected to be loaded on the roadway network. The site generated trip
assignments are shown in Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 for the respective
development phases .
Background Traffic
Background traffic was determined for the short and long range future
years. The background traffic for the area roads was developed using the
existing traffic counts performed at the study intersections. A review of
the historical traffic forecast data available from the traffic projections
for similar facilities from the NFRRTP was conducted to determine the
annual growth rate. Based upon these sources, it was determined that
traffic is expected to grow at 3 . 0 percent per year. In order to conduct
a conservative analysis, the site generated traffic was added to the
background traffic. Background traffic also considers other developments
in the area and a general increase due to attractions such as Denver
International Airport to the south. It was assumed that other developments
would not occur in the short range future. Short and long range background
peak hour traffic is illustrated in Figures 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15.
Total Traffic
The site generated traffic was combined with the background traffic
to determine the total forecasted traffic for the study area. Short range
total peak hour traffic forecasts are illustrated in Figures 16, 17, 18,
19, and 20. Long range total peak hour traffic is illustrated in Figure
21 .
C
12
0
n 4k
N1-NOM. N
Co. Rd. 38
Pik NOM.
o\o
2 ,02
N
\- 6/4
L1/4y— 12/8 Site
Access
co I
co
¢ an
0
U
n In
\\o
un � z
\NOM. Co. Rd. 32
2/5
AM/PM
PHASE 1
SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 5
C1 ,*
rm.'. Co. Rd. 38
NOM. Th
0O0
N
\_ 10/6 Site
19/11
to
Access
re-
-","
d
U
X40
N 0
J1L1/4, \ NOM. Co. Rd. 32
2/8-1 }
Cn AM/PM
PHASE 2
SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 6
CC
n
IN NOM.
1 /r Co. Rd. 38
0 NOM.--\1/4 f re
ono
z
6/4 Site
Access
a
v
cc zr,
n v
\ - o
a � z
A) 1L. 'NOM. Co. Rd. 32
2/5—1 }
AM/PM
N
PHASE 3
SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7
01*
O A�'
'V
/rNOM. Co. Rd. 38
NOM. I r
0
O, o
O
n L 9/5 Site
,c16/10
Access
r m I
v m
00
--..Oz
L3/4, \--NOM. Co. Rd. 32
2/7-
/. AM/PM
l
PHASE 4
SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 8
14
r•.
NOM.
,r Co. Rd. 38
NOM.m f
oa
\o
z
\_6/4 $ate
„_ 1O/6
cc
Access
cc re"
` c
O
U
N d'
O
a CO
Iej � \-NOM. Co. Rd. 32
2/5-' f
AM/PM
kof
PHASE 5
SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 9
070
O [V N f
) L r 3/1 Co. Rd. 38
2/1 r I
2/, o\
0/1 C N
W
M
Q
O
U
N
3/1
u� N 2/1
o/o Co. Rd. 32
4/8 }
1/4 AM/PM
8/5m �?O
2001 BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 10
o/o
INN x-1/2 N
r L Ir 3/1 Co. Rd. 38
0/1t r
2/1--
2/,--\ NNN
0,
M
V.
Q
0
U
0
\c_-3/1
- (N X 2/1
/ter,--°1° Co. Rd. 32
58 f r
1/5- I AM/PM
8/6-i >
2003 BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 11
c
o7\ o/o77 srN
2
�4/1 Co. Rd. 38
elk0/1
2/1y1 } �
0/1� NNN
W
cc
C
U
o
4/1
`o _ -�2/1
2 + lc o/o,� Co. Rd. 32
5/5 r f I AM/PM
a/sm do
2004 BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 12
ONN �o/o
�—1/2
-4/1 Co. Rd. 38
0/1re
2/1-- �
0/1— �\N
0)
m
V
Q
d
U
N
��� 4/1
— 2/1
A L r o/° Co. Rd. 32
i•. 1/5— r O AM/PM
9/6m
2005 BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 13
ON \- /0
---1/3 N
t L /`-4/1 Co. Rd. 38
0/1 '
3/1 y o l r
0/1—h n\"3
CO
M
9
Q
C
U
n
0 � 4/1
`o _ " 3/1
o/o Co. Rd. 32
5/9
1/5--- I En I AM/PM
9/6 \o
2006 BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 14
.C:CNc dI- 1/1
7 --2/4
J 1 L r 6/2 Co. Rd. 38
1/2
}
4/2 — I
Th "i"RA-
1/2
Co
M
ci
U
"1/4-6/2
4/2
1 L r1/1 Co. Rd. 32
8/13
2/8- AM/PM
130- � o
LONG RANGE
BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 15
0
n
b �
O N " o/o
L -1/2 N
T-3/1 Co. Rd. 38
0/1--1
2/1-
0/1-1 \v\N
N
M
NN \-- 6/4
L F- 12/8 Site
Access
cc
.
o
Nn a
orn\ 3/1
L r—) 0jo Co. Rd. 32
6/13
1/4-- AM/PM
8/5co
� \ �\
N\O
2001 TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 16
n
0\ 0/0 �►
o n N 1 N
x-'1/2
/`-3/11 Co. Rd. 38
0/1 f I
2/1-
0/1 N Th
C N
i\
�- 16/10 Site
L. r- 31/19
Access
f
Q n u)
Jr')
o N �
a
m N 3/1
2/1
r-0/° Co. Rd. 32
9/21--1 !
f
1/5-- � o AM/PM
8/6-
N
2003 TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 17
q
0
on7 -1/2
L -4/1 Co. Rd. 38
0/i s r
2/1—e•-- o to
o/1 1/4 \N
M
U,
M t D
N
`e" 22/14
42/26 Site
lc Access
co
M f r
ti
* m
aK�
U
4/1
N Y) N f 2/1
L /c o/o Co. Rd. 32
11/26
1/5-- ,o ° AM/PM
8/6Th1/4 �o
Co
2004 TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 18
0/0 AS
In N —1/2
1 /-4/1 Co. Rd. 38
°/1- f r
2/1- or
0/1T NON
coca
o " 31/2° Site
�� /c 58/36
Site
_
ft 04 to
es N N
U
CV
moN \ 4/1
2/1
f r°7° Co. Rd. 32
13/34
1/5-- N co o AM/PM
C 9/6 o u7 O
n
2005 TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 19
20
gO
En
F 41 o
---1/3 N
1 L. r 4/1 Co. Rd. 38
0/1
3/1 y
0/1—y ----too
to
N. r>
\�
K " 37/24
68/42 Site
/r Access
af I
V v) m
cc
\\
d N N
U
LO OD
��� C4/1
7inn -3 1
L ,r--o/o Co. Rd. 32
15/39—' f
1/5-- In 0 o AM/PM
9/6----\ ----0.0 o
in
2006 TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 20
Ailk _
15/10
✓ �m� --5 --15/10 N
25/15 Co. Rd. 38 "--NOM.
15 ,o___ r
5/5 1°%35 I
5/5-+ O n n 0 •
5/5-� moo q oZ
to
m q n
0 N _� V
8
2 os/7s Site
I L. 1/190/135 Access
M f r q
rc LO
\ Is:. m
N. U
v co m Q
� o
Ono30/15 0,
n
m f / I
/15
c r-15/1°15/1° Co. Rd. 32 J y 55/5
45/110-I f r 20/60--1
10/25— o 0 0 1 0/1 5-PI. AM/PM
v --15/10 \ ono Rounded to the Nearest
to 5 Vehicles.
LONG RANGE TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 21
21.
VI. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
Signal warrant, geometric, and operational analyses of the key
intersections were conducted using the short range and long range traffic
forecasts shown in Figures 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 .
Signal Warrants
Using the short range total peak hour traffic forecasts, it is
expected that traffic signals will not be warranted at any of the key
intersections. Using the long range traffic forecasts, it is expected that
traffic signals will not be warranted at any of the key intersections.
Geometries
Using the various short range total traffic forecasts, auxiliary lane
requirements were evaluated. Weld County uses auxiliary lane criteria from
the State Highway Access Code (SHAC) . No auxiliary lanes are required with /\
Phases 1 and 2 (Figures 16 and 17) . With the completion of Phase 3 (Figure
18 ) , a northbound right-turn deceleration lane
ane is_. r_e iced on CR39..?"'
this
the site access. s--lane would e the responsibility of this
ail7FErdpment. southbound right-turn deceleration lane is also required
on CR39 approaching CR32 . The need for this lane is attributed to both
background traffic and Beebe Draw Farms generated traffic. At the
completion of Phase 5 (Figure 20) , a southbound left-turn deceleration lane
is required on CR39 approaching the site access. This lane would be the
responsibility of this development. These turn lanes are schematically
depicted in Figure 22 .
In the long range future, additional turn lanes are required as
indicated in Figure 23. The additional lanes are required with full build
out of Beebe Draw Farms (683 dwelling units, the golf course, and the
marina) . While this analysis indicates a year 2020 long range future,
actual build out may occur before or after this year, depending upon the
development activity.
Operation
Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 show the peak hour operation at the key
intersections using the respective short range background traffic
conditions. Calculation forms are provided in Appendices C, D, E, F, and
G, respectively. All of the key intersections will operate at acceptable
levels of service. Tables 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 show the peak hour
operation at the key intersections using the short range total traffic
conditions. Calculation forms are provided in Appendices H, I, J, K, and
L. All of the key intersections continue to operate acceptably with the
additional traffic from the various phases of Beebe Draw Farms.
Table 13 shows the peak hour operation at the key intersections using
the long range background traffic conditions . Calculation forms are
provided in Appendix M. The key intersections are expected to operate
22
nC
± N
Co. Rd. 38
r
With
Phase 5
Site
,.. /- Ac c
") t'(J )with Phase 3
cc
U
with
Phase 3( :fr
iJ Co. Rd. 32
Legend
—0— - Denotes Lane
SHORT RANGE GEOMETRY Figure 22
Co. Rd. 38 /� N
0
S 0 m
co U
L Site
Access
rWi � w
v wm
o
IU
/- Co. Rd. 32 ,o11/41�-.
Legend
41119 —•— - Denotes Lane
LONG RANGE GEOMETRY Figure 23
23
Table 3
}}��7 4 Year 2001 Background Traffic Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
Tntersection al al
CR39/CR38 (stop sign)
ES LT/T/RT A A
WB LT/T/RT A A
NB LT A A
SB LT A A
CR39/CR32 (stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT A A
WB LT/T/RT A A
NB LT A A
SB LT A A
r
Table 4
Year 2003 Background Traffic Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
Intersection Ahl PrI
CR39/CR38 (stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT A A
WB LT/T/RT A A
NB LT A A
SB LT A
A
CR39/CR32 (stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT A A
WB LT/T/RT A A
NB LT A
A
SB LT
A A
C
24
Table 5
elk Year 2004 Background Traffic Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
Tntersect ion A
CR39/CR38 (stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT A A
WB LT/T/RT A A
NB LT
SB LT A A
A A
CR39/CR32 (stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT A A
WB LT/T/RT A A
NB LT
SB LT A A
A A
Table 6
fa
Year 2005 Background Traffic Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
Intersection
AM EM
CR39/CR38 (stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT A A
WB LT/T/RT A A
NB LT
SB LT A A
A A
CR39/CR32 (stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT A A
WB LT/T/RT A A
NB LT A
SB LT A
A A
25
Table 7
0.4 Year 2006 Background Traffic Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
IntersectionAM EU
CR39/CR38 (stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT A A
WB LT/T/RT A A
NB LT
SB LT A A
A A
CR39/CR32 (stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT A A
WB LT/T/RT A A
NB LT
A SB LT A A
A A
t
26
Table 8
Year 2001 Total Traffic Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
Intersection AM EM
CR39/CR38 (stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT A A
WB LT/T/RT A A
NB LT
SB LT A A
A A
CR39/CR32 (stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT A A
WB LT/T/RT A A
NB LT
SB LT A A
A A
CR39/Site Access (stop sign)
WB LT A A
WB RT A A
SB LT
A A
c_
Table 9
Year 2003 Total Traffic Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
Tntersectioll AM PM
CR39/CR38 (stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT A A
WB LT/T/RT A A
NB LT
SB LT A A
A A
CR39/CR32 (stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT A A
WB LT/T/RT A A
NB LT A
SB LT A
A A
CR39/Site Access (stop sign)
WB LT A A
WB RT A
SB LT A
A A
V
27
Table 10
Ilek Year 2004 Total Traffic Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
Intersection AM EH
CR39/CR38 (stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT A A
WB LT/T/RT A A
NB LT A A
SB LT A A
CR39/CR32 (stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT A A
WB LT/T/RT A A
NB LT A A
SB LT A A
CR39/Site Access (stop sign)
WB LT A A
WB RT A A
SB LT A A
r
Table 11
Year 2005 Total Traffic Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
Tntergpction AM EM
CR39/CR38 (stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT A A
WB LT/T/RT A A
NB LT A A
SB LT A A
CR39/CR32 (stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT A A
WB LT/T/RT A A
NB LT A A
SB LT A A
CR39/Site Access (stop sign)
WB LT A
A
WB RT A A
e„'• S B LT A A
28
Table 12
Year 2006 Total Traffic Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
Intersection LAM PM
CR39/CR38 (stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT A A
WB LT/T/RT A A
NB LT A A
SB LT A A
CR39/CR32 (stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT A A
WB LT/T/RT A A
NB LT A A
SB LT A A
CR39/Site Access (stop sign)
WB LT A A
WB RT A A
SB LT A A
eak
Table 13
Long Range Background Traffic Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
Intersection LM PM
CR39/CR38 (stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT A A
WB LT/T/RT - A A
NB LT A A
SB LT A A
CR39/CR32 (stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT A A
WB LT/T/RT A A
NB LT A A
SB LT A A
• 29
acceptably. Long range background traffic assumes a 3% per year increase
on the adjacent roads. Table 14 shows the peak hour operation at the key
intersections using the long range total traffic conditions . Calculation
forms are provided in Appendix N. All of the key intersections continue
to operate acceptably.
r
30
Table 14
CLong Range Total Traffic Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
intersection B„ PM
CR39/CR38 (stop sign)
EB LT/T/RT A A
WB LT/T/RT A A
NB LT A
A
SB LT
A A
CR39/CR32 (stop sign)
EB LT B B
EB T/RT A B
WB LT B B
WB T/RT A A
NB LT A A
SB LT A A
CR39/Site Access (stop sign)
WB LT B B
WB RT A
A
SB LT
A A
CR38/Site Access (stop sign)
NB LT/RT A A
Lie WB LT A
A
CR32/Site Access (stop sign)
SB LT/RT A A
EB LT A A
r
31
VII . RECOMMENDATIONS
r
This study assessed the transportation impacts associated with the
Beebe Draw Farms development, located north of CR32 and east of CR39 in
Weld County, Colorado. At the Filing 1 development level, this development
is expected to generate 1805 trip ends on an average weekday. It is
expected to generate 142 morning peak hour trip ends and 188 afternoon peak
hour trip ends . Full development of all of Beebe Draw Farms is expected
to generate over 7000 daily trip ends .
The potential impacts of the proposed project were evaluated at the
following intersections: CR39/CR39, CR39/CR32, and the site access
intersections. Currently, the existing key intersections, analyzed as part
of this study, operate acceptably with their existing control and geometry.
In the various short range futures, it is not likely that signals
will be warranted at any of the key intersections. All of the key
intersections will operate acceptably at the various short range
development levels. Auxiliary lanes will be required at some intersections
at various levels of development of Beebe Draw Farms. Some auxiliary lanes
are required based upon background and site generated traffic. The short
range geometry is shown in Figure 22 .
In the long range future with full development of the Beebe Draw
Farms development, the key intersections will operate acceptably. Traffic
signals will not be warranted at any of the key intersections in the long
range future. The long range geometry is shown in Figure 23.
C
V
32
APPENDIX A
u
MATTHEW J. DELICH , P.E.
2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE
LOVELAND, CO 80538
TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS
0 obrcne, PARRYn tins/0/7g D.yTun.�Ay owWpcD eou/JT Y R = Mr turn
(� `INTERSECTION OF g .� AND `A C R se S n Sttaiom
L= lalt turn
LC) cl'_ ? "r i W CR 39 WC /e- 3S cc) CR 3E
TIME tram NORTHAL TOTAL BEGINS
Eat from SOUTH TOTNonb M1om EAST from WEST TOTAL
R S L Tool R S I L I TOW 5pwN Wen All
R I S L TOW I R I S I L I TOW
130 o H 0 If 11 so 4 IS I0 I ll I 2101010 o IF /7
74 II O ( 1
5 2 0 Z 0 3 o 3 S I 0 1 6 I I 1 I o l 0 1 O O �' z I I to
7
7 I 4 0 5 IZ 10 0 0 0 010 to OII 0 BIS II0 3 1 4 o Z Z (D 1 6 1 0 I I 1 11011 10 Z j III iq
73°43110 2-Z Z z-4 Z Io 1 14 3 8 I o 13 1 4 10 1 z_ 10 2.- I 7 ^ 4 4
1 I 1 1 . I
1 1 1 1
-1 I I II
I
I I I
I I I I
4300 3 0 3 1 20 3 (0 1 0 0 0 O to o I I I 1 -T
4eo40 l0 4 1 0 1 4 0 3 0 3 (7 0 1 1 1 1 z I l o l 0 1 I I 19
0 01 0 1o 1I 10 1 1 1
5-15 )O 7 I 7 01 C 0 5- 13 0 I o 1 O pip oil 1H-
43o-530 I Izl I 2-3II I I�IoI is II 4 2 1O11 I I 13 III O3 3 (o 4- SS
r
MATTHEW J. DELICH , P.E.
• 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE
LOVELAND, CO 80538
TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS
observer �/(AT Y /TABULAR
/ P7 Date 3/9/98 Day Mvu➢aY aIY OS c t7 COW-I TY R =
INTERSECTION OF (�lJ C 2 ? C/ pp 7 Right turn
AND W C F o 7-- S= SItaIPm
CO C. 2 9 4J C R 3 ` L= Ltt tam
TIME Worn NORTH TOTAL C' 3 L w�. Z
Ent
BEGINS from SOUTH Nonn from EAST nom WEST TOTAL TOTAL
R I S I L I Total II R I S I L Total R SL Total �
Soum I I I 1 R SL Total WALL
75013 511 9 014 z (o /5- loll I0I 11141 O I31 7 N 3 11- 23
74 5'1 I 3 I o 4- 0 1 3 I 4- S I I I 0 o f I II z l o l 0 1 a N 3 N 1 1
10010 116 1 013 14 5 Iz of 3 Not .( lop I p 4 1 9
Zisp 12- It 4 0 4 I f 9 a o O f 0 III 0 it 2- II Z I II
II I 11
7 30-Eao 5 11 Z I G p14 5 ly 37 31 2 0 0 177 1 14 12- 11 I7 I0¢
I
1 1 { II
f I
I p II
C 4301 3 13 ° I(o 0 4 "L Co z-zoo O of 0 3 op Z
S
445 L 5 0 l 0 tot g 0 tot I I Z I z - 1 , 4 _
500 I5 l 7 1 0 5 1 6, N 1 3 I o o f I 0 1 2 1 1 1 3 II d 17 575- Iz 3 u s } of 3 1 4 N 9 qo 0 D 0 j 1 01zI 3 I 3 Iz-
u 1 -
43o-sso 7 I26, 1 I 1351 0113I4 14 I I7 I S 2 I I I 10 I Z 514 I7 1 1 Cn I I S b 7 0
n
APPENDIX B
C
C
n
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
=_-------______-------=___---_ --- --- ...in.=----- HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
Center For Microcomputers :n Transportation - -
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
- = =c===-------- ===-=6==--=== c ...............
Streets: (N S) cr39 (E-W) cr38 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 12 24
Major Street Direction. . . . NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1365 1346
Length of Time Analyzed. .. 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1365 1346
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Date of Analysis 5/3/9A,
Other Information (am,/pm 11998 short 1 2 3 4 5 long bkgr Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
total
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Conflicting Flows: (vph) 13 24
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1690 1670
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1690 1670
LTALTRLTALTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
---- ---- ----.---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N. N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 2 10 2 2 22 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB BB
MC's (I)
SU/RV's (V) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 40 40
CV's (4) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1039 1039
PCB's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1037 1037
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB BB
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 41 40
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1002 1004
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 998 1001
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
BB L 1 1001 >
BB T 2 1037 > 1090 3.3 0.0 A 3.3
BB R 1 1346 >
WE L 3 998 >
WB T 1 1037 > 1063 3.4 0.0 A 3.4
WE R 1 1365 >
NB L 2 1670 2.2 0.0 A 0.3
SB L 2 1690 2.1 0.0 .A 0.2
Intersection Delay = 0.8 sec/veh
n )
RCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
............. ______ ____________......m..............a. HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation -------------
University of Florida
512 well Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) cr38 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 20 22
Major Street Direction NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1353 1350
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1353 1350
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information am (i23C91D short 1 2 3 4 5 long bkgr Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
d to
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Conflicting Flows: (vph) 20 23
...._________ ______a..............................m._____ = _ ___
____ ____ ___ _ Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1677 1672
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1677 1672
LTRLTRLTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 1 18 1 1 21 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
MC's (3)
Su/RV's (8) Conflicting Plows: (vph) 44 44
CV's (I) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1034 1034
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1033 1033
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WE EB
vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 45 46
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 997 996
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 995 993
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 1 993 >
EB T 1 1033 > 1105 3.3 0.0 A 3.3
EB R 1 1350 >
WB L 1 995 >
WB T 2 1033 > 1087 3.3 0.0 A 3.3
WB R 1 1353 >
NB L 1 1672 2.2 0.0 A 0.1
SB L 1 1677 2.1 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 0.5 sec/veh
n 1 I
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
______________________________________________________________________= HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: 1904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) cr32 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 16 14
Major Street Direction NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1359 1362
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1359 1362
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.99
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information am pm (1998 short 1 2 3 4 5 long bkgr Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
total
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 16 17
--- Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1684 1683
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1684 1683
LTRLTRLTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
---- ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 FT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 5 14 1 2 11 5 4 1 7 1 2 3 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EH
MC's (t)
SU/RV's (I) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 40 38
CV's (t) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1039 1042
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1034 1037
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WE EB
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 41 40
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1002 1004
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 0.99 0.99
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 0.99
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 0.99 0.99
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 992 997
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 4 997 >
EB T 1 1037 > 1198 3.0 0.0 A 3.0
EB R 8 1362 >
WB L 1 992 >
WB T 2 1034 > 1165 3.1 0.0 A 3.1
WE R 3 1359 >
NB L 6 1683 2.1 0.0 A 0.5
SB L 2 1684 2.1 0.0 A 0.2
Intersection Delay = 1.3 sec/veh
7 41, 3
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1s Page 1
- HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportar:on -
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WE EH
_tree___ (N-S) =_===«==_____________a.====__ _
_tree____ _
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (B-W) cr32 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 14 31
Major Street Direction.. . . NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1362 1335
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1362 1335
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Date of Analysis 5/3/98 Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
Other Information am (I ':991] short 1 2 3 4 5 long bkgr J
d total
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Conflicting Flows: (vph) 15 35
___ _ __ Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1686 1650
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1686 1650
LTRL TRLTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pophpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 4 13 1 1 26 - 4 5 1 1 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PUP .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 9c .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Ste 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
Grade 0 0 0 0 P
MC's (E)
SU/RV's (t) Conflicting Plows: (vph) 54 51
CV's (g) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1022 1026
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.1: 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1019 1023
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Fact_rs Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Vehicle Cr tics: Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 55 52
Maneuver Ga- (to Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 984 988
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 0.99 1.00
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 1.00
Through Traffic Minor Road €.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road =.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 0.99 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 974 984
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 8 984 >
EB T 4 1023 > 1089 3.4 0.0 A 3.4
EB R 6 1335 >
WB L 1 974 >
WB T 1 1019 > 1094 3.3 0.0 A 3.3
WE R 1 1362 >
NB L 4 1650 2.2 0.0 A 0.5
SB L 1 1686 2.1 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 1.0 sec/veh
APPENDIX C
r
A, 4 1
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page
.................................. ............- "CC6c_- HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation --- ---- --
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: ET from Minor Street WE EB
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) cr38 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 13 26
Major Street Direction. ... NS Potential Capacity: Ipcph) 1364 1343
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1364 1343
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Date of Analysis 5/3/9
Other Information am pm 1998 shor 1 2 3 4 5 long Step 2: LT from t'ajor Street SB NB
otal
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Conflicting Flows: (vph) 14 26
-- ---- . _ Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1688 1666
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1688 1666
LTRLTRLTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > i < 0 RT Saturation Flow Rare: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 2 11 2 2 24 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB EB
MC's (4)
I SU/RV's (4) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 43 44
CV's (V) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1036 1034
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1034 1032
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 44 44
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 998 998
Major LT, Minor =d
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 994 995
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 1 995 >
EB T 2 1032 > 1085 3.3 0.0 A 3.3
BB R 1 1343 >
I
WB L 3 994 >
WB T 1 1034 > 1060 3.4 0.0 A 3.4
WB R 1 1364 >
NB L 2 1666 2.2 0.0 A 0.3
SB L 2 1688 2.1 0.0 A 0.2
intersection Delay - 0.8 sec/veh
1 4111 II
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
________........________.........__________-------______-------- _____= HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation -
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) cr38 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 22 24
Major Street Direction. . .. NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1350 1346
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1350 1346
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Date of Analysis 5/3/98 1—.
Other Information aamtopm 1998 short 1 2 3 4 5 long'bkgr Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Conflicting Flows: (vph) 22 25
- - Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1673 1668
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1673 1668
LTRLTRLTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
---- ---- ---- —— ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 1 20 1 1 23 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.0D
PNF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
MC's (F)
SU/RV's (t) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 48 48
CV's (k) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1029 1029
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1028 1028
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 49 50
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 992 991
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 990 988
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95t
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 1 988 >
EB T 1 1028 > 1100 3.3 0.0 A 3.3
EB R 1 1346 >
WE L 1 990 >
WB T 2 1028 > 1082 3.3 0.0 A 3.3
WB R 1 1350 >
NB L 1 1668 2.2 0.0 A 0.1
SB L 1 1673 2.2 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay 0.5 sec/veh
1
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation -
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Step 1: PT from Minor Street WB EH
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) cr32 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 16 16
Major Street Direction T'5 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1359 1359
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min: Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1359 1359
Analyst r._-d Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.99
Date of Analysis 5'3/98
Other Information ricr pm 1998 short 1 2 3 4 5 long bkg Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
ototal Conflicting Flows: (vph) 17 18
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection "P
_____________s=== =__f ==_s==== ____=a===.,====....t.__________.====_a===- Potential Capacity: IPcPhI 1683 1681
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1683 1681
LTR _ A L T R L T R Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
____ ____ ____ ____
No. Lanes 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 < 0 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 5 15 1 2 12 5 4 1 8 1 2 3 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WE EB
MC's (t)
SU/RV's (t) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 42 40
CV's (t) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1037 1039
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1032 1034
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 44 42
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 998 1001
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 0.99 0.99
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 0.99
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 0.99 0.99
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 987 994
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95t
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) Isec/veh)
EB L 4 994 >
EB T 1 1034 > 1205 3.0 0.0 A 3.0
EH R 9 1359 >
WB L 1 987 >
WB T 2 1032 > 1163 3.1 0.0 A 3.1
WB R 3 1359 >
NB L 6 1681 2.1 0.0 A 0.5
SB L 2 1683 2.1 0.0 A 0.2
Intersection Delay 1.2 sec/veh
C ) C ) n
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ""-- ------------- - - ---
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: ET from Minor Street WB EB
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) cr32 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 16 34
Major Street Direction. ... NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1359 1331
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1359 1331
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Date of Analysis 5/3/98 ---
Other Information am (o`mI? 1998 short,l)2 3 4 5 long bkgr Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
d tote
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Conflicting Flows: (vph) 16 38
-----------___________---- ----____ ________...... _____-- _- Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1684 1644
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1684 1644
LTRLTRLTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ___ TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 4 14 1 1 28 9 8 4 5 1 1 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
MC's (k)
SU/RV's (%) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 58 54
CV's (%) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1017 1022
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1014 1019
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 58 55
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 980 984
Major LT, Minor TB
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 0.99 1.00
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 1.00
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 0.99 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 970 980
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 9 980 >
EB T 4 1019 > 1079 3.4 0.0 A 3.4
EB R 6 1331 >
WB L 1 970 >
WB T 1 1014 > 1090 3.3 0.0 A 3.3
WB R 1 1359 >
NB L 4 1644 2.2 0.0 A 0.5
SB L 1 1684 2.1 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 1.0 sec/veh
APPENDIX D
C
C
n n iii
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Re_ease 2.1e Page 1
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation -
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) cr38 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 14 28
Major Street Direction NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1362 1340
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1362 1340
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information am m 1998 (short 1 2O3 4 5 long kgr Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
Zf‘d--total
--- Conflicting Flows: ( h
Two-way Stop-controlled IntersectionC �(p ) 15 28
__ __ _____ Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1686 1662
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1686 1662
Northbound Southbotnd Eastbound Westbound Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
LTRLTRLTRLTR TB Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 PT Saturation Plow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 2 12 2 2 26 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 00 0.95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
MC's (%)
SU/RV's (&) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 46 46
CV's (&) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1032 1032
PCE's 1.10 1.10 11.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1030 1030
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment _actors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 47 46
Maneuver Gap tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 995 996
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.70 2.10 Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.20 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 991 993
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
ES L 1 993 >
EB T 2 1030 > 1083 3.3 0.0 A 3.3
EB R 1 1340 >
WB L 3 991 >
WB T 1 1030 > 1057 3.4 0.0 A 3.4
WB R 1 1362 >
NB L 2 1662 2.2 0.0 A 0.3
SB L 2 1686 2.1 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 0.7 sec/veh
n n y
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
-- --- ---- - ___ HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.10 Page 2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: FT from Minor Street WE EH
_ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ ____streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) cr38 Conflicting Flows: (vph)
h) 22 26
Major Street Direction. . .. NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1350 1343
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1350 1343
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information aamt pm 1998 ( short 1(�3 4 5 long bkgr Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Conflicting Flows: (vph) 23 26
-- Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1672 1666
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1672 1666
LTRLTR LTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ TH Saturation Flow Ra
te:ate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 RI' Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 1 21 1 1 24 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB ES
MC's (t)
SU/RV's (1) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 50 50
CV's (1) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1027 1027
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1026 1026
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EN
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 51 52
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 989 988
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 987 985
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 951
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EH L 1 985 >
EB T 1 1026 > 1097 3.3 0.0 A 3.3
EB R 1 1343 >
WB L 1 987 >
WB T 2 1026 > 1080 3.3 0.0 A 3.3
WE R 1 1350 >
NH L 1 1666 2.2 0.0 A 0.1
SB L 1 1672 2.2 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 0.5 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
___ ---- --------------------------- -- HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation =--...______________-z..z=====______________..._____`___m_.em_====.....
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WE EB
• - =====___====666SC==-6iC==__ = = ____=........
Streets: (NS) cr39 (E-W) cr32 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 18 17
Major Street Direction. . .. NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1356 1357
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcoh) 1356 1357
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.99
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information amcii , pm 1998 short 1®3 4 5 long Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
total
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Conflicting Flows: (vph) 18 20
.....---'...
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1681 1677
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcoh) 1681 1677
LTRLTRLTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- ---- --- TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 6 16 1 2 13 6 5 1 8 1 2 3 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
MC's (%)
SU/RV's 1%) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 46 43
CV's (k) Potential Capacity: (rcph) 1032 1036
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.99 0.99
Movement Capacity: (pcoh) 1026 1030
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 47 45
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 995 997
Major LT, Minor TB
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 0.99 0.99
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Fac=or: 1.00 0.99
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 0.99 0.99
Movement Capacity: (pooh) 984 989
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 6 9E9 >
ES T 1 1030 > 1170 3.1 0.0 A 3.1
EB R 9 1357 >
WE L 1 984 >
WB T 2 1026 > 1159 3.1 0.0 A 3.1
WE R 3 1356 >
NB L 7 1677 2.2 0.0 A 0.6
SE L 2 1681 2.1 0.0 A 0.2
Intersection Delay = 1.2 sec/veh
n n lk
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
_____ _________ _____ _ _ HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation - -- - ---
University of Florida Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) cr32 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 16 36
Major Street Direction.. . . NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1359 1328
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1359 1328
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.99
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information am pm 1998 short 1 3 4 5 long(b);grd t Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
ota
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Conflicting Flows: (vph) 17 41
`_____=_===z==========_-_____.=_____ ____========__==—______________ Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1683 1639
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1683 1639
LTRL TRLTR L T R Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 5 15 1 1 30 9 8 5 6 1 1 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WE EB
MC's (1)
SU/RV's (1) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 64 60
CV's (I) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1010 1015
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1006 1011
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.99
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WE EB
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 64 60
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 972 977
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 0.99 0.99
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 1.00
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 0.99 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 959 972
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 951
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
ES L 9 972 >
EB T 6 1011 > 1075 3.4 0.0 A 3.4
EH R 7 1328 >
WB L 1 959 >
WB T 1 1006 > 1082 3.3 0.0 A 3.3
WB R 1 1359 >
NE L 6 1639 2.2 0.0 A 0.5
SB L 1 1683 2.1 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 1.1 sec/veh
r
APPENDIX E
C
C
r)
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
_ ______ ___
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: FT from Minor Street WB EB
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) cr38 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 14 28
Major Street Direction NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1362 1340
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1362 1340
Analyst mjd _�
/ Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Date of Analysis 5/3/98 //'' /
Other Information am pm 1998 IehOlt 1 2( )4 5 long(bkgr Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
total
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Conflicting Flows: (vph) 15 28
----------- --- ---------- Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1686 1662
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1686 1662
LTRLTR LTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
____ ____ ____
No. Lanes 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 FT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 2 12 2 2 26 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
MC's (%)
SU/RV's (3) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 46 46
CV'S (t) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1032 1032
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1030 1030
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WE EB
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 47 46
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 995 996
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 991 993
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 1 993 >
EB T 2 1030 > 1083 3.3 0.0 A 3.3
EH R 1 1340 >
WB L 4 991 >
NB T 1 1030 > 1045 3.5 0.0 A 3.5
wB R 1 1362 >
NB L 2 1662 2.2 0.0 A 0.3
SB L 2 1686 2.1 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 0.8 sec/veh
C) C )
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
=====a=== HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation `__"`_"___`___"-__`-____-`___"__"____:====z`===="___'_"_____"`_
University of Florida Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Streets (N-S) cr39 (E-W) cr38 Conflicting Plows: (vph) 22 26
Major Street Direction.. . . NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1350 1343
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1350 1343
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information am ® 1998 shor 1 20)4 5 long bkgr Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
d total
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Conflicting Flows: (vph) 23 27
.............=.................._ __ c_ _ c-==-=
_ ==c Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1672 1664
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1672 1664
LTRLTRLTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 1 21 1 1 25 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TB from Minor Street WB BB
MC's (t)
SU/RV's (t) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 52 52
CV's (I) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1024 1024
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1023 1023
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 52 52
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 988 988
Major LT, Minor TB
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 986 985
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 1 985 >
EB T 1 1023 > 1096 3.3 0.0 A 3.3
EH R 1 1343 >
WB L 1 986 >
WB T 2 1023 > 1078 3.4 0.0 A 3.4
WB R 1 1350 >
NB L 1 1664 2.2 0.0 A 0.1
SB L 1 1672 2.2 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 0.5 sec/veh
C)
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets (N-S)=cr39 ¢_====.= z (E-W) cr32=c=====L==_==_= Conflicting Flows: (vph) 18 17
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1356 1357
Major Street Direction NS Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1356 1357
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min) Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.99
Analyst mjd
Date of Analysis 5/3/98 Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
Other Information am pm 199 ES 1 2(Dgrd 4 5 long bk t
al Conflicting Flows: (vph) 19 20
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersectior. Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1679 1677
--=====--=--...
====�°===============`.==............._s _ _ Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1679 1677
Northbound Southbound Eastbound westbound Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
L T R L T R ; L T R L T R__ TN Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
SNo
to Lanes p/Yield 0 > 1 < 0 N 0 > 1 N:
MT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
.
< 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Volumes 6 17 1 2 13 6'' 5 1 8 1 2 4
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95' .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WE EB
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's (%)
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 46 44
SU/RV's (}) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1032 1034
CV's (}) Capacity Adjustment Factor
PCE's 1.10 1.10 .1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 due to Impeding Movements 0.99 0.99
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1026 1028
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WE ES
Adjustment Factors
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 48 46
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Potential Capacity: (pcph) 993 996
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.99 0.99
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 0.99
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 due to Impeding Movements 0.99 0.99
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 982 987
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
BB L 6 987 >
EB T 1 1028 > 1169 3.1 0.0 A 3.1
EB R 9 1357 >
WE L 1 982 >
WE T 2 1026 > 1183 3.1 0.0 A 3.1
WE R 4 1356 >
NE L 7 1677 2.2 0.0 A 0.5
SB L 2 1679 2.1 0.0 A 0.2
Intersection Delay = 1.2 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
..._______________________ ________ ____ HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ===e___________________________________________________________________
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: FT from Minor Street WS En
...........===....=.======
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) cr32 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 18 38
Major Street Direction.. . . NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1356 1325
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1356 1325
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.99
Date of formatio 5/3/98 P /i J g 1.--�
Other Information am m 1998 Co hors 1 2r3 4 5 lon bk rd\t Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
ota�
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 18 44
_ -- - -- -- - - — -- Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1681 1633
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1681 1633
LTRLTRLTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
---- ---- ---- ---- —— --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 5 16 1 1 31 10 B 5 6 1 1 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
MC's (I)
SU/RV's (%) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 68 62
CV's (%) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1005 1012
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1001 1008
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.99
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 68 63
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 967 974
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.0o 2.10 Impedance Factor: 0.99 0.99
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 1.00
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 0.99 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 954 969
Intersection Performance §ummiary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
ES L 9 969 >
EB T 6 1008 > 1072 3.4 0.0 A 3.4
EB R 7 1325 >
WB L 1 954 >
WB T 1 1001 > 1077 3.4 0.0 A 3.4
WB R 1 1356 >
NB L 6 1633 2.2 0.0 A 0.5
SH L 1 1681 2.1 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 1.0 sec/veh
C
APPENDIX F
C
`r
ra) n >
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e _____ ___Page 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation -
University of Florida Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
51 512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EP
- c _n _- _ 6 :_z___._____-_
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) cr38 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 14 28
Major Street Direction NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1362 1340
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1362 1340
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Date of Analysis 5/3/98 /^ Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
Other Information mtotalin (1998 short 1 2 3 e)5 long\bkgr 1
d
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Conflicting Flows: (vph) 15 29
- Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1686 1661
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1686 1661
L T R L T R L T R L T R Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ _ ____ _ __ ____ TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 2 12 2 2 27 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EP
MC's (4)
SU/RV's (4) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 47 48
CV's (I) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1031 1029
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1029 1027
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EH
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 48 48
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 993 993
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 989 990
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
BB L 1 990 >
EN T 2 1027 > 1080 3.3 0.0 A 3.3
ES R 1 1340 >
WB L 4 989 >
WH T 1 1029 > 1043 3.5 0.0 A 3.5
WB R 1 1362 >
NB L 2 1661 2.2 0.0 A 0.3
SB L 2 1686 2.1 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 0.8 sec/veh
r ) r ) )
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
RCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation _
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) cr38 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 24 28
Major Street Direction NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1346 1340
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1346 1340
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Date of Analysis 5/3/98 � _
,--
Other Information am ' " 1998 (5h 9
V 1 2 3 ; long(bkgr) Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
d total `
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Conflicting Flows: (vph) 24 28
__ P
--�----'---`--"---"---`--"----`t----t---.`----=----- -------------- Potential Capacity: (pcoh) 1670 1662
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1670 1662
L T R L T R LTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
--- TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
RT
No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 c 0 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob_
Volumes1 22 1 1 26 1 1 1 1 1 2 1
of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
MC'S 1%) -
SU/RV's 1%) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 54 54
CV's (1) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1022 1022
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1021 1021
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 54 54
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 985 985
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Through Traffic 1•:_nor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 983 982
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95₹
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 1 982 >
EB T 1 1021 > 1093 3.3 0.0 A 3.3
EB R 1 1340 >
WB L 1 983 >
WB T 2 1021 > 1076 3.4 0.0 A 3.4
WE R 1 1346 >
NB L 1 1662 2.2 0.0 A 0.1
SB L 1 1670 2.2 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay' = 0.5 ser/veh
I
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
____ _ _________________�______________ --- -------------------- HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
=============c
Streets: (N S) cr39 _ = ======c===-
(E W) cr32 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 18 18
Major Street Direction NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1356 1356
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1356 1356
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.99
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information am pm 1998 short 1 2 3/YD 5 longlbkgr�t Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
Ca
al -------
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Conflicting Flows: (vph) 19 21
-- Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1679 1675
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1679 1675
LTRLTR L TRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 6 17 1 2 14 6 5 1 9 1 2 4 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
MC's (p)
SU/RV's ($) Conflicting Flows: (vnh) 48 45
CV's 1I) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1029 1033
PCE's 1.10 1,10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.99 0.99
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1023 1027
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 50 48
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 991 993
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 0.99 0.99
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 0.99
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 0.99 0.99
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 979 985
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95W
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 6 985 >
EB T 1 1027 > 1177 3.1 0.0 A 3.1
EB R 10 1356 >
WE L 1 979 >
WE T 2 1023 > 1181 3.1 0.0 A 3.1
WB R 4 1356 >
NB L 7 1675 2.2 0.0 A 0.5
SB L 2 1679 2.1 0,0 A 0.2
Intersection Delay c 1.3 sec/veh
C ) r) I
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
___ ___ ____
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) cr32 Conflicting Flows, (vph) 18 40
Major Street Direction NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1356 1321
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1356 1321
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.99
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information am(n; 1998 shor 1 2 3( rk 5 longgrd t Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
ota
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Conflicting Flows: (vph) 18 45
-- Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1681 1632
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1681 1632
L T R L T R LTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
-- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 5 16 1 1 32 10 9 5 6 1 1 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
MC's (t)
SU/RV's (%) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 68 64
CV's (g) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1005 1010
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1001 1006
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.99
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WE EB
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 66 64
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 967 972
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 0.99 0.99
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 1.00
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 0.99 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 954 967
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EH L 10 967 >
EB T 6 1006 > 1065 3.5 0.0 A 3.5
EB R 7 1321 >
WB L 1 954 >
WE T 1 1001 > 1077 3.4 0.0 A 3.4
WB R 1 1356 >
NB L 6 1632 2.2 0.0 A 0.5
SB L 1 1681 2.1 0.0 A 0.0
Intersection Delay 1.0 sec/veh
r
APPENDIX G
C
C
c )
C') 1
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
_______________ _ HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Pag
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation --
--
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: PT from Minor Street WB EB
_____-----_____ -----.-=======,>e>>>>=>>_-__c__8-_____-__-_ c
Streets, (N-S) cr39 (E-N) cr38 conflicting Flows: (vph) 16 30
Major Street Direction. . . . NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1359 1337
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1359 1337
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Date of Analysis 5/3/98 i
Other Information am pm 1998 short 1 2 3 4 6)long(bkgr) Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
total
'Iwo-way Stop-controlled Intersection Conflicting Flows: (vph) 17 30
__________________________________________=__ =========----- -_ Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1683 1659
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1683 1659
LTRL T R L T R L T R Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ TB Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 PT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 3 13 3 3 28 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHI' .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
MC's (%)
SU/RV's (%) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 52 52
Cv's (t) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1024 1024
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1020 1020
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB ED
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 53 52
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 987 988
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 0.99 1.00
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 1.00
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 0.99 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 981 984
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 1 984 >
ER T 3 1020 > 1063 3.4 0.0 A 3.4
EH R 1 1337 >
WE L 4 981 >
WB T 1 1020 > 1036 3.5 0.0 A 3.5
WB R 1 1359 >
NB L 3 1659 2.2 0.0 A 0.3
SB L 3 1683 2.1 0.0 A 0.2
Intersection Delay a 0.8 sec/veh
C ) ( ) r)
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
.............................................................a..___..... HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation -'- --
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL '32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
! { . . . ..............
Streets IN-S) cr39 (E-W) cr38 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 24 28
Major Street Direction. . . . NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1346 1340
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1346 1340
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Date of Analysis 5/3/98 5 ) Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
Other Information am (pm 1998 (short 1 2 3 4 long,bkgr
d to al
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Conflicting Flows: (vph) 25 29
..................................................................... . Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1668 1661
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1668 1661
LTRL T R LTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
volumes 1 23 1 1 27 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 -0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WE EE
MC's (&)
SU/P.V's (&) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 56 56
CV's (%) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1020 1020
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1019 1019
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB ER
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 56 57
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 983 981
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 981 977
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 1 977 >
EB T 1 1019 > 1090 3.3 0.0 A 3.3
EB R 1 1340 >
WB L 1 981 >
WB T 3 1019 > 1062 3 .4 0.0 A 3.4
WB R 1 1346 >
NB L 1 1661 2.2 0.0 A 0.1
SB L 1 1668 2.2 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay . 0.5 sec/veh
C ) C) n
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
------------ - - ---- ---- HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation - -- -- --
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB ER
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-H) cr32 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 20 18
Major Street Direction. . . . NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1353 1356
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1353 1356
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.99
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information ( pm 1998 short l 2 3 4r9 lop bkgrd Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
al
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Conflicting Flows: (vph) 20 21
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1677 1675
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1677 1675
L T R L T R L T R L T R Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 c 0 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N fi Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
volumes 6 18 1 3 14 6 5 1 9 1 3 4 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WE ER
MC's (k)
SU/RV's (E) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 50 47
Cv's (t) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1027 1031
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.99 0.99
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1021 1025
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB ER
vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 52 50
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 988 991
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.OC 2.10 Impedance Factor: 0.99 0.99
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 0.99
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.OC 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 0.99 0.99
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 975 981
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95$
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
BB L 6 981 >
ES T 1 1025 > 1175 3.1 0.0 A 3.1
EB R 10 1356 >
WB L 1 975 >
WB T 3 1021 > 1156 3.1 0.0 A 3.1
WB R 4 1353 >
NB L 7 1675 2.2 0.0 A 0.5
SB L 3 1677 2.2 0.0 A 0.3
Intersection Delay = 1.3 sec/veh
C ) C) n
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 ----
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
_ '., c = ..e===......e
Streets: (N-S) cr39 = (B-W) cr32 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 18 40
Major Street Direction. . . . NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1356 1321
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1356 1321
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.99
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information am gD 1998 short 1 2 3 4 J long Ott Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
ota v
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 18 46
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1681 1630
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1681 1630
L T R L T R L T H L T R Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.0D 1.00
---" --"- -'-- "-- ---' ---- --- --- TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 FT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 5 16 1 1 33 10 9 5 6 1 1 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
MC's (E)
SU/RVs (&) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 70 64
CV's (}) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1002 1010
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 998 1006
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.99
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 70 65
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 964 971
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 0.99 0.99
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 1.00
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 0.99 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 951 966
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95$
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 10 966 >
EB T 6 1006 , 1064 3.5 0.0 A 3.5
EB R 7 1321 >
WB L 1 951 >
WB T 1 998 > 1075 3.4 0.0 A 3.4
WB R 1 1356 >
NB L 6 1630 2.2 0.0 A 0.5
SB L 1 1681 2.1 0.0 A 0.0
Intersection Delay = 1.0 sec/veh
U
APPENDIX H
C ) (_)
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page
....._...........____...................._____=_____......._____=Page__
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation --- -
University of Florida Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
512 Wei
l Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Ph: (904) 392-0378
S treetscs(N-S)=cr39=---=-==c=-===___________==(E-W)=cr38 .=a Conflicting Flows: (vph) 19 28
Major Street Direction. . . . NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1354 1340
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1354 1340
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Date of Analysis 5/3/98 Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
Other Information a m 1998 (short�2 3 4 5 long bkgr 7
� otal
Two-way Stop-controlled IntersectiL Conflicting Flows: (vph) 20 28
____ Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1677 1662
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1677 1662
L T R L T R L T R L T R Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 2 17 2 2 26 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WH EH
MC's (t)
SU/RV's (t) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 51 52
CV's (t) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1026 1024
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1024 1022
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 52 52
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 988 988
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 984 985
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 1 985 >
ES T 2 1022 > 1076 3.4 0.0 A 3.4
EB R 1 1340 >
WB L 3 984 >
WB T 1 1024 > 1050 3.4 0.0 A 3.4
WB R 1 1354 >
NB L 2 1662 2.2 0.0 A 0.2
SB L 2 1677 2.1 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 0.7 eec/veh
li
� ) O
C
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Pace 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall • Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Ph: (904) 392-0378
= s:=(N-5)cr39 .=s__=== =E-W)cr3z___==.---..-...-
Conflicting(N-S) cr39 (E-W) cr36 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 26 32
Major Street Direction. . . . NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1343 1334
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1343 1334
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information amh���,--� 998 ( short 1J2 3 4 5 long bkgr Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
dr`V`v' J Conflicting Flows: (vph)Two-way Stop-controlled IntersectrL,. vp ) 26 33
___________ ____________________________________ _ __ _ ____ __ Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1666 1653
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1666 1653
L T R L T R LTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
_ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ TB Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
____ ____ ____ _ ____ ____ _ ___
No. Lanes 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
volumes 1 24 1 1 30 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
Grade 0 0 0 0
Mc's (%)
SU/RV's (%) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 60 60
CV's (%) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1015 1015
FCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.1D 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1014 1014
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 61 62
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential
Capacity: (pcph) 976 975
Major LT, Minor ty
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 974 972
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 1 972 >
EB T 1 1014 > 1085 3.3 0.0 A 3.3
EB R 1 1334 >
WB L 1 974 >
WB T 2 1014 > 1068 3.4 0.0 A 3.4
WB R 1 1343 >
NB L 1 1653 2.2 0.0 A 0.1
SB L 1 1666 2.2 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 0.4 sec/veh
t ) Cj (.....)
HCS: Unsignal ized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page
en.=
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation - _ - -
University of Florida Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Step 1: FT from Minor Street WB EB
Ph: (904) 392-0378
..........a.............. ................................ . .........
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (S-W) cr32 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 20 26
Major Street Direction. . . . NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1353 1343
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1353 1343
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.99
Date of Analysis 5/3/9: c Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
19
Other Information am pm 98(shor 1 2 3 4 5 long bkgrd t
• a
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersectr• Conflicting Flows: (vph) 20 31
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1677 1657
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1677 1657
LTRLTR L T A. L T R Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
TN Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
____ ____ ____ ____ ----
No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 FT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 5 18 1 2 19 10 6 1 8 1 2 3 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EH
SU/RV's (t) Conflictin Flows: (vph) 58 52
Potential Capacity: pc h) 1017 1024
CV's 11;) P 1'= P
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1012 1019
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 56 54
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 983 985
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 0.99 0.99
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 0.99
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 0.99 0.99
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 972 978
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95t
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 7 978 >
EB T 1 1019 > 1146 3.2 0.0 A 3.2
EB R 9 1343 >
WE L 1 972 >
WB T 2 1012 > 1149 3.1 0.0 A 3.1
NB R 3 1353 >
NB L 6 1657 2.2 0.0 A 0.5
SB L 2 1677 2.1 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay . 1.1 sec/veh
C ) r) k
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
______ HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.ie Page
=_"`___'_" "_`--------`______ ___`_`_________________________________Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
W 512 Weil Hall
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
- = c =c===c- LS6L====== =_ _ =Streets: (N S) cr39 (E W) cr32 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 24 42
Major Street Direction. . . . NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1346 1318
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1346 1318
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information .or •m 1998 shot (1) 2 3 4 5 long bkgrd t Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
ota
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Conflicting Flows: (vph) 25 49
__ _ _ __ _ Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1668 1625
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1668 1625
L T R LTRLTR L T R Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
_ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 < 0 FT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 4 23 1 1 34 12 13 4 5 1 1 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
MC's (t)
. SU/RV's (5) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 78 72
CV's (4) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 993 1000
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 990 997
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows, (vph) 76 73
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 957 961
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 0.99 1.00
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 1.00
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 0.99 1.00
Movement capacity: (pcph) 947 957
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 15 957 >
EB T 4 997 > 1031 3.6 0.0 A 3.6
ES R 6 1318 >
WB L 1 947 >
WB T 1 990 > 1068 3.4 0.0 A 3.4
WB R 1 1346 >
NB L 4 1625 2.2 0.0 A 0.3
SB L 1 1668 2.2 0.0 A 0.0
Intersection Delay = 1.0 sea/veh
n n )
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
-- - HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation -- -- - -- -
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EH
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) site access Conflicting Flows: (vph) 22
Major Street Direction. . . . NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1350
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1350
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information '-u0 •m 1998 shor ,J 2 3 4 5 long bkgrd t Step 2: LT from Major Street SH NB
to
Two-way Stop-controlled Interse •n Conflicting Flows: (vph) 25
-- Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1668
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1668
LTRL T R L T F L T R Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00
---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
No. Lanes 0 1 c 0 0 > 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 19 5 2 23 12 6 of Queue-Free State: 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 -
Grade 0 0 0 Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EH
MC's (9)
I SU/Rv's (%) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 48
Cv's (I) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 993
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 1.00
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00
Adjustment Factors Movement Capacity: (pcph) 992
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Intersection Performance Summary
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Avg. 95%
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
WB L 14 992 3.7 0.0 A
3.3
WB F 7 1350 2.7 0.0 A
SB L 2 1668 2.2 0.0 A 0.2
Intersection Delay = 1.0 sec/veh
C) O )
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
-- HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
_ ____ _ _ __Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) site access Conflicting Flows: (vph) 30
Major Street Direction. . . . NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1337
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1337
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information m 1998 jshor J2 3 4 5 long bkgrd t Step 2: LT from Major Street SH NB
-iota
Two-way Stop-controlled Interse ' n
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 38
-- -'-- Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1644
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1644
LTRL T RLTR L T R Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- ---- ---- TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
No. Lanes 0 1 c 0 0 > 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
volumes 22 14 7 32 8 4 of Queue-Free State: 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EH
MC's (5)
SU/RV's (k) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 72
CV's (t) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 962
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 Major LT, Minor PH
Impedance Factor: 1.00
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00
Adjustment Factors Movement Capacity: (pcph) 957
vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (t£) Intersection Performance Summary
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Avg. 95t
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
WB L 9 957 3.8 0.0 A
3.4
WE R 4 1337 2.7 0.0 A
SR L 8 1644 2.2 0.0 A 0.4
Intersection Delay = 0.7 sec/veh
APPENDIX I
L ) L ) 0
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.le Page
Center FOr Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB ER
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 30 34
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) cr38 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1337 1331
Major Street Direction NS Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1337 1331
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min) Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Analyst mjd
Date of Analysis 5/3/98 � Step 2: LT from Major Street SE NB
Other Information am •m 199B (shor 113 4 5 long bkgr
tote
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersecti. Conflicting Flows: (vph) 31 34
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1657 1652
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1657 1652
L T R L T R L T R L T R Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes D > 1 c 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 c 0
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 2 28 2 2 31 1 1 2 1 3 1 1
of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Step 3: PH from Minor Street WB EB
Grade 0 0 0 0
MO's (}) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 68 68
SU/RV's (k) Potential Capacity: (Po b) 1005 1005
CV's 1&) P P
Capacity Adjustment Factor
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1003 1003
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Adjustment Factors
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 69 68
vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Potential Capacity: (pcph) 966 967
Gap (tg) Time (tf) Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 962 964
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95R
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 1 964 >
EH T 2 1003 > 1057 3.4 0.0 A 3.4
ER R 1 1331 >
WE L 3 962 >
WE T 1 1003 > 1028 3.5 0.0 A 3.5
WB R 1 1337 >
NB L 2 1652 2.2 0.0 A 0.1
SB L 2 1657 2.2 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 0.5 sec/veh
U ‘aw) U
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
__ HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ----- -
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 -
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Streets: IN-S) cr39 (E-W) cr38 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 34 46
Major Street Direction. . . . NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1331 1312
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1331 1312
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information am .m 1998 `shore1( 3 4 5 long bkgr Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
d tots
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersectio Conflicting Flows: (vph) 34 46
_______________________________________________ Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1652 1630
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1652 1630
LTRL TRLTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 1 31 1 1 43 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
MC's (4)
SU/RV's (t) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 82 82
CV's (4) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 986 988
PCB's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 987 987
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 82 82
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 949 949
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 947 946
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 1 946 >
EH T 1 987 > 1059 3.4 0.0 A 3.4
EB R 1 1312 >
WB L 1 947 >
WB T 2 987 > 1043 3.5 0.0 A 3.5
WH R 1 1331 >
NB L 1 1630 2.2 0.0 A 0.1
SB L 1 1652 2.2 0.0 A 0.0
Intersection Delay = 0.3 sec/veh
( ) (b. ) O
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page :
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation .
University of Florida Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) cr32 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 24 44
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1346 1315
Major Street Direction NS Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1346 1315
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min) Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.99
Analyst mjd
Date of Analysis 5/3/98 e Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
sort
Other Information am •m 1998 h 1:T)3 4 5 long bkgrd t
otal
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersec ..�. Conflicting Flows: (vph) 25 53
__„--------____ ____ Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1668 1617
____ ____ __ ___ -
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) •
N1668 1617
LTRLTRLTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ TN Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
____ ____ ____
No. Lanes 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 6 23 1 2 32 16 9 1 8 1 2 3 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Step 3: TB from Minor Street WB EB
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's (t)
SU/RV's (t) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 86 76
CV's (4) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 983 995
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.99 0.99
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 977 989
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 80 78
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 952 954
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.99 0.99
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 0.99
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 due to Irtmeding Movements 0.99 0.99
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 941 946
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 10 946 >
EB T 1 989 > 1085 3.4 0.0 A 3.4
EB R 9 1315 >
WB L 1 941 >
WB T 2 977 > 1124 3.2 0.0 A 3.2
WB R 3 1346 >
NB L 7 1617 2.2 0.0 A 0.4
SB L 2 1668 2.2 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 0.9 sec/veh
c ) 0 O
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ==_==_ ____"""""""""""""""""""-'_-_"""='i=_===_,
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 '"
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EH
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) cr32 Conflicting Flows: Ivph) 40 52
Major Street Direction. .. . NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1321 1303
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1321 1303
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.99
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information .m':11998 short 1G.)3 4 5 long bkgrd t Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
-rota
Two-way Stop-controlled Interse Conflicting Flows: (vph) 40 61
--------------------- _____ Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1641 1603
_______ ____ ___
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1641 1603
L T R L T R LTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 < 0 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 5 37 1 1 42 16 21 5 6 1 1 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
MC's (t)
SO/RV's (%) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 106 98
CV's (5) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 960 969
POE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 956 965
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.99
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB ED
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 104 99
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 922 928
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 0.99 0.99
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 1.00
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 0.99 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 910 923
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
ER L 24 923 >
ER T 6 965 > 984 3.8 0.0 A 3.8
ED R 7 1303 >
WB L 1 910 >
WB T 1 956 > 1034 3.5 0.0 A 3.5
WE R 1 1321 >
NB L 6 1603 2.3 0.0 A 0.3
SB L 1 1641 2.2 0.0 A 0.0
Intersection Delay = 1.1 sec/veh
( 0 3 3
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1 Page 2
- HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e 9
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation - -- -
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street wB EB
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) site access Conflicting Flows: (vph) 27
Major Street Direction NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1342
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1342
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information am •m 199E hort 1( 3 4 5 long bkgrd t Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
40 a .
Two-way Stop-controlled Interse on Conflicting Flows: (vph) 33
--_---- Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1653
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1653
LTRL T R L T R L T R Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00
---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- ---- ____ ____ ____ ____ TB Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
No. Lanes 0 1 c 0 0 > 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 20 11 5 25 31 16 of Queue-Free State: 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB BB
MC's (t)
SU/RV's (t) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 58
CV's (1)
PcE's 1.10 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 980
1.10 1.10 Major LT, Minor TB
Impedance Factor: 1.00
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Imnedino Movements 1.00
Adjustment Factors Movement Capacity: (pcph) 976
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Intersection Performance Summary
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Avg. 95%
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
WB L 36 976 3.8 0.0 A
3.5
WB R. 19 1342 2.7 0.0 A
SB L 6 1653 2.2 0.0 A 0.4
Intersection Delay = 1.6 sec/veh
CV U O
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ---
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB BB
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) site access Conflicting Flows: (vph) 42
Major Street Direction NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1318
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1318
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information am om 1998 €shor l(i)3 4 5 long bkgrd t Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
fot-
Two-way Stop-controlled Interse '•n Conflicting Flows: (vph) 61
-- Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1603
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1603
LTRLTRLTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
No. Lanes 0 1 c 0 0 > 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 FT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 23 35 19 33 19 10 of Queue-Free State: 0.99
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
MC's (%)
SU/RV's (F) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 98
CV's (t) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 929
PCE's 1.10 , 1.10 1.10 Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 0.99
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.99
Adjustment Factors Movement Capacity: (pcph) 916
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Intersection Performance Summary
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Avg. 95%
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcnh) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
WB L 22 916 4.0 0.0 A
3.6
WE P. 12 1318 2.8 0.0 A
SB L 22 1603 2.3 0.0 A 0.8
Intersection Delay = 1.1 sec/veh
APPENDIX J
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 well Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) cr38 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 37 36
Major Street Direction NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1326 1328
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1326 1328
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Date of Analysis 5/3/9$
Other Information a m 1998 rfihor� 1 2(...;.D4 5 long bkgi Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
(tote
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersect), Conflicting Flows: (vph) 30 36
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1644 1648
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1644 1648
L T R LTRLTR L T R Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 2 34 2 2 33 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
MC's (%)
SU/RV's (%) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 77 78
CV's (1) Potential Capacity: (pcph`. 994 993
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1-1C 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements_ 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 992 991
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB £B
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 78 78
Maneuver Gan (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 954 954
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pooh) 950 951
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 1 951 >
EB T 2 991 > 1046 3.5 0.0 A 3.5
£B R 1 1328 >
WB L 4 950 >
WB T 1 992 > 1005 3.6 0.0 A 3.6
WB R 1 1326 >
NB L 2 1648 2.2 0.0 A 0.1
SB L 2 1644 2.2 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 0.5 sec/veh
L ) CP ) 0
RCS: Unsianalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1 Page 2
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e 9
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ----
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) cr38 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 38 54
Major Street Direction NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1325 1300
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1325 1300
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information a pm 1998 Thor 1 2�4 5 long bkgr Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
d to a
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersectiun Conflicting Flows: (vph) 38 55
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1644 1614
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1644 1614
L T R LTRL T R L T R Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
____ ---- ---- - ---- ---- - ---- ---- ---- --- TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
-
No. Lanes 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 C 0 0 > 1 c 0 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 1 35 1 1 51 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
MC's (t)
SU/RV's
(t)Potentiaing pacit:( ph) 94 94
CV's (t)
I Potential Capacity: (pcph) 974 974
PCE's 11.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.1C 1.1C Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 973 973
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 95 96
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 933 932
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 931 929
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95t
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EH L 1 929 >
EB T 1 973 > 1044 3.5 0.0 A 3.5
SB R 1 1300 >
WB L 1 931 >
WB T 2 973 > 1030 3.5 0.0 A 3.5
WB R 1 1325 >
NB L 1 1614 2.2 0.0 A 0.1
SB L 1 1644 2.2 0.0 A 0.0
Intersection Delay = 0.3 aec/veh
C L ) IIII. )
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
_ HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EH
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) cr32 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 28 41
Major Street Direction. . . . NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1340 1320
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1340 1320
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.99
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information am •m 19981 204 5 long bkgrd t Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
a
Two-way Stop-controlled Interse Conflicting Flows: (vph) 28 64
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1662 1598
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1662 1598
L T R LTRLTR L T R Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
' ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 1 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 6 26 1 2 39 22 11 1 8 1 2 4 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
MC's (t)
SU/RV^s (t) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 100 77
CV's (t) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 967 994
PCE's 1.10 :.i0 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.99 0.99
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 962 988
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street CB EB
vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 80 91
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 952 938
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 0.99 0.99
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 0.99
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 0.99 0.99
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 941 930
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95t
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veb) (veb) (sec/veh)
ES L 13 930 >
EB T 1 988 > 1055 3.5 0.0 A 3.5
EB R 9 1320 >
NB L 1 941 >
WB T 2 962 > 1143 3.2 0.0 A 3.2
WB R 4 1340 >
NB L 7 1598 2.3 0.0 A 0.4
SB L 2 1662 2.2 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 0.9 sec/veh
C )
RCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1 -
--- HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation -----
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) cr32 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 48 49
Major Street Direction. . . . NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1309 1308
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1309 1308
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.99
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information m 1998 shor 1 2(D 4 5 long bkgrd t Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
-Iota -
Two-way Stop-controlled Inters- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 49 70
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1625 1588
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1625 1588
LTRLTR L T R L T R Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- ---- ---- ____ _ ____ ___ TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 1 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 < 0 FT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 5 46 1 1 47 20 26 5 6 1 1 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
FHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade o 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
MC's (%)
SU/RV's (V) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 124 104
CC's (I) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 939 962
=is 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 935 958
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.93
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB Et
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 110 115
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 914 908
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 0.99 0.99
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 2.OC
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 0.99 C-99
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 902 903
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95&
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 30 903 >
RB T 6 958 > 959 3.9 0.0 A 3.9
RB R 7 1308 >
WB L 1 902 >
WB T 1 935 > 1020 3.5 0.0 A 3.5
WB R 1 1309 >
NB L 6 1588 2.3 0.0 A 0.2
SB L 1 1625 2.2 0.0 A 0.0
Intersection Delay = 1.1 sec/veh
'3 .)
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation --
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) site access Conflicting Flows: (vph) 22
Major Street Direction NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1350
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1350
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.98
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information .m pm 1998(shor) 1 204 5 long bkgrd t Step 2: LT from Major Street SR NB
La
Two-way Stop-controlled Interse Conflicting Flows: (vph) 38
-- ---- -- Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1644
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1644
LTRLTR L T R L T R Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
No. Lanes 0 1 1 0 > 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Stop/Yield N N of Queue-Free State: 1.00
Volumes 21 15 7 26 42 22
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Step 4: LT from Minor Street MB EB
Grade 0 0 0
MC's (t) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 56
SU/RV's (%) Potential Capacity: (pooh) 983
Cv's (1) j Major LT, Minor T`
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 Impedance Factor: 1.00
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Imped _ Movements 1.00
Movement Capacity: (ouch) 978
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle critical Follow-up Intersection Performance Summary
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf)
Avg. 95%
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Right Turn Minor Road 55.50 2.60 Rat=_ Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Movement (pooh; (pooh) ipooh) (seo/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
WB L 4E 976 3.9 0.0 A
3.5
NB R 25 1350 2.7 0.0 A
SB L E 1644 2.2 0.0 A 0.5
Intersection Delay = 1.8 sec/veh
I ) O )
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
__=:===e________________.......................__......__s===_=__Page__
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
___________ _____
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) site access Conflicting Flows: (vph) 25
Major Street Direction. . . . NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1345
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1345
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information pm 1998 short 1 2®4 5 long bkgrd t Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
iota.
Two-way Stop-controlled Inters- - Conflicting Flows: (vph) 76
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1577
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1577
LTRLT R LTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.98
____ ____ ____ _ __ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ TB Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
No. Lanes 0 1 1 0 > 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Major LT Shared Lane PrOb.
Stop/Yield N N of Queue-Free State: 0.98
Volumes 24 4B 26 35 26 14
PRE .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB BB
Grade 0 0 0
MC's (I) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 88
SU/RV's (%) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 942
cc's (E) Major LT, Minor TH
PC='s 1.10 1.10 1.10 Impedance Factor: 0.98
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.98
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.98
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 924
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Intersection Performance Summary
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Avg. 95%
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Richt Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
_- _h Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veil)
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 WB L 30 924 4.0 0.0 A
3.6
WE R 17 1345 2.7 0.0 A
SB L 30 1577 2.3 0.0 A 1.0
Intersection Delay = 1.2 sec/veh
APPENDIX K
V U )
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) cr38 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 46 40
Major Street Direction NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1312 1321
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1312 1321
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information am •m 1998 el 2 36D5 long bkgr Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
d tots
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Conflicting Flows: (vph) 47 40
---- Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1628 1641
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1628 1641
LTRLTR LTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
____ ____ ____
No. Lanes 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 < 0 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 2 43 2 2 37 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Pra .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 0 .95 .95 .95 0 .95 .95 .95 .95
0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
Grade
i MC'S (%) ..
SU/RV's (4) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 90 90
CV's (%) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 976 976
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.0C 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 976 976
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.0C 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WE EB
vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 91 90
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 938 939
Major LT, Minor TN
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1-00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 934 936
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EN L 1 936 >
EB T 2 976 > 1032 3.5 0.0 A 3.5
EB R 1 1321 >
WE L 4 934 >
WB T 1 976 > 989 3.7 0.0 A 3.7
WB R 1 1312 >
NB L 2 1641 2.2 0.0 A 0.1
SB L 2 1628 2.2 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay 0.5 sec/veh
L U )
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
_______________ana..==m=z======e==�_a_�a_______ ____ __________ HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.le Page 2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ---- - --University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 "--
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WE EB
«__ :._ -S... a__ea.ma=.a...=.e..... r.e-_.es..........
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W)E-W) cr38 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 44 66
Major Street Direction. .. . NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1315 1282
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1315 1282
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Date of Analysis 5/3/98 -----
Other Information am pm 1998 (shor9 1 2 3(''' 5 long bkgr Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
d tota
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersectio Conflicting Flows: (vph) 45 66
--------------------- ---- Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1632 1595
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1632 1595
L T B L T R LTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
___ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ____ ____ TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 PT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes. 1 42 1 1 62 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
MC's (4)
I SU/RV's (I) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 112 112
CV's (8) Po __i=1 Capacity: (ptph) 953 953
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adiustmert Factor
due c_ Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: .(pcph) 952 952
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: L_ from Minor Street WB EB
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (vph) 113 114
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (poph) 911 910
Major LT, Minor it
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 1.00 1.00
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Inoedate Factor: 1.00 1.00
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due Co impedinc Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 909 907
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 953
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 1 907 >
EH T 1 952 > 1023 3.5 0.0 A 3.5
EB R 1 1282 >
WB L 1 909 >
WB T 2 952 > 1010 3.6 0.0 A 3.6
WB R 1 1315 >
NB L 1 1595 2.3 0.0 A 0.1
SB L 1 1632 2.2 0.0 A 0.0
Intersection Delay = 0.3 sec/veh
` ) L.�
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
_ __ HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
.:___.S=....e==.... ___==______.................__e____..._____.
streets
: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) cr32 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 32 53
Major Street Direction. . . . NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1334 1302
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1334 1302
Analyst mjd Prob. Of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.99
Date of Analysis 5/3/98 Other Information Op pm 1998 Chor�1 2 3(2)5Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NH
5 long bkgrd t
two-way Stop-controlled Interse . Conflicting Flows: (vph) 33 82
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1653 1567
Northbound Southbound Eastbound westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1653 1567
LTRL TRLTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 1 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 PT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
volumes 6 30 1 2 50 28 13 1 9 1 2 4 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PBF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
MC's (t)
SU/RV's (t) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 122 94
CV's (t) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 941 974
PCR's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1 .10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.99 0.99
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 936 968
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB BB
vehicle Critical Follow-un Conflicting Flows: (vph) 98 111
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (uf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 929 913
Major LT, Minor TH
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 0.99 0.99
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 0.99
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impeding Movements 0.99 0.99
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 917 905
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec,/veh)
EB L 15 905 >
BB T 1 968 > 1028 3.6 0.0 A 3.6
EB R 10 1302 >
WB L 1 917 >
WB T 2 936 > 1124 3.2 0.0 A 3.2
WB R 4 1334 >
NB L 7 1567 2.3 0.0 A 0.4
SB L 2 1653 2.2 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 0.8 sec/veh
L ) fire
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
- - -- HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation =__________ ___________________e=__________ _______________________________
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (H-W) cr32 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 62 57
Major Street Direction. .. . NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1288 1296
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1288 1296
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.99
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information .,,I . 1998 short 1 2 3(i)5 long bkgrd t Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
iota _ -'
Two-way Stop-controlled Interse Conflicting Flows: (vph) 62 82
________=a___-_____w----- ------- - ----- Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1602 1567
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1602 1567
LTRL T R L T R L T R Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
---- ---- ---- ---- --- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- TH Saturation Flow Rate: (p0phpl) 1700 1700
No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 1 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 PT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
volumes 5 58 1 1 54 24 34 5 6 1 1 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 0 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB
MC's (U) -
SU/RV's (t) Conflicting Flows: (rub) 150 125
CV's (%) Potential Capacity: ,ocvh) 910 938
PCB's 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00 1.00
Movement Capacity: (pooh) 906 934
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00 0.99
Adjustment Factors Step 4: LT from Minor S____L WB RR
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Conflicting Flows: (cob) 130 138
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 890 881
Major LT, Minor Ta
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Impedance Factor: 0.99 0.99
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 1.00
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Capacity Adjustment Factor
Left Turn Mmcc Road 6.50 3.40 due to Impedinc M.c:emea-c 0.99 0.99
Movement Capacity: (pooh) 878 876
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95t
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Can Can Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
EB L 40 876 >
EB T 6 934 > 922 4.1 0.0 A 4.1
HB R 7 1296 >
WB L 1 878 >
WB T 1 906 > 994 3.6 0.0 A 3.6
WB R 1 1288 >
NB L 6 1567 2.3 0.0 A 0.2
SB L 1 1602 2.2 0.0 A 0.0
Intersection Delay = 1.1 sec/veh
t.. ) 43
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
--- HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation - ---- - --- - - _
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB BB
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) site access Conflicting Flows: (vph) 22
Major Street Direction. . . . NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1350
Length of Time Analyzed. .. 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1350
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97
Date of Analysis 5/3/98 -_..
Other Information am .m 1998 short 1 2 3®5 long bkgrd t Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
a�
Two-way Stop-controlled Interse ion Conflicting Flows: (vph) 44
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1633
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1633
LTRLTR L T R L T R Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
No. Lanes 0 1 1 0 > 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Stop/Yield N N of Queue-Free State: 0.99
Volumes 21 21 10 27 58 31
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Grade 0 0 0
MC's (g) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 61
SU/RV's (%) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 976
CV's (5) Major fi, Minor TH
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 Impedance Factor: C.99
Adjusted Impedance Factor: e.gg
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements C.99
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 553
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Intersection Performance Summary
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time ,tf)
Avc. 95%
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Rate Cap Cap D=_.=_y Length LOS Delay
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcvh) (sez.veh, ;at (sec/veh)
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
WB L 67 969 4.0 0.1 A
3.6
WB R 36 1350 2.7 0.0 A
SB L 12 1633 2.2 0.0 A 0.6
Intersection Delay = 2.0 sec/veh
L ) O
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
______________________________________________________________________= HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ---- ----------------------------------------------------------------
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB FE
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) site access Conflicting Flows: (vph) 26
Major Street Direction NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1343
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1343
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.98
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information -m p 1998 ahoy 1 2 3®5 long bkgrd t Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
l-ota
Two-way Stop-controlled Interse Conflicting Flows: (vph) 97
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1541
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1541
L T P L T P. L T P L T R Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -- TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
No. Lanes 0 1 1 0 > 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Stop/Yield N N of Queue-Free State: 0.97
Volumes 25 67 36 36 36 20
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Grade 0 0 0
MC's (t) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 102
SU/RV's (t) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 924
CV's (1) Maicr LT, Minor TE
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 IpeCance Factor: 0.97
2,djusted impedance Factor: 0.97
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Imp=_ding Movements 0.97
M.w h.._t Capacity: (pcph) 898
Adjustment Factors
vehicle Critical Follow-up Intersection Performance Summary
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tfl
Avg. 95t
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 M....�,=c froth) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40
WE L 42 898 4.2 0.0 A
3.7
WE 1 23 1343 2.7 0.0 A
SR L 42 1541 2.4 0.0 A 1.2
Intersection Delay 1.3 sec/veh
O C )
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
__=----------------________ __________________ ___________________ Page 2
-- r-- HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e g
Center ity Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: AT from Minor Street WB ES
------
- =` ==c-cc-----------= - «
-------_-=-=e
Streets: (NS) cr39 (E-W) cr32 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 189 147
Major Street Direction NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1111 1166
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1111 1166
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.98 0.99
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information pm 1998 short 1 2 3 4 5 lon� bkgrd t Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB
-Iota ___.__
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 210 226
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1361 1338
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1361 1338
LTRLTRLTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97 0.99
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 < 0 1 1 < 0 Step 3: TB from Minor Street WB EB
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 10 180 20 30 140 75 110 25 10 10 15 15 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 458 400
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 627 673
Grade 0 0 0 0
MC's (k) Capacity Adjustment ementr
5U/RV's (E) due to Impeding Movements 0.97 0.97
CV's (I) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 605 650
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97 0.9E
PCR•s 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 398 434
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 623 594
Adjustment Factors Major LT, Minor TH
Vehicle Critical
Factor: 0.92 0.94
Critical Follow-up Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.94 0.95
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0.93 0.94
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 580 556
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95k
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veld
EB L 128 556 8.4 1.0 B
EB T 29 650 > 7.6
EB R 12 1166 > 747 5.1 0.0 B
MP L 12 580 6.3 0.0 B
WB T 18 605 > 5.2
WB P. 18 1111 > 783 4.8 0.0 A
NB L 12 1338 2.7 0.0 A 0.1
SB L 35 1361 2.7 0.0 A 0.3
Intersection Delay = 2.2 sec/veh
( 3 U
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
________________ _ HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
-
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation - ----
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WH EH
Streets: (N-S) cr39 (E-W) site access Conflicting Flows: (vph) 74
Major Street Direction. . .. NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1270
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1270
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.90
Pate of Analysis 5/3/9:
Other Information a' •m 1998 short 1 2 3 4 5 long bkgrd t Step 2: LT from Major Street SH NH
ta
Two-way Stop-controlled Intense '•n Conflicting Flows: (vph) 163
--------------- - __ __ Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1434
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1434
LTRLTR LTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.96
__ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
No. Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Step 4: LT from Minor Street WH EH
Stop/Yield N N
volumes 70 85 45 65 190 105 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 190
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 822
Grade 0 0 0 Major LT, Minor TE
MC's (3) Impedance Factor: 0.96
SU/RV's (t) Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.96
CV's (U) Capacity Adjustment Factor
PCR's 1.10 1.10 1.10 due to Imnedinc Movements 0.96
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 792
Intersection Performance Summary
Adjustment Factors
Avg. 953
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Maneuver Gap (tc; Time (tf) Rate Can Can Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pooh) (pcpb) (sec/vets) (veh) (sec/vets)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 WH L 220 792 6.3 1.3 H
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 5.2
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 WH R 122 1270 3.1 0.3 A
SB L 52 1434 2.6 0.0 A 1.1
Intersection Delay = 2.9 sec/veh
IL ) (s-)
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ==,___`_________.`_`,'_.......................... __________ ___ ----
university of Florida 512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
= = _..S) tee
(E-W) site access Conflicting Flows: (vph) 79
Major Street Direction. .. . NS Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1263
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1263
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.93
Date of Analysis 5/3/96
Other Information .0 '-m 1998 short 1 2 3 4 5 long kgrd t Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NP
rota
Iwo-way Stop-controlled Intersec on Conflicting Flows: (vph) 321
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1205
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1205
L T R LTRLTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.88
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
No. Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EH
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 75 230 125 105 135 75 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 322
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 689
Grade 0 0 0 Major LT, Minor TH
MC's (t) Impedance Factor: 0.88
SU/RV's (t) Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.88
CV's (t) Capacity Adjustment Factor
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 due to Impeding Movements 0.88
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 606
Intersection Performance Summary
Adjustment Factors
Avg. 95t
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
Left Tu_= Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Tura Minor Road 5.50 2.60 WB L 156 606 8.0 1.1 B
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 6.2
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 WB R 87 1263 3.1 0.1 A
SD L 145 1205 3.4 0.4 A 1.8
Intersection Delay = 2.3 sec/veh
t ) ksz. )
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
................------__-------......-------------_-------_____________ HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ..............________....__:.....____________«...........===========...
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Streets: (N-5) site access (E-W) cr38 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 22
Major Street Direction EW Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1350
Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (peph) 1350
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information .. .m 1998 short 1 2 3 4 5401:::( bkgrd t Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
a
Two-way Stop-controlled Inters- '.n Conflicting Flows: (vph) 27
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1664
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1664
LTRLTR LTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00
---- --- - - --- TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
No. Lanes 0 1 < 0 0 > 1 0 0 > 0 < 0 0 0 0 FT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
volumes 15 10 1 15 30 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
MC's ($)
SU/RV's (%) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 38
CV's (f) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1007
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 1.00
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00
Adjustment Factors Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1006
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Intersection Performance Susmary
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Avg. 95%
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veb) (veh) (sec/veh)
NB L 35 1006 >
1013 3.7 0.0 A 3.7
NB A 1 1350 >
WB L 1 1664 2.2 0.0 A 0.1
Intersection Delay = 1.6 sec/veh
L, } J I
HOS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
- HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ___ ____----------------------------------------------_-------_________
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SR
Streets: (N-S) site access (E-W) cr38 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 30
Major Street Direction. . . . EW Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1337
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1337
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00
Date of Analysis 5/3/98
Other Information . { 998 short 1 2 3 4 5 lon bkgrd t Step 2: LT from Major Street WB RE
-iota
Two-way Stop-controlled Interse - Conflicting Flows: (vph) 48
____ ____ ___ ______ ---- Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1626
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1626
LTRLT R L T A L T R Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1.00
--- ---' ---- ---- ---- ---- TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
No. Lanes 0 1 < 0 0 > 1 0 0 > 0 < 0 0 0 0 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Stop/Yield N N Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
Volumes 10 35 1 10 20 1 of Queue-Free State: 1.00
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95
Grade 0 0 0 Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SE
MC's (3)
SU/RV's (t) Conflicting Flows: (vph) 42
CV's (3) Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1001
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 Major LT, Minor TR
Impedance Factor: 1.00
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 1.00
Adjustment Factors Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1000
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Intersection Performance Summary
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Avg. 958
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
NB L 23 1000 >
1011 3.6 0.0 A 3.6
NB R 1 1337 >
WB L 1 1626 2.2 0.0 A 0.2
Intersection Delay = 1.0 sec/veh
I
I Ailli
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
- _ HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
,.,, t
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation - --
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Streets: (N-S) site access (E-W) cr32 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 18
Major Street Direction.. . . EW Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1356
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1356
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.96
Date of Analysis 5/3/9:
Other Information R 1998 short 1 2 3 4 5 tong bkgrd t Step 2: LT from Major Street WB ED
+etal
Two-way Stop-controlled Inters- '.n Conflicting Flows: (vph) 21
--- - Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1675
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1675
LTRLTRL T R L T R Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.99
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
No. Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 c 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 c 0 Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 20 10 15 5 15 50 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 50
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 991
Grade 0 0 0 Major LT, Minor TB
MC's (t) Impedance Factor: 0.99
SU/Rv's (t) Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99
CV's (t) Capacity Adjustment Factor
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10 due to Impeding Movements 0.99
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 977
Intersection Performance Summary
Adjustment Factors
Avg. uet
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Flow Move Shared Total Queue
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (t£)) Rate Cap Cap Delay Length AP
LOS Delay
h
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 SB L 18 977 >
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.3C 1242 3.1 0.1 A 3.1
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 SB R 58 1356 >
EB L 23 1675 2.2 0.0 A 1.5
Intersection Delay = 2.1 sec/veh
EP ; (1 f >
HOS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 1
------------------------------------------ --------------------------- HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation ---_ -
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378 Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Streets: (N-S) site access (E-W) cr32 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 13
Major Street Direction. . . . EW Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1364
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 15 (min) Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1364
Analyst mjd Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.97
Date of Analysis - 5/3/98
Other Information a ( 1998 short 1 2 3 4 5 EISbkgrd t Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB
`+ota
Two-way Stop-controlled Interse '•n Conflicting Flows: (vph) 21
-- - -- - -- - Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1675
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1675
LTRL T RLTRLTR Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.96
____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
No. Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 c 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 C 0 Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 60 15 5 15 10 35 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 92
PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 937
Grade 0 0 D Major LT, Minor PH
MC's (%) Impedance Factor: 0.96
SU/RV's 1%) I Adjusted 3 Factor:ustmen 0.96
(}) Capacity Adjustment Factor
PCE'PCE5 1.10 1.1D 1.10 due to Impeding Movements 0.96
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 898
Intersection Performance Summary
Adjustment Factors
Avg. 95$
Vehicle Critical Follow-up Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10
Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 SB L 12 898 >
Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 1221 3.1 0.0 A 3.1
Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 SB R 41 1364 >
EB L 69 1675 2.2 0.0 A 1.8
Intersection Delay = 2.0 sec/veh
suo!s!Awd
336t Easlprook
Fan Cosies.Colorer 5O525
ride the If
Qwest.
QWEST
3351 Eastbrook Dr.
Fort Collins, CO. 60525
August 7,2002
Subject Telephone facilities to planned/proposed development.
Attn: Christine Hethcock
QWEST will provide service to your planned/proposed development,Beebe Draw Farms Filing 2 in
Plattville Colorado. Provisioning the service will be in accordance with tariffs on file at the
Colorado Public Utilities Commission.I will need a final plat with measurements, easements, addresses,
your phasing plan, and a french plan before I can have this engineered. If there are any further questions,
or if I can provide any assistance, please contact me on 970-377-6406.
Sincerely,
a ‘,14 Zarar
Carole A. Veysey
Senior Design Engineer LDA's
** TOTAL PAGE . 01 **
Xcel Energy— Greeley Operations
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY 15006th Avenue
Greeley,Colorado 80631
August 12,2002
Christine Hethcock
3600 S Logan St#200
Englewood, CO 80110
Subject: Service Availability for Beebe Draw Farms Filing II
Dear Christine:
In accordance with our tariffs filed with and approved by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission,
electric facilities can be made available to serve your project at Beebe Draw Farms Filing II.
Currently our lead time for design is 4 months. Lead time for construction, once the design has been
approved, applicable costs have been paid and applicable contracts have been signed and returned, is 2
months. Due to workload, material availability and design complexity, design and construction lead times
are approximate and subject to change. Please submit your plans at the earliest opportunity to better
assure meeting your proposed schedule for receiving service.
Electric Costs for the project will be calculated in conformance with our filed SERVICE CONNECTION
AND DISTRIBUTION LINE EXTENSION POLICY.
If you have any questions or comments, or if I can be of further assistance, please call me at 970-395-
1207
Sincerely,
Terry E Stencel
Planer
1
GREELEY
August 15,2002 GAS
COMPANY
Christine Hethcock
3600 South Logan Street,Suite 200
Englewood,Colorado 80110
RE: Service Availability
Christine:
In accordance with our tariffs filed with and approved by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission,natural
gas facilities can be made available to serve your project at BeeBe Draw Farms(2n°Filing), Platteville,
Colorado.
Currently our lead-time for design is 2 months. Lead-time for construction is dependent upon the work
schedule of the independent contractor that installs the natural gas facilities per Greeley Gas Company
specifications. Due to workload, and design complexity, lead times may vary and are subject to change.
Please submit your plans, including final plat,at your earliest convenience to better assure meeting your
proposed schedule for receiving service.
o
0
N Natural gas installation costs for the project will be calculated per our filing with the Colorado Public
o Utilities Commission.
0
Should you have any questions or comments,please contact Chris McDermott,Business Development
Representative,or me at 970-304-2080.
w
W
Sincerely,
CV
0
X
O
CO _
Jerry D.Adams
a Senior Engineering Technician
aGreeley Gas Company
0
0
N
O
U
N
w
-J
W
CC
0
r.-
SUO!S!AO.Jd
'Nem
.-1
alFr
CENTRAL WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
June 24, 2002
Ms. Christine Hethcock
Gilbraltar Equity Investments
3600 S. Logan St., Ste. 200
Englewood, CO 80110
RE: Water System,Filing 2, PeIicanLake Ranch, Beebe Dravv Farms Metropolitan Disrict
Dear Christine,
As part of the improvements provided for the initial development of Pelican Lakes Ranch (Filing
I), the Metropolitan District contracted with Central Weld County Water District on June 27,
1995 to provide water service. Based on hydraulic studies, it was determined that a three (3)
million gallon storage tank would be required to serve the total development (Filing 1 and Filing
2). This tank was for the most part, to provide storage for fire flow to the development. This
tank has been constructed at Weld Co. Rd. 38-& 39. In addition, a pump station was constructed
to maintain pressure to those lots located at the higher elevations of the development and provide
for the delivery of fire flow. The water distribution system is made up of 14", 12", 10' , and 8"
water mains with some 6" mains that loop together with larger mains to allow the delivery of
water to fire hydrants located through-out the subdivision. These hydrants were locatt:d under
the guidance of the LaSalle Fire Protection District.
Since initial construction of facilities serving the development, Central Weld Count/ Water
District has improved their system by installing an 18", 16", and 14" high pressure gray ty main
that connects to the three (3)million gallon storage tank. This main delivers water direct!y to the
tank by gravity feed rather than having to be pumped. This provides a much greater dagree of
reliability in the water source that serves the subdivision.
The distribution system that is planned for Filing 2 will include 12", 10", and 8" mains that are
sized to deliver fire flow to fire hydrants located through-out the subdivision. This sysl em will
connect to the three (3) million gallon storage tank and will deliver water by gravi y feed.
Individual pressure regulators will be provided at each meter to reduce the pressure, in most
cases, in that the pressure available will be higher than that normally allowed for residential
construction. This system has been reviewed by the LaSalle Fire Protection District and has been
approved regarding fire hydrant and line layout.
2235 2nd Avenue • Greeley,Colorado 80631 • Phone(970)352-1284 • Fax(970)353-5865
John W. Zadnf r u ne
Page 2
Water System
As you are aware, the Metropolitan District has purchased 179 shares of Co]oi ado Big
Thompson (CBT) water that has been transferred to Central Weld County Water Di strict for
Filing 1. CBT water is available for purchase on the open market and is bought as needed to
meet the requirements of the development phasing as will be the case for Filing 2. A share of
CBT water must be transferred to the water District prior to or at the time each phase is
developed.
If you have any questions regarding the above,please advise.
Sincerely,
CENTRAL WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
J. L.Walter
Staff Engineer
r-�
JLW/rg
•
AMENDMENT NO . ONE
TO AGREEMENT FOR WATER SERVICE
THIS AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO AGREEMENT FOR WATER SERVICE
("Amenn��nm ent No . 1" ) is made and entered into as of this .(lam day
of ma , 1999, by and between CENTRAL WELD COUNTY WATER
DISTRICT '("Water District" ) , BEEBE DRAW FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
("Metro District" ) , and REI LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (" Company" ;
Water District, Metro District and Company collectively referred to
as " Parties" ) .
RECITALS
A. The Parties have previously entered into the Agreement
for Water Service dated as of June 27, 1995 ("Agreement" ) , under
which the Water District has agreed to furnish water service to the
Property owned by the Company within the Metro District according
to the terms, conditions and limitations set forth therein.
B. The Parties desire to supplement certain provisions of
the Agreement relating to the acquisition and transfer of water
supplies for development of the Property. This Amendment No. 1
will serve a beneficial public use and will promote the health,
1 safety, prosperity, security and general welfare of the inhabitants
J of the Districts and the Company.
AGREEMENT
In consideration of the mutual covenants, agreements, and
promises hereinafter set forth, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree to amend the
Agreement as follows :
1 . Paragraph 11 of the Agreement is hereby amended by the
addition of the following:
Any other provision of this Agreement notwithstanding, if
either the Metro District or Company has acquired and
transferred water supplies to the Water District, which
have not been fully used or credited for use to any water
tap issued by the Water District and which the Metro
District or Company, as applicable, determines will not
be used for the development of the Property within a
reasonable time, then such Party may direct that any
excess water supply be re-transferred to any person
specified by such Party, subject to: (i) all transfer
regulations of the Northern District, Northern
Subdistrict, or other water supplier; (ii) payment of any
transfer fee charged by the Northern District or Northern
BdMThWTRStVCM4)
Subdistrict; (iii) if the Water District does not
--se)
purchase the excess water supply, reimbursement of any
1 assessment on such water supply imposed by the Northern
District or Northern Subdistrict and paid by the Water
District during the current calendar year, prorated as of
the transfer date; and (iv) a right of first refusal of
the Water District to purchase the excess water supply
for the original cost thereof, along with interest
thereon from the date of acquisition at the rate of six
percent ( 6%) per annum (" Purchase Price" ) . The Water
District shall exercise the right of first refusal by
making payment of the Purchase Prfde in certified funds _
within 30 days after receipt of written notice from the
Metro District or Company, as applicable, and if not so
exercised, then the right of first refusal shall expire
and terminate without condition. Unless impracticable,
the Water District will initiate the process to transfer
the excess water supply within 30 days after receipt of
written notice from the Metro District or Company. The
Water District shall not be involved in, and shall have
no responsibility for, the terms of sale or payment of
the sales price of such excess water supply. Any re-
transfer of water supplies shall not be deemed to release
or otherwise nullify the obligation of the Metro District
and Company to furnish adequate water supplies for the
development of the Property according to the terms of the
Agreement .
2 . Except as expressly modified by this Amendment No. 1, the
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect . All terms and
definitions set forth in the Agreement shall have the same meanings
and effect hereunder.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment
No. 1 as of the date above written.
CENTRAL WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
By:
President
3/3
( S E A L ) Attest: Cif:24
Secretary
Secretary
Date: 1777,-0 , 1999
2
STATE OF COLORADO
} ss .
COUNTY OF }
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this c< �
day of b7 /G7 ,,„1199,9, by / ,Yc.,-, f yJi� ' C,, as President
and ^ ,ii(s o ui s J ✓ as Secretary of the Central Weld
Countyy Water District .
Witness my hand and official seal .
My commission expires : 4c!` O Zo-�i
7
/4 -`412-11-
Notary Bfblic
BEEBE DRAW FARMS METROPOLITAN
DISTRICT
By: ;�.e / /
Ja es ider
( S E A L ) Atte/['/
Tho as A. Burk, Secretary
Date : � Ut4-- [(Q , 1999
STATE OF COLORADO
} ss .
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON
The_,Z oregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this AD*
day of N1 UV�.../ , 1999, by James W. Fell as President and Thomas
A. Burk as Secretary of the Central Weld County Water District .
Witness my hand and official seal .
MyO11Mi4+e,Wn expires : 1( lO1UD.,
S N0TAR CitUa e
f .o o-o- : �v,' Notary Public
OF coy°
o
•
REI LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,
dba Investors Limited Liability
Company
By: �/ n
Manager
Date : �/-2-c7 , 1999 '
STATE OF COLORADO }
� ` } ss .
COUNTY OF V rS(7�' )
The or,ne/g1oing instrument visa.; acknowle Jed before me this c;,-S-1-1N-
day
of COY`Q., , 1999, by Ol ‘ 12., (ccHey as Manager of
the REI Limited Liability Company, a Wyoming limited liability
company doing business in Colorado as Investors Limited Liability
Company.
Witness my hand `ar411,p fief icia1 seal .
'
My ° , l Wq4�, IB aa
commission, 1res�..,
=i1/4OTARJ� ; . ti
••,PO 8 LAG
o . Mary Public
*� t't ......: ' 4.1" .O
4
AGREEMENT FOR WATER SERVICE
This Agreement for Water Service ( "Agreement" ) is made and
entered into as of this 27th day of June, 1995 , by and between
CENTRAL WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT ( "Water District" ) , BEEBE DRAW
FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT ( "Metro District" ) , each of such
Districts being Colorado special districts located in Weld County,
and REI LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ( "Company" ) , a Wyoming limited
liability company doing business in Colorado- as Investors Limited
Liability Company.
WHEREAS, Water District is organized as a special district
pursuant to Section 32-1-101, et seq. , C. R. S . , to furnish treated
water within its jurisdictional boundaries; and
WHEREAS, Water District purchases water from the Carter Lake
Filter Plant, a Colorado municipal corporation, which acquires raw
water from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
( "Northern District" ) and its Municipal Subdistrict ( "Northern
Subdistrict" ) in accordance with certain agreements between such
entities; and
WHEREAS, Metro District is organized as a special district
pursuant to Section 32-1-101, et seq. , C .R. S . , to furnish treated
water, recreation, roads, and related services within its
jurisdictional boundaries; and
WHEREAS, Company is the owner of certain real property, as is
more specifically described in Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein, zoned and platted as an 800-unit residential
development commonly referred to as Beebe Draw Farms and Equestrian
Center ( "Property" ) , and desires to receive treated water service
for the Property from the Water District or Metro District; and
WHEREAS, the Property comprises all of the territory within
the Metro District, is not currently within the jurisdictional
boundaries of the Water District, but was included into the
jurisdictional boundaries of the Northern Subdistrict on March 27 ,
1986 ; a petition for inclusion of the Property into the Northern
District itself is pending final approval by the Secretary of the
United States Department of Interior or his delegate; and
WHEREAS, Water District, Metro District and Company have
determined that the Property can be most efficiently and
effectively furnished treated water service by the Water District
exclusively utilizing raw water supplied by the Northern District
or Northern Subdistrict in accordance with the terms and conditions
of service set forth in this intergovernmental_ contract, which also
provides in part for the joint exercise of statutory powers by each
District pursuant to Section 29-1-203 , C.R. S . , with the full
consent and approval of the Company,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants ,
agreements, and promises hereinafter set forth, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as
follows :
1 . The Water District shall exclusively furnish treated
water service to the Property in accordance with Water District
rules and regulations and line extension policies as now adopted or
as hereafter may be adopted by the Water District for all its
customers, except as otherwise specifically provided herein. All
such rules, regulations, and rates , fees, and charges of the Water
District relating to water service to the Property shall be applied
uniformly among similar users within the jurisdictional boundaries
of the Water District, including the Property, except as otherwise
specifically provided herein. The Water District may, however,
establish different rates and other criteria for service within
areas of the Water District as provided by statute . The Metro
District will not provide treated water service to the Property.
2 . The Metro District or Company shall pay for and provide
all water mains and related facilities either within or without the
boundaries of the Metro District in order to furnish water service
to the Property. The Water District must give its prior written
2
approval to all construction by the Metro District or Company, or
its contractors , upon terms approved by the Water District .
A. The Water District must approve such construction by the
Metro District or Company, or its contractors, by
subsequent written agreement providing for the terms of
such installation, including requirements that the
materials used shall meet all standards of the Water
District and that provides for inspection by the Water
District of the construction of such water mains and
facilities . The cost of all construction shall be paid
by the Metro District or Company to the Water District or
to the contractors, as the case may be .
B . If construction is performed by the Water District or its
contractors, a deposit in the amount hereafter specified
shall be paid by the Metro District or Company to the
Water District as an advance towards the construction
cost of such installation. After completion of such
`] construction and acceptance by the Water District , a
final adjustment of costs will be made, if necessary. In
the event that it is determined that the deposit is
insufficient to cover the estimated cost of construction,
then the Metro District or Company shall pay to Water
District , on demand, additional advances towards the cost
of construction.
C. The Metro District shall pay a nonrefundable contribution
in aid of construction for all offsite transmission and
water storage facilities used to furnish water service to
the Property in the amount of $300, 000 . No other capital
contributions shall be required, except for the actual
cost of water mains and appurtenant facilities specified
herein. Such contribution in aid of construction shall
be paid (i) at such time as the Water District or Metro
District has acquired and transferred the raw water
J supply from the Northern District or Northern Subdistrict
3
to the Water District as hereinafter provided, or (ii) on
July 1, 1997 , whichever event occurs first . In the event
such contribution in aid of construction is not paid for
any reason, then this Agreement shall terminate and be of
no further force or effect , unless the Water District
extends such payment date by written notice .
D . If the installation is constructed by the Metro District
or Company, or its contractors, the Metro District or
Company shall transfer all right, title, and interest in
and to such facilities installed as well as necessary
easements and appurtenances and related property rights
to the Water District by good and sufficient assignment
or bill of sale with warranties of title and by general
warranty deed. Such transfer shall be made free and
clear of all liens and encumbrances . The Metro District
or Company shall furnish sufficient evidence of title
with a "Form 100" endorsement to a standard ALTA title
policy, if required by the Water District . The Metro
District or Company shall furnish appropriate lien
releases or a good and sufficient bond in form acceptable
to the Water District in order to insure that all
construction costs have been paid in full . All labor and
materials shall be warranted for defects of any kind by
the Metro District or Company, or its contractors, for
two years from the date of written acceptance of such
facilities by the Water District . The Water District,
upon receipt of the documents of transfer and evidence of
title, shall consider whether to accept or reject the
installation. If the Metro District or Company has
complied with the applicable provisions of this Agreement
and all other conditions precedent to the acceptance of
such facilities, the Water District shall approve and
accept the transfer and shall thereafter assume all
operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of such
facilities . In no event shall the Water District assume
any ownership, operation, or maintenance of any
4
installation on the service side of a customer' s meter
installation.
E. The design and fire flow of the water facilities
installed to serve the Property shall be subject to
review and comment by the fire protection authority with
jurisdiction over -the Property prior to installation of
such facilities .
_.y
3 . The Water District will sell water taps in accordance '.
with the terms of this Agreement and Water District rules and
regulations for improvements constructed on the Property within the
Metro District upon a customer' s application for service and
payment of all fees and charges set forth in Water District rules
and regulations, subject to the general availability of such water
taps and the reasonable responsibility of the Water District to
furnish treated water service to the Property recognizing that
temporary interruptions of water service may occur . If the Water
District cannot furnish an adequate raw water supply for the
development of the Property, the Metro District or Company shall
acquire adequate raw water supplies for each phase of development
of the Property from the Northern District or Northern Subdistrict
in accordance with their established policies or from other sources
acceptable to the Water District and transfer such water supplies
to the Water District for service to the Property in accordance
with Water District rules and regulations; provided that, the Metro
District may reuse all water acquired and transferred from the
Northern Subdistrict to the Water District for irrigation of Metro
District recreational facilities or other District purposes,
subject to all applicable reuse regulations of the Northern
Subdistrict . In order to provide raw water supplies for the
Property as herein provided, the Metro District or Company agree to
transfer the units of Northern District or Northern Subdistrict
water rights so acquired to the Water District for such purpose.
The total value of such units shall be applied as a credit against
the raw water fee of the Water District at the time of issuance of
each such tap; the customer shall pay only the capital improvement
5
fee component of the Water District tap fee and other standard
, charges due at the time of the tap installation. The Water
J District will be obligated to serve no more than 800 residential
equivalent units on the Property for which an adequate supply has
been furnished by the Metro District or Company in accordance with
all terms set forth herein. In addition to the rates , fees and
charges of the Water District, the Metro District may impose fees
and charges to customers within the Metro District for water and
facilities furnished by the Metro Districty and such fees and
charges shall be collected by the Water District from such
customers at the time of issuance of water taps and remitted to the
Metro District .
4 . Customers within the Water District and Metro District
shall commence payment of the uniform rates of the Water District,
including minimum fees, on the date of setting of the water meter
and the availability of water for use at the tap.
5 . The terms of this Agreement shall apply only to the
Property, and the water taps provided in accordance herewith may be
used only upon the Property which must be located within the
jurisdictional boundaries of the Metro District and Water District .
The parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall be an
intergovernmental service contract subjecting the Property to all
terms, provisions, and limitations set forth herein, which
Agreement may be recorded establishing covenants running against
the Property itself .
6 . The Company shall provide the Water District with an
accurate copy of the final plat of the Property to be served by the
Water District . If the plat must be approved by the County
Commissioners, then a copy of the final plat recorded with the
County Clerk must be provided to the Water District .
7 . The Company hereby grants to the Water District and Metro
District the right to enter upon the Property and all roads,
^^` rights-of-way, and utility easements described on the final plat of
J 6
the Property to construct , operate and maintain the facilities
herein described, together with the right of ingress and egress and
the right to cut and trim trees and shrubbery to the extent
necessary. The Company shall convey to the Water District all
easements reasonably required by the Water District for facilities
which are not located in dedicated roads, rights-of-way, or utility
easements , on the District' s form of easement , and the Water
District shall not be responsible for any delay in providing
service to the Property in the event of failure to provide such
easements . This provision of the Agreement shall be specifically"'
enforceable by the Water District .
8 . The water facilities herein described are required by
dates to be subsequently specified by the Metro District and
Company. In the event the Water District installs any such
facility, the Water District shall use reasonable diligence in
completing such facility by the specified date . If such facilities
cannot be installed because of act of God, governmental authority,
action of the elements, accident, strikes, labor trouble, inability
to secure materials or equipment, or any cause beyond the
reasonable control of the Water District, the Water District shall
not be liable therefor or for damages caused thereby.
9 . In the event that the Water District installs such
facilities, the Water District shall install the facilities
described herein in accordance with good engineering and
construction practices after the Company has established platted
property lines and the Metro District has excavated streets,
rights-of-way, and easements to final grade and prior to the paving
of streets and construction of curbs and gutters, if applicable .
The Metro District or Company, as applicable, shall reimburse the
Water District for any expense due to subsequent changes made by
the Metro District or Company.
10 . Water service shall be provided to individual customers
on the Property located within the Metro District at the applicable
rates adopted from time to time by the Water District for all
7
customers within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Water
District in accordance with Water District rules and regulations as
now established or as may hereafter be established. On or before
the date that payment is made as required in Paragraph 2 . C. of this
Agreement, the Company agrees to petition to the Water District to
include the Property into the Water District and to pay all costs
associated with the inclusion process and to do all other necessary
acts to include the Property within the Water District . If the
Metro District and Water District determine- that it is necessary
and desirable to acquire Colorado-Big Thompson water units ( "CBT "
Water" ) from the Northern District to serve the Property, the
Company also agrees to petition to the Northern District to include
the Property into the Northern District and to pay all costs
associated with the inclusion process and to do all other necessary
acts to include the Property into the Northern District . No water
service shall be provided except to the Property included within
the boundaries of the Metro District , Water District, Northern
Subdistrict, and if CBT water is to be utilized thereon, Northern
District . All parties agree that no other person or property shall
be permitted to receive such water service which is to be furnished
only to the Property in accordance with terms and provisions of
this Agreement .
11 . The Water District agrees to allow installation of 800
residential equivalent water taps (with no more than 100 tap
installations per year, unless specifically approved by the Water
District) within the Property which shall be located within the
Water District and Metro District, subject to all terms and
provisions of this Agreement . All water taps greater than five-
eighths inches shall be approved by the Water District . No water
taps will be served by the Water District until all applicable
terms and conditions of this Agreement have been complied with by
the Metro District and Company, including the transfer of the
above-described water rights . The Water District acknowledges and
agrees that the Property will be developed in various phases and
that all such water supplies, mains and related facilities
` specified in this Agreement shall be acquired, provided, and
J 8
transferred to the Water District incrementally according to each
Jdevelopmental phase as approved by the Water District , which
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The water taps
furnished hereunder may be used only on the Property which is
located within the Metro District , unless otherwise expressly
approved in writing by the parties hereto . Any transfer of water
taps to other property shall be made in accordance with the terms
of a supplemental written agreement and the requirements of the
Water District and its rules and regulations .- -Any right to receive
a water tap option or water rights credit under this Agreement, '
whether upon the Property or at any other place, shall expire and
become null and void twenty years after the date of this Agreement ;
provided that , after such date the Metro District shall have a
perfected right to obtain a water tap from the Water District for
use within the Property if (i) raw water supplies therefor have
been acquired by the Metro District or Company and transferred to
the Water District, (ii) the monthly minimum charge (inactive
service status) for such water tap is paid to the Water District ,
and (iii) the Metro District and Company comply with all other
Water District rules and regulations . The Metro District and
Company shall not encumber, mortgage, or collaterally assign such
water tap without the prior written consent of the Water District .
The Metro District and Company shall not encumber, mortgage, or
collaterally assign such water taps without the prior written
consent of the Water District . In all other respects , such water
taps or water rights credits shall be treated as the personal
property of the Metro District or Company, as applicable .
12 . The Metro District, Company, and future customers within
the Property agree to abide by all rates and rules and regulations
of the Water District as now established or as may hereafter be
established by the Water District; provided that all such rates,
rules and regulations shall be uniform throughout the Water
District and consistent with the express terms and provisions of
this Agreement; provided, however, that the Water District may
establish different rates and other criteria for service within
areas of the Water District as provided by statute . The Water
9
District shall not be liable for any injury or damage for failure
to deliver water for any reason, including but not limited to war,
riot , insurrection, Act of God, or breaks or failure of the water
system.
13 . This Agreement may be amended from time to time by a
written agreement between the parties hereto signed by the duly
authorized representatives of such parties . No agent or
representative of the Water District or Metro District has the
power to amend, modify, alter or waive any provision of this '
Agreement . Any promise, agreement or representation made by an
agent or representative of the Water District or Metro District not
herein set forth shall be void and of no further force or effect .
14 . The Metro District and Company understand and agree that
all fees, rates, tolls, penalties or charges for services,
programs, or facilities furnished by the Water District in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement constitute a perpetual
lien on the portion of the Property served, and that such lien may
be foreclosed in the manner provided by State law, pursuant to
Section 32-1-1001 (1) (j ) , C.R.S . In the event that the Metro
District, Company or any individual customer, as applicable, fails
to abide by any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, the
applicable party which is responsible therefor shall pay all costs
and expenses incurred by the Water District as a result of any such
breach, including direct and consequential damages, loss of
revenue, attorney fees, court costs, expert witness fees, and other
expenses .
15 . This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of the heirs, personal representatives, successors, and
assigns of the parties hereto . Except as provided herein, this
Agreement shall not be assigned without the prior written consent
of the Water District .
10
16 . The Agreement dated October 30 , 1985 , between the Water
'all) District and Beebe Draw Land Company, Ltd. , relating to the
Property has been terminated in accordance with its terms and is no
longer effective . The Metro District and Company acknowledge and
agree that such Agreement is terminated and of no further force or
effect .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement as of the date first above written.--
CENTRAL WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
By .4.2 X 2(e
Pres ' - -n yn
( S E A L ) Attest : Q�YYd-2.- � (Panj
Secretary/o4
Date : Zc2 , 1995
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss .
COUNTY OF )
The fore oing instrument was acknowledged before me this ZO-GJ
day of 1995 , by T -n&a F /�/����
as President a d nen-go tO taCe,e as Secretary of
the Central Weld County Water District .
Witness my hand and official seal .My commission expires : 4/ $ O a I [ f7
e�.zr 4-. ,1-.-7 r-
Notary P lic
/11
11
J BEEBE DRAW FARMS METROPOLITAN
DISTRICT
By
Ja es Pell , , si ent
( S E A L ) Atte t /A�VOC
Thomas A. Burk, Secretary
Date : June 27,~1995
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss .
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 27th
day of June, 1995 , by James W. Fell as President and Thomas A. Burk
as Secretary of the Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District .
Witness my hand and official seal .
1 My commission expires : 11/30/96/
i);(1)
Notary Public
12
REI LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,
dba Investors Limited Liability
Company
ma By LIEN, y ;-,�,
Manager
I
Date : ' )/Jr; L 7 , 1995
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss .
COUNTY OF J E FFES1J )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged b for�e�j, me this
day of 514�t. — , 1995, by PfZ R t C- • tC e-
as Manager of the REI Limited Liability Company, a Wyoming /limited
liability company doing business in Colorado as Investors Limited
Liability Company.
Witness my hand and official seal . 1_
My commission expires : Jl
Notary Public
a
13
Component 2
SEWAGE DIPSOSAL
PROVISIONS
J L Walter Consulting
114 E. 5th Street
Loveland,CO 80537
(970)613-2037
�./ FAX (970) 203-1147
August 1, 2002
Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District
3600 S.Logan St. Suite 200
Englewood, CO 80110
Members of the Board:
The Metropolitan District has proposed to provide a continuing maintenance program for the
septic systems to be used to serve the homes within the Beebe Draw subdivision. This proposal
shall become a condition of approval for Filing Two and may be retroactive to include Filing
One, should the County Commissioners require.
We will provide to the Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District the septic system maintenance
program detailed herein in accordance with the Weld County Final Plat approval requirements.
The following septic system maintenance program is submitted for your use, and as a description
of our services.
Our scope of services, as well as some general necessary responsibilities of the Metropolitan
District and the individual homeowner, is defined within the following items of work with the
estimated cost relating to each. We will provide the design, basic inspection and sampling of all
septic systems in the subdivision to meet Weld County requirements. In addition, we will
provide administration of the additional work items listed below. Any actual maintenance,pump
and field repairs, septic tank pumping, or construction of the septic system and appurtenances
shall be contracted for and paid for directly by the homeowner via the Metropolitan District, as
discussed herein.
To properly maintain the septic systems in the Beebe Draw subdivision,the following duties will
be established on a regular schedule:
1. Design and Installation
a) Each lot shall require a septic system design, per the standards set in consultation with the
Weld County Health Department by David B. Shupe, P.E., prior to construction.
Information will need to be provided, regarding house size, number of bedrooms, as well
as any other factors that may apply in sizing the septic system. A site/grading plan for
the lot will also need to be provided by the lot owner in order to determine the proper
1
location of the septic system. We will keep a copy of this plan on file for reference to
septic tank and filter field location.
b) Prior to the date of occupancy, and before the septic system is covered over with topsoil,
each septic system will be inspected by or under the direct supervision of David B.
Shupe, P.E., to ensure proper construction and size. This inspection is in addition to
inspections normally required and performed by the Weld County Health Department.
c) Within fourteen (14) days of the date of occupancy, we will send a letter to the lot owner
notifying him/her of any and all standards pertaining to the proper maintenance of the
septic system, as well as a typical schedule for septic system inspection and pumping.
Emergency phone numbers will also be included.
d) Septic system design and inspection will be provided at a cost of$600.00t, which is the
responsibility of the lot owner.
2. Septic System Inspection
a) Inspections will be conducted once a year for each lot. Each inspection will include a
measurement of the scum level and the sludge level in the septic tank, per the guidelines
set by the U.S. Public Health Service. See the attached report for a complete example of
the data to be collected.
b) The surface area will also be checked for any saturation. If there are signs of surface area
saturation or if the scum and sludge levels are twelve inches or less in difference,
arrangements will be made for the tank to be pumped as soon as possible, regardless of
the regular pumping schedule. See the attached report for a complete example of the data
to be collected.
c) Each inspection should take about 111/2 hours, including travel time to and from the site.
d) Each inspection will be provided at a cost of $30.001 per hour, to be paid by the
Metropolitan District.
3. Septic Tank Pumping
a) A regular pumping schedule will be established whereby each septic tank is pumped
approximately once every four years. See the attached report of a complete example of
the data to be collected.
b) If a tank should need to be pumped before the scheduled date, the next approximate
pumping date will be set four years from that date.
r"-•
111110
c) A pumping company will be contracted to be on call, as well as scheduled for regular
r-� pumping.
%d' d) After each pumping, bacterial starter will be added to the septic tank to jumpstart the
septic tank environment.
e) After each pumping, anti-antibacterial solution will be added to the septic tank to prevent
antibacterial soaps and solutions from unbalancing the septic system.
f) Farh pumping will be provided at a cost of approximately $300.001, paid by the
Metropolitan District.
g) A member of the maintenance staff will monitor each pumping. Each pumping will last
approximately 1'h hours, including travel time to and from the site. This service will be
provided at a cost of$30.001 per hour, to be paid by the Metropolitan District.
4. Random Toxicity Checks
a) Between five (5) and ten (10) random toxicity checks will be made each year on septic
systems throughout the subdivision. If the maintenance staff notices any signs of toxic
materials on any lot, that lot will automatically be subject to a toxicity check. Otherwise,
lots will be tested at random.
r
b) All toxicity checks require that a sample be taken from the septic tank and sent to a
predetermined testing facility. See the attached report for a complete example of the data
to be collected.
c) Each sample will be collected by a member of the maintenance staff in accordance with
Weld County Health Department requirements. Farh sampling will take approximately
one (1) hour, including travel time to and from the site. This service will be provided at
$30.00 per hour.
d) Each test will be provided at a cost of approximately $200.001, paid by the Metropolitan
District.
5. Monitoring Well Testing
a) A yearly inspection of the five (5) monitoring wells to be located within the subdivision
will be required. Each inspection will entail drawing a sample of water from the
monitoring wells and sending them to a predetermined testing facility. See the attached
report for a complete example of the data to be collected.
b) If the report indicates that the level of contaminants have increased since the last
sampling period, an additional test will be taken. If this sample confirms the first sample,
3
additional monitoring wells (minimum 3) will be established in concurrence with the
Health Department. Sampling and installation of additional monitoring wells will
continue until the source of the contamination is identified. Once a specific source is
itsof identified, corrective measures shall be taken by the Metropolitan District to eliminate the
source. If the source is of a general nature due to the number of septic systems at that
time, building construction shall cease until an alternative treatment system is
determined.
c) Each sample will be collected by a member of the maintenance staff in accordance with
Weld County Health Department requirements. Farh sampling will take approximately
one (1) hour, including travel time to and from the site. This service will be provided at
$30.00 per hour.
d) Each test will be provided at a cost of$50.001,paid by the Metropolitan District.
6. Materials
a) A minimum of two (2) spare sewage lift pumps will be kept on-site at all times. If a
pump needs to be replaced, we will notify the Metropolitan District, at which time
another spare pump will be provided. The Metropolitan District will then pass the cost of
the pump and its installation on to the lot owner.
b) A minimum of one(1) box of bacterial starter will be kept on hand at all times. Each box
costs $125.001 and contains 12 bags of starter material. Each time a septic tank is
pumped, one half of one bag will be placed inside the tank. The Metropolitan District will
supply this material.
Note: Once the Equine Center is built and being used, horse manure may be used in
place of packaged bacterial starter, at the discretion of the supervising engineer.
c) A minimum of one (1) bottle of an anti-antibacterial solution will be kept on-site at all
times. Each 32 ounce bottle costs $25.001. Each time a septic tank is pumped, two
capfuls of solution will be added to the tank. We estimate that each bottle contains
enough solution to treat approximately sixty (60) septic tanks. The Metropolitan District
will supply this material.
d) A minimum of one (1) bolt of terry cloth will be kept on-site at all times. Fait bolt costs
$30.00t and contains 13 yards of cloth. We estimate that each bolt contains enough terry
cloth for approximately 130 inspections. The Metropolitan District will supply this
material.
e) All monitoring well toxicity testing materials will be supplied by predetermined testing
facility, and are included in the testing cost.
4
7. Recording and Reporting
a) All data collected will be recorded electronically in a database, as well as in hardcopy.
b) Each month, a report of all septic system information collected will be sent to the County,
the Metropolitan District, and all owners of lots included in the report. Each report will
include the data collected during the yearly septic system inspections and the next
scheduled pumping date for all corresponding lots.
c) Each year, a report of all monitoring well inspections and septic system toxicity checks
will be sent to the County and the Metropolitan District. These reports will include all
the data taken at the time of sampling, as well as all test results returned by a
predetermined testing facility.
d) In the event of a change of ownership of any lot in the subdivision, the Metropolitan
District will notify us immediately, so we may update our records as well as perform any
necessary duties involved in a change of ownership.
8. Homeowner Responsibility
a) Any noted non-cooperation by a homeowner in regards to the rules and procedures
established by the Metropolitan District and approved by the Health Department shall be
immediately reported to the Health Department.
b) In the case of a septic system failure, the homeowner will be responsible for the
reconstruction of the filter field. This entails removing the topsoil from above the filter
field, removing all pipes, and removing the top three inches (3") of the sand filter. New
sand may be put in place of the removed filter sand. Once this is done,the pipes and the
topsoil will be returned above the filter field. Removal of the sand filter and the resetting
of the pipes will require an inspection by the supervising engineer. Any costs incurred in
the reconstruction of a filter field will be the responsibility of the homeowner.
9. Cost Breakdown (per year at full build-out),
Item Direct Cost to Homeowner Cost to Metropolitan District
1. Design and Installation $600.00 $ 0.00
2. Septic System Inspection 607 lots * 1.5 hrs. each=910.5 hrs * $30.00 per hour=
$ 0.00 $27,315.00
5
3. Septic Tank Pumping 607 lots/4 years = 152 pumps * $300.00 per pump=
$ 0.00 $45,525.00
152 pumps * 1%hrs per pump=228 hrs* $30.00 per hour=
$ 6,840.00
4. Random Toxicity Checks 10 tests per year * $200.00 per test=
$ 0.00 $ 2,000.00
10 hours of sampling * $30.00 per hour=
$ 300.00
5. Monitoring Well Testing 5 tests per year* $37.40 per test=
$ 0.00 $ 187.00
10 hours of sampling * $30.00 per hour=
$ 300.00
6. Materials
Bacterial Starter 7 boxes per year * $125.00=
$ 0.00 $ 875.00
Anti-antibacterial Solution 2.5 bottles per year * $25.00 =
$ 0.00 $ 62.50
Terry Cloth 607 lots/130 inspections per bolt 4.67 bolts * $30.00 per bolt=
$ 0.00 $ 140.00
7. Reimbursable Expenses(Estimated) $3,860.52
Postage at cost
Mileage 35 cents per mile
Reproduction at cost
Totals: $87,405.02
607 lots
$ 144.00 per lot
= 12 months/year
$12.00 per lot per month
t Please note that all dollar amounts in this proposal are in today's dollars. They are
subject to change in the future.
All of the above services will be provided to the District's member lots at a monthly cost of
$12.00. However, it is our understanding that at the present time there are some 17 lots
kair
occupied, each with a septic system in service, which was not necessarily constructed according
to the guidelines proposed for all future construction. Initially, determination will have to be
made as to what additional efforts will be needed to bring those existing systems up to the
needed monitoring standard. This may include installation of monitoring risers over the tank
portals and monitoring tubes in the filter or leach beds. Cost of installation of these features will
need to be borne by the District for these initial systems. We estimate that those costs may run
about$1000 to $1200 per lot, for the lots whose septic tanks do not have risers to the surface, or
monitor tubes in the fields.
Systems installed to serve the public facilities within the Metropolitan District, such as the
community building, marina, etc., will receive the same level of supervision as individual lots.
Cost incurred will be billed to the District separately.
All of our responsibilities listed above will be overseen by the supervising engineer, a Colorado
Licensed Professional Engineer, who will be acting as a consultant and offering professional
advice in all aspects of this project.
This agreement to provide these services on an ongoing basis with an adjustment in fees based
on an inflation index acceptable to the District and us is of course based upon the approval of the
Final Plat of the Second Filing, by the County Commissioners of Weld County. Language
defining terms for the mutual termination of this agreement will be included.
Sincerely,
JL Walter Consulting
David B. Shupe,P.E.
CC: J.L. Walter
Attachments
7
Septic Tank Inspection Form
.,J Inspector Name: Date:
Time:
Lot Number:
Sludge Reading:
Scum Reading:
Is the ground above the filter field saturated? Yes/No
Comments:
Septic Tank Pumping Form
Inspector Name: Date:
Time:
Lot Number:
Pumping Company:
Pumping Employee:
Comments:
\d
Toxicity Sample Form
Collector Name: Date:
Time:
Lot Number:
Comments:
Testing Facility:
Delivery Date:
Results:
Monitoring Well Sampling Form
Collector Name: Date:
Time:
Well Number:
Is water present in the well? Yes/No
Comments:
Testing Facility:
Delivery Date:
Results:
Septic Tank Inspection Report
e.. January 2002
Lot Number: 132 Inspector Name: Cameron Walter
Lot Owner: John Doe Inspection Date: 1/15/02
Address: 16471 Essex Road South Inspection Time: 1:30 PM
Material Level in Tank: 35.0" Next Inspection Date: ± 1/15/03
Scum Level Reading: 8.5"
Sludge Level Reading: 4.3" Last Pumping Date : 1/22/01
Difference: 22.2" Next Pumping Date : ± 1/22/05
Ground above the filter field was not saturated.
Lot Number: 44 Inspector Name: Cameron Walter
Lot Owner: John Doe Inspection Date: 1/17/02
Address: 16502 Badminton Road North Inspection Time: 10:15 AM
Material Level in Tank: 25.0" Next Inspection Date: ± 1/17/03
Scum Level Reading: 9.1"
Sludge Level Reading: 5.2" Last Pumping Date : 1/4/00
Difference: 10.7"* Next Pumping Date: ± 1/4/04
Ground above the filter field was not saturated.
*MATERIAL DIFFERENCE HAS REACHED CRITICAL POINT. EARLY
PUMPING IS REQUIRED.
Lot Number: 171 Inspector Name: Cameron Walter
Lot Owner: Jane Doe Inspection Date: 1/17/02
Address: 16495 Stoneleigh Road South 1 Inspection Time: 2:00 PM
Material Level in Tank: 39.3" Next Inspection Date: ± 1/17/03
Scum Level Reading: 4.5"
Sludge Level Reading: 8.2" Last Pumping Date : 1/10/02
Difference: 26.6" Next Pumping Date: ± 1/10/06
Ground above the filter field was not saturated.
r`
SERVICE PLAN ADDENDUM-
SEWAGE DISPOSAL
FOR
BEEBE DRAW FARMS
METROPOLITAN
DISTRICT No. 1
AND
BEEBE DRAW FARMS
METROPOLITAN
DISTRICT No. 2
APRIL 2001
REVISION 2, OCTOBER, 2001
CERTIFICATION
r�
C
This report has been prepared for the developers of Beebe Draw Farms by
David Shupe, Colorado P.E. 5914
David Shupe
41.09
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATION 1
INTRODUCTION 3
CONCERNS 5
EVALUATION OF PROBLEM FACTORS .6
SYSTEM PROPOSAL „7
SYSTEM SUITABILITY .8
`✓ ECONOMIC EVALUATION 9
GENERIC SYSTEM DESIGN 10
REFERENCES .11
APPENDIX
4109
Vfl ,
y
SEWAGE DISPOSAL REPORT
For
BEEBE DRAW FARMS.METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
April, 2001
Revision October 2001
INTRODUCTION
There are several factors which impinge upon the decision as to the type of sewage
disposal and treatment most appropriate for any given development. Among these are:
1. Location relative to existing treatment facilities.
2: Availability of adequate and appropriate management entities.
3. Site suitability for construction of proposed facilities.
4. Economic evaluation, both short- and long-term.
In terms of proper evaluation and determination of appropriate sewage waste disposal,
Weld County Health Department has sought to be in the forefront of efforts to address the
se./ overall needs for this area. Together with them, the developers of the project have
studied newly available literature,including the USEPA Response to Congress on Use of,
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems (EPA 832-R-97-001b, dated April 1997)
and EPA Guidelines for Management of Onsite/Decentralized Wastewater Systems (EPA
832-F-00-012, dated July 2000),
As the site is quite remote from existing municipal treatment facilities, and construction
of long trunk lines is discouraged both by economic and land-use policies, the planning
decision was made early in the review process that onsite treatment would be the most
feasible in this case. In fact, Filing 1 of the development was approved and has
proceeded on that premise. As the project continues, however, the need has been
expressed to develop a management structure which will ensure proper supervision and
operational management, beyond the levels currently available through the Weld County
Health Department.
3
The EPA contends that decentralized wastewater systems can provide the necessary and
appropriate treatment to protect public health and meet water quality standards just as
well as centralized systems. The key is proper management. Such systems are
particularly appropriate in low density communities such as proposed here. They are
adaptable to a variety of site conditions. Also, when properly installed and maintained,
they can achieve significant cost savings, while avoiding such concerns as inter-basin
transfer and drawdown from local aquifers, which can occur with centralized collection
and treatment systems.
r-�
4
CONCERNS
There are several concerns identified in EPA Report 832-R-97-001 b, "Response to
Congress on Use of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems" (See p. iii of the
Executive Summary), connected with they use of onsite or decentralized systems which
need to be addressed. One of these is a general lack of knowledge and public
misperception. Many people in the real estate and development professions as well as the
general public often feel that central collection and treatment systems are better _for
property values. Further, few if any formal education programs deal with decentralized
systems, even though a relatively high percentage (25% of existing and an estimated 40%
of new construction) of homes in this country are served in this manner.
A second problem area, one which is prevalent in this state, is that the legislative
authority for decentralized systems is split between State and local governments,
resulting in a relatively non-unified approval process. A third problem area, perhaps the
most controllable one from the private perspective, has been the lack of acceptable
management programs. While this need has long been perceived by local health
department authorities, which do not have the manpower in most cases to provide such
�./ oversight, little if any implementation of effective management programs has been
achieved. As early as 1984, this writer attempted to address the need in a nearby County,
by proposing the establishment of a management sanitation district for decentralized
systems. This approach was felt by County government officials to cause a possible loss
of ability to use septic system regulations as a land-use control: On that:basis alone, the
proposal was rejected.
5
a
EVALUATION OF PROBLEM FACTORS
This report sets forth techniques intended to address these concerns as much as possible,
from the `public sector perspective, although obviously, some of them can only be
addressed by appropriate governmental agencies.
I. Location — In the initial evaluation of this PUD, its remote location relative to
existing treatment facilities was noted, and a determination was made in the
planning process that the proposed on-site waste disposal was the most appropriate
method. The Master Plan for the PUD was approved on that basis.
2. Governmental Schisms — This can only be addressed by State and local authorities,
and is beyond the scope of this report. (See comment in preceding section.)
3. Appropriate Management — In this case, the need for adequate management of many
contemplated municipal-type services within the PUD has dictated the formation of
a Metropolitan District, a taxing entity with compulsory membership, which can
provide on-going management independent of individual resident input. The
District is intended to be multi-purpose, providing such services as road
.-� maintenance, mosquito control, open-space management, recreational facilities
maintenance and management such as clubhouse, marina, barns and corrals. It is
proposed that on-site disposal system management become an additional function of
the District. The enabling provision for such addition is found in Section II B 6. on
page 19 of the Service Plan. Such a system would be in keeping with the intent of
Management Program 4, as outlined in the EPA Guidelines for Management of
Onsite/Decentralized Wastewater Systems, but with some relationship to
Management Program 2 as well. These guidelines are included in the Appendix to
this report. The Metropolitan District will represent an agency contractually related
to each individual homesite to provide oversight, proper use training, and
maintenance of each system.
r�
`,.
6
SYSTEM PROPOSAL
It is proposed that the means of sewage disposal shall be a site-specific individual system
r
located on each lot, providing secondary on-site treatment. Components of the system
shall remain the property of the individual lot owner. A composite maintenance charge
shall be levied by the District, based upon the Service Plan thereof Included within that
charge shall be the following services related to the on-going maintenance of each
system:
1. Annual inspection of leach field, and measurement of sludge and scum levels
within the septic tank, for verification of pumping schedule. Random
checking for toxic or hazardous chemicals in field.
2. Pumping of septic tank as indicated by measurements, but no less often than
every four years. Tank will be pumped also upon change of ownership, if not
done within the previous 6 months.
3. Annual testing of monitoring wells located so as to provide information
regarding downstream quality of shallow (15' —20') underground waters,
relating to nitrates or other possible concerns. NOTE: No water table was
identified to a depth of 15 feet. (See Soils Report)
4. Ongoing education program in proper care and use of septic systems provided
to all new owners, either first-time or subsequent. This will include water-use
conservation techniques and recommendations as well.
Public facilities required within the District, such as the equestrian center, the Marina and
others, will also fall under the auspices of this proposal.
r
• 7
SYSTEM SUITABILITY
The soils report for the development (Horizons Construction Services LLC, May 12,
2000) has clearly determined an extremely high level of uniformity in the upper-level
soils over the area, including the percolation or absorption rate. Given that uniformity,
the District will provide a uniform design for the septic system for each lot. Final sizing
of tankage and field will relate to the specifics of home design, including number of
bedrooms, or use of unique water-use features such as garbage disposals. Parameters for
locating the field relative to site drainage will be supplied on an individual basis. Risers
with concrete lids will be specified at tank ports for ease of access and testing. Tanks
will be located to facilitate pumping and testing efforts. Accurate "as-built" drawings of
system components will be required to be supplied to the District by installing
contractors, at the time of final inspection. Construction inspections of the systems by
District personnel and by Weld County Health Department personnel will be required,
and will be specified in the design. While the nature of the design has been reviewed by
the County Health Department, and final sizing would be verified as part of the
permitting process by the builder, any design will be required to be in accordance with
current Department regulations. The Weld County Health Department shall have the
WI
final approval authority.
In the event a homeowner should choose to use an alternative design; such as wetlands,
carbon filtration or other technique, specific arrangements will need to be made with the
District's consultant regarding alternative monitoring schedules, additional costs, etc. It
will also require specific approval by the Weld County Health Department. Further, if
any unacceptable impact upon neighboring lots or the District as a whole is noted by such
unique systems, the District will have the right to disapprove its continued use within the
District. The intent is to maintain a consistent level of service and maintenance
throughout the District's service area, as well as a relatively level cost structure for its
services.
s
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
The district will contain approximately 597 homes at full build-out. Each will require the
annual inspection noted above. It is estimated that this would require % time for a trained
inspector. Some 160 tanks per year will require pumping, and 10 to 20 random tests may
be conducted.
4 —5 inspections/day @1 %z hr/insp. $30,000.00/yr.
160 tanks pumped @ $331/ea. 53,000.00/yr.
10-20 tests/yr. @ $200/test 3,000.00/yr.
$86,000.00/yr.
This represents a monthly cost to the homeowner of approximately $12.00 per lot. The
employee's salary would be included in the service charge.
Stool
GENERIC SYSTEM DESIGN
The system type is proposed to be a subsurface single-pass sand filter with no collection.
The filter depth would be 4', with sides lined to prevent lateral migration of filtrate. The
filter medium is proposed to be a compacted graded sand, all passing a #4 screen, with a
uniformity coefficient of less than 4.0 and an effective size of 0.25 to 0.60 mm. The filter
sand thus described yields an acceptance rate approximately equal to a percolation rate of
between 10 and 20 minutes per inch. This is in comparison to the measured and reported
rate of the sandy upper-level in-situ soils, which percolate at a rate of less than one
minute per inch. This slower acceptance rate allows time for the bacterial mat to form
and remain active, which is essential to the proper function of the sand filter. Filter beds
will be dosed on the basis of 4 times per day, using a pump and dosing chamber sized for
the lot. The district will keep an inventory of spare pumps in the event of failure, but
pumps have a normal life-expectancy of 15 to 20 years. The septic tanks will be of the 2-
compartment type, with risers on all ports up to ground level, for easy access, Tanks will
be sized based on the number of bedrooms, with a minimum size of 1000 gallons. Under
these parameters, the life of a sand filter before needing substantial maintenance should
exceed 25 years. When cleaning of filter medium is deemed necessary, the cost of such
maintenance will be charged to the homeowner. This avoids uneven distribution of costs
over the district.
r�-
10
REFERENCES
1. USEPA Publication EPA 832-R-97-001b
"Response to Congress on Use of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems,"
April 1997
2. USEPA Publication EPA 832-F-00-012 (Draft)
"EPA Guidelines for Management of Onsite/Decentralized Wastewater Systems,"
July 2000
3. Geoteclmical Investigation Report of Beebe Draw Farms & Equestrian Center,
Filing 2, Horizon Construction Services, L.L.C., May 12, 2000.
4. Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment
ISDS Regulations
ISDS Guide for Weld County
5. Consolidated Service Plan for Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District, May 1,
1999
6. National Small Flows Clearing House, Morgantown, WV 26506-6064
"The Care and Feeding of Your Septic Tank"
"So Now You Own a Septic Tank"
"Your Septic System"
L
11
.-� SYSTEM DESIGN
150 gal/bedroom -
Tankage •
3 bedrooms 1000 gal.
4 bedrooms 1250 gal.
5 bedrooms 1500 gal.
Additional bedrooms 200 gal. each
All tanks 2 compartment-type (60%/40%)
Risers to surface on all comps.
System type — Subsurface sand filter(I pass) with no collection
Filter depth 4'
Filter medium Sand (all —4) Unif. Coeff<4.0
Line sidcs of filler bed with 10 mil PVC or equal
Area: 3 bedroom—450/.95 = 475 sq. ft. say 18' x 26'
Dist. Pipe vol.
23x4x .3332IIx7.5 = 60gal.
4
Dosing volume : 450/4 = 112 gal>60 OK
Add 160 sq. ft./bedroom field size
Dosing vol: 40 gal. additional
Dosing pump: Zoeller Effluent Pump, or equal
Siphon: May be permissible when sufficient grade available
Contractor to have spare pumps on hand in the event of malfunction. Cost of
replacement and installation to be borne by homeowner.
Inspections required:
1. (By Designer)prior to placing filter sand
2. (By County Health Department) prior to covering components
3. (By Designer) prior to covering components.
L
12
• •'` "DRAFT EPA Guidelines for Management of •• �y
.Q
'Onsite/Docontrallzod Wastewater Systems ' September 26, 2000.,::,r
•
..
._ 1 .. . '; , S
3) determine both an app+opnate;management program, and the necessary program
" "'n +' i axe,
. ,_ „r ` ,enhancements'to nchieve'its management objectives'and public health and environmental goals'f ;Gt +.
' ". 1 r ) PA recognizes thafStatest,tribes and local�govemments need a'flexible framework'and 1 ' ' t y 1''�
1- the ty
gwdance`to best tailor their`progranis to- specific heed„•of the'conunum ,.and to''the t -•».ot
institutional capacity`of the regulatory authority:I These model programs'ate not intended to i a
supersede`existing federal State;tribal and local laws and regulations but rather be a in`i � 1 irl , t +�
complement to them.c•' . • •• 1 ,. i. I : Hi e •')
'._•!..;.:,..•,.„.....,., S.r 1 I Y ii 111 - tJJ77. -i'Yl ! ' r J "' is?;
'' EPA recommends Model Program 1,'System Inventory and Awareness of i • a' t
Maintenance Needs, as a minimum level•of management. Model Program l•is a suitable "'
management program'where conventional onsite systems are owned and operated by individual''. "'I
property owners in'areas of low environmental sensitivity, i.e'„no restric{`j),]g site or soil 11'' '•
conditions`such-as'drinlcing water wells in close proximity.' Conventional systems are passive
'and durable treatment systems that can provide acceptable treatment under suitable site • `
conditions despite a lack of attention by the owner. Failures that may occur and continue .
"undetected will ose a relativel •low level of risk topublic health'and.the environment' The
p y : . 1. t, ai
• objectives of this management program are to ensure that all systems are sited, designed and
constructed in compliance'with-th mles,'tl at all systems are recorded and''' ' '` {
e prevailing '
inventoried, and property owners are infoimed of maintenance needs of the systems: Model • •''''
Program 1;is'intended`to raise the local regulatory agency's awareness of the location of systems
,r r raise homeowners' awareness of basic system needs and ensurethat homeowners attend to those "'
;,"t ^needs This'Prograi is also a'starting point;providing communities with basic data for.'
n :Jr;
determining whether higher management levels are necessary • • ' '
J , + Sr1 I, 1 .,.,:;,:,,...,,,,,...„:,,,,,,,, ::::::!,4.,:r.,::::::::4;
I '. in 6' iii i - Y• : •:•••,,•!...:•:-• , 1 v ` it Y :.
M EPA recommends Model Program 2 Management Through Maintenance.Contracts
as the minimum necessary,where more complex system designs are employed to eilivice the „ <''
's t • capacity,of conventional systems'to accept'and treat wastewater because of small lots,sslowly`s1 Y r1 Fw�,5¢.,t r ,J i'l�'
permeable soils or.shallow,seasonal water tables• This'program may also�be'appropriate for '' Iw' i ,s .?
.f 1 areas that'supply water to public'water systems (e g;source water or wellhead protection'areas) '' 1' , 1j 'I
The objectives of this'program build on Model Program•1 by ensuring,thatmatntenance`contracts. '
with trained operators are maintained by the property owner.Marginally-suitable sites typically ::„ •....•
require improved effluent dispersal to the soil or advanced.treatinent suchas'media filters or (...';'', ,;:y,,,,.,..:,:;:.•
' • aerobic treatment units ' Maintenance of these more complex systems is eritical tosustaining '1 tlh �) rk'
acceptable'performance'iq'these'areas'of greater environmental"sensitivity'!Therefore,;:these t" °' '1 u ,ta +h, 1 „ , f't'
systems•should be allowed only wheie trained operators are under contract to perform timely ' i ; " UL« s'5r:.
maintenance ;";!-•:'..:1", '!',1:',"(•;:, ,J ' of 7 JI :� , t 1 la
) PA recommends Model Program 3 ManagementThrough Operating Permits, where) "'
the onsite system must provide treatment to achieve specific water quality criteria Examples IT!
,include shellfish growing:areas; situations where a soiuce water assessment has identified
. 'onsite/decentralized'systems asthreats to drinking water supplies..;The objective of this/1' t .�
management program :in addition to the previous levelslis to ensure that the:onsite systems -' w
' 'continuously meet their performance requirements. Treatment'systeins'thatare designed to meet` ••
specific effluent limits are less dependent on site characteristics and conditions Therefore they
can,be used safely in more sensitive environments but,only if their performance can be ensured ':'!,
'continuously. Limitedterm•operating permits are issued to the property owner that are.-' 4 + ( .:
renewable for another tern if the owner demonstrates that the system is in:compliancewith the
r ;, , r
.:terms and conditions of the permit. The permit provides the management program a mechanism '�' 1 "
for continuous oversight of system performance and negotiating corrective actions of levying` ,+• ' t
I _
• Page 6 t
,;'I it• d M ph},:ei,l
•
fir �i ^>. , - • ty•
..
t:
DRAFT- EPA Guidelines for Management of
;;Onsite/Decentralized Wastewater Systems •' September 26, 2000
-- r " 'penalties if compliance with the permit is not Maintained, To comply with these performance , 1,,,
standards,the property owner should contract with a maintenance provider,as in Program 2 +,t
EPA recommends Model Program 4, Utility Operation and Maintenance for ,
performance-based systems where the sensitivity of the environment is high and there,is a need;
for continuous monitoring and reliable operation and.maintennnce,' For example,this approach '
may be applicable where monitoring of a drinlcing water supply has detected pathogens or Fr
elevated levels of nutrients and a source water assessment has identified onsite/decentralized i ;I
systems as sources of concern. The objective of this program is to achieve greater control over .!. ;''',
compliance by issuing the,operating permit to a utility instead of the property owner. This
.allows use of performance systems in more sensitive environments that Model.Program 3. The
utility takes responsibility for the operation and maintenance of systems owned by subscribers ,, j
for a service fee This reduces'the number of permits mid the necessary administration by the i
managemeniprograin:;System failures are also reduced'as a result of routine'maintenance , I
Ownership of the system remains with the property owner: The operating permit system'isf.
identical to Model Program 3 except that the permitee is a public or private utility. '
r Model Program 5, Utility Ownership and Management, is a variation'of the utility .r` w
`operation/maintenance concept'in Model Program 4,except ownership of the!facilities'is no I;
longer with"the property owner. The designated management entity both owns and operates the , r, ..
onsite systems in a manner analogous to a conventional wastewater utility: =Under this approach,
the utility maintains total conTrQl of all aspects of management;not just operation and .'
maintenance. This model is appropuate in similar environmental or public health conditions as
'Model Prograi:n 4,but provides a somewhat higher level`of control and reduces the lilcelihood of• !'',
disputes between the system operator and the property:owner. The utility can also more readily ' $, ;
,replace existing systems with higher performance units where necessary.•EPA`te'coimnends ,',r `~u ,,
implementation of Model Program 5 iii cases'such as when new,high density development is �w. to
proposed in the vicinity of sensitive receiving waters. ' ,t `i'
I
rr
•
, .}
:ice r
r t 5 "S fi3 nrCe ,q a�
,UY; k }
r ^�... Page 7 . v # Sa trt
DRAFT- EPA Guidelines for Management of
Onstte/Decentralized Wastewater. Systems °
Y September 26, 2000
•penalties if compliance with the permit is not maintained. To comply with these performance
standards,the property owner should contract with a maintenance provider,as in Program 2 1
'. . . . . ,- i, i r
PA recommends Model Program 4, Utility Operation'and Maintenance for
perform e_ance-based systems where the sensitivity of the environment is high and there's. need '
for continuous monitoring and reliable operation and.maintenance; For example,'this approach '
maybe aPplicable where monitoring of a drinking water supply has detected pathogens or c v
elevated levels of nutrients and a source water assessment'has identified onsite/decentralized f; P.
f
systems as sources of concern. The objective of this program is to achieve greater control over r'. "
compliance by issuing the operating permit to a utility instead of the property owner,This '
allows use`of performance systems in more sensitive environments that Model Program 3. The '
utility takes responsibility for the operation and maintenance of systems owned by subscribers
for a service fee This reduces the number of permits and the necessary administration by thef
management program: System failures are also reducedas a result of routine'maintenance j
Ownership of the system remains with the property owner. The operating permit,system is
identical to Model Program 3 except that the permitee is a public or private utility. .;
{
Model Program`5, Utrhty Ownership and Management is a vanation'of the utility
operation/maintenance concept in Model Program 4 except ownership of the'facilities is no t 4
longer With the property dwner._The designated management entity both owns and operates the
onsite systems in a manner analogous to'a conventional wastewater utility: der this approach,
the utility maintains total conTdol of all aspects of management,not just operation and
maintenance. This model is appropriate in similar environmental or public health conditions as
'Model Program 4, but provides a somewhat higher level of control and reduces the likelihood of J
dispute's-between the,system operator and the property:owner, The utility can also more readily ",; ,
replace existing systems with higher performance units where necessary. EPA reconunends , ( .....'1;.;
implementation of Model Program 5 in cases•such'as when new,high density development is j 1:-:1_,;:,'.1.i;
proposed in the vicinity of sensitive receiving waters. .. . , ,r . �
r
`i..if
I 1
y' 1 y�; ' "
4
• T ,
i
' '.jam I r
y �
k: 2Y�.:N.2>arsl'
,yi1`7A 41 .1. '..• • •. . Le
�<a.,•,.r
iA S'$
,t...e i s• 1 ''',...7,1•;..4', . y 5 1 2 '4 1 a' �'• 4:- Y
< Page 7 . , ' ,�,aL� .�
ea :nru 4,,,.,....v.ti;
';.ttiiis4-$"
Hello