Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PROSPECT/1-25 ODP - 20-03 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - TRAFFIC STUDY
Roundabout Analysis ProspecVI-25 Ramps - s___- W_I.....e. metric measure leg 12lFeg2le 3 1 4 m 3. 8.40 8.40L m 10. 100.00 100.00 V m 3 3.00 3.00 RAD m 20. 20.00 20.00 d30. 30.00 30.00 DIA m 50. 50.00 50.00 FLOW veh 0 1795 6451 735 CAPACITY veh 529 2481 $97 1745 AVE DELAY min 0 0.09 0.44 606 MAX DELAY min 0 0.14 0.9 0.08 AVE QUEUE veh 0 3 5 1 MAX QUEUE veh 0 4 9 1 FLOW _ veh 0 2094 480 865 CAPACITY veh 327 2491 682 1585 AVE DELAY min 0 0.19 0.78 0.08 MAX DELAY min 0 0.35 1.75 0.12 AVE QUEUE veh 0 7 6 1 MAX QUEUE veh 0 11 14 2 geometric Imeasum leg 1 leg 2 le 3 leg 4 E' Im 9.10 9.40 3-40 8.40 L m 200.00 200.00 10.00 100.00 V m 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 RAD m 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 d� d 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 DIA m 80.00 60.06 60.00 60.00 FLOW - veh 875 1060 0 1250 CAPACITY veh 1596 2372 508 1632 AVE DELAY min 0.09 0.05 0 0.2 MAX DELAY min 0.13 0.06 0 0.35 AVE QUEUE veh 1 1 0 4 MAX QUEUE veh 2 1 0 7 MAN n-AL, uw... FLOW- - veh 870 1445 0 1745 CAPACITY veh 1240 1736 230 2239 AVE DELAY min 6.23 0.34 0 0.13 MAX DELAY min 0.42 0.71 0 0-21 AVE QUEUE veh 3.6 6 0 4 MAX QUEUE veh 0 76 0 5 Ave Delay 9.2 secs LOS = A Ave Delay 14.8 secs LOS = 8 Ave Delay 6.9 secs LOS = A Ave Delay 13.5 secs LOS = B APPENDIX G TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY , Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period GC &28ARP3 AM M Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year CARRIAGE - PROSPECT STaOT Project Description East/West Street: PROSPECT North/South Street: CARRIAGE Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 ushGt Voltrmss .any# Att ttstrnents.... Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R. Volume 215 355 0 0 215 35 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 238 394 0 1 0 238 38 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 0 1 — —1 0 — — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 L 8 T 9 R 10 1 L 11 T 12 R Volume 0 0 0 45 0 340 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 50 0 377 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration L R Cse[a::<t;2ue..�e:Len Eh Approach ::��..d..:.i.+a............................................:......................... EB WB Northbound <i>z Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 238 50 377 C (m) (vph) 1299 280 787 v/c 0.18 0.18 0.48 95% queue length 0.67 0.64 2.62 Control Delay 8.4 20.6 13.7 LOS A C 8 Approach Delay — — 14.5 Approach LOS — — 8 HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved version a.ic TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY S�#e.1.rtrmt�+ri::: ;.:;:...:................................ Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period GC /2003 M M Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year CARRIAGE - PROSPECT ST T O Project Description East/West Street: PROSPECT North/South Street: CARRIAGE Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Pefiod (hrs): 0.25 lehlcEe�Tolttrn� .art �_ ...... . >'<' >'> ........................ Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 250 155 0 0 405 30 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 277 172 0 1 0 450 33 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 — — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 . Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 20 0 120 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 22 0 133 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration L I I R Defa:..,: Queue. Len t. aci i Ravi ttf:Serut:«>.> ::: :::.: :::::< :::>.>.:::::.;.> :::.::.::::>: Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 277 22 133 C (m) (vph) 1090 273 601 v/c 0.25 0.08 0.22 95% queue length 1.01 0.26 0.84 Control Delay 9.4 19.3 12.7 LOS A C B Approach Delay — — 13.6 Approach LOS — — B HCS2000TM Copyright® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst GC Agency/Co. Date Performed 512W03 Analysis Time Period AW Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year . . .......... .. . B STREET- CARRIAGE ST(Do Project Description I EastNVest Street: B STREET INorth/South Street: CARRIAGE Intersection Orientation: North -South IStud y Period (hrs): 0.25 V .................. Je aMbiturn.. .. ... ........... ..... 1 .... ........ Pp... ............ ..... ......... ................... . ..... ....... .. .. . ............ .......... ::: 1. ......... ... ..... ......... .... ...... .. ............... ..... ...... .......... .. .... ...... .......... ......... ........... Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 .4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 10 70 5 5 35 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 1 0.195 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 10 73 5 5 36 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 - - Median Type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration L TR LT R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 5 0 5 20 0 75 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 0 5 21 0 78 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Approach ..... ......... NB SB .. .. ..... .. IX Westbound .......... .. Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT LTR LT R v (vph) 10 5 10 21 78 C (m) (vph) 1568 1533 835 795 1042] VIC 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.07 95% queue length 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.24 Control Delay 7.3 7.4 9.4 9.7 8.7 LOS A A A A A Approach Delay 9.4 8.9 ,Approach LO A A Copyright 9 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY fierier#nfo�atfolir:::::.::: ::::..::.::::::' ...... it+�.(it%tirrttatior Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period GC 82003 PM Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year B STREET - CARRIAGE S L O Project Description EastNllest Street: B STREET North/South Street: CARRIAGE Intersection Orientation: North -South [Study Period hrs : 0.25 Vetrr le Vc lumss alp Ad dst Ueh b Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 60 25 10 5 60 20 Peak -Hour Factor PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 1 0.95 0.95 _J 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 63 26 10 5 63 21 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 -- - Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration L TR LT R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 10 0 5 5 0 15 Peak -Hour Factor PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 10 0 5 5 0 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R f18LtiA:"erz ©eia:. Q ........ . aEi :::8Y8:::[:.1VIG1&:'::>€:>:'iss:!>:`:»:>:s:>:>![:::i:;:;:#:>:>:>:::>`:::>:>:i:>:>::>:;::>s>;><>;>?:`':_'>;>;>_si;;>;>;€>;i>€'` :<:>`::::>i<>i:>:'i:>`:><:><';«:: Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT LTR LT R v (vph) 63 5 15 5 15 C (m)(vph) 1526 1588 775 704 1007 v/c 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 95% queue length 0.13 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.05 Control Delay 7.5 7.3 9.7 10.2 B. LOS A A A B A Approach Delay - - 9.7 1 9.0 Approach LOS - - A I A Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c Analyst GC Intersection NB RAMPS - PROSPECT Agency or Co. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 5128 qj;.� Jurisdiction Time Period AM PM Analysis Year STOLT19G(TOT .... ............... EB WB NB SB LT ---FTH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH R Num. of Lanes 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Lane group L T T L Volume (yph) 265 910 1445 670 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 Actuated (P/A) P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 %0 2.0 20 Arrival type 5 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N I N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.10 3.0 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 10.0 G= 50.0 G= I G= I G= 30.0 G= G= I G= IY= 0 Y= 5 1Y= 1Y= IY= 5 Y= ]Y= I Y= Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 1 Cycle Lenqth C = 100.0 EB W3 NB SB Adj. flow rate 279 958 1521 705 Lane group cap. 966 2166 1805 1051 v/c ratio 0.29 0.44 0.84 0.67 Green ratio 0.60 0.60 0.50 10.30 Unif. delay dl 13.2 110.9 21.6 130.7 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 +-f 0.50 1 10.50 Increm. delay d2 0.8 1 0.7 1 5.0 1 3.4 PF factor 1.000 0.125 1.000 Control delay 14.0 2.0 L333 12.2 34.1 Lane group LOS B A B C Apprch. delay 4.7 12.2 34.1 Approach LOS A B C lintersec. delay 14.0 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c SHORT REPORT General Information- ; _ V Analyst GC Agency or Co. Date Performed 5/ 2003 Time Period AM PM Intersection NB RAMPS - PROSPECT Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year S7� BG OT Volurrle:aniJ Iimih -1n ut ,.j, EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Lane group L T T L Volume v h 155 985 920 875 % Heavy veh 0 0 1 0 0 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 1 10.95 Actuated P/A P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 5 5 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 1 1 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 13.0 1 3.0 3.0 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 G= 15.0 G= 40.0 G= G= G= 35.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 Lan0Grou Ca ad Ell Dela .:tiandi_OS Determination` ,` ,ta, EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 163 1037 968 921 Lane group cap. 946 1986 1444 1226 v/c ratio 0.17 0.52 0.67 0.75 Green ratio 0.55 0.55 . 0.40 0.35 Unif. delay dl 12.4 14.2 124.6 28.7 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 0.4 1.0 2.5 4.3 PF factor 1.000 0.185 0.556 1.000 Control delay 12.8 3.6 16.2 32.9 Lane group LOS B A B C Apprch. delay 4.9 16.2 32.9 Approach LOS A B C Intersec. delay 16.8 Intersection LOS B tHCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c Analyst Agency or Co. Date Performed Time Period GC Intersection SB RAMPS - PROSPECT Area Type All other areas 5/28P4M AM UM Jurisdiction Analysis Year S7Q BG OOT EB WB NB SB LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Lane group T L T L Volume v h 865 535 1560 310 % Heavy veh 0 1 0 0 0 PHF 0.95 10.95 10.95 0.95 Actuated P/A P P P P A P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 5 3 5 3 Unit Extension 3.0 13.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing WB Only Thru & RT 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 G= 30.0 G= 37.0 G= I G= I G= 23.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 0 Y= 5 IY= IY= IY= 5 Y= IY= IY= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 i3k f ?t l 0R :: ct. t[I� EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 911 563 1642 326 Lane group cap. 1336 1051 2419 805 v/c ratio 0.68 0.54 0.68 0.40 Green ratio 0.37 0.30 0.67 0.23 Unif. delay d1l 126.5 29.2 10.0 32.7 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 1 2.8 2.0 1.6 1.5 PF factor 0.608 1.000 0.152 1.000 Control delay 19.0 31.1 3.1 34.2 Lane group LOS B C A C Apprch. delay 19.0 10.2 34.2 Approach LOS B B C Intersec. delay 14.8 Intersection LOS B HCS2006TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c SHORT REPORT Analyst GC Agency or Co. Date Performed 5WO03 Time Period M M Intersection SB RAMPS - PROSPECT Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year S LT BG OT ...:.....:..... .. 1/;aCitine any€: i itnirt .1 EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Lane group T L T L Volume v h 735 230 1565 380 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.95 1 10.95 0.95 0.95 Actuated P/A P I P I P P A P P Startup lost time 12.0 1 1 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 5 3 5 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 PedBike/RTOR Volume 0 1 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing WB Only Thru 8 RT 03 04 SB Onl 06 07 08 Timing G= 30.0 G= 36.0 G= G= EG=2400G= G= GY= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analvsis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 774 242 1647 400 Lane group cap. 1300 1051 2383 840 v/c ratio 0.60 0.23 0.69 0.48 Green ratio 0.36 0.30 0.66 0.24 Unif. delay di 126.1 126.3 110.6 32.6 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 2.0 0.5 1.7 1.9 PF factor 0.625 1.000 0.147 1.000 Control delay 18.3 26.8 3.2 34.5 Lane group LOS B C A C Apprch. delay 18.3 6.3 34.5 Approach LOS B A C Intersec. delay 13.0 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c SHORT REPORT Generalalnformatton ..,,,..��� .����,..,:. .� �' Site�lnformation`��� M ,,,H 1� .._T.e„ 775T, _,,, Analyst GC Agency or Co. Date Performed 5/28/ Time Period A PM Intersection EAST FRONTAGE - PROSPECT Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year S T OT :Volume andrTimin' in uve 3 `fir ka � EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 Lane group L T R L T R L TR L T R Volume v h 420 445 510 90 450 10 650 35 35 90 40 690 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 Actuated P/A P P P P P P P P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 4 5 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Lane Width 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 G= 20.0 G= 28.0 G= G= G= 25.0 G= 17.0 G= G= Timing Y= 0 Y= 5 IY= Y= IY= 0 IY= 5 IY= 1Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 1 ICycle Length C = 100.0 Lane�Grou �Ca aci tControlaDela . ;.and LOS� Determination - �,,;;� .. .n. � ..� .��;3rti EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 442 468 537 95 474 11 684 74 95 42 621 Lane group cap. 700 912 775 263 532 452 876 738 229 323 678 v/c ratio 0.63 0.51 0.69 0.36 0.89 0.02 0.78 0.10 0.41 0.13 0.92 Green ratio 0.20 0.48 0.48 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.25 0.42 0.17 0.17 0.42 Unif. delay d1 36.6 117.9 20.3 128.8 34.5 126.1 134.9 17.6 37.1 35.2 27.3 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 4.3 2.1 5.1 3.8 19.7 0.1 6.8 0.3 5.5 0.8 19.2 PF factor 1.000 0.385 1.000 1.000 0.741 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 40.9 9.0 125.3 32.7 45.3 26.2 41.8 17.8 42.5 36.1 146.5 Lane group LOS D A C C I D C D B D D D Apprch. delay 24.8 42.9 39.5 45.4 Approach LOS C D D D Intersec. delay 35.3 Intersection LOS D HCS2000TM Copyright© 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c SHORT REPORT General- ,.� Analyst GC Intersection Agency or Co. Date Performed 5/�2003 Time Period AVM PM Jurisdiction EAST FRONTAGE - PROSPECT Area Type All other areas Analysis Year S LT OT Volume and Timin In uta 7r < ^' �` „ EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 Lane group L T R L T R L TR L T R Volume v h 515 345 660 105 355 10 540 30 30 30 70 265 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 Actuated P/A P P P P P P P P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 4 5 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 Lane Width 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 20.0 1 G= 28.0 G= G= G= 25.0 G= 17.0 G= G= Y= 0 IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 lCycle Length C = 100.0 Lane G ddg.Ca `# ; ,Contr'o1 Deeaa.. sand LOS Det- in !on , EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 542 363 695 111 374 11 568 64 32 74 226 Lane group cap. 700 912 775 290 532 452 876 738 231 323 678 v/c ratio 0.77 0.40 0.90 0.38 0.70 0.02 0.65 0.09 0.14 0.23 0.33 Green ratio 0.20 0.48 0.48 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.25 0.42 10.17 0.17 0.42 Unif. delay dl 37.9 16.7 123.7 29.0 32.3 26.1 33.6 17.5 35.3 35.8 19.6 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 10.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 10.50 Increm. delay d2 8.2 1.3 15.2 3.8 7.6 0.1 3.7 0.2 1.2 1.6 1.3 PF factor 1.000 0.385 1.000 1.000 0.741 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 46.0 7.7 38.9 32.8 31.5 26.2 37.3 17.7 36.5 37.5 20.9 Lane group LOS D A D C C C D t3 D I D C Apprch. delay 34.3 31.7 35.3 26.1 Approach LOS C C D C Intersec. delay 33.2 Intersection LOS C ' HCS2000TM Copyright© 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c SHORT REPORT Analyst GC Intersection Date Performed Agency or rm5/28/2 Time Period AM M, Jurisdiction WESTFRONTAGE- PROSPECT Area Type All other areas Analysis Year ST T BG OT ... a ? <;>>.............. < > ......... >€'....«<<«; EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L T R L T R L TR L TR Volume v h 45 1890 10 10 1620 125 10 5 10 100 5 105 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.95 0.95 1 10.95 10.95 10.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 Actuated P/A P P P P P P P P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. reen 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival e 4 5 3 3 5 g02. 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 3.0 3.0 3.0 PedBike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 100 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 #NN .0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parkinq/Grade/Parkinq N 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 N Extension 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 3.0 13.0 3.0 13.0 1 3.0 13.0 13.0 1 3.0 ? 1 03 1 04 1 NS Perm 1 06 G= 65.0 IG= I G = I G = IG= 25.0 IG= Y= 5 1 Y= I Y= 1Y= IY= 5 1 Y= nalvsis Mrs) = 0.25 3.0 3.0 07 G- G= Y= Y= C = 100.0 EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 47 1989 11 11 1705 132 11 16 105 10 Lane group cap. 174 2346 1050 129 2346 1050 357 426 355 440 v/c ratio 0.27 0.85 0.01 0.09 0.73 0.13 0.03 0.04 0.30 0.02 Green ratio 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Unif. delay d1 7.4 113.6 1 6.2 6.5 111.6 6.7 28.3 28.4 30.4 126.3 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 3.8 4.0 0.0 1.3 2.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.1 0.1 PF factor 0.438 0.143 1.000 1.000 0.143 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 7.0 6.0 6.2 7.8 3.7 6.9 28.5 28.6 32.5 28.4 Lane group LOS A A A A A A C C C C Apprch. delay 6.0 3.9 28.5 32.1 Approach LOS A A C C Intersec. delay 6.0 Intersection LOS A HCS2000TM copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c EPORT ialyst GC Intersection WEST FRONTAGE - tency or Co. PROSPECT ate Performed ?-;.g 2003 Area Type All other areas me Period 6gM)pM on Jurisdicti Analysis Year S L7 BG TOT EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L T R L T R L TR L TR Volume v h 70 1300 10 10 1285 85 10 5 10 80 5 60 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 10.95 Actuated P/A P P P I P P I P P P P P I P P Startup lost time 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 4 5 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 PedBike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasin EW Perm 02 03 1 04 1 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 65.0 G= G= I G= I G= 25.0 G= G= G- Y= 5 Y= IY= IY= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y- Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 1 ICvcle Lenqth C = 100.0 EB I WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 74 1368 11 11 1353 89 11 16 84 5 Lane group cap. 248 2346 1050 245 2346 1050 359 426 355 475 v/c ratio 0.30 0.58 0.01 0.04 0.58 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.24 0.01 Green ratio 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Unif. delay dl 7.6 9.9 6.2 6.3 9.8 6.5 28.3 28.4 1 29.9 28.2 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 3.1 1.1 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.6 0.0 PF factor 0.438 0.143 1.000 1.000 0.143 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 6.4 2.5 6.2 6.7 2.4 6.6 28.5 28.6 31.5 26.2 Lane group LOS A A A A A A C C C C Apprch. delay 2.7 2.7 28.5 31.3 Approach LOS A A C C Intersec. delay 3.8 Intersection LOS A HCS2000TM copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c APPENDIX F TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY +General. trt�format c n .............: ... Site. inft rmaii r� Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period GC 5128reaW AM CM Intersection B STREET - CARRIAGE Jurisdiction Analysis Year s LT TO Project Description East/West Street: B STREET North/South Street: CARRIAGE Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehle.Wcsltr»�s.attc. Ai'ts>rnent Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 10 10 5 5 10 15 Peak -Hour Factor PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 11 5 5 11 16 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - - Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration L TR LT R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 5 0 5 20 0 75 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 0 5 22 0 83 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT I R Cif:...QyiBtlfit`ti l �'R#� iB..Y@)€ {3f SidiV�C1PI...:... Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT LTR LT R v (vph) 11 5 10 22 83 C (m) (vph) 1600 1615 897 871 1076 v/c 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.08 95% queue length 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.25 Control Delay 7.3 7.2 9.1 9.2 8.6 LOS A A A A A Approach Delay - - 9.1 8.8 Approach LOS - - A A Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY . . .......... ......... .. .. ...... - .. ... ... . ............................. ........................ Analyst GC Agency/Co. Date Performed j*2q12003 Analysis Time Period M PM Intersection B STREET- CARRIAGE Jurisdiction Analysis Year L T& Project Description East/West Street: B STREET North/South Street: CARRIAGE Intersection Orientation: North -South IStud y Period (hrs): 0.25 ... ......... U.S.b.b. Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 10 10 5 5 10 20 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 ago ago .0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 11 5 5 11 �22 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes I 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration L TR LT R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 5 0 5 5 0 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 0 5 5 0 16 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R 6WL OX f4*1jar :e:.W Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT L TR LT R v (vph) 11 5 10 5 16 C (m) (vph) 1592 1615 948 871 1076 VIC 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 95% queue length 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 Control Delay 7.3 7.2 8.8 9.2 8.4 LOS A A A A A Approach Delay 8.8 8.6 jApproach LOS A A Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY GOn fai Infc�rrrin t n.... r� .. . Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period GC 5/28 003 AM Ild Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year CARRIAGE - PROSPECT ®LT OT Project Description EastNVest Street: PROSPECT North/South Street: CARRIAGE Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 ,.:....... .... ....::..... veleta.VoittCrtesarc}�1d><tstmen#s.,...... ' .::.::::..::: :::.:::::::::::' ;. .:..;.....:......:. Westbound ..... Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 180 300 0 0 210 25 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 200 333 0 1 0 233 27 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 — — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L T I TR Upstream Signal 0 10 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 1 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 40 0 310 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 44 0 344 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration L R @iA::r . Ii@l1@ "QE!at': & Y : 8Tt1# Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 200 44 344 C (m) (vph) 1316 335 798 v/c 0.15 0.13 0.43 95% queue length 0.54 0.45 2.19 Control Delay 8.2 17.4 12.9 LOS A C B Approach Delay — — 13.4 Approach LOS — — B HCS2000TM Copyright® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY ............ - ..... ............ Analyst GC Agency/Co. Date Performed U8/2003 Analysis Time Period 9pm Intersection CARRIAGE - PROSPECT Jurisdiction Analysis Year L TOT 1 Project Description —77d East/West Street: PROSPECT North/South Street: CARRIAGE Intersection Orientation: East-West IStud y Period (hrs): 0.25 i�e.. h kk ............ ...... .. . .... ...... ... .. ...... .... ...... ...... Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 225 130 0 0 340 25 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 250 144 0 0 377 27 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 — — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes I 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 10 0 70 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 11 0 77 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration L R ................. ry .... ...... ....... ::-: ... .. . . ......... .. .... .*.,.*.:..>..*,.."..:..*...�.*:._..*:...:.....'..�:....*.�...,.::: ......... ....... ...... Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 1 11 1 1 Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 250 11 77 C (m) (vph) 1166 320 663 VIC 0.21 0.03 0.12 95% queue length 0.81 0.11 0.39 Control Delay 8.9 16.7 11.1 LOS A C B— Approach Delay 11.8 Approach LOS B HCS200OTM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c SHORT REPORT General=lnfortnatlon, �,, „� z_N_a :;RX, r Site$tnformation°' Rr-APNK7:: � „ s' , Analyst GC Agency or Co. Date Performed 5/28/ 3 Time Period A P Intersection EAST FRONTAGE - PROSPECT Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year S LT BG OT tVolume and'Timin In r EB WB NB SB LT FTH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 Lane group L T R L T R L TR L T R Volume v h 405 370 365 65 410 50 465 25 25 85 30 675 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 10.90 10.90 0.90 10.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated P/A P P P P P P P P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 4 5 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Lane Width 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 23.0 G= 27.0 G= G= G= 25.0 G= 15.0 G= G= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 5 1Y= IY= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 Lane Grou ;Ca aci it, inatlo EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 450 411 406 72 456 56 517 56 94 33 639 Lane group cap. 805 950 808 267 513 436 876 703 205 285 694 v/c ratio 0.56 0.43 0.50 0.27 0.89 0.13 0.59 0.08 0.46 0.12 0.92 Green ratio 0.23 a50 0.50 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.40 0.15 0.15 0.43 Unif. delay d1 34.0 16.0 116.7 28.7 135.1 27.6 33.0 18.6 38.8 36.8 26.9 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 2.8 1.4 2.2 2.5 20.0 0.6 2.9 0.2 7.2 0.8 19.5 PF factor 1.000 0.333 1.000 1.000 0.753 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 36.8 6.8 18.9 31.2 46.5 28.2 35.9 18.8 46.0 37.6 46.4 Lane group LOS D A B C D C D B D D D Apprch. delay 21.3 42.8 34.2 46.0 Approach LOS C D C D Intersec. delay 33.5 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c SHORT REPORT - Analyst GC Agency or Co. Date Performed 5003 Time Period M M EAST FRONTAGE - Intersection PROSPECT Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year S LT BG TOT EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 Lane group L T R L T R L TR L T R Volume v h 495 310 470 75 275 60 385 20 20 25 50 155 % Heavyveh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 10.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated P/A P P P P P P P P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 4 5 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 1 04 NB Only07 0G= 23.0 G= 27.0 G= G= G= 25.0= GTiming Y=0Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 0 = Y= Duration of Anal sis hrs = 0.25 = 100.0 LanetGrou` Ca ace ,Control Dela `fan LOS D.eterrnination , �� "; 1h y EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 550 344 522 83 306 67 428 44 28 56 61 Lane group cap. 805 950 808 284 513 436 876 703 208 285 694 v/c ratio 0.68 0.36 0.65 0.29 0.60 0.15 0.49 0.06 0.13 0.20 0.09 Green ratio 0.23 0.50 0.50 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.40 0.15 0.15 0.43 Unif. delay d1 35.2 15.3 18.5 28.9 31.8 27.8 32.0 18.5 1 36.9 37.2 16.9 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 4.7 1.1 4.0 2.6 5.0 0.7 1.9 0.2 1.3 1.5 0.2 PF factor 1.000 0.333 1.000 1.000 0.753 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 39.8 6.2 22.4 31.5 29.0 128.5 34.0 18.6 38.2 138.8 17.1 Lane group LOS D I A I C C I C C C I 8 I D D B Apprch. delay 25.2 29.4 32.6 29.6 Approach LOS C C C C Intersec. delay 27.6 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c SHORT REPORT Analyst GC Agency or Co. Date Performed 512812ON Time Period AMUM Intersection NB RAMPS - PROSPECT Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year (BBG OT 11ot... n_.:Timirt..an ..:..... .: <: . EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Lane group LT T R L R Volume v h 190 755 1235 315 480 385 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.90 10.90 - I0.90 0.90 10.90 Actuated P/A P P P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival e 5 5 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 PedBike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N ing/hr stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 ;in EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 G= 10.0 G= 55.0 G= G= G= 25.0 G= G- G= ig Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y=Y= lion of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 1 Cycle Length C = 100.0 EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 1050 1372 350 533 428 Lane group cap. 690 1045 888 451 404, v/c ratio 1.52 1.31 0.39 1.18 1.06 Green ratio 0.65 0.55 0.55 0.25 0.25 Unif. delay d1 1 117.5 1 122.5 12.9 37.5 137.5 Delay factor k 1 10.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 242.2 147.7 1.3 102.5 61.4 PF factor 0.143 0.614 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 244.7 161.5 14.2 140.0 1 98.9 Lane group LOS F F B F I F Apprch. delay 244.7 131.6 121.7 Approach LOS F F F Intersec. delay 160.8 Intersection LOS F HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c SHORT REPORT Analyst GC Intersection NB RAMPS - PROSPECT Agency or Co. Area Type All other areas Date Performed SjJq/2003 Jurisdiction Time Period tqPM Analysis Year a BG O , ... ; .: , ...:::..... EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Lane group LT T R L R Volume v h 110 825 700 115 625 450 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated P/A P P P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 5 5 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 20.0 G= 35.0 G= G= G= 35.0 G= G= G- Y= 0 Y= 5 IY= Y= IY= 5 Y= IY= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 1 Cycle Lenqth C = 100.0 EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 1039 778 128 694 500 Lane group cap. 604 665 565 632 565 v/c ratio 1.72 1.17 0.23 1.10 0.66 Green ratio 0.55 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Unif. delay d1 122.5 1 132.5 22.9 32.5 130.6 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 331.1 92.0 0.9 65.6 18.1 PF factor 0.185 0.641 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 335.2 112.8 23.9 98.1 48.8 Lane group LOS I F F C F D Apprch. delay 335.2 100.2 77.4 Approach LOS F F E Intersec. delay 169.3 Intersection LOS F HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c lyst GC Intersection SB RAMPS - PROSPECT ncy or Co. Area Type All other areas Performed 5128/2 3 Jurisdiction Period AM11 Analysis Year S7 LT BG OT EB WB NB SB LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane group TR LT LT Volume v h 675 815 485 1230 260 1 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 1 0.90 0.90 Actuated /A P P P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 5 5 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 PedBike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 1 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasinq WB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 G= 20.0 G= 55.0 G= G= G= 15.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 0 Y= 5 IY= Y= Y= 5 Y= IY= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 1 Cycle Length C = 100.0 #C111t>iAt[ >`><`;i[>>i>' EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 1656 1906 290 Lane group cap. 968 718 272 v/c ratio 1.71 2.65 1.07 Green ratio 0.55 0.75 0.15 Unif. delay d1 122.5 1 112.5 142.5 Delay factor k 1 10.50 0.50 1 1 10-50 Increm. delay d2 1324.2 748.E 1 73.2 PF factor 0.988 1.000 1.000 Control delay 346.5 761.1 JF 115.7 Lane group LOS F F Apprch. delay 346.5 761.1 115.7 Approach LOS F F F Intersec. delay 534.2 Intersection LOS F HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c SHORT REPORT xxo;� t t�..... rmaft : ; :: ; ; :::.; Analyst GC Agency or Co. Date Performed /2003 Time Period M M Intersection SB RAMPS - PROSPECT Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction � Analysis Year S�LT BG�fOT) V,aiuttt ftc iimin l u€ :.:...::..: ...... ..::. . . EB WB NB SB LT_ TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane group TR LT LT Volume v h 600 465 185 1140 320 1 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF I 0.90 0.90 10.90 0.90 1 0.90 0.90 Actuated P/A P P P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 5 5 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 1 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing WB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 20.0 G= 55.0 G= G= G= 15.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 Y= 5 1 Y= IY= IY= 5 Y= IY= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 ICycle Length C = 100.0 atr.OrQ. u tv Caa#rc.�i�i::S::etrmrrttt EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 1184 1473 357 Lane group cap. 983 1017 272 v/c ratio 1.20 1.45 1.31 Green ratio 0.55 0.75 0.15 Unif. delay d1 122.5 12.5 142.5 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 101.8 207.3 164.4 PF factor 0.469 0.349 1.000 Control delay 112.3 1 1211.7 1 206.9 Lane group LOS F F F Apprch. delay 112.3 211.7 206.9 Approach LOS F F F Intersec. delay 172.1 Intersection LOS F HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Ge eral lnf a n Site fiiformationu�� Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period GC 5128 03 A M Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year WEST FRONTAGE - PROSPECT E- LT BG TOT O Project Description East/West Street: PROSPECT North/South Street: WEST FRONTAGE Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Major Street Eastbound Westbound U Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 30 1400 5 5 1240 105 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 33 1555 5 1 5 1377 116 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — —1 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 5 0 5 85 0 75 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 0 5 94 0 83 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R lay, Queue.'a Ath and LevelgofiSer�Brice. �"�xi � �� — ems= Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LT R v (vph) 33 5 10 94 83 C (m) (vph) 456 430 2 2 166 v/c 0.07 0.01 5.00 47.00 0.50 95% queue length 0.23 0.04 2.50 14.02 2.43 Control Delay 13.5 13.5 46.6 LOS B B F F E Approach Delay -- -- Approach LOS — — F F TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General -Informations " n.,S --- -� ti a Information t "a _; Analyst GC Intersection WEST FRONTAGE - PROSPECT Agency/Co. Date Performed A812003 Jurisdiction Analysis Year EXST LT BG TOT Analysis Time Period A PM Project Descri tion East/West Street: PROSPECT North/South Street: WEST FRONTAGE Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudv Period Mrs): 0.25 Movement 1 L Volume 50 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 55 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 Median Type RT Channelized Lanes 0 Configuration LTR Upstream Signal Minor Street Movement 7 L Volume 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 Percent Grade (%) RT Channelized Movement Lane Conti v (vph) Dela LOS 21 EB 1 LTR 55 701 0.08 0.25 10.6 B 1 0. Northbound 8 T 0 0 0 N 0 1 LTR OR WB 4 LTR 5 639 0.01 0.02 10.7 B 0 1 1 R as�s�'rtt k Southbound 10 11 12 LT R 77 50 26 313 2.96 0.16 9.44 0.56 18.7 F C 735.3 F APPENDIX E SHORT REPORT Sjf thf. e. Lane group LT T R L R Volume v h 190 415 525 80 480 180 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated P/A P P P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 5 5 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 PedBike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasina EB Only EW Perm 1 03 1 04 NB Only 06 07 08 G= 10.0 1 G= 45.0 1 G= I G= G= 35.0 G= G= I G= Timing Y= 0 IY= 5 IY= IY= IY= 5 Y= IY= I Y= Duration of AnaNsis Mrs) = 0.25 1 Cycle Length C = 100.0 EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 672 583 89 533 200 Lane group cap. 646 855 727 632 565 v/c ratio 1.04 0.66 0.12 0.84 0.35 Green ratio 0.55 0.45 0.45 0.35 0.35 Unif. delay d1 122.5 121.8 16.0 30.0 24.1 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1 0.50 Increm. delay d2 46.3 1 4.4 0.3 13.0 1.7 PF factor 0.185 0.455 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 50.5 14.3 16.4 42.9 25.8 Lane group LOS D B B D C Apprch. delay 50.5 14.6 38.3 Approach LOS D B D Intersec. delay 34.5 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c T REPORT lyst GC Intersection NB RAMPS - PROSPECT ncy or Co. Area Type All other areas Performed 4Q8<2003 Jurisdiction Period APM Analysis Year T G TOT EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Lane group LT T R L R Volume v h 110 405 545 65 625 205 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PHF 10.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 1 0.90 Actuated P/A Startup lost time Ext. eff. green P P 2.0 2.0 1 P 2.0 2.0 P 2.0 2.0 P 1 2.0 2.0 P 1 P 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 5 5 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasina EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 G= 15.0 G= 35.0 G= G= G= 40.0 G= G= G- Timing Y= 0 JY= 5 1Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= jY= Y= Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 1 Cycle Length C = 100.0 EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 572 606 72 694 226 Lane group cap. 542 665 565 722 646 v/c ratio 1.06 0.91 0.13 0.96 0.35 Green ratio 0.50 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.40 Unif. delay d1 1 125.0 131.0 22.1 29.2 121.0 Delay factor k 1 10.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1 10.50 Increm. delay d2 154.1 18.9 0.5 25.3 1.5 PF factor 0.333 0.641 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 62.4 38.8 22.6 54.5 22.5 Lane group LOS E D C D C Apprch. delay 62.4 37.0 46.6 Approach LOS E D D Intersec. delay 47.8 Intersection LOS D HCS2000TM copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c REPORT 'st GC Intersection SB RAMPS - PROSPECT cy or Co. Area Type All other areas Performed Period 5/28 3 AM PIVf Jurisdiction Analysis Year ST LT®G TOT EB WB NB SB LT I TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane group TR LT LT Volume v h 470 815 130 875 125 1 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.90 10.90 10.90 0.90 1 0.90 10.90 Actuated /A P P P P P I P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 5 5 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 PedBike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parldng N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasinq WB Only EW Perm 03 04 1 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 15.0 G= 65.0 G= G= G= 10.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= IY= IY= 5 Y= IY= Y= Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 1 Cycle Length C = 100.0 EB I WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 1428 1 11116 140 Lane group cap. 1129 999 181 v/c ratio 1.26 1.12 0.77 Green ratio 0.65 0.80 0.10 Unif. delay d1 1 117.5 10.0 143.9 Delay factor k 1 10.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 126.4 66.4 26.9 PF factor 0.250 00 Control delay L13 68.9 Et7 .8Lane group LOS E Apprch. delay 138.8 68.9 70.8 Approach LOS F E E Intersec. delay 106.2 Intersection LOS F HCS2000TM copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c SHORT REPORT Analyst GC Intersection SB RAMPS - PROSPECT Agency or Co. Area Type All other areas Date Performed /2003 Jurisdiction Time Period (! PM Analysis Year 00(BG OT EB WB NB SB LT I TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane group TR LT LT Volume v h 345 465 110 1060 155 1 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.90 10.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated /A P P P P P P I P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 Arrival type 5 5 1 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 PedBike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 1 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking/hr stops/hr 0 0 0 Extension 13.0 3.0 3.0 ;ing WB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 G= 20.0 G= 55.0 G= G= G= 15.0 G= G= G= ng Y= 0 Y= 5 IY= IY= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Ilion of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 1 Cycle Length C = 100.0 EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 900 1300 173 Lane group cap. 964 1154 272 v/c ratio 0.93 1.13. 0.64 Green ratio 0.55 0.75 0.15 Unif. delay d1 120.8 12.5 139.9 Delay factor k 1 10.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 16.8 1 68.5 10.8 PF factor 0.185 0.200 1.000 Control delay 20.7 71.0 50.8 Lane group LOS C E D Apprch. delay 20.7 71.0 50.8 Approach LOS C E D Intersec. delay 50.4 Intersection LOS D HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period GC 5428Q03Q AM PM Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year WEST FRONTAGE - PROSPECT EX ST TTOT Pro'ect Description East/West Street: PROSPECT North/South Street: WEST FRONTAGE Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 !.i...... i i ...........: ; ..... .; :..,. Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 30 1230 5 5 945 45 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 33 1366 5 5 1050 50 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 5 0 5 50 0 75 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 0 5 55 0 83 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (°h) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R F3eta :: Qusue i"� th :`mod U. 0t Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LT R v (vph) 33 5 10 55 83 C (m) (vph) 642 507 19 14 269 v/c 0.05 0.01 0.53 3.93 0.31 95% queue length 0.16 0.03 1.45 7.78 1.27 Control Delay 10.9 12.2 325.0 24.2 LOS B B F F C Approach Delay — — 325.0 757.4 Approach LOS — — F F TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period GC A8/2003 M PM Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year WEST FRONTAGE - PROSPECT EXO)LTOG TOT Project Description East/VVest Street: PROSPECT North/South Street: WEST FRONTAGE Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 ..:........ ........... .lCc ..: um ::a� ....... ......... . ustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 50 775 5 5 870 50 Peak -Hour Factor PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 55 861 5 5 966 55 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 5 0 5 30 0 45 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 0 5 33 0 50 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 11 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R tEttd..Level. of.eRt`e Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LT R v (vph) 55 5 10 33 50 C (m) (vph) 688 786 59 40 300 v/c 0.08 0.01 0.17 0.82 0.17 95% queue length 0.26 0.02 0.56 3.11 0.59 Control Delay 10.7 9.6 78.1 242.6 19-A LOS B A F F C Approach Delay — — 78.1 108.1 Approach LOS — — F F SHORT REPORT General lnfonnatiWdf ,7���� Site;lnformatlon,.t�!* M Analyst GC Agency or Co. Date Performed 5/28/2DR3 Time Period AM MUM Intersection EAST FRONTAGE - PROSPECT Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year T BG OT �Volumegand �Lmm =1n ut, � � b . ����''��`��� r��,a�x�P,jS��sgx��:M.��, EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 Lane group L T R L T R L TR L T R Volume v h 40 190 365 65 100 5 465 25 25 5 30 40 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 10.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated P/A P P P P P P P 1. P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 4 5 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 100 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 23.0 G= 27.0 G= G= G= 25.0 G= 15.0 G= G= Y= 0 Y= 5 1Y= Y= IY= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 Lane Grou "Ca Ci:c6ii&oc"'Dela'VAnd�LOS,00drminidion EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 44 211 406 72 111 6 517 56 6 33 0 Lane group cap. 701 950 808 321 513 436 876 703 205 285 694 v/c ratio 0.06 0.22 0.50 0.22 0.22 0.01 0.59 0.08 1 0.03 0.12 0.00 Green ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.40 0.15 0.15 0.43 Unif. delay dl 12.9 14.1 16.7 28.4 128.3 26.7 33.0 18.6 36.3 36.8 16.2 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 0.2 0.5 2.2 1.6 1.0 0.1 2.9 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.0 PF factor 0.767 0.333 1.000 1.000 0.753 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 10.1 5.2 18.9 30.0 22.3 26.8 35.9 18.8 1 36.5 37.6 16.2 Lane group LOS 8 A B C I C C D I 8 D D B Apprch. delay 14.0 25.4 34.2 37.4 Approach LOS B C C D Intersec. delay 24.0 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c SHORT REPORT � 1 e �. S {, _ 7-77711 General -Information f' ':. .G� _ . �M� � , Analyst GC Agency or rm Date Performed 2003 Time Period ABM °M Intersection EAST FRONTAGE - PROSPECT Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year S LT BG TOT � • ` d .,-. .sip'#* dy'4 =VolumevandTtmtn -In ut..; °. .. ._ K ..�-��w •.� .����. , � .,. a,. ��� �_� EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 Lane group L T R L T R L TR L T R Volume v h 55 85 470 75 205 5 385 20 20 5 50 20 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 10.90 0.90 10.90 10.90 0.90 10.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated P/A P P P P P P P P P P P P- Startup lost time 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 4 5 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N I 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 23.0 G= 27.0 G= G= G= 25.0 G= 15.0 G= G= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 Ca DeemaoaCoa c .._. • ' §�zLneGeou EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 61 94 1522 83 228 6 428 44 6 56 0 Lane group cap. 628 950 808 357 513 436 876 703 208 285 694 v/c ratio 0.10 0.10 0.65 0.23 0.44 0.01 0.49 0.06 0.03 0.20 0.00 Green ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.40 0.15 0.15 0.43 Unif. delay d1 13.3 13.2 18.5 28.4 30.3 26.7 32.0 18.5 36.3 37.2 16.2 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 0.3 0.2 4.0 1.5 2.8 0.1 1.9 0.2 0.3 1.5 0.0 PF factor 0.767 0.333 1.000 1.000 0.753 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 10.5 4.6 22.4 30.0 25.6 26.8 34.0 18.6 36.5 38.8 16.2 Lane group LOS B A C C C C C B D I D B Apprch. delay 18.9 26.8 32.6 38.5 Approach LOS B C C D Intersec. delay 25.5 Intersection LOS C ' HCS2006TM Copyright© 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c APPENDIX D TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst GC Agency/Co. Date Performed 5128 003 Analysis Time Period AM M Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year SS RAMPS - PROSPECT (DST LT BG TOT Project Description East/West Street: PROSPECT North/South Street: SB 1-25 RAMPS Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 V.ehlleila%»m�s:ar.Adtstrr ::.... ....::.:..:.:...:............... Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 360 739 30 506 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PH 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 400 821 33 562 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT U stream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 9 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 10 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LTR v (vph) 33 10 C (m) (vph) 578 140 v/c 0.06 0.07 95% queue length 0.18 0.23 Control Delay 11.6 32.7 LOS B D Approach Delay — — 32.7 Approach LOS — — D HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Fiona, All rtigncs Keserveo version v. 1 c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Oener�fcrrm ton .:.:...... �at . Analyst GC Intersection SB RAMPS - PROSPECT Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 82003 Analysis Year �EX�ST LT BG TOT Analysis Time Period `&JPM Project Description East/West Street: PROSPECT North/South Street: SB 1-25 RAMPS Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period Mrs): 0.25 U.eh ci Vol ►d MEMO ts........ . Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 204 420 26 725 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 204 466 28 805 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 11 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 12 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR QeCa Qusee..Lerr Xl Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LTR v (vph) 28 12 C (m) (vph) 930 175 v/c 0.03 0.07 95% queue length 0.09 0.22 Control Delay 9.0 27.1 LOS A D Approach Delay — — 27.1 Approach LOS — — D HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c No Text TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Gererairforrnat�a�t Analyst GC Agency/Co. Date Performed _4812003 Analysis Time Period A PM Intersection WEST FRONTAGE - PROSPECT Jurisdiction Analysis Year �J T LT BG TOT ``"����J Project Description East/West Street: PROSPECT North/South Street: WEST FRONTAGE Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Veicle:.Voumss ad.Ad txsfilrlE�ertts. .... . Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 46 566 4 0 952 31 Peak -Hour Factor PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 1 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 51 628 4 0 1057 34 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 2 0 3 8 0 38 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 0 3 8 0 42 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R 13e[a" Glueue Len .and 0VO 01 �d640. EB .:; ..... WB _ <...... _ .:......... Northbound Southbound Approach Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LT R v (vph) 51 0 5 8 42 C (m) (vph) 647 960 101 56 270 v/c 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.14 0.16 95% queue length 0.26 0.00 0.15 0.46 0.54 Control Delay 11.0 8.8 42.5 79.7 20.8 LOS B A E F C Approach Delay - - 42.5 30.2 Approach LOS - - E D TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst GC Agency/Co. Date Performed WBX03 Analysis Time Period AM M Intersection EAST FRONTAGE - PROSPECT Jurisdiction Analysis Year ®ST LT BG TOT Project Description East/West Street: PROSPECT North/South Street: EAST FRONTAGE Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 :::.;:i: •S :»::>:i;:l :s:<:>: z : ;>::s:: »::::>:<:>::> <:>'; :> »»»::>::>::» Ushcle Voumes:tzc:id ustments ::>::>:::::::zs.::;::: ;„::: E E :: : ;:: >::»»::>:«:::>:>;"s3 ::>::;:::::E::>::>::>:::<:>:::<2>:<::........ ::::«<:>'<:«>>: ............:. Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 25 163 36 5 89 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 27 181 40 5 98 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes Configuration 0 LTR 1 0 0 LTR 1 0 Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 40 2 4 3 7 34 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 44 2 4 3 7 37 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR {e[a .Qusue.)"n th andLevef of.eitrlce. EB WB Northbound Southbound Approach Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (vph) 27 5 50 47 C (m) (vph) 1505 1360 555 t 830 v/c 0.02 0.00 0.09 0.06 95% queue length 0.05 0.01 0.30 0.18 Control Delay 7.4 7.7 12.1 9.6 LOS A A B A Approach Delay — — 12.1 9.6 Approach LOS — — B A TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY .. Genera[ Cnfarrtt'tan f tn%rma�tt,�rt .. Analyst GC Intersection EAST FRONTAGE - Agency/Co. PROSPECT Jurisdiction Date Performed/2003 Analysis Time Period M M Analysis Year AT LT BG TOT Project Description East/West Street: PROSPECT North/South Street: EAST FRONTAGE Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 WhCe ...... ...:...::::.:.:::.:.: :; :. ........ .. Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 39 64 25 1 186 1 Peak -Hour Factor PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 43 71 27 1 206 1 Percent HeavyVehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 19 2 3 6 7 19 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 21 2 3 6 7 21 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR ae(a.. QueusLen t6ialtdi.EV9%tftS��1[CE.. Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (vph) 43 1 26 34 C (m) (vph) 1376 1508 567 695 v/c 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.05 95% queue length 0.10 0.00 0.14 0.15 Control Delay 7.7 7.4 11.7 10.4 LOS A A B B Approach Delay — — 11.7 10.4 Approach LOS — — B B TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY ......... ....... .............. . w- . . ........... ...... ... .. ... ... .. ... . ... .. ........ ... .......r... . m. ..... ....... d. Site IftfO Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period GC 5128,W3 AM tM) Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year NB RAMPS - e-.Ic\ E9 PROSPECT Project Description East/West Street: PROSPECT INorth/South Street: NB 1-25 RAMPS Intersection Orientation: East-West IStud y Period (hrs): 0.25 V-Shic e:"..: ........... ............... ....... ....... . ........... . : . . ....... ............................ ............ .. .... . .... ...... ..... ............... - Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 175 185 0 0 136 17 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 194 205 0 1 0 136 18 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - 1 0 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LT T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T : R Volume 438 0 35 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 486 0 38 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 0 0 Configuration LT R ...........u Laylg sera t..... ...e. yIN -0nI . .. ...... .......ow.A.w Approach E B WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT R v (vph) 194 486 38 C (m) (vph) 1439 336 841 v/C 0.13 1.45 0.05 95% queue length 0.47 25.81 0.14 Control Delay 7.9 246.8 9.5 LOS A F A Approach Delay 229.6 Approach LOS F HCS200OTM Copyright@ 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Sty ift#rmatfoti:: Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year NB RAMPS - PROSPECT (EX 1 �J Analyst GC Agency/Co. Date Performed 8/2003 Analysis Time Period M M Project Description EastMest Street: PROSPECT North/South Street: NB 1-25 RAMPS Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 i u - M nts . ..:.....:...: .. Westbound Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 98 89 0 0 170 6 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 1 0.90 1.00 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 106 98 0 0 170 6 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LT T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 569 0 19 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 632 0 21 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0. 1 1 0 0 0 Configuration LT R ......................... Aefa";,..Rue e.Len tCti and.il�eiv�t of eifvtce .::.::.::::.:..:.:.. ........:::. . ...:........................... .....:........:..:.....::. Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT R v (vph) 108 632 21 C (m) (vph) 1412 501 963 v/c 0.08 1.26 0.02 95% queue length 0.25 25.62 0.07 Control Delay 7.8 157.9 8.8 LOS A F A Approach Delay — — 153.1 Approach LOS — — F HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c APPENDIX C MATTHEW J. DEUCH, P.E. 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE LOVELAND,CO 80538 Phone: 70 669.2061 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Date: 5.15-03 Observer: Shelley Day: Thursday Jurisdiction: FortCollins R = Nht turn Intersection: ProspecUE. Frontage Road S = straight r = Ian hm, Time Begins Northbound: EFR Southbound: EFR Total northisouth Eastbound: Prospect Westbound: Prospect Total eastlwest Total All L S R Total L S R Total L S R Total L S R Total 7:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 4 10 2 16 0 26 0 26 42 45 7:15 4 0 0 4 0 1 5 6 10 6 15 4 25 1 28 0 29 54 64 7:30 1 1 1 3 0 1 7 8 11 12 10 8 30 1 39 1 41 71 82 7:45 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 4 6 9 13 3 25 0 40 0 40 65 71 8:00 7 1 2 10 1 4 4 9 19 8 16 4 28 0 53 0 53 81 100 8:15 8 0 0 8 3 2 9 14 22 13 20 12 45 0 51 0 51 96 118 8:30 3 1 0 4 1 0 4 5 9 9 15 6 30 1 42 .1 44 74 83 8:45 1 0 .1 2 0 1 6 7 9 7 16 6 29 0 33 0 33 62 71 7:454:45 19 1 2 1 3 24 8 1 7 119 1 32 1 56 39 184 125 128 1 1 1186 1 1 1 188 1 316 1 372 PHF 0.6 1 0.57 1 0.71 1 1 0.89 4:00 8 1 0 1 9 2 0 1 9 1 11 20 10 134 1 4 48 0 124 1 25 73 93 415 11 1 2 0 13 0 2 6 8 21 8 28 1 7 43 0 1 20 0 20 63 84 4:30 12 1 1 2 15 2 1 12 15 30 12 46 9 67 1 24 0 25 92 122 4:45 7 0 1 8 0 0 10 10 18 4 40 11 55 2 19 0 21 76 94 5:00 7 1 0 8 1 4 9 14 22 8 41 6 55 0 22 0 22 77 99 5:15 14 0 1 15 0 2 3 5 20 1 36 10 47 2 24 2 28 75 95 5.. 8 2 1 11 2 1 8 11 22 5 38 8 51 1 22 1 24 75 . 97 545 5 1 0 6 1 0 7 8 14 4 31 4 39 0 18 0 18 57 71 4:3041:30 140 1 2 1 4 1 46 1 3 1 7 134 44 1 90 125 1163 136 1 224 1 5 189 1 2 1 96 320 1 410 PHf 1 1 0.77 1 0.73 1 1 0.84 1 1 0.88 TTNEW J. D LICH, P.E. 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRiVE LOVELAND, CO 80538 Phone: 970 669.2061 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Date: 4.8.03 Observer: Shelley Day: Tuesday Judedietion: Fort Collins R = right turn Intersection: ProspedM. Frontage Road S = straight 1 _104 film Time Bsons Northbound: WFR Souhbound: WFR Total northisouth Eastbound: Prospect Weethound: Prospect Total easthvest Total All L 8 R Total L S R Total L I 8 R Total L S R Total 7:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 5 5 9 126 0 135 0 159 6 165 300 305 7:15 0 0 1 1 2 0 6 8 9 14 122 2 138 1 171 7 179 317 326 7:30 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 6 6 12 145 1 158 0 204 11 215 373 379 7:45 1 0 1 1 2 2 0 10 12 14 7 136 0 143 0 250 7 257 400 414 8:00 0 0 1 1 3 0 10 13 14 12 138 0 150 0 283 5 288 438 452 8:1 S 1 0 1 2 2 0 13 15 17 15 1147 3 185 0 215 8 223 388 405 810 0 1 0 1 2 0 9 11 12 12 118 2 132 0 182 6 168 320 332 8:45 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 7 7 9 121 0 130 0 174 6 180 310 317 7:30.8:30 1 2 1 0 1 3 5 8 1 0 138 46 51 46 1566 1 4 1 618 1 0 1952 131 983 1599 1550 PHF 0.03 0.77 1 0.93 0.85 4:00 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 117 23 23 7 1209 1 0 216 0 143 1 3 1 146 362 385 4:15 2 0 0 1 2 9 0 20 29 31 5 1238 2 245 0 157 10 1 167 412 443 4:30 2 0 2 4 7 0 26 33 37 11 1259 0 270 1 154 8 1 161 431 466 4:45 0 0 0 0 7 0 .11 18 18 5 1301 1 307 1 167 3 1 171 478 496 5:00 0 0 1 1 8 0 12 21 22 5 1270 0 275 1 174 6 1 181 456 478 5:15 0 0 1 1 9 0 15 24 25 6 220 0 226 0 167 5 172 398 423 5:30 0 0 0 0 7 0 13 20 20 9 183 0 192 0 143 8 149 341 361 5:45 1 0 0 1 5 0 11 18 17 7 191 1 199 0 148 7 15S 354 371 415.515 4 1 0 1 9 1 7 132 1 0 169 1 101 1 108 126 110681 3 1 1097 1 3 1652 125 1 680 1 1777 1 1885 PHF 1 1 0.44 1 1 0.77 1 1 0.89 1 0.94 MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E. 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE LOVELAND, CO 80638 Phone: 70 069.2061 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Date: 4-9.03 Observer: Shelley Day: Wednesday Jurisdiction: Fort Collins R = right turn Intersection: Prospews 1.25 Ramp 8 = straight L = ladt him Time Begins Northbound: 8outhbound: 8B Ramp Total northisouth Eastbound: Prospect Weetbound: Prospect Total eastlwest Total All L 8 R Total L 8 R Total L 8 R Total L 8 R Total 7:00 0 1 35 36 36 35 84 119 4 134 138 257 293 715 0 1 38 39 39 48 90 138 3 119 122 260 299 7:30 0 0 45 45 45 33 90 123 10 170 180 303 348 7:45 0 1 60 81 61 64 95 149 5 201 206 355 416 8:00 0 1 44 45 45 42 132 174 5 210 215 389 434 8:15 0 5 40 45 45 52 94 146 11 156 167 313 358 6:30 0 4 31 35 35 56 100 156 5 158 163 319 354 8:45 0 2 34 38 36 47 91 138 7 146 153 291 327 7:4NA5 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1111 1 0 1 175 1 186 1 186 1 0 1204 14211 625 126 1725 1 0 1 751 1 1376 1 156271 PHF I Na 1 0.76 1 0.9 1 1 0.87 4:00 1 0 2 25 27 27 70 77 147 6 94 1 100 247 274 415 1 0 1 33 34 34 63 85 148 15 100 115 263 297 4:30 0 6 29 35 35 80 159 239 6 126 132 371 406 4:45 O 1 23 24 24 88 235 323 8 113 121 444 468 5:00 0 0 24 24 24 1112 190 302 8 122 130 432 456 5:15 0 2 33 35 35 180 1155 235 8 145 153 386 423 5:30 0 3 18 21 21 1 77 1105 182 6 117 1 123 305 326 5.45 0 2 21 23 23 1 69 119 198 6 11221 1 128 316 339 14-.30-5:301 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 9 1 0 11091 118 1 118 1 0 1360 1739 1 1099 130 15061 0 1 536 1 1635 1 1753 PHF I I nla 1 1 0.84 1 1 0.65 1 1 0.88 MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E. 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE LOVELAND, CO 80538 Phone: 970 669.2061 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Date: 4.10.03 Observer: Harry Oa : Thursday Jurisdiction: Fort Co(Ilns R = right turn InterseWon: ProspeWNB 1.25 Ramp S = straight L=1anmm Time Northbound: NB Ramp Southtound: Total Eastbound: Prospect Westbound: Prospect Total Total L 8 R Total L 8 R Total L 1 8 R Total L 8 R Total Begins northlsouth east►wod All 7:00 1301 0 1 2 132 0 132 18 18 36 25 2 27 63 195 7:15 136 1 0 1 1 137 0 137 29 20 49 29 3 32 61 218 7:30 162 1 0 1 4 166 0 166 24 23 47 59 1 60 107 273 7:45 1601 0 9 169 0 169 25 25 50 42 1 43 93 1 262 8:00 111 1 5 116 0 116 20 21 41 40 1 41 82 198 8:15 122 7 129 0 129 17 26 43 27 3 30 73 202 8:30 118 0 6 122 0 122 10 27 37 36 5 41 78 200 8:45 103 0 8 109 0 109 13 22 95 25 2 27 62 171 7:15.8:15 1569 1 0 119 1 98 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 588 198 10 1170161 176 363 951 PHF 1 0.87 nla 0.94 0.73 4:00 89 0 5 94 0 94 38 31 69 30 2 32 101 195 4:15 98 2 3 103 0 103 45 30 75 25 4 29 104 207 4:30 101 0 8 109 0 109 34 37 11 40 2 .42 113 222 4:45 108 0 5 113 0 113 42 48 90 32 1 33 123 236 5:00 104 2 14 120 0 120 44 48 92 33 4 37 129 249 5:15 106 0 5 111 0 -111 54 53 107 41 6 47 154 265 5:30 120 1 11 132 0 132 35 38 71 30 6 36 107 239 5:45 113 0 8 121 0 121 32 35 67 27 4 31 98 219 4:45.5:45 1438 1 476 0 0 0 0 1 476 1175 1185 1 0 1 360 0 136 1117 1 153 1 513 1 989 PHF 0.9 nla 0.84 1 0.81 APPENDIX B _- 2 S ' Chapter 4 — Attachments Attachment B Transportation Impact Study Pedestrian Analysis Worksheet DESTINATION Rec. Res.00 Inst. Ofc/Bus. Com . Ind. Other . (Specify) Recreation Residential a c Institution m (school,_ church, civic) n `Offi, /Business c Oi 'Commercial° 0 Industrial Other (specify) INSTRUCTIONS: Identify the pedestrian destinations within 1320' (1.5 miles for schools) of the project boundary in the spaces above. The pedestrian Level of Service for the facility/corridor linking these destinations to ' the project site will be based on the directness, continuity, types of street crossings, walkway surface condition, visual interest/amenity, and security of the selected mute(s). ' O 12 Dwelling units or more. •--- O,�-�C.� en-�/t�'9-cam ' � Nv � j s�/�1<d�✓.� C,.�/i.J Z 1 ' Page 4-36 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards — Repealed and Reenacted October 1, 2002 Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins 4 - Attachments Attachment A Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Project Information Project Name Pras nCt / -r - 2 S Project Location NEC /gyros ecf-=- z5 TIS Assumptions Type of Study Full: X Intermediate: Study Area Boundaries North: NorfGt G. G . South: P,,-os�ecf East: L�arria c West: BLS Study Years Short Range: Z,�g Long Range: - Future Traffic Growth Rate qo Study Intersections I. All access drives 5. 2. 61.1-14P ?fvs ec 6. 3. T Z 5 /Za orP 5 7. 4. s_ 2 5 Eo5;1- 8 • Time Period for Study M 7:00-9:00 M: 4:00-6:00 1Sat Noon: /Vo Trip Generation Rates Z -c— Trip Adjustment Factors Passby: ZTr- Captive Market: Overall Trip Distribution SEE ATTACHED SKETCH Mode Split Assumptions Committed Roadway Improvements Other Traffic Studies Areas Requiring Special Study No, e. 4lam! A141k- S'J v' Date: Traffic Engineer: Local Entity Engineer: Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards — Repealed and Reenacted October 1, 2002 Page 4-35 Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins APPENDIX A ' Roundabouts are a viable long-term alternative to traditional intersections at the 1-25 off -ramps. The final decision however should not be made until a ' more in-depth investigation is conducted during preliminary design of the in- terchange. Comparable operating conditions can be expected with either design. ' In summary, the transportation demands associated with Prospect / 1-25 can be at least partially mitigated by implementation of the improvements noted in this study. Future traffic demands, however; will require reconstructing the Prospect Road —1-25 interchange. These improvements will facilitate acceptable operating conditions in the vicinity of this development for the foreseeable future. 29 X. CONCLUSIONS Based upon the analyses, investigations, and findings documented in earlier sections of this report, the following can be concluded: • Current roadway operations are generally acceptable in the area of the Prospect / 1-25 site. Less than desirable operations currently exist at the west frontage road and northbound 1-25 off ramp intersections with Pros- pect Road while other intersections operate at acceptable levels of service. • Site traffic associated with the Prospect / 1-25 development is expected to be 1,077 morning peak hour trips, 1,860 afternoon peak hour trips, and 16,967 trips per day. These trips represent an aggressive development scheme on this site which may or may not be realized in the future. • Intersection levels of service will remain acceptable at most locations through the short-term with the Prospect / 1-25 site fully built. Given the lim- ited geometry, the 1-25 interchange will operate at less than acceptable lev- els. This condition is of regional significance and will occur whether or not the Prospect/1-25 development is built. • Pedestrian and bicycle evaluations were not conducted given the lack of attractions near the site. Since all internal and adjacent improvements as- sociated with Prospect / 1-25 will be built to current standards, all pedestrian and bicycle criteria will be satisfied. Future developments will connect to and expand the Prospect / 1-25 improvements. • Transit service is not currently available; however, future transit operations are expected to achieve a level of service consistent with future demand. • Over the long-term, area operations will be very acceptable provided im- provements are made at the 1-25 / Prospect Road interchange. ' There are no pedestrian attractions within the distance specified by City evaluation criteria. Consequently, no level of service analysis was conducted. As the area ' matures, the sidewalk system planned with this development will be supplemented and expanded. ' VIII. BICYCLE FACILITIES There are no bicycle facilities within 1,320 feet of the Prospect / 1-25 site. This is consistent with the existence of an older roadway system and the rural environment. ' The bicycle facilities planned with the Prospect / 1-25 development will conform to ' current City criteria. They will provide connections to future bicycle facilities thereby accommodating the integration of bicycles into the site. ' There are no bicycle attractions within the distance specified by City evaluation criteria. Consequently, no level of service analysis was conducted. As the area matures, the available bicycle facilities will be supplemented and expanded. ' IX. TRANSIT Transit service is not currently available to serve this site. TransFort is expected to provide service in concert with passenger demand. When appropriate, transit service will be provided. Consequently, transit operations were not evaluated. 27 D. Roundabout Analysis ' The City requested roundabout analyses at the Prospect Road intersections with the 1-25 off ramps. This analysis was conducted using long-term traffic estimates. Antici- pated operating levels of service are shown below. Long -Term Level of Service Roundabout Location AM Pk Hr. PM Pk Hr. Prospect — Souhbound Ramps A B Prospect — Northbound Ramps A B As indicated, very acceptable operating conditions are expected with roundabouts at the off -ramp intersections. This indicates that roundabouts are a viable alternative at these intersections subject to right-of-way and other design considerations. Operating ' conditions, however, will be similar to those calculated with traditional intersections and therefore, a more detailed comparison should be conducted during preliminary ' design of the interchange. Capacity worksheets are provided in Appendix G. VII. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES There are no existing sidewalks within 1,320 feet of the Prospect / 1-25 site. This is consistent with an older roadway system and the rural environment. The pedestrian system planned adjacent and internal to the Prospect / 1-25 develop- ment will conform to current City criteria. It will provide usable connections to future sidewalks as they are built thereby accommodating the integration of pedestrians into the site. 26 LONG-TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC OPERATIONS (With Project) Intersection Control Movement/ Direction Level of Service AM Pk Hr. PM Pk Hr. Prospect — East Frontage Signal EB LT D D EB TH A A EB RT D C WB LT C C WB TH C D WB RT C C NB LT D D NB TH/RT B B SIB LT D D SIB TH D D SIB RT C D ' D K, Prospect — Carriage Stop EB LT A A SIB LT C C SB RT B B Major Access — Carriage Stop NB LT A A SIB LT A A WB LT/TH/RT A A EB LT/TH B A EB RT A A With interchange reconstruction, vastly improved operations can be expected. This is demonstrated by the levels of service calculated for the long-term which assumes the interchange is improved. With that improvement, very acceptable conditions are expected through the 2025 time frame. Worksheets are available in Appendix F. 25 LONG-TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC OPERATIONS (With Project) Intersection Control Movement/ Direction Level of Service AM Pk Hr. PM Pk Hr. Prospect — West Frontage Signal EB LT A A EB TH A A EB RT A A W B LT A A WB TH A A WB RT A A NB LT C C NB TH/RT C C SB LT C C SIB TH/RT C C Overall A A Prospect — Southbound Ramp Signal EB TH/RT B B WB LT C C WB TH A A SIB LT/TH C C r Overall Prospect — Northbound Ramp Signal EB LT B B EB TH A A WB TH B B NB LT C C Overall, B _ B tU 24 SHORT-TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC OPERATIONS (With Project) Intersection Control Movement/ Direction Level of Service AM Pk Hr. PM Pk Hr. Prospect — East Frontage Signal EB LT D D EB TH A A EB RT C B WB LT C C WB TH C D WB RT C C NB LT C D NB TH/RT B B SIB LT D D SIB TH D D SIB RT B D Prospect — Carriage Stop EB LT A A SIB LT C C SIB RT B B Major Access — Carriage stop NB LT A A SB LT A A WB LT/TH/RT A A EB LT/TH A A EB RT A A As indicated above, short-term total traffic conditions will be less than desirable at the northbound and southbound 1-25 off -ramp intersections This condition assumes some mitigation given the installation of traffic signals; however, without reconstruct- ing the interchange, operations will continue to be sub -standard. All other intersec- tions will operate acceptably. Capacity worksheets are available in Appendix E. 23 ' As shown, operating conditions will be generally acceptable except for the Prospect Road — Southbound 1-25 ramp intersection. Even with traffic signal installation, this ' intersection will operate at less than desirable levels. Capacity worksheets are avail- able in Appendix D. ' C. Total Traffic Operating Conditions Short-term and long-term operating conditions were assessed using total traffic, which includes full development of this project. This investigation used the peak hour traffic ' shown on Figures 9 and 10 and the short- and long-term roadway geometry shown on Figures 11 and 12, respectively. Resultant operating conditions are shown below for ' the short-term SHORT-TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC OPERATIONS (With Project) Intersection Control Movement/ Direction Level of Service AM Pk Hr. PM Pk Hr. Prospect — West Frontage Stop EB LT/TH/RT B B WB LT/TH/RT B B NB LT/TH/RT F F SB LT/TH F F SB RT C E Prospect — Southbound Ramp Signal EB TH/RT F F WB LT/TH F F SB LT F F _Ove�all' F= < tiFF Prospect — Northbound Ramp Signal EB LT/TH F F WB TH F F WB RT C B NB LT F F NB RT D F Overall F F 22 SHORT-TERM BACKGROUND TRAFFIC OPERATIONS (Without Project) Intersection Control Movement/ Direction Level of Service AM Pk Hr. PM Pk Hr. Prospect — West Frontage Stop EB LT/TH/RT B B WB LT/TH/RT A B NB LT/TH/RT F F SB LT/TH F F SB RT C C Prospect — Souhbound Ramp Signal EB TH/RT C F WB LT/TH E E SB LT D E � Overall D= F Prospect — Northbound Ramp Signal EB LT/TH E D WB TH D B WB RT C B NB LT D D NB RT C C Prospect — East Frontage Signal EB LT B B EB TH A A EB RT C B WB LT C C WB TH C C WB RT C C NB LT C D NB TH/RT B B SB LT D D SB TH D D SB RT B B Overalls ..,.ri< C x..'. C 21 E A U Access Access II Access LEGEND: + = Free Turn Lane Access N O 4-- b,� .- e Access 3 C 1 \ / W \\� Prospect � �S,► � Figure 12 LONG-TERM ROADWAY GEOMETRY 0 A 'E m U Access Access Access \ \ LEGEND: * = Free Turn Lane Access CO � * L LL Access N 3 \ / B .� I � \ / w / Prospect .��► m 2 j N � Figure 11 SHORT-TERM ROADWAY GEOMETRY rounded to the nearest 5 vehicles or rounded up to a minimum of 5 vehicles. Total peak hour traffic was reviewed from an auxiliary lane standpoint. The results of this review are discussed in the following section. A. Auxiliary Lane Requirements Traffic movements at the critical intersections and site access points were reviewed. This review resulted in the determination that auxiliary lanes will be needed to serve short-term traffic demands. Auxiliary lanes were assessed using Fort Collins criteria, CDOT criteria, generally accepted traffic engineering principles, and the standard street sections for those streets which will be built in the future. Traffic signal needs were determined based upon the traffic signal warrants presented in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Findings stated in the Paradigm traffic impact study were also considered. It should be noted that auxiliary lanes are currently needed at the 1-25 interchange and will continue to be needed in the future. Realistically, these lanes can only be built as part of re -constructing the interchange. Accordingly, no improvements were assumed at the interchange until after the short-term time frame. Resultant roadway geometry for short- and long-term conditions is shown on Figures 11 and 12, respectively. B. Background Operating Conditions Short-term (2008) operating conditions were assessed using short-term background traffic as shown on Figure 9 and the anticipated short-term roadway geometry. Resultant operating conditions are shown below. e rr U o Access Access t 5/20 1 � 515 �r ON O \ LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour INN \ Access N=Nominal Nm� t515 1 �~to5 5/20 1 r NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. N/Nc,c W 15n5„.2 pN \ Access 14045 o — 920/1445 ` 230153560 985I910� Access LL 6sonia0- a Y! � m 3 / z "< a, N \\\ t / c '-�-405/215 \\\ m Q / 2 250/215� \\\ 00to // U. 155/355 \ � W ♦ / ♦ I \ Cl/ \\ ♦ % Prospect ♦ o o $ WSW t Q. t85/125 p Ho�o� 10/10 �°� 1285/1620 °7 J j L*~ osreo .jIt. tom N r 1 515/420 1300/1/45 •o �n - 345/445 •o� Figure 10 CS 10/10-7 0`°0 660I510Z QMM 5 LONG-TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC E m Access Access LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour Access N = Nominal ,n o oo� "-5/5 N N � yr-~ 5/5 NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. 5/20 •(w N/N'� oovQ 15(/SZ ooie \ \ Access 0) 0 ti � fO t 115/315 m n �-- 700/1235 rn �' 114011230 1 �i j- 1851485 825/755� �, y LL 600/675� ACCeSB 465/815 -� rh a a at 3 y O / O t ly � �340/210 \ 0 O / 225/180� \\\ coto j 6 130/300� \ / m \ W \ kz I � Prospect C990/1400 v� n t 60/50 )k- 0 C1 I `� �275I410 mN 2 + 75165 495I405 310/370 u��n Figure 9 470/365ZamNN SHORT-TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC m E m U Access Access LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour N = Nominal Access NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. Access h 901110 ui 765l735 to N N •-148511225 155/265--* 155/180 565/570� NO LL 480/660— " Access 650/11407 m w ry m 3 � I m o0 / t5/10 \ I r `. �350/170 25/351 135/275� LU lk Prospect C L G O o00 k-10/10 080 70165 roan o O m O1 �' 2851140 r l~ 10 10/1325 mN r r 1 105/90 * 75155 i085/1720� I 12on65 •oo o Figure 8 10/10 a a�a 660/510a moo LONG-TERM BACKGROUND TRAFFIC A 'E A U Access Access LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour N = Nominal Access NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. Access ti N t 65/80 m h 5451525 i, j- 1/011305 4051410-0 5—� _ Access LL 6�5/815mbo q N 0 L I m \ / Ix \\ N / Prospect o N�O t50/45 Q O NNN t5/5 r 1 205I100 5/5 0/945 mN ? 1 75/65 55140 77550/30� 30 1 r 851190 Figure 7 5/5� now 470/365Z aoo N N N n SHORT-TERM BACKGROUND TRAFFIC immediate needs. Reconstructing the interchange is of regional significance and well beyond the scope of any one development. For analysis purposes, no short-term improvements were assumed built except for those associated with planned nearby development. B. Background Traffic Background traffic was developed using an annual growth rate of 2 percent per year. This factor was applied to existing traffic volumes to approximate future arterial and collector street traffic consistent with the time frames requested by the City. Traffic associated with development of the Paradigm property was also considered. This parcel is located in the southeast corner of the interchange and will generate some 11,500 daily trips based upon the traffic study for that parcel. For analyses purposes, the Paradigm property was assumed built -out in the short-term. Background traffic is presented on Figures 7 and 8 for the short-term and long-term time frames, respec- tively. VI. TRAFFIC IMPACTS In order to assess operating conditions with Prospect / 1-25 fully operational, capacity analyses were conducted at the Prospect Road intersections with both frontage roads, both 1-25 Ramps and Carriage Parkway. Also, the primary site access inter- section was evaluated. Total traffic (background traffic combined with site traffic) was developed for the 2008 and 2025 time frames. Short-term (2008) total traffic is shown on Figure 9 and long-term (2025) total traffic is shown on Figure 10. Traffic was 13 m E A U N Access Access 1 `sno s15 o� o LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour � N = Nominal N ry n R-515 Access JIN 1� 1/05 5/20 NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. N/N ' •o o,n 15/75- p00 m� , , Access N v k- 50/235 lz 155m0 o a /I--8o5ss 420/340— (0 L j 751355 o Access LL 255/205 o N a m 3 V c \` oo t25125 ` 'r / 55145 `\ O / 225/180' \\ h O I IL 20/80 ME / Cl Prospect M 'n G n�o t55145 ' L 65/295 2 1 NM 10 N N/N 4401365 0 1 215/170— (l 225/180� Figure 6 z z Z PEAK HOUR SITE TRAFFIC 0 O N Access o O N Access m a m 'E m U Access Access v C cAccess Q LL m O: o m p y O N C L Z m el 1 0% N N Prospect 25% O m N Z a 0 Cl Figure 5 SITE TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION As indicated, the Prospect / 1-25 development is expected to generate 1,077 morning external peak hour trips, 1,860 afternoon external peak hour trips and 16,967 external trips per day when fully built. This is based upon a very aggressive development scenario. This is considered appropriate for evaluation purposes. However, much less traffic may actually be realized. C. Trip Distribution Trip distribution is a function of the origin and destination of site users and the avail- able roadway system. In this case, all traffic must use Prospect Road, the east Frontage Road or Carriage Parkway to directly access the site. Current demographic biases reflect heavy weighting to and from the urban Fort Collins area during both the morning and afternoon peak hour periods. The distribution of site traffic as agreed to in the scoping session is shown on Figure 5. Resultant peak hour site traffic is shown on Figure 6. V A. Roadway Improvements FUTURE CONDITIONS No major roadway improvements are planned in the area of the site in the near -term future. The Prospect/1-25 interchange is the most notable deficiency in the area street system. While not scheduled for reconstruction, it is clearly one of the more Me Figure 4 CONCEPT PLAN IV ' A. Project Description DEVELOPMENT ISSUES ' Prospect / 1-25 is a mixed -use development with some 84.83 acres of industrial park, 31 acres of retail, and 20.70 acres of residential area. It will have an internal circula- tion system comprised of local and collector streets. Direct site access to the frontage road and Carriage Parkway is planned with follow-on access to Prospect Road and ' other arterial streets. The above uses are consistent with the planning effort for submittal of an Overall Development Plan and are subject to future changes. A ' concept plan is presented on Figure 4. B. Site Traffic Site traffic was estimated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publi- cation, 'Trip Generation, 6th Edition", a nationally recognized reference. The retail, industrial park and residential land use classifications were selected to estimate site traffic as the development is currently envisioned. Land Use D.U. Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Out Rate In Out Industrial Park 84.83 AC 63.11 5,354 10.17 716 147 10.47 186 702 Retail 31.00 AC (1) 42.92 13,308 1.03 195 124 3.74 556 603 Residential 20.70 AC (2) 9.57 191 0.75 4 11 1.01 13 7 SUB -TOTAL 18,853 915 282 755 1,312 10% Internal Trips (1,886) (92) (28) (76) (131) NET TRIPS 16,967 :,„ 823 254 679 , °1,181 (1) Assumes 310,000 S.F. of shopping center space. (2) Assumes 20 D.U. LEGEND: ► = Free Turn Lane v is LL 0 \\\ y \ A \ W Prospect Figure 3 CURRENT ROADWAY GEOMETRY ' D. Existing Traffic Operations ' Highway Capacity Manual procedures were used to quantify current intersection oper- ations. Resultant levels of service (LOS) are indicated below for both morning and afternoon peak hour conditions. This was undertaken for all key intersections. Traffic volumes from Figure 2 were loaded onto the current roadway geometry, which is shown on Figure 3. Functional geometry was used in these and follow-on analyses. For definition purposes, functional geometry reflects the geometry available for use ' and not necessarily the striped roadway section. EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Intersection Control Movement/ Direction Level of Service AM Pk Hr. PM Pk Hr. Prospect — West Frontage Stop EB LT/TH/RT A A WB LT/TH/RT A B NB LT/TH/RT E F SIB LT/TH F F SBRT C C Prospect— Southbound Ramp Stop WB LT/TH A B SIB LT D D Prospect — Northbound Ramp Stop EB LT/TH A A NB LT F F NBRT A A Prospect — East Frontage Stop EB LT/TH/RT A A WB LT/TH/RT A A NB LT/TH/RT B B SIB LT/TH/RT B A Per City standards, stop sign controlled intersections with arterial streets are allowed to operate at LOS 'F'. As shown above, all intersections currently operate at accept- able levels. Capacity work sheets are presented in Appendix C. Ce LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour N = Nominal 0 t-6117 170/136 a r �725/506 98/175--�o c j- 26/30 89I185--► e y ILL204/360- 4z' b 0 3 V / O \ / w Prospect 1/2 Q¢ O�31/25 % 1 — 1 �I890s1 46126 1) 1 39125 4/83566/1068 64/3 113 Figure 2 CURRENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC III. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Existing Road Network The Prospect / 1-25 site is located in the northeast corner of the 1-25 — Prospect Road interchange. Major roadways serving the area are Prospect Road, 1-25, and the Frontage Roads paralleling 1-25. Prospect Road is a two-lane east -west arterial roadway. It extends from Fort Collins to the areas east of 1-25. The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour which reduces to 35 miles per hour in the immediate area of 1-25. In the future, Prospect Road is planned as a four -lane arterial. The east and west frontage roads parallel 1-25 and have one lane in each direction. The posted speed limits are 45 miles per hour which reduces to 35 miles per hour on the approaches to Prospect Road. All intersections are under stop sign control throughout the study area. Additionally, virtually all intersection approaches have one approach lane. B. Surrounding Land Uses The Prospect / 1-25 site is currently vacant as is most of the surrounding area. C. Existing Traffic Weekday morning and afternoon peak hour traffic counts were obtained at the 1-25 interchange and frontage road intersections. These counts are presented on Figure 2. Count tabulations are available in Appendix B. 4 Ii. AGENCY DISCUSSIONS Prior to undertaking this study, a scoping session was held with Eric Bracke, City Traffic Engineer. During that discussion, it was determined that a full transportation impact study was appropriate. Key items of agreement and direction are identified below. • An assessment of internal pedestrian, bicycle, and transit levels of service needs to be conducted. • The Prospect Road intersections with the 1-25 ramps, the east and west frontage roads and Carriage Parkway (future) should be investigated during weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. • An assessment of existing and future conditions is appropriate. The appro- priate future time frames were identified as the years 2008 and 2025. • Traffic growth on nearby arterial streets of 2% per year is reasonable to es- timate future background traffic. • Roundabout analyses were requested at both 1-25 ramps under long-term conditions. The above items are included or addressed in the following sections of this report. The City's Transportation Impact Study base assumptions and pedestrian destina- tions forms are attached in Appendix A. 3 VICINITY MAP SCALE-,•=20W , - .......uu.. 1 ZONED ZONED C LARIMER COUNTY Figure 1 2 VICINITY MAP I. INTRODUCTION ' Prospect / 1-25 is a planned mixed -use development along the north side of Prospect ' Road between Interstate 25 (1-25) and the east frontage road in Fort Collins, Colo- rado. A vicinity map is presented on Figure 1. This transportation impact study follows the established guidelines for such studies as ' are applicable and appropriate to the proposed project. The following key steps were undertaken as part of this study. • Obtain current traffic and roadway data in the immediate area of the site. • Evaluate current operations to establish base conditions. • Determine site generated traffic volumes and distribute this traffic to the nearby street system. • Estimate roadway traffic volumes for future conditions. ' • Evaluate operations with Prospect / 1-25 fully operational. Inventory, evaluate, and assess the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit net- works serving the site. • Identify deficiencies and recommend measures to mitigate the impact of ' site generated traffic and enhance the alternate travel mode systems as appropriate. ' Key areas of investigation are documented in the following sections of this transporta- tion impact study. This report is being prepared for submittal to the City as part of the Overall Development Plan. List of Figures Figure1 Vicinity Map...............................................................................................2 Figure 2 Current Peak Hour Traffic.........................................................................5 Figure 3 Current Roadway Geometry ......................................................................7 Figure4 Concept Plan.............................................................................................9 Figure 5 Site Traffic Distribution............................................................................11 Figure 6 Peak Hour Site Traffic.............................................................................12 Figure 7 Short -Term Background Traffic...............................................................14 Figure 8 Long -Term Background Traffic................................................................15 Figure 9 Short -Term Total Traffic..........................................................................16 Figure 10 Long -Term Total Traffic...........................................................................17 Figure 11 Short -Term Roadway Geometry .............................................................19 Figure 12 Long -Term Roadway Geometry ..............................................................20 ' Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................1 II. AGENCY DISCUSSIONS......................................................................................3 III. EXISTING CONDITIONS.......................................................................................4 ' A. Existing Road Network.....................................................................................4 B. Surrounding Land Uses...................................................................................4 ' C. Existing Traffic..................................................................................................4 D. Existing Traffic Operations...............................................................................6 IV. DEVELOPMENT ISSUES......................................................................................8 A. Project Description...........................................................................................8 ' B. Site Traffic........................................................................................................8 C. Trip Distribution..............................................................................................10 V. FUTURE CONDITIONS.......................................................................................10 A. Roadway Improvements................................................................................10 ' B. Background Traffic.........................................................................................13 ' VI. TRAFFIC IMPACTS.............................................................................................13 ' A. Auxiliary Lane Requirements.........................................................................18 B. Background Operating Conditions.................................................................18 ' C. Total Traffic Operating Conditions..................................................................22 D. Roundabout Analysis.....................................................................................26 ' VII. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES..................................................................................26 VIII.BICYCLE FACILITIES.........................................................................................27 IX. TRANSIT.............................................................................................................27 X. CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................28 Transportation Impact Study PROSPECT / 1-25 Fort Collins, Colorado Prepared For: Horton Cattle Co. P.O. Box 517 Eaton, CO 80615 Prepared By: Eugene G. Coppola, P.E. P. O. Box 260027 Littleton, CO 80163 303-792-2450 May 30, 2003