HomeMy WebLinkAboutNORTHSIDE AZTLAN COMMUNITY CENTER - PDP - 54-05 - REPORTS - TRAFFIC STUDYN.Lultimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual
LOS Standards for Development Review - Bicycle
Figure 7. Bicycle LOS Worksheet
F777,
of service - connectivity
F;�7rn
actual proposed
base connectivity: C 6 6
specific connections to priority sites:
description of applicable
destination area within 1,320'
including address
QoUpPeE i IVE2
M41L
destination area
classification
(see text)
2 �t;�ibn/hL
[ININIM!
P. 20
City of Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan
0
i altimodal Transportation Level of S`.vice Manual
LOS Standards for Development Review - Pedestrian
Figure 6. Pedestrian LOS Worksheet
project location classification:
is
LJ
107
121
description of applicable
destination area within 1,320'
including address
PooDKE RIVER mil(,
oLD -rnwN 2oKr
�oc.c-inf 5
40MUFAUA-L 4<,54
WEST o f Cot.t.EGE
(enter as many as apply)
destination area
I level of service (minimum based on project location classification)
classification
(see text)
Jirn•mm
:aninuiry
F-2--al
a"'
InurnrS
.K+viry
.nwutift
nwinaun
4
13
�J
A
�t
REcK�AnoMa
actual
C
proposed
CoMM E�2G1¢1,
t nii durum
❑dual
proposed
City of Port Collins Transportation Master Plan
N
o
Cerft
Chevy
O �c
Maple
Laporte
7
Mountain
d
rn
m
0
U
SCALE: 1"=500'
PEDESTRIAN INFLUENCE AREA
4�
APPENDIX E
43' 1
13:-Jefferson & Linden
Short Total PM 12/20i2005
EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Vi
0I
Vi
+11�
414
1
T
F
Ideal Flow (vphpQ
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 19W
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
:
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
0.95,
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Fit
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.98
0.94
1.00
1.00
0.85
Fit Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.99
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
3502
1770
3477
1732
1770
1863
.1583
Fit Permitted
0.44
1.00
0.51
1.00
0.92
0.49
1.00
1.00
Satd Flow (perm)
827
3502
958
3477
1604
910
1863
1583
Volume (vph)
32
365
27
51
457
60 32
47
62
64
45
.28
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.93
0.93
0.93 0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
Adj. Flow (vph)
33
376
28
55
491
65 38
55
73
75
53
33
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
3
0
0
6
0 0
37
0
0
0
28
Lane Group Flow (vph)
33
401
0
55
550
0 0
129
0
75
53
5
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Protected Phases
2
6
8
4
Permitted Phases
2
6
8
4
4
Actuated Green, G (s)
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
11.6
11.6
11.6
11.6
Effective Green, g (s)
61.0
61.0
61.0
61.0
12.6
12.6
12.6
12.6
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Clearance Time (s)
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
618
2618
716
2599
248
141
288
244
v/s Ratio Prot
0.11
c0.16
0.03
v/s Ratio Perm
0.04
0.06
0.08
C0.08
0.00
v/c Ratio
0.05
0.15
0.08
0.21
0.52
0.53
0.18
0.02
Uniform Delay, d1
2.7
2.9
2.8
3.1
31.7
31.8
30.0
29.3
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.8
3.8
0.3
0.0
Delay (s)
2.9
3.1
2.8
3.1
33.6
35.6
30.3
29.3
Level of Service
A
A
A
A
C
D
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
3.0
3.1
33.6
32.6
Approach LOS
A
A
C
C
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
10.2 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.27
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
81.6 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
42.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Synchro 6 Light Report
Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Page 1
¢I
13: Jefferson & Linden
Short Total Noon 12/20/2005
VBT . WBR NBL NBT:. NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
0
1
TT*
4,
►I
t
r
Ideal Flow (vphpt)
1900
1900
19W
1900
1900 1900 11900
1900
19W
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Fit
1.00
0.98
1.00
0.98
0.93.
1.00
1.00
0.85
Fit Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.99
0.95
1.00
1.00
Said. Flow (prot)
1770
3472
1770
3479
1718
1770
1863
1583
Fit Permitted
0.54
1.00
0.51
1.00
0.89
0.47
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1006
3472
951
3479
1557
868
1863.
1583
Volume (vph)
22
306
44
53
292 37 49
44
86
38
50
38
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.93
0.93 0.93 0.91
0.91
0.91
0.85
0.85
0.85
Adj. Flow (vph)
26
360
52
57
314 40 54
48
95
45
59
45
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
7
0
0
6 0 0
43
0
0
0
37
Lane Group Flow (vph)
26
405
0
57
348 0 0
154
0
45
59
8
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
Penn
Perm
Perm
Protected Phases
2
6
8
4
Permitted Phases
2
6
8
4
4
Actuated Green, G (s)
58.7
58.7
58.7
58.7
12.9
12.9
12.9
12.9
Effective Green, g (s)
59.7
59.7
59.7
59.7
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
Clearance Time (s)
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
736
2540
696
2545
265
148
317
270
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.12
- 0.10
0.03
v/s Ratio Perm
0.03
0.06
c0.10.
_ .
0.05
0.00
We Ratio
0.04
0.16
0.08
0.14
0.58
0.30
0.19
0.03
Uniform Delay, d1
3.0
3.3
3.1
3.3
31.2
29.6
29.0
28.2
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
3.2
1.2
0.3
0.0
Delay (s)
3.1
3.5
3.2
3.3
34.4.
30.8
29.3
28.3
Level of Service
A
A
A
A
C
C
C.
C
Approach Delay Is)
3.4
3.3
34.4
29.4
Approach LOS
A
A
C
C
.,
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
11.7
HCM Level of Service
B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.24
Actuated Cycle Length Is)
81.6
Sum of lost time (s)
8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
40.2%
ICU Level of Service
. A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Synchro 6 Light Report '
Page 1
0
10: Willow & Linden
Short Total PM 12/20/2005
-A � --v 1c *- k 4% .t f It. 1 41
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
41�
01�
4+
4�
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Volume (vph)
50
121
29
14
180
33 39
97
17
11 93
57
Peak Hour Factor
0.87
0.87
0.87:
0.85
0.85
0.85 0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85 0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
57
139
33
16
212
39 46
114
20
13 109
67
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
NB 1
SB 1
Volume Total (vph)
230
267
180
189
Volume Left (vph)
57
16
46
13
Volume Right (vph)
33
39
20
67
Hadj (s)
0.00
-0.04
0.02
-0.16
Departure Headway (s)
5.4
5.3
5.6
5.4
.
Degree Utilization, x
0.34
0.39
0.28
0.29
Capacity (veh/h)
616
633
575
600
Control Delay (s)
11.2
11.7
10.8
10.6
Approach Delay (s)
11.2
11.7
10.8
10.6
Approach LOS
B
B
B
B
Intersection Summary
Delay
11.1
.
HCM Level of Service
B
Intersection Capacity Utilization
52.1%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Synchro 6 Light Report
Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Page 1
10: Willow & Linden
Short Total Noon 12/20/2005
�� �� kg 41
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
. WBR
NBL
NBT.
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
41�
4+
44
46
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Volume (vph)
48
108
48
11
89
21
33
80
11
15.
74
45
Peak Hour Factor
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.94:
0.94
. 0.94
Hourly flow rate (vph)
55
124
55
13
105
25
39
94
13
16
79
48
Direction. Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
NB 1
SB 1
Volume Total (vph)
234
142
146
143
Volume Left (vph)
55.
13
39
16
Volume Right (vph)
55
25
13
48
Hadj (s)
-0.06
-6.05
0.03
-0.15
Departure Headway (s)
4.8
. 4.9
5.1
4.9
Degree Utilization, x
0.31
0.19
0.21
0.1b
Capacity (veh/h)
705
676
653
669
Control Delay (s)
9.9
9.1
9.4
9.1
Approach Delay (s)
9.9
9.1
9.4
9.1
Approach LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection Summa
Delay 9.4
HCM Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Synchro 6 Light Report '
Page 1
8: Willow & Pine
Short Total PM
12/20/2005
'
Movement.
EBL
EBT
WBT .
WBR
SBL
SBR
Lane Configurations
4
1�
�
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
'
Volume (veh/h)
26
179
236
15
35
38
Peak Hour Factor
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85-
0.85,-
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
31
211
278
18
41
45
' Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
'
Upstream signal (ft)
825
pX, platoon unblocked
VC, conflicting volume
295
558
286
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
295
558
286
IC, single (s)
4.1
6.4
6.2
'
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
98
91
94
' cM capacity (veh/h)
1266
479
753
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
SB 1.
-
Volume Total
241
295
86
Volume Left
31
0
41
Volume Right
0
18
45:
cSH
1266
1700
591
Volume to Capacity
0.02
0.17
0.15
Queue Length 95th (ft)
2
0
13
Control Delay (s)
1.2
0.0
12.1
Lane LOS
A
B
'
Approach Delay (s)
1.2
0.0
12.1
Approach LOS
B
Intersection Summary
'
Average Delay
2.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization
38.5%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
' Synchro 6 Light Report
Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Page 1
Q- 3
8: Willow & Pine
Short Total Noon
12/20/2005
Movement
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
Lane Configurations
4
14
�
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
27
192
152
20
22
20
Peak Hour Factor
0.87
0.87
0.88
0.88.
0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
31
221
173
23
26
24
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
825
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
195
467
184
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
195
467
184
IC, single (s)
4.1
6.4
8.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
98
95
97 .
cM capacity (veh/h)
1377
542
858
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
SB 1
Volume Total
252
195
49
Volume Left
31
0
26
Volume Right
0
23
24
cSH
1377
1700
:657
Volume to Capacity
0.02
0.11
0.08
Queue Length 95th (ft)
2
0
6
Control Delay (s)
1.1
0.0
10.9
Lane LOS
A
B
Approach Delay (s)
1.1
0.0
10.9
Approach LOS
B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
1.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization
34.1%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Synchro 6 Light Report '
Page 1
4 Z-
1: Willow & Aztlan .
Short Total PM
. 12/20/2005
Movement
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
Lane Configurations
4
T4
�
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
39
187
253:
21
18
33
Peak Hour Factor
0.85
0.85
0.85
0:85
0.85
0.85
Howdy flow rate (vph)
46
220
298
25
21
39
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
455.
pX, platoon unblocked
0.96
vC, conflicting volume
322
622
310
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
322
607
310
IC, single (s)
4.1 _
6.4
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
96
95
95
cM capacity (veh/h)
1237
426
730
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
SB 1
Volume Total
266
322
60
Volume Left
46
0
21
Volume Right
0
25
39
cSH
1237
1700
583
Volume to Capacity
0.04
0.19
0.10
Queue Length 95th (ft)
3
0
9
Control Delay (s)
1.7
0.0
11.9
Lane LOS
A
B
Approach Delay (s)
1.7
0.0
11.9
Approach LOS
B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
1.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization
39.9%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Synchro 6 Light Report
Page 1
4-
1: Willow & Aztlan
Short Total Noon
12/20/2005
Movement
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
Lane Configurations
4
T+
Y
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
31
191
155
17
28
53
Peak Hour Factor
0.89
0.89
0.90
0.90
0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
35
215
172
19
33
62
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
455
pX, platoon unblocked
0.97
vC, conflicting volume
191
466
182
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
191
451
182
tC, single Is)
4.1
6.4
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
97
94
93
cM capacity (veh/h)
1383
537
861
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
SB 1
Volume Total
249
191
95
Volume Left
35
0
33
Volume Right
0
19
62
cSH
1383
1700
712
Volume to Capacity
0.03
0.11
0.13
Queue Length 95th (ft)
2
0
12
Control Delay (s)
1.3
0.0
10.8
Lane LOS
A
B
Approach Delay (s)
1.3
0.0
10.8
Approach LOS
B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
2.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization
35.8%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Synchro 6 Light Report '
Page 1
g
' 2: Willow & College
Short Total PM
12/20/2005
'
l
�
�
�
�
t
1.,.
t
,•
t
j
�
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
. WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT.
SBR
Lane Configurations
11
T
r
I
1�
I
++'
r
+4
r
Ideal Flow (vphpq
1900
1900
19W
1900
19W
1900
1900
19W
1900
1900
19W
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.96
1.00
1.W
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Fit Protected
0.95
1.00_
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
-0.95
1.00 .
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
1863
1583
1770
1790
1770
3539
1583
1770
3539
,1583
Fit Permitted
0.25
1.00
1.00
0.67
1.00
0.19
1.00
1.00
0.15
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
911
1863
1583
1244
1790
353
3539
1583
280
3539
1583
Volume (vph)
387
119
86
56
171
60
103
904
42
67
757
274
'
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
-0.85
0.85
Adj. Flow (vph)
455
140
101
66
201
71
121
1064
49
79
891
322
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
70
0
14
0
0
0
27
0
0
185
'
Lane Group Flow (vph)
455
140
31
66
258
0
121
1064
22
79
891
137
Turn Type
pm+pt
Perth
pm+pt
pm+pt
Perm pm+pt
Perth
Protected Phases
7
4
3
8
5
2
1
6
' Permitted Phases
4
4
8
2
2
6
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
35.2
28.1
28.1
21.6
18.5
48.1
41.5
41.5
44.1
39.5
39.5
Effective Green, 9 (s)
36.2
29.1`
29.1
22.6
19.5
49.1
42.5
42.5
45.1
4015
40.5
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.38
0.31
0.31
0.24
0.20
0.52
0.45
0.45
0.47
0.42
0.42
'
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
&0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3:0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
682
569
483
312
366
280
1578
706
204
1504
673
'
v/s Ratio Prot
00.09
0.08
0.01
0.14
c0.03
c0.30
0.02
0.25
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.16
0.02
0.04
0.19
0.01
0.16
0.09
v/c'Ratio
0.67
0.25
0.06
0.21
0.71
0.43
0.67
0.03
0.39
0.59
0.20
' Uniform Delay, d1
22.3
24.9
23.5
28.8
35.2
14.0
20.9
14.8
15.8
21.1
17.2
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
2.5
0.2
0.1
0.3
6.11
1.1
2.3,
0.1
1.2
1.7
0.7
Delay (s)
24.8
25.1
23.5
29.1
41.3
15.1
23.2
14.9
17.0
22.8
17.9
' Level of Service
C
C
C
C
D.
B
C
B
B
C
B
Approach Delay (s)
24.7
39.0
22.1
21.2
Approach LOS
C
D
C
C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
23.9
HCM Level of Service
C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.66
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
95.3
Sum of lost time (s)
12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
65.7%
ICU Level of Service
C
Analysis Period (min)
15
' c Critical Lane Group
' Synchro 6 Light Report
Matthew J. Deitch , P. E. Page 1
2: Willow & College
Short Total Noon
12/20/2005
��
��
��
t
P
�►1
W
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
+
r
, )
1�
Vi
tt
if
Vi
tt
r
Ideal Flow (vphpq
19W
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
19W
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
.4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Fit
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.93
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Fit Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
1863
1583.
1770
1740
1770
3539
1583
1770
3539
1583
Fit Permitted
0.36
1.00
1.00
0.68
1.00
0.23
1.00
1.00
0.30
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1293
1863
1583
1275
1740
424
3539
1583
555
3539
1583
Volume (vph)
260
102
70
59
87
69
107
667
50
48
733
229
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.88
0.88
0.88
Adj. Flow (vph)
289
113
78
67
99
78
126
785
59
55
833
260
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
62
0
30
01
0
0
30
0
0
140
Lane Group Flow (vph)
289
113
16
67
147
0
126
785
29
55
833
120
Turn Type
pm+pt
Perm
pm+pt
pm+pt
Penn
pm+pt
Perm
Protected Phases
7
4
3
8
5
2
1
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
8
2
2
6
6
Actuated Green, G Is)
28.0
17.8
17.8
19.5
13.3
50.0
43.0
43.0
44.2
40.1
40.1
Effective Green, g (s)
29.0
18.8
18.8
20.5
14.3
51.0
44.0
44.0
45.2
41.1
41.1
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.33
0.21
0.21
0.23
0.16
0.57
0.49
0.49
0.51
0.46
0.46
Clearance Time is)
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
678
393
334
328
279
348
1748
782
337
1632
730
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.05
0.06
0.01
c0.08
c0.03
0.22 .
0.01
c0.24
v/s Ratio Perm
0.09
0.01
0.03
0.18
0.02
0.08
0.08
v/c Ratio
0.43
0.29
0.05
.0.20
0.53
0.36
0.45
0.04
0.16
0.51
0.16
Uniform Delay, d1
22.6
29.5
28.0
27.4
34.3
10.2
14.7
11.6
11.4
16.9
14.0
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.3
1.8
0.6
0.8
0.1
0.2
1.1
0.5
Delay Is)
23.0
29.9
28.1
27.8
36.1
10.9
15.5
11.7
11.7
18.1
14.5
Level of Service
C
C
C
C
D
B
B
B
B
B
B
Approach Delay (s)
25.5
33.8
14.7
16.9
Approach LOS
C
C
B
B
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
19.0 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.52
Actuated Cycle Length Is)
89.1 Sum of last time (s) 20.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
55.7% ICU Level of Service, B
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Synchro 6 Light Report ,
Page 1
APPENDIX D
N
13: Jefferson & Linden
Short Bkgrd PM
12/20/2005
-•�
�4-
�1
t
P
`l
41
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
I
+T
Vi
+14
44
1
+.
r
Ideal Flow (vphpQ
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 .
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Frt
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.98
0.94
1.00
1.00
0.85
Ftt Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.99
0.95
1.00
1.00
Said. Flow (prot)
1770
3502
1770
3480
1731
1770
1863
1583
Fit Permitted
0.45
1.00
0.51
1.00
0.91
0.49
1.00
1.00
Said. Flow (perm)
829
3502
958
3480
1601
915
1863
1583
Volume (vph)
32
365
27
51
457
58 32
45
62
63
44
28
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.93
0.93
0.93 0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
Adj. Flow (vph)
33
376
28
55
491
62 38
53
73
74
52
33
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
3
0
0
6
0 0
38
0
0
0
28
Lane Group Flow (vph)
33
401
0
55
547
0 0
126
0
74
52
5
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Protected Phases
2
6
8
4
Permitted Phases
2
6
8
4
4
Actuated Green, G (s)
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
11.4
11.4
.11.4
11.4
Effective Green, g (s)
61.0
61.0
61.0
61.0
12.4
12.4
12.4
12.4
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Clearance Time (s)
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Vehicle Extension. (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
621
2624
718
2608
244
139
284
241
v/s Ratio Prot
0.11
00.16
0.03
v/s Ratio Perm
0.04
0.06
0.08
c0.08
0.00
v/c Ratio
0.05
0.15
0.08
021
0.52
0.53
0,18
0.02
Uniform Delay, d1
2.7
2.9
2.7
3.0
31.7
31.8
30.1
29.3
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
.1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.8
3.9
0.3
0.0
Delay (s)
2.8
3.0
2.8
3.1
33.6
35.7
30.4
29.4
Level of Service
A
A
A
A
C
D
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
3.0
3.0
33.6
32.7
Approach LOS
A
A
C
C
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
10.1 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.26
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
81.4 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
42.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Synchro 6 Light Report
Page 1
13: Jefferson & Linden
Short Bkgrd Noon
12/20/2005
'-
t
�►
4
1
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL .
SBT
SBR
'
Lane Configurations
I
.. 4T)
0
44
►j
T
F
Ideal Flow (vphpq
1900
1900
19W
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
19M
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
_1900
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
'
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
0.95
1.00
0:95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Frt
1.00
0.98
1.00
0.98
0.93
1.00 _
1.00
0.85
FR Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.99
0.95
1.00
1.00
' Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
3472
1770
3481
1716
1770
1863
1583
F t Permitted
0.54
1.00
0.51
1.00
0.89
0.47
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1007
3472
951
3481
1555
872
1863
1583
Volume (vph)
22
306
44
53
292
36 49
42
86
35
4&
38
'
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.85
0.85
6.85
0.93
0.93
0.93 0.91
0.91
0.91
0.85.
0.85:
0.85
Adj. Flow (vph) .
26
360
52
57
314
39 54
46
95
41
56-
45
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
7
0
0
6
0 0
44
0
0
0
37
'
Lane Group Flow (vph)
26
405
0
57
347
0 0
151
0
41
56
8
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Protected Phases
2
6
8
4
Permitted Phases
2
6
8
4
4
Actuated Green, G (s)
58.9
58.9
58.9
58.9
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
Effective Green, g (s)
59.9
59.9
59.9
59.9
13.8
13.8
13.8
13.8
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
'
Clearance Time (s)
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0.
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph)
738
2546
697
2552
263
147
315
267
'
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.12
0.10
0.03
v/s Ratio Perm
0.03
0.06
c0.10
0.05
0.00
v/c Ratio
0.04
0.16
0.08
0.14
0.57
0.28
0.18
0.03
Uniform Delay,_d1
3.0
3.3
3.1
3.2
31.2
29.6
29.1
28.4
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.1.
0.1
0.1
0.0
3.0
1.0
0.3
0.0
Delay (s)
3.1
. 3.4
3.1
3.3
34.3
30.6
29.4
28.4
'
Level of Service
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
3.4
3.2
34.3
29.4
Approach LOS
A
A
C
C
'
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
11.5
HCM Level of Service
B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.24
'
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
81.7
Sum of lost time (s)
8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
40.1%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
- 15
' c Critical Lane Group
' Synchro 6 Light Report
Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Page 1
10: Willow & Linden
Short Bkgrd PM
11/15/2005
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
4+
41�
44,
4�
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Volume (vph)
47
116
27
14
173
33
35
97
17
11
93
52
Peak Hour Factor
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
54
133
31
16
204
39
41
114
20
13
109
61
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
NB 1
SB 1
Volume Total (vph)
218
259
175
184
Volume Left (vph)
54
16
41
13
Volume Right (vph)
31
39
20
61
Hadj (s)
0.00
-0.04
0.01
-0.15
Departure Headway (s)
5.3
5.2
5.5
5.3
Degree Utilization, x
0.32
0.37
0.27
0.27
Capacity (veh/h)
624
642
586
609
Control Delay (s)
10.8
11.3
10.5
10.3
Approach Delay (s)
10.8
11.3
10.5
10.3
Approach LOS
B
B
B
B
Intersection Summa
Delay 10.8
HCM Level of Service B
Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Synchro 6 Light Report
Page 1
1 10: callow & Linden
Short Bkgrd Noon
11/15/2005
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
1 Lane Configurations
4b
4*
44
4b
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Volume (vph)
42
100
43
11
85
21
30
80
11
15
74
42
Peak Hour Factor
1
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.94
0.94
0.94
Hourly flow rate (vph) .
48
115
49
13
100
25
35
94
13
16
79
45
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
NB 1
SB 1
1 Volume Total (vph)
213
138
142
139
Volume Left (vph)
48
13
35
16
Volume Right (vph)
49
25
13
45
Hadj (s).
1
-0.06
-0.05
0.03
-0.14
Departure Headway (s) .
4.7
4.8
5.0
4.8
Degree Utilization, x
0.28
0.19
0.20
0.19
Capacity (veh/h)
709
688
667
682
1 Control Delay (s)
9.6
8.9
9.2
8.9
Approach Delay (s)
9.6
8.9
9.2
8.9
Approach LOS
A
A
A
A
1 Intersection Summary
Delay
9.2
HCM Level of Service
A
1 Intersection Capacity Utilization
35.5%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
1
15
1
1 Synchro 6 Light Report
Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Page 1
8: Willow & Pine
Short Bkgrd PM
11/16/2005
Movement
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
Lane Configurations
4
T4
Y
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
26
169
220
15
35
38
Peak Hour Factor
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
31
199
259
18
41
45
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
825
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
276
528
268
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
276
528
268
tC, single (s)
4.1
.6.4
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
IF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
98
92
94
cM capacity (veh/h)
1286
499
771
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
SB 1
Volume Total
229
276
86
Volume Left
31
0
41
Volume Right
0
18
45
cSH
1286
1700
611
Volume to Capacity
0.02
0.16
0.14
Queue Length 95th (ft)
2
0
12
Control Delay (s)
1.2
0.0
11.9
Lane LOS
A
B
Approach Delay (s)
1.2
0.0
11.9
Approach LOS
B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
2.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization
37.1%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Synchro 6 Light Report
Page 1
8: Willow & Pine
Short Bkgrd Noon 11/15/2005
.,.#
--a.
NO.
Movement
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
Lane Configurations
4
T*
Y
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
27
173
142
20
22
20
Peak Hour Factor
0.87
0.87
0.88
0.88
0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
31
199
161
23
26
24
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
825
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
184
434
173
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
184
434
173
tC, single Is)
4.1
6.4
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
If (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
98
95
97
cM capacity (veh/h)
1391
566
871
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
SB 1
Volume Total
230
184
49
Volume Left
31
0
26
Volume Right
0
23
24
cSH
1391
1700
680
Volume to Capacity
0.02
0.11
0.07
Queue Length 95th (ft)
2
0
6
Control Delay (s)
1.2
0.0
10.7
Lane LOS
A
B
Approach Delay Is)
1.2
0.0
10.7
Approach LOS
B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
1.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization
32.6%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Synchro 6 Light Report
Page 1
1: Willow & Aztlan
Short Bkgrd PM
11/15/200.5
l
♦-
t
�.
1
Movement
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
Lane Configurations
4
Y
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
15
187
253
5
8
9
Peak Hour Factor
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
18
220
298
6
9
11
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
455
pX, platoon unblocked
0.97
vC, conflicting volume
304
556
301
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
304
543
301
tC, single (s)
4.1
6.4
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
99
98
99
cM capacity (veh/h)
1257
480
739
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
SB 1
Volume Total
238
304
20
Volume Left
18
0
9
Volume Right
0
6
11
cSH
1257
1700
589
Volume to Capacity
0.01
0.18.
0.03
Queue Length 95th (ft)
1
0
.3
Control Delay (s)
0.7
0.0
11.3
Lane LOS
A
B
Approach Delay (s)
0.7
0.0
11.3
Approach LOS
B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
0.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization
32.2%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Synchro 6 Light Report '
Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Page 1
-i 0 1
1: Willow & Aztlan
Short Bkgrd Noon
11/15/2005
Movement
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
Lane Configurations
4
t4
Y
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
9
191
155
7
9
18
Peak Hour Factor
0.89
0.89
0.90
0.90
0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
10
215
172
8
11
21
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
455
pX, platoon unblocked
0.98
vC, conflicting volume
180
411
176
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
180
400
176
IC, single (s)
4.1
6.4
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
99
98
98
cM capacity (veh/h)
1396
590
867
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
SB 1
Volume Total
225
180
32
Volume Left
10
0
11
Volume Right
0
8
21
cSH
1396
1700
750
Volume to Capacity
0.01
0.11
0.04
Queue Length 95th (ft)
1
0
3
Control Delay (s)
0.4
0.0
.10.0
Lane LOS
A
B
Approach Delay (s)
0.4
0.0
10.0
Approach LOS
B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
0.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization
27.4%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15.
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Synchro 6 Light Report
Page 1
2: Willow & College
Short Bkgrd PM 11/15/2005
WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
t
F
1
tt
r
tt
r
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.96
.1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
FR Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flog viv (prot)
3433
1863
1583
1770
1792
1770
3539
1583
1770
3539
1583
Flt Permitted
0.28
1.00
1.00
0.68
1.00
0.19
1.00
1.00
0.15
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
996
1863
1583
1258
1792
358
3539
1583
283
3539
1583
Volume (vph)
387
108
86
49
160
54
103
904
35
61
757
274
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
Adj. Flow (vph)
455
127
101
58
188
64
121
1064
41
72
891
322
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
71
0
13
0
0
0
23
0
0
184
Lane Group Flow (vph)
455
127
30
58
239
0
121
1064
18
72
891
138
Turn Type
pm+pt
Perm pm+pt
pm+pt
Penn pm+pt
Perm
Protected Phases
7
4
3
8
5
2
1
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
8
2
2
6
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
34.4
27.3
27.3
20.8
17.7
47.9
41.4
41.4
44.1
39.5
39.5
Effective Green, g (s)
35.4
28.3
28.3
21.8
18.7
48.9
42.4
42.4
45.1
40.5
40.5
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.37
0.30
0.30
0.23
0.20
0.52
0.45
0.45
0.48
0.43
0.43
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
701
559
475
307
355
283
1590
711
208
1518
679
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.09
0.07
0.01
0.13
c0.03
c0.30
0.02
0.25
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.16
0.02
0.04
0.19
0.01
0.15
0.09
v/c Ratio
0.65
0.23
0.06
0.19
0.67
0.43
0.67
0.03
0.35
0.59
0.20
Uniform Delay, d1
22.3
24.8
23.6
28.9
35.0
13.7
20.5
14.5
15.3
20.6
16.9
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
2.1
0.2
0.1
0.3
5.0
1.0
2.3
0.1
1.0
1.7
0.7
Delay (s)
24.4
25.0
23.6
29.2
40.0
14.7
22.7
14.6
16.3
22.2
17.5
Level of Service
C
C
C
C
D
B
C
B
B
C
B
Approach Delay (s)
24.4
38.0
21.7
20.7
Approach LOS
C
D
C
C
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
23.3 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.65
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
94.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
64.4% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Synchro 6 Light Report '
. Page 1
Z �
2: Willow & College
Short Bkgrd Noon
11/15/2005
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
M
t
. r
Vi
T*
Vi
tt
r
++
r
Ideal. Flow (vphpQ
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0:95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.93
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Fit Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95 .
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
1863
1583
1770
1734
1770
3539
1583
1770
3539
1583
Fit Permitted
0.35
1.00
1.00
0.69
1.00
0.24
1.00
1.00
0.31
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1276
1863
1583
1287
1734
449
3539
1583
574
3539
1583
Volume (vph)
260
92
70
48
71
61
107
667
43
43
733
229
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.88
0.88
0.88
Adj. Flow (vph)
289
162
78
55
81
69
126
785
51
49
833
260
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
63
0
34
0
0
0
24
0
0
132
Lane Group Flow (vph)
289
102
15
55
116
0
126
785
27
49
833
128
Turn Type
pm+pt
Perm
pm+pt
pm+pt
Perm pm+pt
Perm
Protected Phases
7
4
3
8
5
2
1
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
8
2
2
6
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
24.6
16.1
16.1
14.4
9.9
51.5
44.7
44.7
45.9
41.9
41.9
Effective Green, g (s)
25.6
17.1
17.1
15.4
10.9
52.5
45.7
45.7
46.9
42.9
42.9
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.29
0.20.
0.20
0.18
0.12
0.60
0.52
0.52
0.54
0.49
0.49
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
639
365
310
252
217
373
1853
829
363
1739
778
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.06
0.05
0.01
0.07
c0.03
0.22
0.01
c0.24
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.08
0.01
0.03
0.18
0.02
0.07
0.08
v/c Ratio
0.45
0.28
0.05
0.22
0.53
0.34
0.42
0.03
0.13
0.48
0.16
Uniform Delay, d1
24.1
29.9
28.5
30.6
35.8
8.7
12.7
10.1
9.8
14.8
12.3
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.4
2.5
0.5
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.9
0.5
Delay (s)
24.6
30.3
28.6
31.0
38.3
9.2
13.4
10.2
10.0
15.7
12.7
Level of Service
C
C
C
C
D
A
B
B
A
B
B
Approach Delay (s)
26.5
36.4
12.7
14.8
Approach LOS
C
D
B
B
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
17.6 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.48
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
87.3 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
54.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Synchro 6 Light Report
Page 1
APPENDIX C
1
1
z&
Table 43
Fort Collins (City Limits)
Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections)
.Land Use (from structure plan)
Other corridors within:
Intersection type
Commercial
Mixed use
Low density
mixed use
All other
corridors
districts
residential
areas
Signalized intersections
D
E`
D
D
(overall)
Any Leg
E
E
D
E
Any Movement
E
E
D
E
Stop sign control
NIA
F"
F"
E
(arterial/collector or local —
any approach fep)
Stop sign control
NIA
C
C
C
(col lector/local--any
approach leg)
` mitigating measures required
" considered normal in an urban environment
ZS
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
l.cs•cF-oC-Scrvicc
_ F3
1�
F
Average "1•otal Uc1ay
uxlvch
<10
_>IOand<15
l5 and > 25
> 25 and 3S
35 and < 50
> so
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
INTERSECTIONS
Lcvcl-of-service
- • �• ::gc _; vr::: f:uay
sccfvcb
-- 13 _
> 10 and < 20
_
>20and <35
!>
> 35 and < 55
— C --_
> 55 and < SO
1•
_
> S0 —
13: Jefferson & Linden
Recent PM 12/20/2005
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL _WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Vi
0
Vi
0
41*
1
?
F
Ideal Flow (vphpQ
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900.
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4:0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Frt
1.00
0.99
1.00
0.98
0.94
1.00
1.00
0.85
Fit Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.99
0.95
1.00
1.00
Said. Flow (prat)
1770
3503
1770
3479
1730
1770
1863
1583
Fit Permitted
0.46
1.00
0.53
1.00
0.92
0.51
1.00
1.00
Said Flow (perm)
854
3503
980
3479
1602
944
1863
1583
Volume (vph)
30
344
25
48
431
55 30
42
58
59
41
26
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.93
0.93
0.93 0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
Adj. Flow (vph)
31
355
26
52
463
59 35
49
68
69
48
31
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
3
0
0
5
0 0
39
0
0
0
27
Lane Group Flow (vph)
31
378
0
52
517
0 0
113
0
69
48
4
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Protected Phases
2
6
8
4
Permitted Phases
2
6
8
4
4
Actuated Green, G (s)
60.9
60.9
60.9
60.9
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.8
Effective Green, g (s)
61.9
61.9
61.9
.61.9
11.8
11.8
11.8
11.8
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
Clearance Time (s)
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
647
2654
742
2636
231
136
269
229
v/s Ratio Prot
0.11
c0.15
0.03
v/s Ratio Perm
0.04
0.05
0.07
c0.07
0.00
v/c Ratio
0.05
0.14
0.07
0.20
0.49
0.51
0.18
0.02
Uniform Delay, d1
2.5
2.7
2.5
2.8
32.2
32.3
30.7
30.0
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.6
3.0
0.3
0.0
Delay (s)
2.6
2.8
2.6
2.9
33.8
35.2
31.0
30.0
Level of Service
A
A
A
A
• C
D
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
2.8
2.8
33.8
32.8
Approach LOS
A
A
C
C
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
9.9 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.25
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
81.7 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
41.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
I, Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Synchro 6 Light Report
Page 1
1Z '7?
13: Jefferson & Linden
Recent Noon
12/20/2005
t
P
ti
1
41
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
+1
Vi
+T
44
f
r
Ideal Flow (vphpD
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
` Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Fit
1.00
0.98
1.00
0.98
0.93
1.00.
1.00
0.85
Fit Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.99
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
3473
1770
3480
1717
1770
1863
1583
Fit Permitted
0.55
1.00
0.52
1.00
0.89
0.48
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1026
3473
974
3480
1557
890
1863
1583
Volume (vph)
21
288
41
50
275
34 46
40
81
33
45
36
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.93
0.93
0.93 0.91
0.91
0.91
0.85
0.85
0.85
Adj. Flow (vph)
25
339
48
54
296
37 51
44
89
39
53
42
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
6
0
0
6
0 0
44
0
0
0
35
Lane Group Flaw (vph)
25
381
0
54
327
0 0
140
0
39
53
7
Turn Type
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Perm
Protected Phases
2
6
8
4
Permitted Phases
2
6
8
4
4
Actuated Green, G (s)
59.5
59.5
59.5
59.5
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
Effective Green, g (s)
60.5
60.5
60.5
60.5
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
Clearance Time (s)
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
760
2572
721
2577
252
144
301
256
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.11
0.09
0.03
v/s Ratio Perm
0.02
0.06
c0.09
0.04
0.00
v/c Ratio
0.03
0.15
0.07
0.13
0.55
0.27
0.18
0.03
Uniform Delay, d1
2.8
3.1
2.9
3.0
31.5
30.0
29.6
28.8
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
2.6
1.0
0.3
0.0
Delay (s)
2.9
3.2
3.1
3.1
34.2
31.0
29.8
28.9
Level of Service
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
3.2
3.1
34.2
29.9
Approach LOS
A
A
C
C
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
11.5 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.22
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
81.7 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
38.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Synchro 6 Light Report
Page 1
z?,
' 10: Willow & Linden
Recent PM
11/15/2005
'
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
'
Lane Configurations
4*
4�
44-
44
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Volume (vph)
44
109
25
13
163
31
32
91
16
10
88
48
'
Peak Hour Factor
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
51
125
29
15
192
36
38
107
19
12
104
56
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
NB 1
SB 1
'
Volume Total (vph)
205
244
164
172
Volume Left (vph)
51
15
38
12
Volume Right (vph)
29
36
19
56
'
Hadj (s)
0.00
-0.04
0.01
-0.15
Departure Headway (s)
5.2
5.1
5.4
5.2
Degree Utilization, x
0.29
0.34
0.24
0.25
Capacity (veh/h)
641
659
602
627
Control Delay (s)
10.3
10.7
10.1
9.9
Approach Delay (s)
10.3
10.7
10.1
9.9
Approach LOS
B
B
B
A
'
Intersection Summary
Delay
10.3
HCM Level of Service
B
Intersection Capacity Utilization
45.9%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
' Synchro 6 Light Report
Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Page 1
10: Willow & Linden
Recent Noon 11/15/2005
Movement
EBL
EST
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
41�
*T*
+
+
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Volume (vph)
40
94
40
10
80
20
27
75
10
14
70
40
Peak Hour Factor
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.94
0.94
0.94
Hourly flow rate (vph)
46
108
46
12
94
24
32
88
12
15
74
43
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
NB 1
SB 1
Volume Total (vph)
200
129
132
132
Volume Left (vph)
46
12
32
15
Volume Right (vph)
46
24
12
43
Hadj (s)
-0.06
-0.06
0.03
-0.14
Departure Headway (s)
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.7
Degree Utilization, x
0.26
0.17
0.18
0.17
Capacity (veh/h)
721
702
681
698
Control Delay (s)
9.3
8.7
9.0
8.7
Approach Delay (s)
9.3
8.7
9.0
8.7
Approach LOS
A
A
A
A
Intersection Summary
Delay 9.0
HCM Level of Service A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Matthew J: Delich , P. E.
Synchro 6 Light Report ,
Page 1
Zo
8: Willow & Pine
Recent PM
11/15/2005
Movement
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
'
Lane Configurations
4
T4
Y
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
'
Volume (veh/h)
17
158
205
13
34
31
Peak Hour Factor
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
20
186
241
15
40
36
t Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
'
Upstream signal (ft)
825
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
256
475
249
' vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
256
475
249
tC, single (s)
4.1
6.4
6.2
tC, 2 stage Is)
IF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
98
93
95
cM capacity (veh/h)
1308
540
790
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
SB 1
Volume Total
206
256
76
'
Volume Left
20
0
40
Volume Right
0
15
36
cSH
1308
1700
636
' Volume to Capacity
0.02
0.15
0.12
Queue Length 95th (ft)
1
0
10
Control Delay (s)
0.9
0.0
11.4
Lane LOS
A
B
'
Approach Delay (s)
0.9
0.0
11.4
Approach LOS
B
Intersection Summary
'
Average Delay
2.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
32.9%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Synchro 6 Light Report
Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Pagel
8: Willow & Pine
Recent Noon
11/15/2005
Movement
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
Lane Configurations
4
T4
Y
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
23
162
132
19
21
16
Peak Hour Factor
0.87
0.87
0.88
0.88
0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
26
186
150
22
25
19
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
825
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
172
400
161
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
172
400
161
tC, single (s)
4.1
6.4
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
98
96
98
cM capacity (veh/h)
1405
595
884
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
SB 1
Volume Total
213
172
44
Volume Left
26
0
25
Volume Right
0
22
19
cSH
1405
1700
693
Volume to Capacity
0.02
0.10
0.06
Queue Length 95th (ft)
1
0
5
Control Delay (s) .
1.1
0.0
10.5
Lane LOS
A
B
Approach Delay (s)
1.1
0.0
10.5
Approach LOS
B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
1.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization
31.2%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Synchro 6 Light Report
Page 1
1: Willow & Aztlan
Recent PM 11/15/2005
Movement
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
Lane Configurations
4
Ta
M
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
'
Volume (veh/h)
15
167
231
5
8
9
Peak Hour Factor
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
18
196
272
6
9
11
' Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
'
Upstream signal (ft)
455
pX, platoon unblocked
0.98
vC, conflicting volume
278
506
275
' vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
278
496
275
tC, single (s)
4.1
6.4
6.2
'
tC, 2 stage (s)
IF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
99
98
99
'
cM capacity (veh/h)
1285
515
764
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
SB 1
Volume Total
214
278
20
'
Volume Left
18
0
9
Volume Right
0
6
11
cSH
1285
1700
622
' Volume to Capacity
0.01
0.16
0.03
Queue Length 95th (ft)
1
0
2
Control Delay (s)
0.8
0.0
11.0
Lane LOS
A
B
'
Approach Delay (s)
0.8
0.0
11.0
Approach LOS
B
Intersection Summary
'
Average Delay
0.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization
31.2%
ICU Level
of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Synchro 6 Light Report
Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Page 1
t -7
1: Willow & Aztlan
Recent Noon
11/15/2005
Movement
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
Lane Configurations
4
t*
Y
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
9
176
141
7
9
18
Peak Hour Factor
0.89
0.89
0.90
0.90
0.85
0.85
Hourly flow rate (vph)
10
198
157
8
11
21
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
455
pX, platoon unblocked
0.99
vC, conflicting volume
164
379
161
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
164
371
161
tC, single Is)
4.1
6.4
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
99
98
98
cM capacity (veh/h)
1414
618
884
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
SB 1
Volume Total
208
164
32
Volume Left
10
0
11
Volume Right
0
8
21
cSH
1414
1700
773
Volume to Capacity
0.01
0.10
0.04
Queue Length 95th (ft)
1
0
3
Control Delay Is)
0.4
0.0
9.9
Lane LOS
A.
A
Approach Delay (s)
0.4
0.0
9.9
Approach LOS
A
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
1.0
26.6% ICU Level of Service
15
Q
Synchro 6 Light Report
Page 1
' 2: Willow & College
Recent PM
11/15/2005
'
-•�
t
t
`►1
r
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
'
Lane Configurations
►j►I
+
r
1�
. I
tT
r
Tt
r
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time is)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
'
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.98
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Ftt Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
' Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
1863
1583
1770
1793
1770
3539
1583
1770
3539
1583
Fit Permitted
0.31
1.00
1.00
0.68
1.00
0.21
1.00
1.00
0.16
1.00
1.00
Satd.Flow (perm)
1130
1863
1583
1268
1793
387
3539
1583
298
3539
1583
Volume (vph)
365
101
81
42
150
49
97
852
27
56
713
258
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
Adj. Flow (vph)
429
119
95
49
176
58
114
1002
32
66
839
304
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
66
0
12
0
0
0
.18
0
0
179
'
Lane Group Flow (vph)
429
119
29
49
222
0
114
1002
14
66
839
125
Turn Type
pm+pt
Perm pm+pt
pm+pt
Perm pm+pt
Perm
Protected Phases
7
4
3
8
5
2
1
6
Permitted Phases .
4
4
8
2
2
6
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
34.9
27.5
27.5
21.1
17.7
45.5
38.6
38.6
42.9
37.3
37.3
Effective Green, g (s)
35.9
28.5
28.5
22.1
18.7
46.5
39.6
39.6
43.9
38.3
38.3
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.39
0.31
0.31
0.24
0.20
0.50
0.43
0.43
0.47
0.41
0.41
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
762
570
485
319
360
296
1505
673
229
1456
651
'
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.08
0.06
0.01
0.12
c0.03
c0.28
0.02
0.24
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.14
0.02
0.03
0.16
0.01
0.12
0.08
v/c Ratio
0.56
0.21
0.06
0.15
0.62
0.39
0.67
0.02
. 0.29
0.58
0.19
' Uniform Delay, d1
20.9
23.9
22.8
27.8
33.9
14.0
21.4
15.5
15.2
21.1
17.5
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
. 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
. 3.1
0.8
2.3
0.1
0.7
1.7
0.7
Delay (s)
21.9
24.1
22.9
28.1
37.1
14.8
23.8
15.6
15.9
22.8
18.2
t Level of Service
C
C
C
C
D
B
C
B
B
C
B
Approach Delay (s)
22.4
35.5
22.7
21.3
Approach LOS
C
D
C
C
'
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay
23.2
HCM Level of Service
C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.57
'
Actuated Cycle Length Is)
93.1
Sum of lost time (s)
8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
61.5%
ICU Level of Service
B
Analysis Period (min)
15
' c . Critical Lane Group
Synchro 6 Light Report
Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Page 1
1 1,57-
2: Willow& College
Recent Noon
11/15/2005
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
+
r
T4
Vi
tt
r
tt
r
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Frt
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.93
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.85
Fit Protected
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
1863
1583
1770
1734
1770
3539
1583
1770
3539
1583
FIt Permitted
0.38
1.00
1.00
0.69
1.00
0.26
1.00
1.00
0.33
1.00
1.00
Said. Flow (perm)
1362
1863
1583
1293
1734
482
3539
1583
612
3539
1583
Volume (vph)
245
87
66
42
67
57
101
629
38
40
691
216
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.88
0.88
0.88
Adj. Flow (vph)
272
97
73
48
76
65
119
740
45
45
785
.245
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
59
0
34
0
0
0
22
0
0
127
Lane Group Flow (vph)
272
97
14
48
107
0
119
740
23
45
785
118
Turn Type
pm+pt
Perm
pm+pt
pm+pt
Peru
pm+pt
Peru
Protected Phases
7
4
3
8
5
2
1
6
Permitted Phases
4
4
8
2
2
6
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
24.0
15.6
15.6
13.8
9.4
48.8
42.2
42.2
43.4
39.5
39.5
Effective Green, g (s)
25.0
16.6
16:6
14.8
10.4
49.8
43.2
43.2
44.4
40.5
40.5
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.18
0.12
0.59
0.51
0.51
0.53
0.48
0.48
Clearance Time (s)
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
666
368
312
252
214
386
1818
813
377
1704
762
v/s Ratio Prot
c0.05
0.05
0.01
0.06
c0.02
0.21
0.01
c0.22
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.07
0.01
0.02
0.16
0.01
0.06
0.07
v/c Ratio
0.41
0.26
0.05
0.19
0.50
0.31
0.41
0.03
0.12
0.46
0.15
Uniform Delay, d1
22.8
28.6
27.3
29.3
34.4
8.5
12.6
10.1
9.7
14.5
12.2
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.4
1.8
0.5
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.9
0.4
Delay (s)
23.2
29.0
27.4
29.7
36.2
8.9
13.3
10.2
9.9
15.4
12.6
Level of Service
C
C
C
C
D
A
B
B
A
B
B
Approach Delay (s)
25.2
34.6
12.5
14.6
Approach LOS
C
C
B
B
Intersection Summa
HCM Average Control Delay
17.1 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.45
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
84.1 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
52.0% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
Matthew J. Delich , P. E.
Synchro 6 Light Report
Page 1
r4
APPENDIX B
13
By
AppMech
04:30 PM
Vbkm
26 41
59
2 128
Peter
20. 32.
48.
1.6
3 0
1
wo Int
05:00 PM
Volmie
15 12
13
1 41
Peak
0.78
FacbDr
0
City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations
PO Box 580
Fort Collins CO W522 FOe Name : linden Jettersnn 03-2"5
Turning Movement Study Site Code : 00000039
SM Dab 3/242006
Page No :2
04:30 PM
56 431 48 16 550
10. 7a 0 4 e.7 2,9
05:15 PM
14 113 16 5 145
0.92
9
0490 PM
58
42 30 6
136
42.
30. 22.
8
8 1 4.4
05:15
PM
23
15 10 2
50
0.68
0
04:30 PM
25 344
30 a 407
6.1 $4.
7.4 2.0
05:00 PM
4 90
9 5 108
0.94
2
City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations
PO Box 580
NortMSouth Street linden Fort Collins CO 80522 File Name : Linden Jefferson 03-24-05
Eas6 West Street Jefferson Tuming MOvemelt Study Site Code : o0000039
Tone: PM Start Date : 3l2412W5
veattux: Sunny Page No : 1
n_.�.rw nrr..w 1 McM1M.i
Linden '
South Bound
Jaffmw
West Bound
Linden
North Bound
Rig
ht
East
The
u
Bound
Left
Pod
s
App.
Total
Start
Time
Rig
M
Thr
u
L� s
p
Total
Rig
ht
r
u
lehPed
o
AM.
Total
Rig
ht
Thr
u
Left
Pad
a
A".
Total
Int.
Total
actor
1.0
1.0
.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
'
1.0
04 30 PM
0415 PM
5
4
12
11
12
17
0
1
29
33
12
8
107
101
6
13
0
9
127
131
15
9
....6
9
8 1
5 3
30
�27
6
7
84
82
2
12
0
3
92
104
Z76
295
Total
9
23
29
1
62
20
208
21
9
256
24
17
12 4
I
-1-5-TM-
14
3
196
573
06:00 PM
15
12
13
1
41
21
110
11
2
144
11
10
8
0
29
4
90
9
5
108
322
WAS PM
2
6
17
0
25
14
113
16
5
148
23
15
10
2
50
6
86
7
0
103
326
Grand
25
41
59
2
126
55
431
48
16
550
58
42
30
6
136
25
344
30
B
407
1221
Trial
APP %
20.
32-
46
1.6
10.
78.
8.7
29
42.
30.
22.
4.4
6.1
84
5
7A
2.0
3
0
1
0
4
6
9
1
Total %
2.1
3A
4.8
0.2
10.5
4.5
35.
3.9
1.3
45.0
4.8
3.4
2.5
0.5
11.1
2.0
28.
2.5
0.7
33.3
3
Unam
ow In Tole)
Cry F-2"l
zs 41 sa 7rPam+ vu lea
1 L+
T
4
0
2
MOO
S:,s�°
6
UnMed
S'a
arL
o
o r r
LM TNU Paft
C :o.
4 4 i]a = l
Tow
Undeft
11 1
___ _. ....... �..�..���s.w vv• n�•�t rtvu nnn•1/OT/Cn
APPm�
12:00 PM
Vic.
38 45
33 3
117
Percent
30. 38.
28. 26
e 5
2
High Yd.
1200 PM
Vokme
11 16
14 1
42
Peak
0.09
Fador
6
City of Fort Copins Traffic Operations
PO Box 580
Fart Collins CO 80522 foe Name : Linden Jefferson 03-24-05
Tuming Movement Study She Code : 00000039
Slam Date : 324/2005
Page NO :2
12.00 PM
12M PM
12= PM
34 275
50
25 364
61 40
48
22
182
41 268 _21 7
337
8.9 71.
13.
6.5
42. 21.
24.
11.
12- 79. 6.2 2.1
6
0
9 2
3
6
2 5
12:45 PM
12:15 PM
12:45 PM
12 72
12
6 102
20 12
8
9
55
18 91 a 1
/18
0.94
0.85
0.71
1
9
4
City of Fort CoOins Traffic Operations
PO Box 580
No* South Street Linden Fort CoUins CO 80522 Fie Name : Linden Jefferson 03-24-05
Eest►VilestStreet Jefferson Tuming � Study site Code : 00000039
Time: NOON Start Oats : 3R4i'2005
'te~.. Sunny Page No : 1
Linden
.blremon
Linden
Jefferson
sours BoulW
-- -
Rig
west
Thr
Bound
LeR
Ped
A".
Rig
North
Thr
Bound
ed
App,
Eau Bound
Start
Rig
Thr
Leif Pe0
App.
Rg
lAr
Ped
App.
Int
Time
ht
u
s
Total
ht
u
s
Total
ht
u
!�R
s
Total
M
u
Leff
a
Total
Total
Factor
'I.0
1.a
_
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.o
3
1.0 1.0 1.0
65 5 4
77
258
12:00 PM 11 16 14 1 42
10 86 15 4 97
17 5 12 8 42
12:15 Ph4
3
11
4
2
20
5
68
13
8
94
28
12
6
9
55
10
69 6 1
66
255
121.30 PM
11
6
7
0
24
7
67
10
7
91
22
10
13
2
47
10
43 2 1
66
218
IZ45 PM
11
12
8
0
31
_ 12
72
12
6
102
16
13
13
3
45
18
41
91 8 1
288 21 7
-118
337
296
1027
Total 36 45 33 3 117
94 275 50 25 384
81 40 48 22 189
C'fww
Total
36
45
33 3
117
34 275
50
25 354
81
40
46
22
189
41
268 21 7 337
1027
ApP(Ch %
30.
38.
20. 2.0
6.9 71.
13.
6.5
42.
21.
24.
11.
12.
79. 6.2 2.1
Total %
3.5
4.4
3.2 0.3
11.4
3.3 0
4.9
2.4 37.4
7.9
3.9
4.6
2.1
18.4
4.0
26.. 2.0 0.7 32.8
M Taut
95 r,,' ft 2Pt
17-
1 37 J1
It Tim tell Peas
1 4
30 �S i'_ Tin
5
a
rt01N
"
12D011D
51215L0� A -
00
Lr
4, t r►
Lee Tft ( �Peas
t3�teetee
la Tow
W
R = right tum
S = straight
MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E.
2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE
LOVELAND, CO 80538
Phone: (9701669-2061
TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS
Date: 11.10-05 Observer: Joe
Day: Thursday Jurisdiction: Fort Collins
. I intersection: LindenWillow
- - F
Time
Begins
Northbound: Linden
Southbound: Linden
Total
northisouth
Eastbound: Willow
Westbound: Willow
Total
easttwest
Total
All
L
S
R
Total
L
S
R
Total
L
S
R
Total
L
I S
R
Total
11:45
5
12
3
5
13
3
ftMjmVM N'
Q 01
41
11
24
5
@
0
18
5
4101 I ff
63
.11 4.
0
12:00
7
18
2
1
15
10
AW
0
53
9
14
1
2
_j1 _
7
54
--
12:15
7
21
1
4
19
9
61
15
23
11
1
20
5
75
Wvlll rlA�
12:30
7
24
5
4
13
10
63
6
18
10
1
18
3
12:45
7
22
0
1
20
12
62
6
1 28
7
3
21
5
M
70
5`5
1:00
6
8
4Cr
5
18
1 9
50
13
1 25
12
5
2
7
'7
83
16.1
112:1 1:151,Y> 1 §RA, '-j t' i -P
5. 1 112 1 �f4 -t -' k 5 124 236 Ifflill 10 1 174 1 -1 Pj�d I kg 1 110 1 284 110,5 20
PHIF 0.78 1 0.94 0.87 1 0.83
4:15
5 126
2
1
18
1 7
➢Nil
59
11
27
8
3
36
1•
1,4
86
4:30
6
121
4
3
19
15
a
68
9
23
3 1
i.
3
34rk
79
4:45
5:00
8
10
118
28
4
5
3
1
26
28
6
19
5
65
91
10
15
33
31
8
3
34
J641
12
5
100
103
5:15
8
24
3
1 LAM
1 3
15
8
,
61
1 0
22
1
1
54
7
103
R 840k,
5:30
5—r18
I 1
1 2
25
9
60
13
19
1
27
4
75
, ZD
4:30-5:30
139
146
285
4
0�
178
g' 5�
207
1 385
1'11
PHIF
1 0.81
0.76
0.87
0.83
-1)
R = right tum
8 = straight
I = lAft him
MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E.
2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE
LOVELAND, CO 80538
Phone: (970) 669-M61
TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS
Date: 11.10-05 Observer: Michael
Day: Thursday Jurisdiction: Fort Collins
F—Intersection: Willow/Pine
Time
Begins
Northbound:
Southbound: Pine
Total
northisouth
Eastbound: Willow
Westbound: Willow
Total
easthvest
Total
All
L
S
R
Total
L
S
R
Total
L
F7S
R
Total
L
S
R
Total
11:45
4
10
4
37
2
26
3
70
-108MI04
12:00
2
HL
7
0
18
34
6
58
12:15
10 -04111100111
4
5
',ffi'q
, �,. 2,",,
9
3
48
33
3
87
yyy"
12:30
7
5
12
5
32
27
3
67
12:45
4
7
5
39
41
38
5
87
1:00
6
10
43
34
8
1
95
112:15-1151Y, 0 k0� 37 37 185 1-
- IMI -.11 1 �- 151 336
PHF I nia 1 0.77 0.87 1 0.88
4:15
4
5
9
7
29
52 1
10
98
4:30
9
'N
16
8
45
48
1 3
1111
104
Milk
4:45
3
5
8
1
35
36
3
75
8 3 $115 N
5:00
9
10
j,
19
4
40
74
6
12 4
5:15
i$ , 01
15
7
22
4
38
47
1
90
2'-"F-�
5:30
�,�OQM
8
7
15 =2
42
50
97
4: 3 0 - 5: 3 0 1"k6o"k16"'I 0 11' 65 1 65 1 �4 1 175 11',g' 218 1 393 Wj�
PHF n1a 0.74 0.83 0.68
R = right turn
S = straight
I - 1n4 h.e
MATTHEW J. DEUCH, P.E.
2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE
LOVELAND, CO 805M
Phone: (970) 669-2061
TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS
Date: 11.10-05 Observer: Michael
Day: Thursday Jurisdiction: Fort Collins
F—Intersection: Willow/Aztlan
Time
Begins
Northbound:
Southbound: Azdan
Total
north/south
Eastbound: Willow
Westbound: Willow
Total
east/west
Total
All
I.
FSTR
Total
L
S
R
Total
L
S
R
Total
L
S
R
Total
11:45
41' V
0
2
2
3
41
29
3
614 1 1011
76
12:00
0
0
0
9
18
37
2
ullw
w4k
66
12:15
sL0 r re
2
1
3
2
49
36
2
89
12:30
1
6
7
4
36
29
3
72
12:45
4
6
10
2
4
40
1
83
1:00
; 0
2
5
7
1
1 51
1
89
12:1 1:15 1 1 �" 185 1
S. 0 lk"1,0J.1 27 1 27 V�'!' -109,111"OR" 1 t�74(rj 48
5 � , ,.4 1 333
PHIF n/a 0.68 1 0.89 1 0.9
4:15
4
6
5
34
56
1
96
4:30
1
2
3
52
55
2
112
4:45
4
3
7
4
32
41
0
77
IN'
5:00
A r.0
1
1
4
44
ONO
82
132
5:15
3
4
7
4
39
53
1
97
5:30
1" 1
4
1
1 5
9
1 3 1
40
1
55
2
100
.109
f ION 0 jv§j IMI 1 17 1 17 1 11!f 182 [2,1,Y 1,"# 1,1 1 236 1 418
PHIF I I n1a 1 1 0.61 1 1 0.83 1 1 0.7 1
MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E.
2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE
LOVELAND, CO 80538
Phone: (970) 669-2061
TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS
Date: 1.25-05 Observer: City of Fort Collins
Day: Tuesday Jurisdiction: Fort Collins
R = right turn Intersection: College/Cherry
S = straight
I =IAftfilm
Time
Begins
Northbound: College
Southbound: College
Total
northisouth
Eastbound: Cherry
Westbound: Cherry
Total
easftest
Total
All
L
I S
I R
Total
L
S
R
Total
L
S
R
Total
L
S
R
Total
7:30
13
88
1
t02
12
218
64
9�
396
55
38
3
18
10
151
N",547
7:45:::
12
126
7
16
207
81
0 4,
44 9
69
45
7
17
6
66
8100
15
1U
4
8
136
66
0`6
363
54
29
5
17
3
133
18
92
9
12
155
65
23 4
Z
351
44
15
4
110
17:30-8:30 1,10NP 104 YMO 519 IRA, 1 �4.0 4AI 0 1 1559 MW 3111,27H,400] 449 [5,10141 128j 111 1 560 lm't�,'g
PHF 1. 1 0.85 1 0.86 1 1 0.83 1 1 0.9 1
12:00
21
1141
11
1177
162
Q WN
423
74
20
8
20
119
1 157
101M80E'RIM;
12:15
22
1145
15
1162
147
a 224, u s r ,
405
59
20
12
10
13
���,,�
1 130
12:30
27
1155
4
1155
145
O�',
393
58
23
11
21
13
148
12:45
31
1188
10T1-9-7F62—f'
269,�',,4
AQA
54
24
—11
—16—
12
129
MAU
112:00-1:00114111114 768 1$40011691 1216 1 947 1 1715 1"AIMM44CI 398 166 1 564 1 27f,p
I PHF I 1 0.85 1 1 0.88 1 1 0.9 0.88 1
4:30
30
1186
11
164
56
455
104
124
1 17
js�
4
22
8
179
4:45
28
1213
131210
65
539
71
128
21
8
1 38
1 11
1
177
F
5.00
15
1126
13
1 5
41
7a
303
68
F24
16
40
13
l-ft6IRM-'11
181
5:15
24
19
234
9
96
14
50
17
ROW
251
14:30-5:301,'9T :p85211MI 976 1027 1 2003 Ir3651101k,1181,5j 547 4-4j ,?,! SM' 1 �-,40 Nd 241 1 788
I PHF I 1 0.68 1 1 0.74 1 1 0.8 1 0.74 1
-r I
I �
/X\ P W
L
�JOD
VO
0 �-
-.4_� Umc
ZOUK
w l mLL
oo
LU
_ N V
cc
Luao
I • • a // r • /m r`r �r Lr r aFH
�f yLL
trl II o
Lrl
U i
8
I
\ �Vy�� � •\• �',�/ // /� s �� rya cwc
CONCEPTUAL 61TE PLwa
AN p
0
Chapter 4 — Attachments
Attachment A
Transportation Impact Study
Base Assumptions
Project Information
Project Name AlO ag,%217-AU &kmuPrrVCE
Project Location O
, _ Tcp,
4/A)t��k)
TIS Assumptions
Type of Study
Full: JQ 0
Intermediate: f
Study Area Boundaries
North:
South:
East
West
Study Years
Short Range: Q p p
Long Range: 6
Future Traffic Growth Rate
Study Intersections
1. All access drives
5.
2•OCG6&& le,�r"o.J
6-
3•Wil.t.ewI Crit)��dj
T
4. J6 BQ <tAN
8.
Time Period for -Study
AM: : PM:
. 0
1 Sat Noon: A(p
Trip Generation Rates
PlZo PA9V.S S. P-e c-
Trip Adjustment Factors
Passby:
9
Captive /�
Market: N
Overall Trip Distribution
SEE ATTACHED SKETCH
Mode Split Assumptions
Committed Roadway Improvements
Other Traffic Studies
Areas Requiring Special Study
RRKr Aia Sru�Q
Date: k)oVLSMBc2 8� zoos —
Traffic Engineer.
Local Entity Engi
Warm County Urlm Area Sheet standards — Repealed and Reenacted October 1, 2002
Adopted by Larimm County, City of Lovelw4 City of Fort Co6ms
Page
APPENDIX A
V. CONCLUSIONS
' This study assessed the impacts of the Northside Aztlan Community
Center on the short range (2008) street system in the vicinity of the
proposed development. As a result of this analysis, the following is
concluded:
The development of the Northside Aztlan Community Center is
feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. At full
development, the Northside Aztlan Community Center will generate
approximately 750 daily trip ends, 129 noon peak hour trip ends,
and Ill afternoon peak hour trip ends.
' - Currently, the key intersections operate acceptably with existing
control and geometry.
' - Peak hour signal warrants are not expected be met at any of the
stop sign controlled intersections.
' - In the short range (2008) background traffic future, the key
intersections will operate acceptably.
In the short range (2008) future, given full development of the
Northside Aztlan Community Center and an increase in background
traffic, the key intersections will operate acceptably. The short
range (2008) geometry is shown in Figure 8.
Acceptable level of service will be achieved for pedestrian,
' bicycle, and transit modes based upon the measures in the multi -
modal transportation guidelines, except as noted. There is little
that can be done to mitigate this level of service.
' - Neither the existing Northside Aztlan or United Way parking lots
reached their respective capacities when surveyed. The average
length of stay in the Northside Aztlan parking lot was 115
minutes. The average length of stay in the United Way parking
lot was 196 minutes.
' - The new Northside Aztlan parking lot will contain 179 spaces.
Even with the expected tripling of the patronage, the lot will
not exceed 55 percent of its capacity. The existing United Way
parking lot will not likely exceed its capacity.
25
' parked vehicles stayed for 1-29 minutes. Ten percent of the parked
vehicles stayed for 30-59 minutes. Eight percent of the parked
vehicles stayed for 60-89 minutes. Four percent of the parked vehicles
' stayed for 90-119 minutes. Eight percent of the parked vehicles stayed
for 120-149 minutes. Four percent of the parked vehicles stayed for
150-179 minutes. Twelve percent of the parked vehicles stayed for 180-
209 minutes. The remaining 36 percent of the parked vehicles stayed
more than 210 minutes (3.5 hours). The average length of stay was 196
minutes in the United Way lot. Approximately 40-50 percent of the
' vehicles in the United Way lot were parked less than this average
length of 196 minutes.
' It is concluded that the parking duration in the Northside Aztlan
lot is significantly less than that in the United Way lot. This is
not surprising given the different types of activities in each
facility. It is also concluded that neither lot is close to reaching
the respective parking capacities.
A few days after the parking study was conducted, the United Way
staff indicated that there was lower than normal activity at this
facility on the day of the study. Therefore, a "spot check" was
conducted on December 5, 2005 near the noon time periods. A maximum
' parking accumulation of 59 vehicles occurred at 11:30am. This is 12
vehicles higher than the 47 vehicles that were counted on the study
day at this same time period. It is 25 percent higher. If all of the
United Way parking counts were increased by 25 percent, the parking
accumulation would not come close to the capacity of the existing
parking lot.
' Construction of the new Northside Aztlan Community Center will
approximately triple the current trip generation for the old facility.
Therefore, it is assumed that the parking demand will triple as well.
As shown earlier, the existing facility has a peak parking demand of 32
spaces occupied at 12:30pm. The new Northside Aztlan Community Center
will have a peak parking demand of approximately 96 spaces occupied.
' The new parking lot will consist of 179 spaces. It is concluded that
the new Northside Aztlan Community Center parking lot will not exceed
55% occupancy on a typical weekday.
' As shown earlier, the United Way facility has a peak parking
demand of 59 spaces occupied at 11:30am. The United Way parking lot has
90 spaces. Therefore, the United Way parking lot does not exceed 66%
' occupancy on a typical weekday. It is concluded that the United Way
facility has adequate existing parking and that the Northside Aztlan
Community Center will not need to use the United Way parking lot.
1
24
TABLE 6
Northside Aztlan Vehicles Parked versus Length of Stay
Awl
411
TABLE 7
United Way Vehicles Parked versus Length of Stay
23
23
TABLE
Parked Vehicles and Percent Occupied by Observation Interval
i-RINAMM
WARYNNOW
I R'S
9:00 AM
13
13
35
39
9:30 AM
18
17
41
46
10:00AM
13
13
39
43
10:30 AM
11
11
42
47
11:00 AM
19
18
44
49
11:30 AM
22
21
47
52
12:00 PM
30
29
43
48
12:30 PM
32
31
36
40
1:00 PM
22
21
40
44
1:30 PM
17
17
45
50
2:00 PM
10
10
49
54
2:30 PM
8
8
44
49
3:00 PM
8
8
47
52
3:30 PM
8
8
43
48
4:00 PM
9
9
36
40
4:30 PM
7
7
29
32
5:00 PM
10
10
22
24
5:30 PM
11
11
11
12
6:00 PM
13
1-3-
—4
4
22
A&
N
NO SCALE
United
Way
UNITED WAY PARKING LOT Figure 11
21
Northside Azdan
Community Center
N
NO SCALE
NORTHSIDE AZTLAN COMMUNITY
CENTER PARKING LOT
Figure 10
20
Northside
Aztlan
Community
Center
Basketball
Court
Playground
LOCATION OF PARKING LOTS
N
NO SCALE
Figure 9
19
IV. PARKING ANALYSIS
This transportation impact study included a parking analysis on a
' typical weekday. This study was conducted on Tuesday, November 22,
2005 from 9:OOam to 6:OOpm. The study included the parking lots for
the Northside Aztlan Community Center and the United Way building. An
earlier "walk through" indicated that these were the critical parking
areas. The location of the parking lots are shown in Figure 9. Prior
to conducting the parking analysis, staff of both facilities were
contacted to obtain authorization. It was suggested that the study
should be conducted on Monday or Tuesday, since these are the busiest
days according to United Way staff.
' The study consisted of recording license plate numbers at 30
minute intervals in each parking lot. Figures 10 and 11 show diagrams
of each parking lot. There are 103 spaces available in the Northside
' Aztlan lot and 90 spaces available in the United Way lot. The type of
study conducted indicated the following:
= Occupancy at each time interval
Maximum parking accumulation
Parking duration
Table 5 shows the number of vehicles parked and percent of
occupancy at each observation interval. There were two vehicles in
the Northside Aztlan lot and one vehicle in the United Way lot that
were parked throughout the study period. The highest parking
accumulation in the combination of both lots occurred at 12:00 noon
with 73 vehicles parked. This consisted of 30 vehicles in the
' Northside Aztlan lot (29% occupied) and 43 vehicles in the United Way
lot (48% occupied). At 2:OOpm, the United Way lot had its highest
accumulation of 49 vehicles (54% occupied). There were only two other
times (11:30am and 3:OOpm) when the United Way lot exceeded 50%
occupancy. At 12:30pm, the Northside Aztlan lot had its highest
accumulation of 32 vehicles (31% occupied). The Northside Aztlan lot
never reached 50% occupancy.
' The parking study provided data regarding parking duration.
Table 6 shows the number of vehicles parking in the Northside Aztlan
' lot by 30 minute increments. There were 72 parked vehicles in the
course of the day in the Northside Aztlan lot. Eighteen percent of the
parked vehicles stayed for 1-29 minutes. Twenty-one percent of the
' parked vehicles stayed for 30-59 minutes. Seventeen percent of the
parked vehicles stayed for 60-89 minutes. Fifteen percent of the
parked vehicles stayed for both 90-119 minutes and 120-149 minutes.
The remaining 14 percent of the parked vehicles stayed more than 150
' minutes (2.5 hours). The average length of stay was 115 minutes in
the Northside Aztlan lot. Over 60 percent of the vehicles in the
Northside Aztlan lot were parked less than this average length of 115
' minutes.
Table 7 shows the number of vehicles parking in the United Way
lot by 30 minute increments. There were 106 parked vehicles in the
course of the day in the United Way lot. Eighteen percent of the
18
' Bicycle Level of Service
Based upon Fort Collins bicycle LOS criteria, there is one
destination area within 1320 feet of the Northside Aztlan Community
Center. This destination is the Poudre River Trail to the east. The
bicycle LOS worksheet is provided in Appendix E.
Transit Level of Service
The Northside Aztlan Community Center is within 0.25 miles of the
Downtown Transit Center. Therefore, it is within all of the Transfort
' Routes that utilize the Center (1, 5, 8, 9, 91, 92, 14, 15). Since
this is an intermediate transportation impact study, the long range
transit system or level of service is not relevant.
17
Ch
SHORT RANGE (2008) GEOMETRY Figure 8
16
TABLE 4
Short Range (2008) Total Peak Hour Operation
r 51
College/Cherry-Willow
(signal)
EB LT
c
C
EB T
c
C
EB RT
C
c
EB APPROACH
C
c
WB LT
C
c
WB URT
D
D
WB APPROACH
C
D
NB LT
B
B
NB
B
c
NB RT
B
B
NB APPROACH
B
C
SB LT
B
B
SBT
B
C
SB RT
B
B
SB APPROACH
B
c
OVERALL
B
c
Wllow/Azdan
(stop sign)
SB LT/T
B
B
EB LTrr
A
A
Willow/Pine
(stop sign)
SB Urr
B
B
EB LTfr
A
A
Willow/Linden
(all -way stop)
NB LTrF/RT
A
B
SB LTIT/RT
A
B
EB LTfT/RT
A
B
W3 LTrFIRT
A
B
OVERALL
A
B
Jefferson/Linden
(signal)
EB LT
A
A
EB T/RT
A
A
EB APPROACH
A
A
W3 LT
A
A
WB T/RT
A
A
W3 APPROACH
A
A
NB LTrr/RT
C
C
SB LT
C
D
SBT
c
C
SB RT
C
c
SB APPROACH
c
C
OVERALL
B
B
15
TABLE 3
Short Range (2008) Background Peak Hour Operation
College/Cherry-Willow
NB LT
A
B
NB APPROACH
B
C
14
m
0
U
It rn
rlucti
Q;
69160
Jhh77
f 87/171
59/56
Cherry 2wrM7
1021119 y
70/86
f— NoonJPM
SHORT RANGE (2008) TOTAL
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
n
M
Figure 7
13
Ch
SITE GENERATED
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
A&
N
Figure 6
12
Trip Assignment
Trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are
' expected to be loaded on the street system. The assigned trips are the
resultant of the trip distribution process. Figure 6 shows the site
generated peak hour traffic assignment. The assignment shown in Figure
' 6 is the total site generated (existing trips plus new trips) traffic
from the new building. Figure 7 shows the total (site plus background)
short range (2008) peak hour traffic at the key intersections.
Signal Warrants
' As
location
Traffic
a matter of policy, traffic signals are not installed at any
unless warrants are met according to the Manual on Uniform
Control Devices. Peak hour signal warrants
met at any of the stop sign
Operation Analysis
controlled intersections.
Capacity analyses were performed
operations analyses were conducted
reflecting a year 2008 condition.
are not expected be
at the key intersections. The
for the short range analysis,
Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 5, the key
intersections operate in the short range (2008) background traffic
future as indicated in Table 3. Calculation forms for these analyses
are provided in Appendix C. The key intersections will operate
acceptably.
Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 7 and the future
geometrics, the key intersections operate in the short range (2008)
total traffic future as indicated in Table 4. Calculation forms for
these analyses are provided in Appendix D. The key intersections will
operate acceptably. The short range (2008) geometry is shown in Figure
8. Auxiliary lanes are not required at the Willow/Aztlan intersection.
Pedestrian Level of Service
Appendix E shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of
the Northside Aztlan Community Center. The Northside Aztlan Community
Center site is located within an area termed as a "pedestrian
district," which sets the level of service threshold at LOS A for all
measured categories, except for street crossings which is B. There
are three destination areas within 1320 feet of the proposed Northside
Aztlan Community Center: 1) the recreation trail east of the site
(Poudre River Trail); 2) the commercial area south of the site (Old
Town Fort Collins); and 3) the commercial area west of the site. As
indicated on the Pedestrian LOS Worksheet, the minimum level of
service cannot be achieved for some of the factors. There is little
that a single development project can do to correct this. The
Pedestrian LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix E.
11
m
CD
0
U
c �
�5 .S
61/54
04
71/160
48/49
Cherry 260/387
92/108
8
70/86
o
--ow- Noon/PM
e
SHORT RANGE (2008) BACKGROUND
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
A&
N
Figure 5
10
Ch
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
N
c
W.
Figure 4
%0
e
HLN
U
W
fqp ' I
4 e \
m
a
o °
,
Northside
Aztlan_
Community
Center
OR
SITE PLAN
Park
United
Nay
Figure 3
8
III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
' The Northside Aztlan Community Center is a proposed community
recreation center development, located north of Willow Street and east
of College Avenue in Fort Collins. Figure 3 shows a site plan of the
Northside Aztlan Community Center. The short range analysis (Year 2008)
includes development of the Northside Aztlan Community Center and an
appropriate increase in background traffic. Since this is an
' intermediate level transportation impact study, a long range analysis is
not required. The site plan shows a public access to/from Willow Street
to the Northside Aztlan Community Center.
ITrip Generation
Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a
development such as this upon the existing and proposed street system.
Trip generation information contained in Trip Generation, 7"' Edition,
' ITE is customarily used to estimate trips that would be generated by the
proposed/expected uses at a site. However, since the trip generation
for the existing facility is known, these factors were applied to the
new building square footage. Table 2 shows the expected trip generation
' on a daily and peak hour basis.
TABLE 2
Trip Generation
OWN
NOY.tl._3.
..y�•'.��Si
Y.A..•��•
�}t
Northside Man Commuraly Center
47.2 KSF
750
48 81
60
1 51
Trip Distribution
' Directional distribution of the generated trips was determined for
the Northside Aztlan Community Center based upon knowledge of the
existing and planned street system, development trends, and
engineering judgment. Figure 4 shows the trip distribution used for the
short range (2008) analysis future.
tBackground Traffic Projections
Figure 5 shows the short range (2008) background traffic
projections. Background traffic projections for the short range future
horizon were obtained by reviewing the NFRRTP and various traffic
studies for other developments in the area. Existing traffic at the key
'. intersections was increased at the rate of 2 percent per year. The
background traffic includes the site generated traffic from the existing
Northside Aztlan building.
7
TABLE I
Current Peak Hour Operation
--q
-p.-m
2 N -
College/Cherry-Willow
(signal)
EB LT
c
c
EB T
C
C
EB RT
c
c
EB APPROACH
c
c
WB LT
c
c
W3 T/RT
D
D
WB APPROACH
c
D
NB LT
A
B
NBT
B
c
NB RT
B
B
NB APPROACH
B
c
SB LT
A
B
SBT
B
C
SB RT
B
B
SB APPROACH
B
c
OVERALL
B
C
Willow/Aztlan
(stop sign)
SB LT/T
A
B
EB LT/T
A
A
Willow/Pine
(stop sign)
SB LT/T
B
B
EB LTfT
A
A
Willow/Linden
(all -way stop)
NB LT/T/RT
A
B
SB LT/TIRT
A
B
EB LT/T/RT
A
B
WB LTIT/RT
A
A
OVERALL
A
B
Jefferson/Linden
(signal)
EB LT
A
A
EB T/RT
A
A
EBAPPROACH
A
A
WB LT
A
A
W3 T/RT
A
A
W3 APPROACH
A
A
NB LT/TIRT
c
c
SB LT
c
D
SBT
c
c
SB RT
c
c
SB APPROACH
C
C
OVERALL
B
A
m
m
(D
0
U
cl)
57/49
+- 67/150
42/42
Cherry 245/3s5 _je
1
87/101 y
66/81
r r, r
o
--ow-- Noon/PM
ac
�f lb
7
7A S
N
RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 2
5
Plan. At the Jefferson/Linden intersection, Jefferson Street has
eastbound and westbound left -turn lanes and two through lanes in each
direction.
Existing Traffic
' Recent noon and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes are shown in
Figure 2. The counts at the College/Cherry-Willow intersection were
obtained in January 2005 by the City of Fort Collins. The counts at the
' Jefferson/Linden intersection were obtained in March 2005 by the City
of Fort Collins. The counts at the other key intersections were
obtained in November 2005. Raw count data is provided in Appendix A.
Existing Operation
The key intersections were evaluated using techniques provided in
the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Using the noon and afternoon peak
hour traffic shown in Figure 2, the peak hour operation is shown in
Table 1. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix B. A description
of level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections from
the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual and a table showing the Fort Collins
Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) are also provided in
Appendix B. The Northside Aztlan Community Center site is in an area
termed "mixed -use district." Therefore, acceptable operation at
signalized intersections during the peak hours is defined as level of
service E (with mitigation), overall. At unsignalized intersections,
the minimum level of service is F for any arterial/collector or
arterial/local intersections. The key intersections operate acceptably
during both the noon and afternoon peak hours.
Pedestrian Facilities
Sidewalks exist along all recently developed parcels of land.
Sidewalks also exist along some parcels of land along Willow Street,
including the proposed Northside Aztlan Community Center site. There
are some properties that have not had sidewalk along their frontages for
many years. It is expected that as properties in this area are
developed, sidewalks will be installed as part of the street
infrastructure.
Bicycle Facilities
There are bicycle lanes along Willow Street and Linden Street on
the shoulders of the respective streets.
Transit Facilities
The nearest
Community Center
Jefferson Street.
Transit Center.
transit route near the proposed
site is Route 8, which operates on
This site is within 0.25 mile:
Northside Aztlan
Linden Street and
of the Downtown
9
N
Northside Aztlan
Community Center
AzWn
Cherry
arc
Maple
Laporte ✓o
�o
�s
o�
Mountain
d
rn
m
0
U
SITE LOCATION
SCALE: 1'=500'
Figure 1
3
1
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The location of Northside Aztlan Community Center is shown in
Figure 1. It is important that a thorough understanding of the existing
conditions be presented.
' Land Use
Land uses in the area are primarily industrial and commercial.
' The proposed Northside Aztlan Community Center site is adjacent to
existing commercial development.
Streets
The primary streets near the Northside Aztlan Community Center
' site are College Avenue, Willow Street, Linden Street, and Jefferson
Street. College Avenue is west of the Northside Aztlan Community Center
site. It is a north -south street classified as a four -lane arterial on
the Fort Collins Master Street Plan, Currently, College Avenue has a
four -lane cross section. At the College/Cherry-Willow intersection,
College Avenue has northbound and southbound left -turn lanes, two
through lanes in each direction, and northbound and southbound right -
turn lanes.
Willow Street is adjacent to (south) the proposed Northside Aztlan
Community Center. It is an east -west diagonal street classified as a
collector street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently,
Willow Street has a two-lane cross section. It does not have all of the
cross sectional elements (curb/gutter, sidewalks, etc.) of a standard
collector street. Willow Street lines up with Cherry Street, west of
College Avenue. At the College/Cherry-Willow intersection, Willow
Street has a westbound left -turn lane and a combined westbound
' through/right-turn lane. Cherry Street has dual eastbound left -turn
lanes, a through lane, and an eastbound right -turn lane. The
College/Cherry-Willow intersection has signal control. At the
' Willow/Linden intersection, Willow Street has all movements combined in
a single lane. The Willow/Linden intersection has all -way stop sign
control.
Linden Street is southeast of the proposed Northside Aztlan
Community Center. It is a north -south diagonal street classified as a
collector street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently,
' Willow Street has a two-lane cross section. It does not have all of the
cross sectional elements (curb/gutter, sidewalks, etc.) of a standard
collector street. At the Willow/Linden intersection, Linden Street has
all movements combined in a single lane. At the Jefferson/Linden
intersection, Linden Street has a southbound left -turn lane, a
southbound through lane, a southbound right -turn lane, and all
northbound movements combined in a single lane. The Jefferson/Linden
intersection has signal control.
Jefferson Street (SH14) is an east -west diagonal street
classified as a four -lane arterial on the Fort Collins Master Street
2
I. INTRODUCTION
This intermediate transportation impact study addresses the
capacity, geometric, and control requirements at and near the proposed
Northside Aztlan Community Center. The Northside Aztlan Community
Center is located north of Willow Street and east of College Avenue in
Fort Collins, Colorado.
During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made
with the project planning consultant, the Fort Collins Traffic Engineer,
and the Fort Collins Transportation Planning staff. The Transportation
Impact Study Base Assumptions form and related documents are provided in
Appendix A. This study generally conforms to the format set forth in
the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. Due to the trip
generation, this is an intermediate level transportation impact study.
The study involved the following steps:
- Collect physical, traffic, and development data;
- Perform trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment;
- Determine peak hour traffic volumes;
- Conduct capacity and operational level of service analyses on key
intersections;
- Analyze signal warrants;
- Conduct level of service evaluation of pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit modes of transportation.
In addition to the normal elements of an intermediate level
transportation impact study, a parking study was also conducted.
1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1.
Site Location ........................................
3
2.
Recent Peak Hour Traffic .............................
5
3.
Site Plan ............................................
8
4.
Trip Distribution ....................................
9
5.
Short Range (2008) Background Peak Hour Traffic ......
10
6.
Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic .....................
12
7.
Short Range (2008) Total Peak Hour Traffic ...........
13
8.
Short Range (2008) Geometry ..........................
16
9.
Location Of Parking Lots .............................
19
10.
Northside Aztlan Community Center Parking Lot ........
20
11.
United Way Parking Lot ...............................
21
A Base Assumptions Form/Recent Peak Hour Traffic
B Existing Peak Hour Operation/Level of Service Descriptions/Fort
Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards
C Short Range Background Peak Hour Or
D Short Range Total Peak Hour Operation
E Pedestrian/Bicycle Level of Service Worksheets
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction ......................................... 1
II. Existing Conditions .................................. 2
LandUse ............................................. 2
Streets.............................................. 2
Existing Traffic ..................................... 4
Existing Operation ................................... 4
Pedestrian Facilities ................................ 4
Bicycle Facilities ................................... 4
Transit Facilities ................................... 4
III. Proposed Development ................................. 7
TripGeneration ...................................... 7
Trip Distribution .................................... 7
Background Traffic Projections ....................... 7
Trip Assignment ...................................... 11
SignalWarrants ...................................... 11
Operation Analysis ................................... 11
Pedestrian Level of Service .......................... 11
Bicycle Level of Service ............................. 17
Transit Level of Service ............................. 17
IV. Parking Analysis ..................................... 18
V. Conclusions..........................................25
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Current Peak Hour Operation .......................... 6
2. Trip Generation ...................................... 7
3. Short Range (2008) Background Peak Hour Operation .... 14
4. Short Range (2008) Total Peak Hour Operation ......... 15
5. Parked Vehicles and Percent Occupied
By Observation Interval .............................. 22
6. Northside Aztlan Vehicles Parked
Versus Length of Stay................................23
7. United Way Vehicles Parked Versus Length of Stay .....23
NORTHSIDE AZTLAN COMMUNITY CENTER
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
DECEMBER 2005
Prepared for:
Fort Collins Park Planning and Development Department
215 N. Mason Street
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Prepared by:
DELICH ASSOCIATES
2272 Glen Haven Drive
Loveland, CO 80538
Phone: 970-669-2061
FAX: 970-669-5034