The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCSURF RESEARCH CAMPUS - ODP - 4-04B - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - TRAFFIC STUDYHCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Prospect Road & NB 1-25 Ramp Long Total PM -• --v ,< k 4% t r a 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 111 ++ +++ IN 11 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 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.91 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prat) 3433 3539 5085 1583 .3433 1583 Ftt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Sat& Flow (perm) 3433 3539 5085 1583 3433 1583 Volume (vph) 880 1270 0 0 960 210 870 0 280 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 926 1337 0 0 1011 221 916 0 295 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 170 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 926. 1337 0 0 1011 51 916 0 295 0 0 0 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Free Protected Phases 7 4 8 5 Permitted Phases 8 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 21.7 43.0 16.3 16.3 22.0 75.0 Effective Green, g (s) 22.7 44.0 17.3 17.3 23.0 75.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.59 0.23 0.23 0.31 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1039 2076 1173 365 1053 1583 v/s Ratio Prot c0.27 0.38 c0.20 c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.89 0.64 0.86 0.14 0.87 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 25.0 10.3 27.7 22.9 24.6 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.8 0.7 6.7 0.2 7.8 0.3 Delay (s) 34.7 11.0 34.4 23.1 32.4 0.3 Level of Service C B C C C A Approach Delay (s) 20.7 32.4 24.6 0.0 Approach LOS C C C A Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 24.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.4% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. I 1 47 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Prospect Road & NB 1-25 Ramp Long Total AM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11 Tt 4tf r ► VI 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 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.91 1.00. 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 ' 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 5085 1583 3433 1583 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 5085 1583 3433 1583 Volume (vph) 340 800 0 0 1160 230 1140 0 190 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 358 842 0 0 1221 242 1200 0 200 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 172 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 358 842 0 0 1221 70 1200 0 200 0 0 0 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Free Protected Phases 7 4 8 5 Permitted Phases 8 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 13.5 46.5 28.0 28.0 43.5 100.0 Effective Green, g (s) 14.5 47.5 29.0 29.0 44.5 100.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.48 0.29 0.29 0.44 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 &0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 498 1681 1475 459 1528 1583 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.24 c0.24 c0.35 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.13 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.50 0.83 0.15 0.79 0.13 Uniform Delay, dl 40.8 18.1 33.2 26.4 23.7 0.0 Progression Factor 1.20 0.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.7 0.2 4.0 0.2 2.7 0.2 Delay (s) 53.7 11.3 37.1 26.5 26.4 0.2 Level of Service D B D C C A Approach Delay (s) 23.9 35.4 22.7 0.0 Approach LOS C D C A Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 27.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 46 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Prospect Road & SB 1-25 Ramp Long Total PM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +++ r 11 tT 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 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 5085 1583 3433 3539 3433 1583 Fit Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5085 1583 3433 3539 3433 1583 Volume (vph) 0 1890 1100 310 1520 0 0 0 0 260 0 710 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1989 1158 326 1600 0 0 0 0 274 0 747 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 209 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1989 950 326 1600 0 0 0 0 274 0 747 Turn Type Perm Prot Prot Free Protected Phases 4 3 8 1 Permitted Phases 4 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 49.0 49.0 8.0 62.0 8.0 80.0 Effective Green, g (s) 50.0 50.0 9.0 63.0 9.0 80.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.62 0.62 0.11 0.79 0.11 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3178 989 386 2787 386 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.39 c0.09 0.45 c0.08 v/s Ratio Perm c0.60 0.47 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.96 0.84 0.57 0.71 0.47 Uniform Delay, d1 9.2 14.1 34.8 3.3 34.2 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 19.6 15.4 0.3 5.9 1.0 Delay (s) 9.6 33.7 50.3 3.6 40.1 1.0 Level of Service A C D A D A Approach Delay (s) 18.5 11.5 0.0 11.5 Approach LOS B B A B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 15.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.4% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Prospect Road & SB 1-25 Ramp Long Total AM . 1 7 EBL Ir 0*- 4-- I /� WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations W r M ++ 1) IN 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 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 FR Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5085 1583 3433 3539 3433 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 5085 1583 3433 3539 3433 1583 Volume (vph) 0 930 790 270 2030 0 0 0 0 210 0 1120 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 979 832 284 2137 0 0 0 0 221 0 1179 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 210 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 979 622 284 2137 0 0 0 0 221 0 1179 Turn Type Perm Prot Prot Free Protected Phases 4 3 8 1 Permitted Phases 4 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 60.8 60.8 12.4 78.2 11.8 100.0 Effective Green, g (s) 61.8 61.8 13.4 79.2 12.8 100.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.62 0.62 0.13 0.79 0.13 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3143 978 460 2803 439 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.19 0.08 c0.60 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.39 c0.74 v/c Ratio 0.31 0.64 0.62 0.76 0.50 0.74 Uniform Delay, d1 9.0 12.0 40.9 5.5 40.6 0.0 Progression Factor 0.11 0.77 1.10 0.83 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.7 1.7 0.9 0.9 3.2 Delay (s) 1.0 10.0 46.8 5.4 41.5 3.2 Level of Service A B D A D A Approach Delay (s) 5.2 10.3 0.0 9.3 Approach LOS A B A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 8.4 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 44 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Prospect Road & WFR Long Total PM -' -► '- t t /ON. 1* 1 -1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T41 M ttt* 11 t IN 11 ? p Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 . 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5054 3433 4954 3433 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5054 3433 4954 3433 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 240 1995 85 135 1735 360 400 50 565 430 10 280 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 253 2100 89 142 1826 379 421 53 595 453 11 295 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 23 0 0 0 51 0 0 56 Lane Group Flow (vph) 253 2186 0 142 2182 0 421 53 544 453 11 239 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 59.0 5.0 56.0 18.7 41.0 41.0 15.0 37.3 37.3 Effective Green, g (s) 9.0 60.0 6.0 57.0 19.7 42.0 42.0 16.0 38.3 38.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.43 0.04 0.41 0.14 0.30 0.30 0.11 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 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 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 221 2166 147 2017 483 559 475 392 510 433 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.43 0.04 c0.44 0.12 0.03 c0.13 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm c0.34 0.15 v/c Ratio 1.14 1.01 0.97 1.08 0.87 0.09 1.15 1.16 0.02 0.55 Uniform Delay, d1 66.5 40.0 66.9 41.5 58.9 35.3 49.0 62.0 37.2 43.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 105.1 21.6 63.3 46.3 15.7 0.1 87.6 95.1 0.0 1.5 Delay (s) 170.6 61.6 130.2 87.8 74.7 35.4 136.6 157.1 37.2 45.0 Level of Service F E F F E D F F D D Approach Delay (s) 72.9 90.4 107.2 111.8 Approach LOS E F F F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 89.1 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.14 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich . P. E. 43 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Prospect Road & WFR Long Total AM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations W4 11 +0 M T r 11 T If Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Fri 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 4923 3433 4963 3433 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 4923 3433 4963 3433 1863 1583 3433 1863 1583 Volume (vph) 280 1450 390 540 2190 420 55 10 100 170 50 110 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 295 1526 411 568 2305 442 58 11 105 179 53 116 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 48 0 0 29 0 0 0 94 0 0 103 Lane Group Flow (vph) 295 1889 0 568 2718 0 58 11 11 179 53 13 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.7 43.6 22.2 51.1 4.0 9.2 9.2 5.0 10.2 .10.2 Effective Green, g (s) 15.7 44.6 23.2 52.1 5.0 10.2 10.2 6.0 11.2 11.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.45 0.23 0.52 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.11 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 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 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 539 2196 796 2586 172 190 161 206 209 177 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 0.38 c0.17 c0.55 0.02 0.01 c0.05 c0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.86 0.71 1.05 0.34 0.06 0.07 0.87 0.25 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 38.9 24.9 35.3 23.9 45.9 40.6 40.6 46.6 40.6 39.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.29 0.73 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 . 1.1 4.7 1.9 30.0 1.2 0.1 0.2 29.8 0.6 0.2 Delay (s) 40.0 29.6 47.6 47.5 47.1 40.7 40.8 76.5 41.2 39.9 Level of Service D C D D D D D E D D Approach Delay (s) 31.0 47.5 42.9 58.9 Approach LOS C D D E Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 41.9 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. Gm APPENDIX E +1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Prospect Road & NB 1-25 Ramp Short Total PM /0* Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *' 1 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 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1823 1837 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.64 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1183 1837 1770 1583 Volume (vph), 271 357 0 0 244 28 621 0 49 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 288 380 0 0 287 33 722 0 58 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 668 0 0 315 0 722 0 23 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm custom custom Protected Phases 4 8 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 46.0 46.0 34.0 34.0 Effective Green, g (s) 47.0 47.0 35.0 35.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 618 959 688 616 v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm c0.56 c0.41 0.01 v/c Ratio 1.08 0.33 1.05 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 21.5 12.4 27.5 17.0 Progression Factor 0.74 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 39.6 0.2 48.0 0.1 Delay (s) 55.6 12.6 75.5 17.2 Level of Service E B E B Approach Delay (s) 55.6 12.6 71.1 0.0 Approach LOS E B E A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay . 54.7 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.07 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Prospect Road & NB 1-25 Ramp Short Total AM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +1 T+ I =r Ideal Flow (vphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1825 1850 1770 1583 Fit Permitted 0.57 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1067 1850 1770 1583 Volume (vph) 150 216 0 0 257 13 785 0 66 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 176 254 0 0 289 15 924 0 78 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) b 430 0 0 302 0 924 0 50 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm custom custom Protected Phases 4 8 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 47.3 47.3 62.7 62.7 Effective Green, g (s) 48.3 48.3 63.7 63.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.53 0.53 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 429 745 940 840 v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 v/s Ratio Perm c0.40 c0.52 0.03 v/c Ratio 1.00 0.41 0.98 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 35.9 25.6 27.6 13.6 Progression Factor 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 38.9 0.4 25.5 0.1 Delay (s) 70.9 26.0 53.1 13.8 Level of Service E C D B Approach Delay (s) 70.9 26.0 50.1 0.0 Approach LOS E C D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 51.0 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 39 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Prospect Road & SB 1-25 Ramp Short Total PM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations �+ 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 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1863 1583 1854 1770 1583 Fit Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1863 1583 1486 1770 1583 Volume (vph) 0 624 842 77 788 0 0 0 0 20 0 194 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 709 957 91 927 0 0 0 0 24 0 228 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 323 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 709 634 0 1018 0 0 0 0 24 0 228 Turn Type Perm Perm custom Free Protected Phases 4 8 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 58.6 58.6 58.6 21.4 90.0 Effective Green, g (s) 59.6 59.6 59.6 22.4 90.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.25 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1234 1048 984 441 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.38 v/s Ratio Perm 0.40 c0.68 0.01 c0.14 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.60 1.03 0.05 0.14 Uniform Delay, d1 8.3 8.6 15.2 25.7 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.06 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 1.0 30.2 0.2 0.2 Delay (s) 8.9 9.6 46.3 26.0 0.2 Level of Service A A D C A Approach Delay (s) 9.3 46.3 0.0 2.6 Approach LOS A D A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 21.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 4.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 104.5% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich . P. E. 3$ HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Prospect Road & SB 1-25 Ramp Short Total AM --,-* 'e- t t b 1 d Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r +T r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1583 1859 1770 1583 Fit Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1863 1583 1809 1770 1583 Volume (vph) 0 350 478 40 1002 0 0 0 0 32 0 303 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 398 543 47 1179 0 0 0 0 38 0 356 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 137 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 398 406 0 1226 0 0 0 0 38 0 356 Turn Type Perm Perm custom Free Protected Phases 4 8 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 88.8 88.8 88.8 21.2 120.0 Effective Green, g (s) 89.8 89.8 89.8 22.2 120.0 Actuated g/C Ratio .0.75 0.75 0.75 0.18 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1394 1185 1354 327 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.26 c0.68 0.02 c0.22 v/c Ratio 0.29 0.34 0.91 0.12 0.22 Uniform Delay, d1 4.8 5.1 11.8 40.7 0.0 Progression Factor 0.64 0.13 0.94 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 5.0 0.7 0.3 Delay (s) 3.2 0.8 16.0 41.5 0.3 Level of Service A A B D A Approach Delay (s) 1.8 16.0 0.0 4.3 Approach LOS A B A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 9.0 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 4.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group ' Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 37 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Prospect Road & SB 1-25 Ramp, Short Total PM Movement EBL' EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 11 4 r5 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 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1718 1854 1770 1583 Fit Permitted 1.00 0.17 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1718 319 1770 1583 Volume (vph) 0 624 842 77 788 0 0 0 0 20 0 194 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 709 957 91 927 0 0 0 0 24 0 228 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1612 0 0 1018 0 0 0 0 24 0 228 Turn Type Perm custom Free Protected Phases 4 8 Permitted Phases 8 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 64.0 64.0 16.0 90.0 Effective Green, g (s) 65.0 65.0 17.0 90.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.72 0.72 0.19 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1241 230 334 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.94 v/s Ratio Perm c3.19 0.01 c0.14 v/c Ratio 1.30 4.43 0.07 0.14 Uniform Delay, d1 12.5 12.5 30.0 0.0 Progression Factor 1,00 1.36 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 140.6 1547.0 0.4 0.2 Delay (s) 153.1 1563.9 30.4 0.2 Level of Service F F C A Approach Delay (s) 153.1 1563.9 0.0 3.1 Approach LOS F F A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 629.4 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 3.37 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 4.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 115.4% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. My ' HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Prospect Road & SB 1-25 Ramp Short Total AM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR ' Lane Configurations % 4 1 If 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 ' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1718 1859 1770 1583 Fit Permitted 1.00 0.94 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1718 1:743 1770 1583 Volume (vph) 0 350 478 40 1002 0 0 0 0 32 0 303 Peak=hour factor, PHF 0.88 t 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 398 543 47 1179 0 0 0 0 38 0 356 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 900 0 0 1226 0 0 0 0 38 0 356 Turn Type .. Perm custom Free Protected Phases 4 8 ' Permitted Phases 8 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 94.0 94.0 16.0 120.0 Effective Green, g (s) 95.0 95.0 17.0 120.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.79 0.79 0.14 1.00 ' Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1360 1380 251 1583 ' v/s Ratio Prot 0:52 v/s Ratio Perm c0.70 0.02 c0.22 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.89 0.15 0.22 Uniform Delay, d1 5.5 8.8 45.2 0.0 Progression factor 0:30 1.19 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 4.0 1.3 0.3 Delay (s) 2.6 14.5 46.4 0.3 Level of Service A B D A Approach Delay (s) 2.6 14.5 0.0 4.8 Approach LOS A B A A ' Intersection Summary HCM.Average Control Delay 8.6 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 4.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group ' Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 1 3S HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Prospect Road & WFR ' Short Total PM � -♦ 7 1-~ t 4\ t� ti 1 'V Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations '+ ) - 1, I T+ I T+ 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 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1861 1770 1856 1770 1597 1770 1589 Fit Permitted 0.17 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.55 1.00 0.64 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 317 1861 79 1856 1030 1597 1184 1589 Volume (vph) 18 1433 10 32 975 23 37 3 65 25 2 81 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 20 1558 11 35 1071 25 .44 4 76 29 2 95 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 0 86 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) . 20 1569 0 35 1096 0 44 11 0 29 11 0 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 93.8 91.6 96.4 92.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 Effective Green, g (s) 95.8 92.6 98.4 93.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.80 0.77 0.82 0.78 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 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) 292 1436 128 1452 94 145 108 144 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.84 c0.01 0.59 0.01 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.21 c0.04 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.07 1.09 0.27 0.75 0.47 0.08 0.27 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 7.9 13.7 56.7 6.9 51.8 49.9 50.8 49.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 53.2 1.2 3.7 3.7 0.2 1.3 0.2 Delay (s) 8.0 66.9 57.9 10.6 55.4 50.2 52.2 50.1 Level of Service A E E B E D D D Approach Delay (s) 66.2 12.1 52.0 50.6 Approach LOS E B D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 44.3 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.4% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 34 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Prospect Road & WFR Short Total AM --. -* 4e k � t �► 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vi fr ►I T* ►I T+ ►I T+ 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 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.87 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1852 1770 1857 1770 1590 1770 1619 Flt Permitted 0.04 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.74 1.00 0.73 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 79 1852 402 1857 1373 1590 1360 1619 Volume (vph) 63 818 32 50 1268 29 11 1 34 12 3 23 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) 74 962 38 59 1492 34 13 1 40 14 4 27 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 25 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 74 999 0 59 1526 0 13 4 0 14 6 0 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 99.5 93.6 96.9 92.3 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 Effective Green, g (s) 101.5 94.6 98.9 93.3 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.85 0.79 0.82 0.78 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 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) 164 1460 395 1444 89 103 88 105 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.54 0.01 c0.82 0.00 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.36 0.12 0.01 c0.01 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.68 0.15 1.06 0.15 0.03 0.16 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 38.8 5.8 5.2 13.4 53.0 52.6 53.0 52.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.58 0.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 2.6 0.1 36.4 0.8 0.1 0.8 0.2 Delay (s) 40.7 8.5 3.1 41.5 53.7 52.7 53.9 52.9 Level of Service D A A D D D D D Approach Delay (s) 10.7 40.1 53.0 53.2 Approach LOS B D D D Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 29.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 33 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Prospect Road & WFR Short Total PM EBT EBR WBL NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fit 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.90 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1861 1170 1856 1679 1654 Fit Permitted 0.16 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.65 0.81 Satd. Flow (perm) 305 1861 80 1856 1105 1363 Volume (vph) 18 1433 10 32 975 23 37 3 65 25 2 81 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 20 1558 11 35 1071 25 44 4 76 29 2 95 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 0 85 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 20 1569 0 35 1096 0 0 75 0 0 41 0 Turn Type pm+pt Pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 92.4 90.6 94.8 91.8 11.4 11.4 Effective Green, g (s) 94.4 91.6 96.8 92.8 12.4 12.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.79 0.76 0.81 0.77 0.10 0.10 Clearance Time (s) 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 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 274 1421 121 1435 114 141 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.84 c0.01 0.59 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.22 c0.07 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.07 1.10 0.29 0.76 0.66 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 8.7 14.2 57.2 7.5 51.7 49.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 57.7 1.3 3.9 12.7 1.1 Delay (s) 8.9 71.9 58.5 11.4 64.5 50.9 Level of Service A E E B E D Approach Delay (s) 71.1 12.9 64.5 50.9 Approach LOS E B E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 47.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.02 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. .3x HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Prospect Road & WFR Short Total AM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations I A ►t ll� *T+ 4+ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fri 1.00 0.99 1.00 .1.00 0.90 0.92 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1853 1770 1857 1657 1686 Flt Permitted 0.04 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.93 0.89 Satd. Flow (perm) 79 1853 406 1857 1564 1520 Volume (vph) 63 818 31 50 1268 29 11 1 34 12 3 23 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 73 951 36 59 1492 34 13 1 40 14 4 27 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 25 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 73 986 0 59 1526 0 0 17 0 0 20 0 Turn Type pm+pt Pm+Pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 98.8 93.0 96.6 91.9 7.3 7.3 Effective Green, g (s) 100.8 94.0 98.6 92.9 8.3 8.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.84 0.78 0.82 0.77 0.07 0.07 Clearance Time (s) 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 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 162 1452 398 1438 108 105 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.53 0.01 c0.82 v/s Ratio Perm 0.35 0.11 0.01 00.01 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.68 0.15 1.06 0.16 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 38.4 6.0 5.2 13.5 52.6 52.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.63 0.39 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 2.6 0.1 38.2 0.7 0.9 Delay (s) 40.4 8.6 3.4 43.4 53.2 53.6 Level of Service D A A D D D Approach Delay (s) 10.8 42.0 53.2 53.6 Approach LOS B D D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 30.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 31 APPENDIX D 30 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Prospect Road & NB 1-25 Ramp Short Background PM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 1 IN Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1000 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1824 1837 1770 1583 Fit Permitted 0.63 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1178 1837 1770 1583 Volume (vph) 262 351 0 0 243 28 617 0 49 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94. 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 279 373 0 0 286 33 726 0 58 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 652 0 0 315 0 726 0 23 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm custom custom Protected Phases 4 8 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.0 45.0 35.0 35.0 Effective Green, g (s) 46.0 46.0 36.0 36.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.51 0.51 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 602 939 708 633 v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm c0.55 c0.41 0.01 v/c Ratio 1.08 0.34 1.03 0.04. Uniform Delay, d1 22.0 13.0 27.0 16.4 Progression Factor 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 40.6 0.2 40.4 0.1 Delay (s) 57.1 13.2 67.4 16.5 Level of Service E B E B Approach Delay (s) 57.1 13.2 63.7 0.0 Approach LOS E B E A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 52.0 HCM Level of Service . D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.06 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. WA HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Prospect Road & NB 1-25 Ramp Short Background AM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 T+ r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1826 1850 1770 1583 Fit Permitted 0.58 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1087 1850 1770 1583 Volume (vph) 147 214 0 0 250 13 765 0 66 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 173 252 0 0 281 15 900 0 78 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 425 0 0 294 0 900 0 49 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm custom custom Protected Phases 4 8 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 47.4 47.4 62.6 62.6 Effective Green, g (s) 48.4 48.4 63.6 63.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.53 0.53 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 438 746 938 839 v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 v/s Ratio Perm c0.39 c0.51 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.97 0.39 0.96 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 35.1 25.4 27.0 13.7 Progression Factor 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 29.9 0.3 21.1 0.1 Delay (s) 61.5 25.7 48.0 13.8 Level of Service E C D B Approach Delay (s) 61.5 25.7 45.3 0.0 Approach LOS E C D A Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 46.0 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich . P. E. 121 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Prospect Road & SB 1-25 Ramp Short Background PM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r +1 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 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1583 1854 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1583 1489 1770 1583 Volume (vph) 0 609 824 77 783 0 0 0 0 20 0 192 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.85 . 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 692 936 91 921 0 0 0 0 24 0 226 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 324 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 692 612 0 1012 0 0 0 0 24 0 226 Turn Type Perm Perm custom Free Protected Phases 4 8 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 57.8 57.8 57.8 22.2 90.0 Effective Green, g (s) 58.8 58.8 58.8 23.2 90.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.26 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1217 1034 973 456 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.37 v/s Ratio Perm 0.39 c0.68 0.01 c0.14 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.59 1.04 0.05 0.14 Uniform Delay, d1 8.6 8.8 15.6 25.1 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.03 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.9 32.2 0.2 0.2 Delay (s) 9.2 9.7 48.2 25.4 0.2 Level of Service A A D C A Approach Delay (s) 9.5 48.2 0.0 2.6 Approach LOS A D A A Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 22.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 4.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 103.2% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Prospect Road & SB 1-25 Ramp Short Background AM -10. --i 4e - ,` 4\ t 1* 41 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations + r + I 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 Lane Util. Factor . 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1583 1859 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1:00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1583 1808 1770 1583 Volume (vph) 0 345 473 40 975 0 0 0 0 32 0 293 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 392 538 47 1147 0 0 0 0 38 0 345 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 392 403 0 1194 0 0 0 0 38 0 345 Turn Type Perm Perm custom Free Protected Phases. 4 8 Permitted Phases 4 8 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 88.8 88.8 88.8 21.2 120.0 Effective Green, g (s) 89.8 89.8 89.8 22.2 120.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.18 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1394 1185 1353 327 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.25 c0.66 0.02 c0.22 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.34 0.88 0.12 0.22 Uniform Delay, d1 4.8 5.1 11.2 40.7 0.0 Progression Factor 0.66 0.16 0.96 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 4.1 0.7 0.3 Delay (s) 3.3 0.9 14.9 41.5 0.3 Level of Service A A B D A Approach Delay (s) 1.9 14.9 0.0 4.4 Approach LOS A B A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 8.5 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 4.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. E - HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Prospect Road & SB 1-25 Ramp Short Background PM -%* 'e- -+-- t 4\ t �► ti 1 •� Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 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 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1718 1854 1770 1583 Fit Permitted 1.00 0.17 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1718 319 1770 1583 Volume (vph) 0 609 824 77 783 0 0 0 0 20 . 0 192 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 692 936 91 921 0 0 0 0 24 0 226 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1574 0 0 1012 0 0 0 0 24 0 226 Turn Type Perm custom Free Protected Phases 4 8 Permitted Phases 8 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 64.0 64.0 16.0 90.0 Effective Green, g (s) 65.0 65.0 17.0 90.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.72 0.72 0.19 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1241 230 334 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.92 v/s Ratio Perm c3.17 0.01 c0.14 v/c Ratio 1.27 4.40 0.07 0.14 Uniform Delay, d1 12.5 12.5 30.0 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.36 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 127.2 1535.3 0.4 0.2 Delay (s) 139.7 1552.3 30.4 0.2 Level of Service F F C A Approach Delay (s) . 139.7 1552.3 0.0 3.1 Approach LOS F F A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 622.5 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 3.35 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 4.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 115.2% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 0\-15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Prospect Road & SB 1-25 Ramp Short Background AM s--1, ---* I *- 4- -N t �► 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1, 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 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1717 1859 1770 1583 Fit Permitted 1.00 0.89 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1717 1660 1770 1583 Volume (vph) 0 345 473 40 975 0 0 0 0 32 0 293 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 392 538 47 1147 0 0 0 0 38 0 345 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 880 .0 0 1194 0 0 0 0 38 0 345 Turn Type Perm custom Free Protected .Phases 4 8 Permitted Phases 8 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 88.5 88.5 21.5 120.0 Effective Green, g (s) 89.5 89.5 22.5 120.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.75 0.75 0.19 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1281 1238 332 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.51 v/s Ratio Perm c0.72 0.02 c0.22 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.96 0.11 0.22 Uniform Delay, d1 7.9 13.8 40.5 0.0 Progression Factor 0.56 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 11.7 0.7 0.3 Delay (s) 5.7 25.5 41.2 0.3 Level of Service A C D A Approach. Delay (s) 5.7 25.5 0.0 4.4 Approach LOS A C A A Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 14.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) ' 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 4.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Prospect Road & WFR Short Background PM -• -%* #e t 4N T�1'. 1 w Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vi T+ Vi T+ Vi O, I f+ 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 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1862 1770 1856 1770 1583 1770 1586 Fit Permitted 0.16 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.73 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 303 1862 60 1856 776 1583 1364 1586 Volume (vph) 18 1433 5 25 975 23 13 0 32 25 1 _ 81 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) 21 1686 6 29 1147 27 15 0 38 29 1 95 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 36 0 0 89 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 21 1692 0 29 1174 0 15 2 0 29 7 0 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 126.3 122.8 126.5 122.9 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 Effective Green, g (s) 128.3 123.8 128.5 123.9 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.86 0.83 0.86 0.83 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 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) 303 1537 104 1533 50 101 87 102 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.91 c0.01 0.63 0.00 0.00 v/s Ratio Penn 0.06 0.23 0.02 c0.02 v/c Ratio 0.07 1.10 0.28 0.77 0.30 0.02 0.33 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 8.6 13.1 52.7 6.2 67.0 65.8 67.1 66.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 55.8 1.5 3.7 3.4 0.1 2.3 0.3 Delay (s) 8.7 68.9 54.2 9.9 70.4 65.9 69.4 66.3 Level of Service A E D A E E E E Approach Delay (s) 68.1 10.9 67.2 67.0 Approach LOS E B E E Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 45.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.02 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. i3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Prospect Road & WFR Short Background AM + Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations I T+ R t+ ►I T* I A 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 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1861 1770 1857 1770 1583 1770 1583 Fit Permitted 0.04 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.74 1.00 0.74 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 77 1861 459 1857 1378 1583 1377 1583 Volume (vph) 63 818 5 13 1268 29 4 0 24 12 0 23 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) 74 962 6 15 1492 34 5 0 28 14 0 27 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 25 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 74 968 0 15 1526 0 5 2 0 14 2 0 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 101.8 95.9 94.6 92.3 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 Effective Green, g (s) 103.8 96.9 96.6 93.3 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.86 0.81 0.80 0.78 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 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) 164 1503 406 1444 90 103 90 103 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.52 0.00 c0.82 0.00 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.36 0.03 0.00 c0.01 v/c Ratio 0:45 0.64 0.04 1.06 0.06 0.02 0.16 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 40.3 4.6 3.9 13.4 52.6 52.5 53.0 52.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.62 0.42 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 2.1 0.0 36.7 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.1 Delay (s) • 42.2 6.8 2.4 42.2 52.9 52.6 53.8 52.6 Level of Service D A A D D D D D Approach Delay (s) 9.3 41.8 52.6 53.0 Approach LOS A D D D Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 29.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Prospect Road & WFR Short Background PM s--P� --v 44--- k 4\ t - 1 W Movement EBL EBT. EBR WBL WBT. WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations % T+ 4+ 4 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 '1900 1900 1900 1906 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fri: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1862 1770 1856 1659 1652 Fit Permitted 0.19 . 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.67 0.88 Satd. Flow (perm) 354 1862 61 1856 1124 1469 Volume (vph) 18 1433 5 25 975 23 13 0 32 25 1 81 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.91 . 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 20 1558 = 5 27 1071 25 15 0 38 29 1 95 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 80 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 20 1563_ 0 27 1096 0 0- 18- 0 0 45 0 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 125.1, 122.0 125.1 122.0 9.9 9.9 Effective Green, g (s) 127.1 123.0 127.1 123.0 10.9 10.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.85 0.82 0.85 0.82 0.07 0.07 Clearance Time (s) 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 Lane Grp 'Cap (vph) 339 1527 98 1522 `82 107 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.84 c0.01 0.59 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.23 0.02 c0.03 v/c Ratio 0.06 1.02 0.28 0.72 0.22 0.42 Uniform Delay, d1 6.8 13.5 52.2 5.9 65.5 66.5 Progression Factor 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 29.2 1.5 3.0 - 1.3 2.7 Delay (s) 6.9 42.7 53.7 8.9 66.9 69.2 Level of Service A D D A E E Approach Delay (s) -42.2 10.0 66.9 69.2 Approach LOS D A E E Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 31.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90:4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. a HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: Prospect Road & WFR Short Background AM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t+ *i T+ 4+ + Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.91 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.98 . Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1861 1770 1857 1637 1669 Fit Permitted 0.04 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.96 0.91 Satd. Flow (perm) 77 1861 466 1857 1583 1550 Volume (vph) 63 818 5 13 1268 29 4 0 24 12 0 23 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 73 951 6 15 1492 34 5 0 28 14 0 27 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 25 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 73 957 0 15. 1526 0 0 7 0 0 16 0 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 101.6 95.7 94.4 92.1 7.0 7.0 Effective Green, g (s) 103.6 96.7 96.4 93.1 8.0 8.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.86 0.81 0.80 0.78 0.07 0.07 Clearance Time (s) 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 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 164 1500 410 1441 106 103 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.51 0.00 c0.82 v/s Ratio Perm 0.36 0.03 0.00 c0.01 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.64 0.04 1.06 0.06 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 40.1 4.7 3.9 13.5 52.5 52.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.40 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 2.1 0.0 37.0 0.3 0.7 Delay (s) 42.1 6.7 2.5 42.4 52.8. 53.5 Level of Service D A A D D D Approach Delay (s) 9.2 42.0 52.8 53.5 Approach LOS A, D D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 29.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. ace APPENDIX C Table 4-3 , Fort Collins (GMA and 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 N/A F** F** E (arterial/collector or local — any approach leg) Stop sign control N/A C C C (arterial/arterial, arterial/collector, or collector/local—any approach le mitigating measures required *' considered normal in an urban environment 17 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level -of -service A B D F Average Total Delay scdvch _< 10 >10and <15 > 15 and < 25 > 25 and < 35 > 35 and _< 50 > 50 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level -of -service Average Total Delay sec/veh A 10 B _< > 10 and < 20 C > 20 and < 35 1� > 35 and 55 B _< > 55 and < 80 F > s0 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Prospect Road & NB 1-25 Ramp Recent PM .. _ .'0 -,. ---* #e '- *-- 4N t 1* ti 1 .4/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Fj t+ r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fri 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1815 1839 1770 1583 Fit Permitted 0.71 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1329 1839 1770 1583 Volume (vph) . 236 212 0 0 120 13 555 0 35 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 251 226 0 0 141 15 653 0 41 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 477 0 0 152 0 653 0 22 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm custom custom Protected Phases 4 8 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 48.9 48.9 61.1 61.1 Effective Green, g (s) 49.9 49.9 62.1 62.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.52 0.52 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 553 765 916 819 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 v/s.Ratio Perm _ c0.36 c0.37 0.01 v/c_Ratio 0.86 0.20 0.71 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 31.9 22.3 22.1 14.2 Progression Factor 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.6 0.1 4.7 0.1 Delay (s) 33.9 22.5 26.8 14.2 Level of Service C C C B Approach Delay (s) 33.9 22.5 26.1 0.0 Approach LOS _C C C A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay-. 28.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. /6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Prospect Road & NB 1-25 Ramp Recent AM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR ' Lane Configurations +T T r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1811 1849 1770 1583 ' Fit Permitted 0.68 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1266 1849 1770 1583 Volume (vph) 132 100 0 0 155 9 688 0 31 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.85 . 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 155 118 0 0 174 10 809 0 36 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 ' Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 273 0 0 180 0 809 0 22 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm custom custom Protected Phases 4 8 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 ' Actuated Green, G (s) 15.1 15.1 34.9 34.9 Effective Green, g (s) 16.1 16.1 35.9 35.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.60 0.60 ' Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 340 496 1059 947 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm c0.22 c0.46 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.80 0.36 0.76 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 20.5 17.8 8.9 4.9 ' Progression Factor 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 10.5 0.5 5.2 0.0 Delay (s) 28.3 18.3 14.2 5.0 Level of Service C B B A Approach Delay (s) 28.3 18.3 13.8 0.0 Approach LOS C B B A ' Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 17.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.18 ' Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Prospect Road & SIB 1-25 Ramp Recent PM �- t . 1 ,. ..l Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 +T I 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 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1704 1857 1770 1583 FIt Permitted 1.00 0.70 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow, (perm) 1704 1304. 1770 1583 Volume (vph) 0 434 741 42 633 0 0 0 0 14 0 263 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 493 842 49 745 0 0 0 0 16 0 309 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1299 0 0 794 0 0 0 0 16 0 309 Turn Type Perm custom Free Protected Phases 4 8 Permitted Phases 8 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 101.3 101.3 8.7 120.0 Effective Green, g (s) 102.3 102.3 9.7 120.0 Actuated'g/C Ratio 0.85 0.85 0.08 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1453 1112 143 1583 v/s Ratio Prot c0.76 v/s Ratio Perm 0.61 0.01 c0.20 v/c Ratio • 0:89 0.71 0.11 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 5.5 3.3 51.2 0.0 Progiession Factor 1.38 3.19 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.9 1.7 1.6 0.3 Delay (s) 11.5 12.4 52.7 0.3 Level of Service B B D A Approach Delay (s) 11.5 12.4 0.0 2.9 Approach LOS B B A A Intersection Summary HCM. Average, Control Delay 10.6 ...HCM Level of Service B HCVolume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 4.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c . Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich"; P. E: /4 ' HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Prospect Road & SB 1-25 Ramp Recent AM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR . NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR ' Lane Configurations j, + 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 ' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 ' Satd. Flow (prot) .. 1697 1859 1770 1583 Fit Permitted 1.00 0.96 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)., 1697 1794 1770 1583 Volume (vph) 0 218 425 30 813 0 0 0 0 14 0 263 ' Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) . 0 248 483 35 956 0 0 0 0 16 0 309 RTOR Reduction (vph) ..... 0 118 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 .0 0 ' Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 613 0 0 991 0 0 0 0 16 0 309 Tum Type Perm custom Free Protected Phases 4 8 ' Permitted Phases 8 6 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 33.7 33.7 16.3 60.0 Effective Green,'g (s) 34.7 34.7 17.3 60.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.58 0.58 0.29 1.00 ' Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle'Extension (s) 3.0 3.6 3.0 Lane Gip Cap (vph) 981 1038 510 1583 ' v/s Ratio Prot 0.36. v/sRatio Perm c0.55 0.01 c0.20 Vic Ratio 0:62 0.95 0.03 0.20 ' Uniform Delay, d1 8.4 11.9 15.3 0.0 Progression Factor 0.89 0.91 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 14.2 0.1 0.3 Delay (s) 8.6 25.0 15.4 0.3 ' Level of Service A C B A Approach Delay (s) 8.6 25.0 0.0 1.0 Approach LOS . A . _.. C A A. ' Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 15.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) . 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 4.0 intersection Capacity Utilization 77.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 ' c ' Critical L•ane.Group t Joseph ' Mathew J. Delich , P. E. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Prospect Road & WFR Recent PM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T+ j, 44 *T► 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 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1862 1770 1855 1659 1653 Fit Permitted 0.25 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.92 0.92 Satd. Flow (perm) 460 1862 105 1855 1543 1542 Volume (vph) .. 17 1122 5 23 762 21. 12 0 30 23 1 75 Peak -hour factor, PHF : 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 , ,0.85 0.85 0.85 . 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 18 1220 5 25 837 23 14 0 I 27 1 88 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 30 0 0 76 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 1225 0 25 859 0 0 19 0 0 40 0 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 88.3 85.9 90.3 86.9 15.7 15.7 Effective Green, g (s) 90.3 86.9 92.3 87.9 16.7 16.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.75 0.72 0.77 0.78 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 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 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 383 1348 142 1359 215 215 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.66 c0.01 0.46 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.13 0.01 c0.03 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.91 0.18 ...0.63 0.09 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 6.3 13.4 23.3 8.0 45.0 45.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.87 6.61 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 9.1 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.9 Delay(s) - 6.3 22.5 20.6 5.4 45.8 47.6 Level of Service A C C A D D Approach Delays) 22.3 5.9 45.8 47.6 Approach LOS .. ,. C A _. .. D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 17.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c. Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J: Delich , P. E. l c' HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12'. Prospect Road & WFR Recent AM Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT . NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations I T+ A . 4+ 44 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 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.91 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.98 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 1860 1770 1856 1639 1669 Flt Permitted 0.10 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.93 0.87 Satd. Flow (perm) 178 1860 633 1856 1544 1483 Volume (vph) 58 610 5 12 1037 27 4 0 22 11 0 21 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 67 709 6 14 1220 32 5 0 26 13 0 25 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 24 0 0 23 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 67. 715 0 14 1251 0 0 7 0 0 15 0 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8.' 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 44.7 40.9 39.5 38.3 2.9 2.9 Effective Green, g (s) 46.7 41.9 41.5 . 39.3 3.9 3.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.70 0.69 0.65 0.06 0.06 Clearance Time (s) 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 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 266 1299 480 1216 100 96 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.38 0.00 c0.67 v/s Ratio Perm _.0.18 0.02 0.00.-_:, :. c0.01 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.55 0.03 1.03 0.0T " 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 16.2 4.4 3.1 10.4 26.3 26.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.31 0.90 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 1.7 0.0 28.0 0.3 0.7 Delay (s) 16.7 6.1 4.1 37.3 26.6 27.2 Level of Service B A A D C' C Approach Delay (s) 7.0 36.9 26.6 27.2 Approach LOS A D C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 25.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Joseph Matthew J. Delich , P. E. rid APPENDIX B to 1 N H- Z , O 'e (,� C W m rt J U u Wa W ` � 0 Qz°Dd, 00 > LL O C y = 0 A O aZzQ W J L) c Q J 0 O Ja ' o ' N W A I E t t "lp w C/) 0 w v/ Z m V �, U W J W 2 c tL Wa V 2 m d e 6Zoch w > O OW t0 W j d A LJ. 0 =95 w W uo§!! I Lu Q IS a. m cm go go N � C Air mr' 0 � O a M M MI) M M t0 CD co m1� cm CD I.- CV) N mr M C* d p;Of tO0 ..:N L �. F yd a K C y 10 (/1 N N �- J U) (D t0 V dCD v cD m C 7to WI IM N M QM er M t0 co WI) <O w O C F d v rM tv M In 00 In LO co C OF-j20 M R N In f- N 3 ak F MR .nF rt.'. 9 C 7 O a to ` J E 'a f= ccF.- IL: CIO* dd dd {1 u� d' a If! CD O N NI) O O O OO Q! co Q! :Ifs i0 N �1► r t� Lt: CD IV 19t 192' 0) n 0 ^ � C '( On N N N Go O O Nf9 CD co co cc -* M a � .ZTf �3 a�tKpZ} a+qtti fh In U7 m N Lh �-fYJ k R tt PPO.eO O t �O �O ik�iX L IN v v v ui vi in w A ' Z co O 0 p u' J V U U- W d C O x c o WCL UI V 0 m LL. 0 'C w Z A O Z � W � c ViAa� O o C � � H ' E r E rn� � o Q�co_ a;J w r r O M N N � CO (0 H * Y9 4'f M M d d 1�1y� p gyp' i CD w w r.— U.) w C 7 p ((gyp N N O %q T(CO4 f7 N �j N O. O �- (n O N O C 7 a 10 F-j W O � m N W � � O F O C 41 1 x 5� INN 's•• ` kid iFi R' <t -W O to O m 9 C N O O O O O O O 3 N In m qT C C 7 y O O o O O O J N O CO N O O O Z n2l F= m r r+ rr i. CD co dd N 40 00 A A N Y'! Y9 N iN N 7' r +r; In fn CO 1-_ fn (n co O -,r O --t O N N t0 --:r to O -T O nay x 4 '�tpp0 y0lf W' CD cn CD mr co m N m N N N Ifn N w LO N f— (n o ao ao m m o M M M N M %- 4 }S LO N N O N O O O O O co lO co -.T to >O 16 L lO w w m O O O O O O I N LO N M N Ln 7 No Text ' 40% Prospect Road 1 1 1 TRIP DISTRIBUTION 15% Figure 5 S TABLE Trip Generation IMMOIRA, R AIl I KO Mm"m if F IM, IMII 19WI Dm IS Phase 1 710 General Office 123 employ 3.32 408 0.42 52 10.06 1 7 10.08 1 10 0.38 47 110 Light Industrial 88 employ 3.02 266 0.07 6 Phase 2 110 Light Industrial 44 employ 3.02 132 0.07 3 Phase 2 Total 1204 52 1 16 10 47 Industrial use shifts are from lam to 7pm and 7pm to lam, so the only peak hour traffic would be the lam exiting vehicles. The Total daily traffic includes the two shifts of the industrial use. I N Prospect Road v O 0 m to c U 2 N J N AVA Solar SITE LOCATION SGALt: 1 "=Z000' Figure 1 N Chapter 4 — Attachments Attachment A Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Project Information Project Name AVA Solar Project Location Southwest Quadrant of T-25/Prospect TIS Assumptions Type of Study Full: No Intermediate: Yes Study Area Boundaries North: Prospect South:Site Access East:Northboundl-25Ramp West:WFR Study Years Short Range:2012 Long Range: WA Future Traffic Growth Rate NFRRTP/CDO /North 1-25 EIS tudy Study Intersections 1. All access drives 5. 2.ProspecVWFR 3.Prospect/1-25Ramps 4. 8. Time Period for Study AM: 7:00-9:00 PM: 4:00-'TO Sat Noon: Trip Generation Rates Per ITE Attached/ Trip Adjustment Factors Passby: N/A Captive Market: N/A Overall Trip Distribution SEE ATTACHED SKETCH Mode Split Assumptions Committed Roadway Improvements None Known Other Traffic Studies Mustang Meadows Areas Requiring Special Study Date: October 5, 2007 Traffic Engineer. Delich Associates Local Entity Engineer: 5. tarlmer County Urban Area Street Standards — Repealed and Reenacted October 1. 2D*2 Page 4.35 Adapted by tarhw County, Cky of Loveland. Cky of Fort CoWns No Text IV. CONCLUSIONS This study assessed the impacts of CSURF ODP/AVA Solar development on the short range (2012) and long range (2030) street system in the vicinity of the proposed development. As a result of this analysis, the following is concluded: The development of AVA Solar is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. The AVA Solar development will generate approximately 1052 daily trip ends, 84 morning peak hour trip ends, and 73 afternoon peak hour trip ends. With full development of the CSURF ODP site, the CSURF ODP/AVA Solar development will generate approximately 8962 daily trip ends, 1136 morning peak hour trip ends, and 1204 afternoon peak hour trip ends. ' Currently, the key intersections operate acceptably with existing control and,geometry.. Intersections along the WFR, south of Prospect Road, will not meet peak hour • signal warrants. All other key intersections are currently signalized. ' - In the short range (2012) background traffic future, the key intersections will operate acceptably, except the Prospect/SB I-25 Ramp intersection in the afternoon peak hour. The Prospect/SB I- 25 Ramp intersection will operate acceptably with an eastbound right -turn lane. ' - In the short range (2012). future, given full development of AVA Solar and an increase in background traffic, the key intersections will operate acceptably, except the Prospect/SB I-25 Ramp intersection in the afternoon peak hour. The Prospect/SB I-25 ' Ramp intersection will operate acceptably with an eastbound.right- turn lane. The short range (2012) geometry is shown in Figure 10. - In the long range (2030) future, given full development of CSURF ' ODP/AVA Solar and an increase in background traffic,. the key intersections will operate as indicated in Table 7. The long range (2012) geometry is shown in Figure 11. It, is recommended that the WFR, south of Prospect Road,' be - classified as a Major Collector Street. There are currently no pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities at/near the. AVA Solar Site. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities ' will be built when the various streets are brought up to the Fort Collins Street Standards. 1 26 Bicycle Level of Service There are no Bicycle destination areas within 1320 feet of the proposed AVA Solar. When the WFR is improved, it will have bike lanes according to the Fort Collins Street Standards. Transit Level of Service Currently, this area is not served by Transfort. The Fort Collins Long Range Transit System Map does not show service in the future. 25 ca ID 0) cc ca 13,400 Prospect Road 9,200 Rest Area/ Visitors Center Office Park ' 3,800 AVA Solar I 3,100 ' LONG RANGE (2030) DAILY TRAFFIC FORECASTS Figure 12 1 24 - Denotes Lane LONG RANGE (2030) GEOMETRY 23 N Figure 11 ' right -turn lane approaching the Prospect/SB I-25 Ramp intersection would improve the intersection operation. However, this improvement may not be allowed without concurrence from CDOT and the Federal Highway Administration. From an operational perspective (tables 5 and 6), all movements can be in a single lane on the WFR at the Prospect/WFR intersection. This will meet the City operational criteria. However, the City.may require separate left -turn lanes on the WFR at this intersection. ' The long range (2030) geometry is shown in Figure .11. This is the geometry shown in the "North I-25 EIS," except for northbound dual left -turn lanes at the Prospect/WFR intersection. Road Classification ' The .City of Fort Collins requested .that the key roads be_ classified in the TIS. Prospect Road is classified by the City of Fort Collins as a four -lane arterial street. The other key road that ' is not currently classified is the WFR. Streets are classified based upon the forecasted long range (20 year future) traffic volumes. Figure 12 shows the long range (2030) daily traffic forecasts along the WFR_ North and south of Prospect Road, the WFR will have daily traffic volumes that are commensurate with that of a Two-lane Arterial Street. South of the access to the office park portion of the CSURF ' ODP, the WFR will have daily traffic volumes that are commensurate with that of a Major Collector Street. South of the access to the AVA Solar parcel, the WFR will have daily traffic volumes that are ' commensurate with that of Minor Collector Street. For most of its length south of Prospect Road, the WFR will be.a collector street. The volumes commensurate with that of an arterial street only occur for a short distance from Prospect Road to the access to the office ' park parcel. Rather than change the classification of the street at this location, it is recommended that the south leg of the WFR be classified as a Major Collector Street. The auxiliary lanes shown in ' Figure 11 are necessary regardless of the street classification. The initial development within the CSURF ODP will be the AVA Solar ,facility. This facility can be built and occupied, without improving the south leg of the WFR to its full Major Collector Street cross section_ It is suggested that the ultimate Major Collector ' Street cross section be constructed when the office park parcel is proposed for development. Pedestrian Level of Service There are no pedestrian destination areas within 1320 feet of the ' proposed AVA Solar. As development occurs, the sidewalk system will be built according the Fort Collins Street Standards. 22 N Ca �Q m 0.7 or Prospect Road or I To Achieve Acceptable \Functionally ' Operation Exists w o �- AM/PM ' SHORT RANGE 2 ( 012) GEOMETRY ' 21 2 Figure 10 TABLE 7 Long Range (2030) Total Peak Hour Operation intersecXion : `..,.. Movemerrt :: L:evel Of Serwce , . Prospect/WFR (signal) . EB LT D F EB T/RT C E EB APPROACH C E WB LT D F WB T/RT D F WB APPROACH D F NB LT D E NB T D D NB RT D F NB APPROACH D F SB LT E F SB T D D SB RT D D SB APPROACH E F OVERALL D F - Prospect/SB 1-25 Ramp (signal) EB T A A EB RT B C EB APPROACH A B WB LT D D WB T A A WB APPROACH B B SB LT D D SB RT A A SB APPROACH A B OVERALL A B Prospect/NB 1-25 Ramp (signal) EB LT D C EB T B B. EB APPROACH C C WBT D C WB RT C C WB APPROACH D . C NB LT C C NB RT A A NB APPROACH C C OVERALL C C 20 TABLE 6 Short Range (2012) Total Peak Hour Operation ''Ir�tersecbon Mowetner�t Leiel of Servroe "'`. Prospect/WFR (signal) . EB LT D A EB T/RT A E EB APPROACH B E WB LT A E WB T/RT D B WB APPROACH D B NB LT/ T/RT D E SB LT/f/RT D D OVERALL . C D Prospect/WFR (signal) EB LT D A EB T/RT A E EB APPROACH B E WB LT A E WB T/RT D B WB APPROACH D B NB LT D E NB T/RT D D NB APPROACH D D SB LT D D SB T/RT D D SB APPROACH D D OVERALL C D Prospect/SB 1-25 Ramp (signal) EB T/RT A F WB LT/T B F SB LT D C SB RT A A SB APPROACH A A OVERALL A F Prospect/SB 1-25 Ramp With EB RT Lane (signal) EB T A A EB RT A A EB APPROACH A A WB LT/T B D SB LT D C SB RT A A SB APPROACH A A OVERALL A C Prospect/NB 1-25 Ramp (signal) EB T/LT E E WB T/RT C B NB LT D E NB RT B B NB APPROACH D E OVERALL D D W Short Range (2012) Background Peak Hour Operation ement (signal) NB LT D E NB APPROACH D E ID OVERALL C NB APPROACH D E OVERALL D 18 Signal Warrants As a matter of policy, traffic signals are not installed at any location unless warrants are met according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Intersections along the WFR, Road, will not meet peak hour signal warrants. .intersections are currently signalized, south of Prospect All other key ' Operation Analysis Capacity analyses were performed at the key intersections. The ' operations analyses were conducted for the short range future, reflecting 'a year 2012 condition, and the long range, reflecting the 2030 condition. ' Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 6, the key intersections operate in the short range (2012) ,background traffic ' future as indicated in Table 5. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix C. The operation at the Prospect/WFR intersection is shown with two different geometric configurations on the WFR. All the key intersections will operate acceptably, except at ' the.Prospect/SB I-25 Ramp intersection in the afternoon peak hour. The Prospect/SB I-25 Ramp.intersection will operate acceptably with an eastbound right -turn lane. This is also shown in Table 5. ' Using the traffic volumes shown" in Figure 8, the key intersections operate in the short range (2012) total traffic future as indicated in Table 6. Calculation forms for these analyses .are provided in Appendix D. The operation at the Prospect/WFR intersection is shown with two different geometric configurations on the WFR. Ali the key .intersections .will .operate acceptably,. except at the ' Prospect/SB I-25 Ramp intersection in the afternoon peak hour. The Prospect/SB I-25 Ramp intersection will operate acceptably with an eastbound right -turn lane. This is also shown in Table 6. ' Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 9, the key intersections operate in the long range (2030) total traffic future as indicated in Table 7. Calculation forms for these analyses are, provided in Appendix E. By inspection, the intersections along the WFR south of.Prospect Road will operate acceptably. The long range analysis ' is provided for information only. Geometry The short range. (2012) geometry is shown in Figure 10. At most of the existing intersections, the geometry is the same as the ' existing conditions. Until the Prospect Road Bridge across I-25 is improved, many of the required lanes at the Prospect/SB I-25 Ramp and Prospect/NB I-25 Ramp intersections are not feasible. The interchange improvements are included in the "NorthI-25-EIS." An eastbound 17 c ir U- c ry O ITo L 420/360 o I I + 2190/1735 540/135 Road i 1 280240 - } 1450/1995 . —� g 390185 o � � g LO O In a � _. 50/610 m CO to �- NOM NOM 15125 !� 1 f NOM NOM Z CIO z g N � o COO o � N 09 2030/1520 230/210 �270/310 �I, f- 11/600/960 930/1890 790/1100 --,� 340/880 800/1270 —�► 'ogo 20-ry o � �0 20 Office Park M m `-- 20/60 r �NOM AVA Solar o� mo �Z LONG RANGE (2030) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 16. FW --m— AM/PM Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles Figure 9 N 0 CD Ca liCOO FQ O w �o - r N a 29123M � o a°��7aN ' I �- 1268/975 i 57/zaa Prospect Road 1 r-5o/32 /�40� --13 y 18/� 818/438 31/10 21V / N m C ' f AM/PM ' SHORT RANGE (2012) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 8 15 �- AM/PM AVA SOLAR SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 14 N Figure 7 m 0 0 0) coo c o FQ u- m m N N ' ro Prospect Road 29/23 �.1268/975 13/25 % pry •� O N 20 �ry 1-975783 1 ` . 40177 13/28 —250/243 , ' y 3a4 3182i 1147/262 818/433 a 214/351 5/5 —� N i m FQ m 2 AM/PM ' SHORT RANGE (2012) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 13 Figure 6 TRIP DISTRIBUTION 15% 10% Figure 5 12 11 Trip Distribution Directional distribution of the generated trips was determined for the CSURF ODP/AVA Solar development. Figure 5 shows the trip distribution used in this TIS. Due to physical constraints the WFR will not be extended across the Cache La Poudre River. Therefore, all site generated traffic will be to/from Prospect Road. The trip distribution was discussed in the scoping meeting. Background Traffic Projections Figure . 6 shows the short range (2012) background traffic projections. Background traffic projections for the short range. future horizon were obtained by reviewing the North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan, CDOT growth factors, and historic traffic counts in this area. Based upon these sources, it was determined that.. through traffic volumes on Prospect Road, could conservatively increase by approximately 10.0% per year in.the short range future. Traffic volumes on the West Frontage Road could increase by approximately 2.0% per year. Traffic volumes on the I725 ramps. could increase by approximately 2.15%, based on CDOT 20-year growth factor. The proposed Mustang Meadows and 4401 East Prospect Road traffic was also added to the background traffic. _. 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 7 shows the site generated peak hour traffic assignment. Figure 8 shows the total (site plus background) short range (2012) peak hour traffic. at the key intersections. Long Range Traffic Forecasts The I-25/Prospect interchange is part of the "North. I-25 Environmental Impact Statement" (North I-25 EIS) which is currently underway. This document provides the most reliable information with regard to long range (2030) traffic forecasts. The peak hour traffic volumes related to the south leg of the WFR were found to be lower than that shown in .the CSURF ODP. Therefore, the peak hour traffic was increased to reflect the CSURF ODP land use proposal. Figure 9 shows the long range (2030) peak hour traffic at the key intersections. TABLE 2 Trip Generation ,. r;K AtA1DTE < AAA Peak'Hwx , PM Peals -Harr =, 710 General Office 158 employ 3.32 524 0.42 66 0.06 9 0.08 13 0.38 60 110 Light Industrial 132 employ 528' 0.07 9 Total 1052 66 18 13 60 lily trattic for inaustnal component used 254 employees (see te)d) TABLE 3 Peak Hour of Industrial Trip Generation (6:30am-7:30am/6:30pm-7:30pm) Peak Hour PM Peals ll0lJ i F , L RAIB t Old r:itiB Rye �' Out p v en a. [r 34 }S M.4 .h a`. , L 110 Light Industrial (7 am- 7 pm) 132 employ 132 0 0 132 110 Light Industrial (7 pm- 7 am) 132 employ 0 132 132 0 Total 132 132 132 132 TABLE 4 Trip Generation inthe Range (2�0L3�0O) Future wa_y 'Me_4 Y i_Xn3 _ t MOM � {�Long fT{/�Gq�v`.s 1 5`a "IA T6M.�iW� _. `j�� # 2 PII11 reaw�d€ ire ...T T�Sps — R9te�� 3 kt R�9 apUt� r 4 its ; (n'�? i(�te Ord' .Hs. £... N Parcel) 750 Office Park 25 Acres 195.11 1 4880 1 23.60 590 2.05 1 51 14.24 1 106 24.04 601 Parcel II 130 Industrial Park 48 Acres 63.11 3030 7.10 341 1.45 70 1.86 89 6.98 335 710 General Office (AVA) 158 employ 3.32 524 0.42 66 0.06 9 0.08 13 0.38 60 110 Light Industrial (AVA) 132 employ 528' 0.07 9 Parcel II Total 4082 407 88 102 395 Total 8962 997 139 208 996 - uaey traTnc Tor maustnai component used zti4 emproyees (see text) . 10 f SITE PLAN . 4 N CALE 1 "=600' Figure 4 9 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The CSURF ODP site is in the southwest quadrant of the I- 25/Prospect interchange. The north portion (25 acres) is expected to be anoffice park. The south portion (71 acres. of developable land) is ' expected to be an industrial park. The AVA Solar parcel is on 23 acres within the .south portion of the CSURF ODP. AVA Solar is a proposed light industrial facility with 158 general office employees and 528 ' industrial employees.. Figure 4 shows a site plan of the CSURF site with the AVA Solar parcel highlighted. The short range analysis (Year 2012) includes development of AVA Solar and an appropriate increase in background traffic due to normal growth and other potential developments in the area. The site plan shows that the AVA Solar will have access to/from the West Frontage Road. Trip 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, 7th Edition, ITE was -used to estimate trips that would be generated by the proposed/expected uses at this site. Table 2 shows the expected trip generation on a daily and peak hour basis. The, light industrial (production) component is unique. The light industrial component will be on two-12 hour shifts (7 am-7 pm and 7 pm-7 am). There will be a total of 528 production employees. Production goes for 24 hours per day, seven days per week. There are 132 production employees on any given shift. These employees work 3 days on, 4 days off on alternate weeks. Therefore, from a daily trip perspective there are 264 production employees each day. The production employees do not leave the site during their shift. Therefore, each production employee would have two trip ends per day, assuming no ride sharing/carpooling. The production component of the traffic will not impact the key intersections during the peak hours of the street (7:30-8:30 am/4:30- 5:30 pm), except for a few of the 7 pm - 7 am shift late exits in the morning peak hour. This is reflected in Table 2 in the light industrial row. Table 3 shows the expected trip generation of the light industrial component. The peak hour shown would occur at 6:30 to 7:30 am and 6:30 to 7:30 pm. This component was determined from the daily trip generation. The production employee .traffic does not significantly impact the peak hour of the street. The remainder of the CSURF ODP land is not proposed for development at this time. It is included in the long range (2030) analysis, since the CSURF ODP is also in- the Fort Collins review process. Table 4 shows the trip generation for the remaining portions of the CSURF ODP. Since no detailed site plans are available, the trip generation was calculated using acres as the variable for an office. park (25 acres) and industrial park (48 acres). 8 Transit Facilities Currently, this area of Fort Collins is not served by Transfort. TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation u k � Y"s�� j�*�s y,3� C. li * ;. -' z"•l'`'t''a '�G' � .f `'- �1�rsecbon ,L Tl � L.r'„ L '9.': x "1`Kn`.+yfftF� y.y. key' 44 �.!�y� _ S.+TY�"u'4-IlMOV@T11@1'It S L 5. A FM I��zOI �Vii ^�� i -r AM Prospect/WFR (signal). EB LT. B A EB T/RT A C EB APPROACH A C WB LT A C WB T/RT D A WB APPROACH D A NB LT/T/RT C D SB LTlf/RT C D OVERALL C B Prospect/SB 1-25 Ramp (signal). EB T/RT A B WB LT/T C B SB LT B D SB RT A A SB APPROACH A A .. OVERALL B B Prospect/NB 1-25 Ramp (signal), EB T/LT C C . WB T/RT B C NB LT B C NB RT A B NB APPROACH B C OVERALL B C 1 r m� � i O y ' � o c ` ^ V) N 27/21 '—1037n62 � 3 813/633 3081 9113 Pros ect Road /� 1 � %— 2 l • 'F 155/120 59117 I 218/434 r 610/1122 425n41 132/236 } w oa m —100/212 5/5 y a _� `c 1 m O � d O _ 3a a cc 0 1 rn R Lo N O 1 `L _� >N a)> C AM/PM 1 _ r BALANCED RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3 i 6 C '*k—�27/21. N 11421797 1.2/23 Prospect Road /rl 21 67 ' 852 ~ I 04 5/5 a a m 0 m m c O LL O f 414752 roFQ d �o m � Cv � 766/632 301 � 9/13 152/1118 �� _ 31/241 !f 7 99/217 —� / h m ^B0 m �FQ O � -�— AM/PM ' RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 1 5 Figure 2 The 'Resource Recovery Road goes south from a 90 degree curve of the WFR currently serving one single family dwelling unit, a light industrial building,. and the Boxelder Sanitation Plant. In this TIS, Resource Recovery Road is considered to be the same as the WFR. It is expected that the current alignment of the WFR will be vacated east of ' the WFR/Resource Recovery intersection. Existing Traffic Recent peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2. The counts at the Prospect/SB I-25 Ramp and Prospect/NB I-25 Ramp ' intersections were obtained in July 2007. The- counts ,at the Prospect/WFR intersection were obtained in October 2007. Raw traffic count data is provided in Appendix A. Since the traffic counts were obtained on different days, they were balanced/adjusted along Prospect ' Road. These are shown in Figure 3. ' Existing Operation The key intersections were evaluated using techniques provided in ' the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Using the peak hour traffic shown in Figure 3, 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 AVA Solar site is in an area termed "other." In areas termed "other,." acceptable overall operation at signalized intersections during the peak hours is defined as level of service D or better.' At signalized ' intersections, acceptable operation of any leg and any movement is level of service E. At unsignalized arterial/local. intersections, acceptable operation during the peak hours is defined as level of service E or better on any approach leg. In such areas, it is ' expected that there would be substantial delays to the minor street movements during .the peak hours. This is considered to be normal in urban areas. At other unsignalized intersection, acceptable operation is considered to be level of service C on any approach leg. ' Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities in this area do not exist. Due to the ' rural nature of the area, sidewalks do not exist adjacent to this development or other.developments. ' Bicycle Facilities There are no bicycle lanes along Prospect Road within the study ' area. ' 4 SITE LOCATION N a --------------- s Prospect Road v i 0 d Orn o U- LO N 04 J >d r i ® CSURF OC P r° AVA Solar �4wµ SCALE. 1 "=2000' Figure 1 3 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The location of CSURF ODP/AVA Solar site 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 agricultural, open, or' commercial. The Colorado Welcome Center and CDOT Rest Area are located in the southwest quadrant of the Prospect/WFR intersection. The proposed CSURF ODP/AVA Solar site is currently vacant. Streets The primary,streets near the CSURF ODP/AVA Solar site are Prospect Road, .the West Frontage Road (WFR), and the ramps at I-25. Prospect Road is north of the proposed AVA Solar site. It is an east -west street classified as a four -lane arterial on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan, Currently, Prospect Road has a two-lane cross section. At the ' Prospect/SB I-25 Ramp intersection, Prospect Road has all movements combined into a single lane. At the Prospect/NB I-25 Ramp intersection; Prospect Road has all movements combined into a single lane. At the ' Prospect/WFR intersection, Prospect Road has an eastbound and a westbound left -turn. lane and -a through/right-turn lane, in each direction. The Prospect/SB I-25 Ramp, Prospect/NB I-25 Ramp, and the ' Prospect/WFR intersections have signal control. The posted speed limit in this area of Prospect Road is 35 mph east of the .Prospect/WFR intersection and 45 mph west of the Prospect/WFR intersection. ' At the Prospect/SB I-25 Ramp intersection, the southbound I-25 has a through/left-turn lane and a right -turn lane with an acceleration lane. At the Prospect/NB I-25 Ramp intersection, the northbound I-25 off -ramp is striped as a single lane. However, there is enough width on ' the ramp for some right -turning vehicles to bypass left -turning vehicles. The West Frontage Road runs north and east of the proposed CSURF, ' ODP/AVA Solar site. Currently, the West Frontage Road is a paved road with a two-lane cross section and minimal shoulders. At the Prospect/WFR intersection, the .West Frontage Road has all. movements combined into a single lane. At the WFR/Resource Recovery intersection, ' the. West Frontage Road is the north leg and the east leg, and the Resource Recovery Road is .the south leg. The WFR/Resource Recovery intersection has stop sign control on .the Resource Recovery Road. The posted speed limit in this area of the West Frontage Road is 30 mph. 2 I. INTRODUCTION This transportation impact study (TIS) addresses the capacity, geometric, and control requirements at and near the proposed CSURF ODP/AVA Solar development. The 'CSURF ODP/AVA Solar is located in the southwest quadrant of the I-25/Prospect interchange, south of Prospect Roads and south and west of the West Frontage Road (WFR). in Larimer County, Colorado. During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made with the project planning architect (The Neenan Company), the Fort Collins Traffic Engineer, and CDOT-Region 4. 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 of the entire site and the CSURF ODP approval process, this is a full transportation impact study_ There are no known capital improvement projects `on any of the .roads in the vicinity of CSURF ODP/AVA Solar development. 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. 1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Site Location 2. Recent Peak Hour Traffic ............................. 5 3. Balanced/Adjusted Peak Hour Traffic .................. 6 4. SitePlan.................... .... ............ 9 5. Trip Distribution .................................... 12 6. Short Range (2012) Background.Peak Hour Traffic....... 13 7. Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic ...................... 14 8. Short Range (2012) Total Peak Hour Traffic ........... 15 9. Long Range (2030) Total Peak Hour Traffic ............ 16 10. Short Range (2012) Geometry .......................... 21 11. Long Range (2030) Geometry ........................... 23 12. Long Range (2030) Daily Traffic Forecasts ............ 24 APPENDIX 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 Operation D Short Range Total Peak Hour Operation E Long Range Total Peak Hour Operation TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction ......................................... 1 II. Existing Conditions......................I............ .2 LandUse ................... ......................... 2 Streets............................... ............... 2 Existing Traffic Existing Operation .................................... 4 Pedestrian Facilities ................................ 4 Bicycle Facilities........... ................ ........ 4 Transit Facilities .. ............................... 7 III. Proposed Development .............................. 8 Trip Generation ...................................... 8 Trip Distribution .................................... 11 Background Traffic Projections ....................... 11 Trip Assignment ...................................... 11 Long Range Traffic Forecasts ......................:.. 11 Signal Warrants ...................................... 17 Operation Analysis ................................... 17 Geometry.............................................. 17 Road Classification .................................. 22 Pedestrian Level of Service .......................... 22 Bicycle Level of Service ............................... 25 Transit Level of Service ............................. 25 IV. Conclusions .......................................... 26 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Current Peak Hour Operation .......................... 7 2. Trip.Generation ............ ....................... 10 3. Peak Hour of Industrial Trip Generation .............. 10 4. Trip Generation in the Long Range (2030) Future ...... 10 5. Short Range (2012) Background Peak Hour Operation .... 18 6. Short Range (2012) Total Peak Hour Operation ......... 19 7.` Long Range (2030) Total Peak Hour Operation .......... 20 1 CSURF ODP/AVA SOLAR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY ' FORT COLLINS, COLORADO NOVEMBER 2007 1 ' Prepared for: tThe Neenan Company 2620 E. Prospect Road, Suite 100 ' Fort Collins, CO 80525 ' Prepared by: ' DELICH ASSOCIATES 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 ' Phone: 970-669-2061 FAX: 970-669-5034.