Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGGIE VILLAGE NORTH REDEVELOPMENT - SPAR - SPA130005 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSAggie Village North - Nov. 18, 2013 Did You Receive NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Current NotifiWritten Notification of this Address? Meeting? Name: Email Address: Zip: Yes No Yes ; No 4- S n f�.f. o rq CJ 6 D i �of2 L L'b„c.tiQi1S �7 n U 4 Aggie Village North - Nov. 18, 2013 Did You Receive NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING NotifiWritten Notification of this Current Address? Meeting? Name: Email Address: Zip: Yes No Yes No . / > I k,00 JnIUATL4 rAAJ �C jkl a& l , �f �NLIh �C� 6fG-� . �Vvl 6 95�T 6eLC-7A-C.AD ; So5 zkn, v �3 G I Tk.►iL �C�2� C� �4$E� '�✓� J e A f, . i Vl w r ti e � . ,, v �A..ua-i3lcn.,.k� fS' � L rw�crE S� r � ✓ , CC# OS'�� (C/ I / • Aggie Village North - Nov. 18, 2013 Did You Receive NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING NotifiWritten Notification of this Current Address? Meeting? Name: Email Address: Zip: Yes No Yes No W a l I tQ �� -I „ i U✓J i � VVV✓ ' 1 , Comment (Citizen): If an on -campus stadium moves forward, the Athletic Department said students may be asked to move cars off campus on game days. If this is still the case, AVN residents may have difficulty finding a place to park. Question (Citizen): Would there be fencing? Response (Applicants): A privacy fence will be constructed along the west property line. Security fence will be installed toward the south to prevent midblock crossings of Prospect, and to prevent theft of bikes parked on the south side of AVN. On the east side, once the bicycle/pedestrian underpass is built, the sidewalk from the south will not meet grade until midway to Lake St. Question (Citizen): What is the CSU student fee for parking permits? Response (Applicants): $321 per year for students; this is the same annual rate as parking in the Center Avenue parking structure across the street. Comment (Citizen): The greatest housing need is for sophomores, not freshman or underclassman. Question (Citizen): Will the project address bike/pedestrian/auto traffic at the intersection of Lake St. and Center Ave.? Response (Applicants): CSU has an on -going traffic analysis for the project which addresses impacts to all modes of travel. The data collection is nearly complete and a summary memo will be drafted that is subject to City evaluation as part of the SPAR process. Question (Citizen): Could AVN happen at the same time as an on -campus stadium and the underpass construction? Response (Applicants): Yes, this is a possible scenario considering that bonding will take place in December, followed by the commencement of construction in 1 year and an opening during the Summer 2016. Question (Citizen): The housing density proposed makes sense given the proximity to the MAX terminal. Comment (Applicants): AVN will be constructed to the LEED Gold standard and the existing apartments will be deconstructed. Comment (Citizen): CSU is heading in the right direction with parking management with this project. We suggest that CSU strongly recommend that students don't bring cars to the campus. Comment (Applicants): The single family lots west of AVN are not under CSU control and will not be incorporated into the project. Comment (Citizen): The City would be better off if more projects (the Grove, the Summit) were built to CSU design standards. Comment (Citizen): The City needs to take a "big picture" look at the surrounding area and come up with a better plan and strategies for addressing change. Comment (Citizen): Buildings should be designed with greater heights north of Prospect and Lower heights south of Prospect. Page 3 of 3 graduates and post -doctoral students. The undergraduate residents will include about 500 members of the ICC Community (international and domestic undergraduates that want to live in an international community) and other upper class students. The undergraduates will be housed in the southern buildings; graduates will be to the north. Anticipated parking demand based on CSU past history with this tenant group shows a close match with proposed parking supply on -site and nearby. There are currently 150 parking spaces; about 270 are proposed (72 in a lot on the west side of the parcel; 70 in at -grade "tuck under" parking beneath the buildings; with the remainder in a below -grade parking garage under the building along Lake St. 800 bicycle parking spaces are planned. Questions, Comments & Responses Comment (Citizen): A detached sidewalk would provide a better pedestrian experience — an attached sidewalk feels unsafe for pedestrians considering traffic speeds on Prospect. Question (Citizen): Why don't buildings face Prospect? Response (Applicants): Buildings are oriented to maximize sunlight in south facing lawn areas; this need for livable common open space areas for residents dictated the building locations and orientation. Question (Citizen): What are the proposed building heights? Response (Applicants): There will be a combination of 3, 4, and 5 story structures as shown on the development plans. Comment (Applicant): All residents can buy a CSU parking permit either on -site or in other locations on - campus or at Aggie Village South (AVS). Comment (Applicant): Based on current parking statistics, it is estimated that there will be adequate parking on -site between AVN and AVS (where there is extra capacity) o International students — 26% of those currently in International House have cars. o Remainder of on -campus students — 39% have parking permits, which is reduced from 56% four years ago. Comment (Citizen): using first -year student parking permit rates will underestimate parking needs for AVN (first -year students are in dorm rooms and have meal plans; residents of AVN have apartments with kitchens and will need to shop for groceries). Students also may not drive as much during the week, but will own cars for use on the weekends. Response (Applicants): Many students retain meal cards even though kitchens are available in their units. Close to 11000 students this past year had a meal card even though they were not required to do SO. Comment (Applicant): CSU will provide other parking/transportation options for residents: o CSU exploring on -campus shuttle services with Transfort o Zip cars will be available at AVN o Loaner bikes available on campus Page 2 of 3 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: Aggie Village North DATE: November 18, 2013 PLANNER: Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager NEIGHBORHOOD RESOURCES: Sarah Burnett, Neighborhood Development Review Liaison; Amanda Nagl, Neighborhood Services Administrator PARKING SERVICES: Jamie Moyer, Neighborhood Parking Program Manager The meeting began with Cameron Gloss providing a brief explanation of the City's development review process as it relates to the Colorado statutory standards for public projects, known as the Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) process, as well as an overview of the neighborhood meeting agenda and ground rules of communication. Jamie Moyer provided an overview of the City's recently adopted residential parking permit program (RP3) and those on -going discussions with the Sheely Neighborhood to create a parking permit system. RPYs may be created in neighborhoods where over 50 percent of the responding residents are in favor of the program. The City's decision about whether to grant residents' requests for parking permits will be made after a parking evaluation of that neighborhood is completed. Several questions were raised by attendees regarding the scope of parking restrictions for an RP3 at the Sheely Neighborhood and the scheduled December 5, 2013 residential parking meeting with neighborhood residents. Applicant Presentation Fred Haberecht, Jim Dolack, and Christie Mathews, from Colorado State University and Lou Bieker from 4240 Architecture were present and provided information about the project at Aggie Village North (AVN) and the philosophy behind the University's Campus Master Plan, Housing Master Plan, and the Student Housing Action Plan (SNAP) efforts, and how this project is meeting the cooperative goals of the City and CSU. The site development plan focuses buildings onto Lake as the "active" street, and Prospect as the secondary street. It is envisioned that many tenants will be taking advantage of the MAX Prospect station and internal CSU Circulator and therefore inclined to use Lake Street as a primary pedestrian and bicycle route. Two principal entrance points are provided to AVN: Lake Street on the west, and at the southwest corner of Lake and Center Avenue. Existing mature trees will be retained along the Prospect and Lake frontages to help create attractive streetscapes. The new Aggie Village North will replace the existing facility which has 150 apartment units for families. Existing buildings will be razed and the new project will have 1000 beds in 480 apartment units with kitchens (leased by the bedroom). The student tenant mix will be 75% single undergraduates; 25% Page 1 of 3 cn w CL�' QO Ucj�f•— ZO J U p v U L O LL Q U Z 0 LU V) 0 O U W zLLJ �m O zO Lu Lu J cQc W ~ L H W J H N W ZD v, V = > > un a W 0 Q V) W "' V CD O0 , z p � So w z x CL — W 0 11 Bicycle LOS Worksheet Level of Service — Connectivity Minimum Actual Proposed Base Connectivity: C B B Specific connections to priority sites: Description of Applicable Destination Area Within 1320' Destination Area Classification 1 CSU Campus Institutional C A A 2 Spring Creek Trail Recreation C B B 3 4 II 'I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 University N South cc w m v a� Pitkin I Lake Prospect a� Y ^C, W U n 0 r 2 Spring Creek Traii SCALE: 1 "=500' BICYCLE INFLUENCE AREA — //_LDELICH —7,1 [—ASSOCIATES Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013 Pedestrian LOS Worksheet Project Location Classification: Pedestrian District Description of Destination Level of Service (minimum based on project location classification) Applicable Destination Area street visual Area Within 1320' Classification Directness continudy Crossings gmenties Security CSU Campus Institutional Minimum A A B A A Actual A A A A A Proposed A A A A A 2 Neighborhood to the west Residential Minimum A A B A A Actual A A A A A Proposed A A A A A 3 Neighborhood to the southwest Residential Minimum A A B A A Actual A A B A A Proposed A A B A A 4 Spring Creek Trail Recreational Minimum A A B A A Actual A A B A A Proposed A A B A A 5 Minimum Actual Proposed 6 Minimum Actual Proposed 7 Minimum Actual Proposed 8 Minimum Actual Proposed 9 Minimum Actual Proposed 10 Minimum Actual Proposed University N South m w m m Pitkin Cl Lake j_ _. Prospect c N 3 U U Y 2� J 4 - Spring Creek Trail SCALE: 1"=500' PEDESTRIAN INFLUENCE AREA —/,/ L—DELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013 -7,1 [—ASSOCIATES i' APPENDIX E Lanes and Geometrics Short Total PM 5: Whitcomb Street/Meridian & Lake Street -0► --* 'e- 4- 4\ t ti 1 *' Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4* 4� 44� + r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.973 0.951 0.965 0.850 Fit Protected 0.990 0.995 0.993 0.950 Said. Flow (prot) 0 1794 0 0 1763 0 0 1785 0 1770 1863 1583 Fit Permitted 0.990 0.995 0.993 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1794 0 0 1763 0 0 1785 0 1770 1863 1583 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 693 876 670 233 Travel Time (s) 15.8 19.9 15.2 5.3 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other I' Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report st pm.syn HCM 2010 AWSC Short Total PM 5: Whitcomb Street/Meridian & Lake Street Intersection Intersection Delay, sNeh 16.3 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol,veh/h 40 123 40 25 125 86 19 80 35 127 273 107 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 47 145 47 29 147 101 22 94 41 149 321 126 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 3 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 3 1 1 HCM Control Delay 16.9 18.1 13.8 15.9 HCM LOS C C B C Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLnl SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 14% 20% 11% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 60% 61% 53% 0% 100% 0% Vol Right, % 26% 20% 36% 0% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 134 203 236 127 273 107 LT Vol 80 123 125 0 273 0 Through Vol 35 40 86 0 0 107 RT Vol 19 40 25 127 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 158 239 278 149 321 126 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.327 0.486 0.546 0.303 0.605 0.212 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.456 7.328 7.082 7.291 6.78 6.065 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 481 492 508 493 533 592 Service Time 5.212 5.076 4.83 5.034 4.523 3.808 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.328 0.486 0.547 0.302 0.602 0.213 HCM Control Delay 13.8 16.9 18.1 13.2 19.4 10.4 HCM Lane LOS B C C B C B HCM 95th-tile Q 1.4 2.6 3.2 1.3 4 0.8 Notes — : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report st pm.syn U, Z. Lanes and Geometrics Short Total AM 5: Whitcomb Street/Meridian & Lake Street __* � � � k_ � 4 I /W I i Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 414 4+ +T+ Vi ♦ If Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.986 0.923 0.989 0.850 Flt Protected 0.986 0.994 0.993 0.950 Said. Flow (prot) 0 1811 0 0 1709 0 0 1829 0 1770 1863 1583 At Permitted 0.986 0.994 0.993 0.950 Said. Flow (perm) 0 1811 0 0 1709 0 0 1829 0 1770 1863 1583 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 693 876 670 233 Travel Time (s) 15.8 19.9 15.2 5.3 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report st am.syn HCM 2010 AWSC Short Total AM ' 5: Whitcomb Street/Meridian & Lake Street ' Intersection , Intersection Delay, s/veh 17.9 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol,veh/h 64 142 25 31 76 140 41 224 25 63 81 26 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles, °% 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 75 167 29 36 89 165 48 264 29 74 95 31 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SIB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 3 1 Conflicting Approach Left SIB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SIB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 3 1 1 HCM Control Delay 17.8 17.1 22.4 11.6 HCM LOS C C C B Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, °% 14°% 28°% 13% 100°% 0% 0°% Vol Thru,°% 77°% 61% 31% 0°% 100°% 0°% Vol Right, °% 9°% 11°% 57°% 0°% 0°% 100°% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 290 231 247 63 81 26 LT Vol 224 142 76 0 81 0 Through Vol 25 25 140 0 0 26 RT Vol 41 64 31 63 0 0 Lane Row Rate 341 272 291 74 95 31 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.661 0.536 0.54 0.161 0.193 0.056 Departure Headway (Hd) 6.978 7.104 6.694 7.816 7.302 6.584 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 519 508 538 458 490 542 Service Time 4.729 4.858 4.447 5.579 5.066 4.347 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.657 0.535 0.541 0.162 0.194 0.057 HCM Control Delay 22.4 17.8 17.1 12.1 11.8 9.7 HCM Lane LOS C C C B B A HCM 95th-tile Q 4.8 3.1 3.2 0.6 0.7 0.2 Notes — : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report , st am.syn Lanes and Geometrics Short Total PM 10: Centre Avenue & Lake Street --1► M,� ~ Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 'l� 41 y Ideal Row (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (0r6) 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.959 0.930 At Protected 0.980 0.976 Said. Flow (prot) 1786 0 0 1825 1691 0 Flit Permitted 0.980 0.976 Said. Flow (perm) 1786 0 0 1825 1691 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 876 601 658 Travel Time (s) 19.9 13.7 15.0 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other I , Aggie Village North 12/23013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report st pm.syn HCM 2010 AWSC Short Total PM 10: Centre Avenue & Lake Street Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.7 Intersection LOS B Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Vol, veh/h 214 93 112 166 107 114 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 252 109 132 195 126 134 Number of Lanes 1 0 0 1 1 0 Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Left NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 12.9 13 11.9 HCM LOS B B B Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 Vol Left, % 48% 0% 40% Vol Thru, % 0% 70% 60% Vol Right, % 52% 30% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 221 307 278 LT Vol 0 214 166 Through Vol 114 93 0 RT Vol 107 0 112 Lane Flow Rate 260 361 327 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.392 0.499 0,478 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.43 4.972 5.257 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 663 726 687 Service Time 3.464 3.001 3.288 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0,392 0.497 0.476 HCM Control Delay 11.9 12.9 13 HCM Lane LOS B B B HCM 95th-tile Q 1.9 2.8 2.6 Notes - : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report ' I st pm.syn Lanes and Geometrics Short Total AM 10: Centre Avenue & Lake Street --► �,► 41� f— 11� /01 Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations '* 4 V Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.959 0.916 Flt Protected 0.987 0.982 Satd. Flow (prot) 1786 0 0 1839 1676 0 Flt Permitted 0.987 0.982 Satd. Flow (perm) 1786 0 0 1839 1676 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 876 601 658 Travel Time (s) 19.9 13.7 15.0 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Aggie Village North 12/2312013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report st am.syn HCM 2010 AWSC Short Total AM , 10: Centre Avenue & Lake Street ' Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.9 ' Intersection LOS B Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR ' Vol, veh/h 178 78 62 166 103 171 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 209 92 73 195 121 201 t Number of Lanes 1 0 0 1 1 0 Approach EB WB NB t Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Left NB EB ' Conflicting Lanes Left 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 ' HCM Control Delay 11.7 11.7 12.3 HCM LOS B B B ' Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 Vol Left, % 38% 0% 27% Vol Thru, % 0% 70% 73% Vol Right, % 62% 30% 0% ' Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 274 256 228 LT Vol 0 178 166 ' Through Vol 171 78 0 RT Vol 103 0 62 Lane Flow Rate 322 301 268 ' Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.455 0.42 0.394 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.081 5.024 5.291 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes ' Cap 709 717 681 Service Time HCM Lane WC Ratio 3.108 0.454 3.051 0.42 3.318 0.394 ' HCM Control Delay 12.3 11.7 11.7 HCM Lane LOS B B B HCM 95th-tile 0 2.4 2.1 1.9 t Notes Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Synchro 8 Light Report , Delich Associates st am.syn Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Short Total PM 6: Whitcomb Street & Prospect Road s --. --- Phase Number 2 4 6 8 Movement NBTL EBTL SBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max Maximum Split (s) 40 80 40 80 Maximum Split (%) 33.3% 66.7% 33.3% 66.7% Minimum Split (s) 23 23.5 23 23.5 Yellow Time (s) 3 4 3 4 All -Red Time (s) 2 1.5 2 1.5 Minimum Initial (s) 7 10 7 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 3 3 3 Minimum Gap (s) 3 3 3 3 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 14 54 14 54 End Time (s) 54 14 54 14 Yield/Force Off (s) 49 8.5 49 8.5 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 38 117.5 38 117.5 Local Start Time (s) 0 40 0 40 Local Yield (s) 35 114.5 35 114.5 Local Yield 170(s) 24 103.5 24 103.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 120 Control Type Actuated -Coordinated Natural Cycle 55 Offset 14 (12%), Referenced to phase 4:EBTL and 8:WBTL, Start of Red splits and Phases: 6: Whitcomb Street & Prospect Road tot -004 06 Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Synchro 8 Light Report Delich Associates st pm.syn j g HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Total PM 6: Whitcomb Street & Prospect Road Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 +Ta FT r +T r Volume (vph) 52 723 12 31 898 78 14 4 26 189 7 151 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 10 10 12 10 10 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.93 Flpb, pedbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.94 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1,00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1649 3293 1645 3255 1644 1367 1565 1368 Flt Permitted 0.22 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.78 1.00 0.72 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 376 3293 532 3255 1337 1367 1179 1368 Peak -hour factor, PH 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 59 822 14 35 1020 89 16 5 30 215 8 172 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 23 0 0 76 Lane Group Flow (vph) 59 835 0 35 1104 0 0 21 7 0 223 96 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 5 5 4 22 30 30 22 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4 1 5 22 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 82.3 82.3 82.3 82.3 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 Effective Green, g (s) 83.3 83.3 83.3 83.3 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 261 2285 369 2259 314 321 277 321 v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 c0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 0.07 0.02 0.01 c0.19 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.23 0.37 0.09 0.49 0.07 0.02 0.81 0.30 Uniform Delay, dl 6.7 7.5 6.0 8.5 35.7 35.3 43.3 37.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.66 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.0 15.5 0.5 Delay (s) 8.7 8.0 5.1 6.3 35.8 35.3 58.8 38.3 Level of Service A A A A D D E D Approach Delay (s) 8.0 6.3 35.5 49.9 Approach LOS A A D D Intersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report ' I st pm.syn ' Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Short Total AM 6: Whitcomb Street & Prospect Road Phase Number .t 2 --► 4 t 6 s- 8 Movement NBTL EBTL SBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max Maximum Split (s) 26 84 26 84 Maximum Split (%) 23.6% 76.4% 23.6% 76.4% Minimum Split (s) 23 23.5 23 23.5 Yellow Time (s) 3 4 3 4 All -Red Time (s) 2 1.5 2 1.5 Minimum Initial (s) 7 10 7 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 3 3 3 Minimum Gap (s) 3 3 3 3 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 38 64 38 64 End Time (s) 64 38 64 38 YeldtForce Off (s) 59 32.5 59 32.5 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 48 21.5 48 21.5 Local Start Time (s) 0 26 0 26 Local Yield (s) 21 104.5 21 104.5 Local Yield 170(s) 10 93.5 10 93.5 Intersection Summa Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated -Coordinated Natural Cycle 50 Offset 38 (35%), Referenced to phase 4:EBTL and B:WBTL, Start of Red Splits and Phases: 6: Whitcomb Street & Prospect Road a� p2 —�01e4 1-06 4 08 Aggie Village North 12/24/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report st am.syn HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Total AM 6: Whitcomb Street & Prospect Road Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +11► +'+ 4 r 4 r Volume (vph) 78 921 14 32 427 166 3 10 25 43 17 47 Ideal Row(vphpl) 4900 1900 1900. 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 10 10 12 10 10 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, pedrbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.95 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1646 3295 1651 3138 1709 1313 1596 1409 Flt Permitted 0.40 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.78 1.00 Satd Flow (perm) 688 3295 451 3138 1630 1313 1288 1409 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph) 88 1035 16 36 480 187 3 11 28 48 19 53 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 24 0 0 0 25 0 0 48 Lane Group Flow (vph) 88 1050 0 36 643 0 0 14 3 0 67 5 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 1 1 3 18 38 38 18 Confl Bikes (#/hr) 1 2 16 1 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 89.4 89.4 89.4 89.4 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 Effective Green, g (s) 90.4 90.4 90.4 90.4 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 565 2707 370 2578 164 132 129 142 v/s Ratio Prot c0.32 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.08 0.01 0.00 c0.05 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.16 0.39 0.10 0.25 0.09 0.02 0.52 0.04 Uniform Delay, dl 2.0 2.6 1.9 2.2 44.8 44.6 46.9 44.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 2.89 3.27 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 3.5 0.1 Delay (s) 2.6 3.0 6.0 7.4 45.1 44.6 50.4 44.7 Level of Service A A A A D D D D Approach Delay (s) 3.0 7.3 44.8 47.9 Approach LOS A A D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 8.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Aggie Village North 12/24/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report ' st am.syn ' Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Short Total PM 9: Centre Avenue & Prospect Road T ,` -* 4 l - Phase Number 2 3 4 6 7 8 Movement NBTL WBL EBTL SBTL EBL WBTL Lead]Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize Recall Mode None None C-Max None None C-Max Maximum Split (s) 40 28 52 40 11 69 Maximum Split (%) 33.3% 23.3% 43.3% 33.3% 9.2% 57.5% Minimum Split (s) 23 8 23.5 23 8 23.5 Yellow Time (s) 3 3 4 3 3 4 All -Red Time (s) 2 1 1.5 2 1 1.5 Minimum Initial (s) 7 4 10 7 4 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 Minimum Gap (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 16 56 84 16 56 67 End Time (s) 56 84 16 56 67 16 Yield/Force Off (s) 51 80 10.5 51 63 10.5 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 40 80 119.5 40 63 119.5 Local Start Time (s) 0 40 68 0 40 51 Local Yield (s) 35 64 114.5 35 47 114.5 Local Yield 170(s) 24 64 103.5 24 47 103.5 Intersection Summa Cycle Length 120 Control Type Actuated -Coordinated Natural Cycle 60 Offset: 16 (13%), Referenced to phase 4:EBTL and 8:WBTL, Start of Red Splits and Phases: 9: Centre Avenue & Prospect Road 0 02 'r03 91 06 07 08 11 Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report st pm.syn HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Short Total PM ' 9: Centre Avenue & Prospect Road Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations lj fiF T114 '� + r + r Volume (veh/h) 44 822 84 220 839 64 73 98 288 67 164 89 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 ' Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(AjbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 0.93 0.84 0.92 0.78 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In 186.3 186.3 190.0 186.3 186.3 190.0 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 443 2037 198 560 2219 162 197 367 262 240 367 245 , Arrive On Green 0.08 1.00 1.00 0.08 0.65 0.64 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 3334 324 1774 3424 251 1101 1863 1329 1124 1863 1241 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 47 494 476 237 491 477 78 105 50 72 176 16 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hAn 1774 1863 1796 1774 1863 1811 1101 1863 1329 1124 1863 1241 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9 0.0 0.0 3.9 12.5 12.6 6.7 4.8 3.1 5.8 8.3 1.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.9 0.0 0.0 3.9 12.5 12.6 15.1 4.8 3.1 10.6 8.3 1.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 443 1138 1097 560 1207 1174 197 367 262 240 367 245 V/C Ratio(X) 0.11 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.29 0.19 0.30 0.48 0.07 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 516 1138 1097 870 1207 1174 378 674 481 425 674 449 ' HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(1) 0.94 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.4 0.0 0.0 4.0 8.4 8.4 42.1 34.0 33.3 38.5 35.4 32.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 1.1 1.2 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.3 0.4 0.3 0.7 1.0 0.1 ' Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 We Back of Q (50%), vehAn 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.3 5.2 5.1 1.9 2.2 1.0 1.7 4.0 0.3 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 6.5 1.1 1.2 4.5 9.4 9.5 43.4 34.4 33.7 39.2 36.4 32.6 t Lane Grp LOS A A A A A A D C C D D C Approach Vol, veh/h 1017 1205 233 264 Approach Delay, sNeh 1.4 8.5 37.3 36.9 ' Approach LOS A A D D Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 2 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.9 65.3 10.6 69.0 23.6 23.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 46.5 24.0 63.5 35.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 2.9 2.0 5.9 14.6 17.1 12.6 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 8.9 0.7 9.0 1.6 1.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 11.1 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Aggie Village North 12/2312013 Synchro 8 Light Report Delich Associates st pm.syn �;T Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Short Total AM 9: Centre Avenue & Prospect Road Phase Number 2 3 4 6 7 8 Movement NBTL WBL EBTL SBTL EBL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize Recall Mode None None C-Max None None C-Max Maximum Split (s) 34 18 58 34 11 65 Maximum Split (%) 30.9% 16.4% 52.7% 30.9% 10.0% 59.1% Minimum Split (s) 23 8 23.5 23 8 23.5 Yellow Time (s) 3 3 4 3 3 4 All -Red Time (s) 2 1 1.5 2 1 1.5 Minimum Initial (s) 7 4 10 7 4 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 Minimum Gap (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 79 3 21 79 3 14 End Time (s) 3 21 79 3 14 79 Yield/Force Off (s) 108 17 73.5 108 10 73.5 YieldtForce Off 170(s) 97 17 62.5 97 10 62.5 Local Start Time (s) 0 34 52 0 34 45 Local Yield (s) 29 48 104.5 29 41 104.5 Local Yield 170(s) 18 48 93.5 18 41 93.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated -Coordinated Natural Cycle 60 Offset: 79 (72%), Referenced to phase 4:EBTL and 8:WBTL, Start of Red Splits and Phases: 9: Centre Avenue & Prospect Road r 02 4e03 ­1"04 F 07 ; 081=5====r__M 8 I' Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report st am.syn HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Short Total AM 9: Centre Avenue & Prospect Road t -♦ --v '< t 4 t IN. 1.41 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ►j 0 ►j +T* T r + r Volume (veh/h) 148 732 122 182 543 129 67 227 217 32 70 27 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 0.87 0.73 0.94 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In 186.3 186.3 190.0 186.3 186.3 190.0 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 532 1858 289 455 1790 378 277 402 250 150 402 342 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.59 0.58 0.08 0.60 0.59 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 3138 488 1774 2971 627 1141 1863 1155 929 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 174 511 484 214 400 374 79 267 119 38 82 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehAUln 1774 1863 1763 1774 1863 1735 1141 1863 1155 929 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.7 15.5 15.6 4.4 10.9 11.0 6.1 13.2 9.0 3.9 3.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.7 15.5 15.6 4.4 10.9 11.0 9.8 13.2 9.0 17.1 3.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.36 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 532 1103 1044 455 1122 1045 277 402 250 150 402 342 V/C Ratio(X) 0.33 0.46 0.46 0.47 0.36 0.36 0.29 0.66 0.48 0.25 0.20 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 554 1103 1044 583 1122 1045 371 556 345 227 556 473 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Fifter(I) 0.93 0.93 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Unfform Delay (d), stveh 7.1 11.5 11.6 8.1 10.1 10.2 36.3 36.0 34.4 43.9 32.3 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 1.3 1.4 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.6 1.9 1.4 0.9 0.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 We Back of Q (500/6), vehAn 1.4 6.6 6.4 1.6 4.6 4.4 1.8 6.2 2.7 1.0 1.7 0.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 7.5 12.8 13,0 8.8 11.0 11.2 36.8 37.9 35.8 44.7 32.5 0.0 Lane Grp LOS A B B A B B D D D D C Approach Vol, veh/h 1169 988 465 120 Approach Delay, s/veh 12.1 10.6 37.2 36.4 Approach LOS B B D D Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 2 6 Phis Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.7 64.0 10.8 65.0 25.7 25.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 52.5 14.0 59.5 29.0 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 5.7 17.6 6.4 13.0 15.2 19.1 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.1 7.7 0.4 7.9 1.8 1.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrs Delay 16.9 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Synchro 8 Light Report Delich Associates st am.syn APPENDIX D Lanes and Geometrics Short Bkgrd PM 5: Whitcomb Street/Meridian & Lake Street t --* --v "r 4--- t 4% t �► 1 -/ Lane GroLp EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4� 4+ 41* 1 T r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fed Bike Factor Frt 0.973 0.949 0.976 0.850 Flt Protected 0.990 0.996 0.992 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1794 0 0 1761 0 0 1803 0 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.990 0.996 0.992 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1794 0 0 1761 0 0 1803 0 1770 1863 1583 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 693 876 670 233 Travel Time (s) 15.8 19.9 15.2 5.3 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report sb pm.syn 1 I j G HCM 2010 AWSC Short Bkgrd PM 5: Whitcomb Street/Meridian & Lake Street Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 15.6 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol,veh/h 40 118 40 18 122 86 19 80 21 127 273 107 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 47 139 47 21 144 101 22 94 25 149 321 126 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 3 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 3 1 1 HCM Control Delay 16.1 16.8 13.2 15.4 HCM LOS C C B C Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 16% 20% 8% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 67% 60% 54% 0% 100% 0% Vol Right, % 17% 20% 38% 0% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 120 198 226 127 273 107 LT Vol 80 118 122 0 273 0 Through Vol 21 40 86 0 0 107 RT Vol 19 40 18 127 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 141 233 266 149 321 126 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.29 0.466 0.513 0.297 0.592 0.207 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.399 7.196 6.945 7.148 6.638 5.924 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 486 501 518 504 543 605 Service Time 5.148 4.936 4.685 4.885 4.375 3.661 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.29 0.465 0.514 0.296 0.591 0.208 HCM Control Delay 13.2 16.1 16.8 12.9 18.6 10.2 HCM Lane LOS B C C B C B HCM 95th-tile Q 1.2 2.4 2.9 1.2 3.8 0.8 Notes Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report sb pm.syn Lanes and Geometrics Short Bkgrd AM 5: Whitcomb Street/Meridian & Lake Street _ '� r�4,-_ '. T t ti 4 d Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4� 4+ 4� + r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.985 0.918 0.990 0.850 Fit Protected 0.986 0.996 0.993 0.950 Said. Flow (prot) 0 1809 0 0 1703 0 0 1831 0 1770 1863 1583 At Permitted 0.986 0.996 0.993 0.950 Said. Flow (perm) 0 1809 0 0 1703 0 0 1831 0 1770 1863 1583 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 693 876 670 233 Travel Time (s) 15.8 19.9 15.2 5.3 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report ' I sb am. syn 4- ¢ 11 ' HCM 2010 AWSC Short Bkgrd AM 5: Whitcomb Street/Meridian & Lake Street Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 17.1 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR ' Vol,veh/h 64 141 25 19 72 140 41 224 22 63 81 26 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ' Mvmt Flow 75 166 29 22 85 165 48 264 26 74 95 31 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 ' Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 3 1 ' Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 3 1 1 HCM Control Delay 17.3 15.7 21.4 11.4 HCM LOS C C C B Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLnl SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 14% 28% 8% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 78% 61% 31% 0% 100% 0% Vol Right, % 8% 11% 61% 0% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 287 230 231 63 81 26 ' LT Vol 224 141 72 0 81 0 Through Vol 22 25 140 0 0 26 RT Vol 41 64 19 63 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 338 271 272 74 95 31 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.646 0.527 0.497 0.158 0.19 0.055 Departure Headway (Hd) 6.883 7.007 6.59 7.69 7.177 6.46 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 523 514 546 465 499 553 ' Service Time HCM Lane WC Ratio 4.629 0.646 4.757 0.527 4.342 0.498 5.447 0.159 4.934 0.19 4.216 0.056 HCM Control Delay 21.4 17.3 15.7 11.9 11.6 9.6 HCM Lane LOS C C C B B A HCM 95th-tile Q 4.6 3 2.7 0.6 0.7 0.2 Notes - : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined I' Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report sb am.syn II ¢15' Lanes and Geometrics Short Bkgrd PM 10: Centre Avenue & Lake Street —10. ',�* ~ Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 14 4 y Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.965 0.919 Flt Protected 0.980 0.981 Satd. Flow (prot) 1798 0 0 1825 1679 0 Flt Permitted 0.980 0.981 Satd. Flow (perm) 1798 0 0 1825 1679 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 876 601 658 Travel Time (s) 19.9 13.7 15.0 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report ' sb pm.syn Z. I HCM 2010 AWSC Short Bkgrd PM 10: Centre Avenue & Lake Street Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.6 Intersection LOS B Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Vol, veh/h 213 75 112 163 75 114 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 251 88 132 192 88 134 Number of Lanes 1 0 0 1 1 0 Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Left NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 11.7 12.2 10.7 HCM LOS B B B Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 Vol Left, % 40% 0% 41% Vol Thru, % 0% 74% 59% Vol Right, % 60% 26% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 189 288 275 LT Vol 0 213 163 Through Vol 114 75 0 RT Vol 75 0 112 Lane Flow Rate 222 339 324 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X� 0.319 0.448 0.449 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.165 4.757 4.994 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 687 749 715 Service Time 3.262 2.84 3.08 HCM Lane WC Ratio 0,323 0.453 0.453 HCM Control Delay 10.7 11.7 12.2 HCM Lane LOS B B B HCM 95th-tile Q 1.4 2.3 2.3 Notes Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates M Synchro 8 Light Report sb pm.syn Lanes and Geometrics Short Bkgrd AM 10-. Centre Avenue & Lake Street --* ~i 41� ~ 4\ 1* Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations '+ 4 y Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.970 0.914 Flt Protected 0.987 0.982 Satd. Flow (prot) 1807 0 0 1839 1672 0 Flt Permitted 0.987 0.982 Satd. Flow (perm) 1807 0 0 1839 1672 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 876 601 658 Travel Time (s) 19.9 13.7 15.0 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report ' I sb am.syn 40 11 I 1 I [1 1 I I 1 HCM 2010 AWSC Short Bkgrd AM 10: Centre Avenue & Lake Street Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.3 Intersection LOS B Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Vol, veh/h 176 50 62 165 96 171 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 207 59 73 194 113 201 Number of Lanes 1 0 0 1 1 0 Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Left NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 10.9 11.3 11.6 HCM LOS B B B Vol Left, % Vol Thru, % Vol Right, % Sign Control Traffic Vol by Lane LT Vol Through Vol RT Vol Lane Flow Rate Geometry Grp Degree of Util (X) Departure Headway (Hd) Convergence, Y/N Cap Service Time HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th-tile 0 NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 36% 0% 27% 0% 78% 73% 64% 22% 0% Stop Stop Stop 267 226 227 0 176 165 171 50 0 96 0 62 314 266 267 1 1 1 0.426 0.364 0.379 4.887 4.928 5.103 Yes Yes Yes 729 721 697 2.975 3.025 3.199 0.431 0.369 0.383 11.6 10.9 11.3 B B B 2.1 1.7 1.8 ' - : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Synchro 8 Light Report Delich Associates sb am.syn i 39 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Short Bkgrd PM 6: Whitcomb Street & Prospect Road Phase Number 2 4 6 8 Movement NBTL EBTL SBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max Maximum Split (s) 40 80 40 80 Maximum Split (%) 33.3% 66.7% 33.3% 66.7% Minimum Split (s) 23 23.5 23 23.5 Yellow Time (s) 3 4 3 4 All -Red Time (s) 2 1.5 2 1.5 Minimum Initial (s) 7 10 7 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 3 3 3 Minimum Gap (s) 3 3 3 3 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 14 54 14 54 End Time (s) 54 14 54 14 Yield/Force Off (s) 49 8.5 49 8.5 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 38 117.5 38 117.5 Local Start Time (s) 0 40 0 40 Local Yield (s) 35 114.5 35 114.5 Local Yield 170(s) 24 103.5 24 103.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 120 Control Type Actuated -Coordinated Natural Cycle 50 Offset: 14 (12%), Referenced to phase 4:EBTL and 8:WBTL, Start of Red Splits and Phases: 6: Whitcomb Street & Prospect Road 02 4 4- -or, it 08 Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report , sb pm.syn 32 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Bkgrd PM 6: Whitcomb Street & Prospect Road ' -* "V 4'� ~ 4% t ti 1 1'* Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WEIR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations I TT► I ?T+ +T r 4 r Volume (vph) 38 723 12 31 898 78 14 4 26 189 7 144 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 10 10 12 10 10 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' Frpb, pedbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.93 Flpb, pedbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.94 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1649 3293 1645 3255 1644 1367 1565 1368 Flt Permitted 0.22 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.78 1.00 0.72 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 376 3293 532 3255 1337 1367 1179 1368 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 43 822 14 35 1020 89 16 5 30 215 8 164 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 23 0 0 73 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 835 0 35 1104 0 0 21 7 0 223 91 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 5 5 4 22 30 30 22 Confl. Bikes (Mr) 4 1 5 22 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm ' Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 82.3 82.3 82.3 82.3 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 ' Effective Green, g (s) 83.3 83.3 83.3 83.3 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 261 2285 369 2259 314 321 277 321 v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 c0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.07 0.02 0.01 c0.19 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.16 0.37 0.09 0.49 0.07 0.02 0.81 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 6.3 7.5 6.0 8.5 35.7 35.3 43.3 37.6 ' Progression Factor Incremental Delay, d2 1.00 1.4 1.00 0.5 0.77 0.5 0.66 0.7 1.00 0.1 1.00 0.0 1.00 15.5 1.00 0.5 Delay (s) 7.7 8.0 5.1 6.4 35.8 35.3 58.8 38.1 Level of Service A A A A D D E D ' Approach Delay (s) 8.0 6.3 35.5 50.0 Approach LOS A A D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group ' Aggie Village North 12/2312013 Synchro 8 Light Report Delich Associates sb pm.syn Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Short Bkgrd AM 6: Whitcomb Street & Prospect Road Phase Number 2 4 6 8 Movement NBTL EBTL SBTL WBTL LeadlLag Lead -Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max Maximum Split (s) 26 84 26 84 Maximum Split (%) 23.6% 76.4% 23.6% 76.4% Minimum Split (s) 23 23.5 23 23.5 Yellow Time (s) 3 4 3 4 All -Red Time (s) 2 1.5 2 1.5 Minimum Initial (s) 7 10 7 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 3 3 3 Minimum Gap (s) 3 3 3 3 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 38 64 38 64 End Time (s) 64 38 64 38 Yield/Force Off (s) 59 32.5 59 32.5 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 48 21.5 48 21.5 Local Start Time (s) 0 26 0 26 Local Yield (s) 21 104.5 21 104.5 Local Yield 170(s) 10 93.5 10 93.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated -Coordinated Natural Cycle 50 Offset 38 (35%), Referenced to phase 4:EBTL and 8: WBTL, Start of Red Splits and Phases: 6: Whitcomb Street & Prospect Road Al I mil Itoz �06 Aggie Village North 12/2412013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report sb am.syn HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Short Bkgrd AM 6: Whitcomb Street & Prospect Road -' -. 'e- 6-- 4 t ti 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR ' Lane Configurations 0 +T+ 4 r 4 r Volume (vph) 75 921 14 32 427 166 3 10 25 43 17 35 Ideal Row (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 10 10 12 10 10 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' Frpb, pedbbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.95 Flpb, pedbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1646 3295 1651 3138 1709 1313 1596 1409 Flt Permitted 0.40 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.78 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 688 3295 451 3138 1630 1313 1288 1409 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Adj. Flow (vph) 84 1035 16 36 480 187 3 11 28 48 19 39 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 24 0 0 0 25 0 0 35 Lane Group Flow (vph) 84 1050 0 36 643 0 0 14 3 0 67 4 Confl. Peds. (#!hr) 3 1 1 3 18 38 38 18 Confl. Bikes (#Ihr) 1 2 16 1 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 89.4 89.4 89.4 89.4 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 ' Effective Green, g (s) 90.4 90.4 90.4 90.4 11.1 11.1 11.1 11.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 565 2707 370 2578 164 132 129 142 v/s Ratio Prot c0.32 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.08 0.01 0.00 c0.05 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.39 0.10 0.25 0.09 0.02 0.52 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 2.0 2.6 1.9 2.2 44.8 44.6 46.9 44.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 2.91 3.28 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 3.5 0.1 Delay (s) 2.5 3.0 6.0 7.4 45.1 44.6 50.4 44.7 Level of Service A A A A D D D D ' Approach Delay (s) 3.0 7.4 44.8 48.3 Approach LOS A A D D Intersection Summary ' HCM 2000 Control Delay 7.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.7% ICU Level of Service B ' Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Aggie Village North 12/24/2013 Synchro 8 Light Report Delich Associates so am. syn -SS Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Short Bkgrd PM 9: Centre Avenue & Prospect Road s Phase Number 2 3 4 6 7 8 Movement NBTL WBL EBTL SBTL EBL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize Recall Mode None None C-Max None None C-Max Maximum Split (s) 40 28 52 40 11 69 Maximum Split (%) 33.3% 23.3% 43.3% 33.3% 9.2% 57.5% Minimum Split (s) 23 8 23.5 23 8 23.5 Yellow Time (s) 3 3 4 3 3 4 All -Red Time (s) 2 1 1.5 2 1 1.5 Minimum Initial (s) 7 4 10 7 4 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 Minimum Gap (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 16 56 84 16 56 67 End Time (s) 56 84 16 56 67 16 l ield/Force Off (s) 51 80 10.5 51 63 10.5 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 40 80 119.5 40 63 119.5 Local Start Time (s) 0 40 68 0 40 51 Local Yield (s) 35 64 114.5 35 47 114.5 Local Yield 170(s) 24 64 103.5 24 47 103.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 120 Control Type Actuated -Coordinated Natural Cycle 60 Offset: 16 (13%), Referenced to phase 4:EBTL and 8:WBTL, Start of Red Splits and Phases: 9: Centre Avenue & Prospect Road 4 02 4e03 =4 • 06 07 08 Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report '' sb pm.syn 11 I 11 1 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Short Bkgrd PM 9: Centre Avenue & Prospect Road Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 f l► + r + if Volume (veh/h) 44 822 84 220 839 37 73 93 288 52 161 89 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 0.93 0.84 0.91 0.78 Parking Bus Acij 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/WIn 186.3 186.3 190.0 186.3 186.3 190.0 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 457 2044 199 561 2304 97 197 363 259 241 363 242 Arrive On Green 0.08 1.00 1.00 0.08 0.65 0.64 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 3334 324 1774 3546 149 1103 1863 1326 1126 1863 1238 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 47 494 476 237 474 466 78 100 50 56 173 16 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1863 1796 1774 1863 1832 1103 1863 1326 1126 1863 1238 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9 0.0 0.0 3.9 11.9 11.9 6.7 4.5 3.1 4.4 8.2 1.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.9 0.0 0.0 3.9 11.9 11.9 14.9 4.5 3.1 9.0 8.2 1.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 457 1142 1101 561 1210 1190 197 363 259 241 363 242 V/C Ratio(X) 0.10 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.28 0.19 0.23 0.48 0.07 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 530 1142 1101 873 1210 1190 382 675 481 430 675 449 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.94 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.3 0.0 0.0 4.0 8.2 8.2 42.1 34.0 33.4 37.8 35.4 32.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 1.1 1.2 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 1.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),stveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/In 0.3 0.4 0A 1.3 4.8 4.7 1.9 2.1 1.0 1.3 3.9 0.3 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 6.4 1.1 1.2 4.5 9.1 9.2 43.3 34.4 33.8 38.3 36.4 32.7 Lane Grp LOS A A A A A A D C C D D C Approach Vol, veh/h 1017 1177 228 245 Approach Delay, s/veh 1.4 8.2 37.3 36.6 Approach LOS A A D D Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 2 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.9 65.4 10.6 69.0 23.4 23.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 46.5 24.0 63.5 35.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 2.9 2.0 5.9 13.9 16.9 11.0 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 8.6 0.7 8.7 1.5 1.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctri Delay 10.7 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes ' Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report sb pm.syn ' i -15 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Short Bkgrd AM 9: Centre Avenue & Prospect Road xt Phase Number 2 3 4 6 7 8 Movement NBTL WBL EBTL SBTL EBL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize Recall Mode None None C-Max None None C-Max Maximum Split (s) 34 18 58 34 11 65 Maximum Split (%) 30.9% 16.4% 52.7% 30.9% 10.0% 59.1% Minimum Split (s) 23 8 23.5 23 8 23.5 Yellow Time (s) 3 3 4 3 3 4 All -Red Time (s) 2 1 1.5 2 1 1.5 Minimum Initial (s) 7 4 10 7 4 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 Minimum Gap (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 79 3 21 79 3 14 End Time (s) 3 21 79 3 14 79 Yeld/Force Off (s) 108 17 73.5 108 10 73.5 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 97 17 62.5 97 10 62.5 Local Start Time (s) 0 34 52 0 34 45 Local Yield (s) 29 48 104.5 29 41 104.5 Local Yield 170(s) 18 48 93.5 18 41 93.5 Intersection Summa Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated -Coordinated Natural Cycle 60 Offset: 79 (72%), Referenced to phase 4:EBTL and 8:WBTL, Start of Red Splits and Phases: 9: Centre Avenue & Prospect Road Jt02 • a3 0-04 1Ro6 J 07 TM VV Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report ' I sb am. syn 3Z_ I HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Short Bkgrd AM 9: Centre Avenue & Prospect Road t -0- --v ~ � 4\ t ti 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 0 + f ♦ r Volume(veh/h) 148 732 122 182 543 123 67 226 217 9 65 27 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(AjbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 0.86 0.71 0.93 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/hM 186.3 186.3 190.0 186.3 186.3 190.0 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 552 1917 298 470 1862 375 255 363 218 130 363 309 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.61 0.60 0.08 0.62 0.61 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.00 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 3138 488 1774 2998 604 1128 1863 1118 928 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 174 511 484 214 397 371 79 266 118 11 76 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehhiAn 1774 1863 1763 1774 1863 1740 1128 1863 1118 928 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.4 14.3 14.4 4.0 10.0 10.1 6.2 13.1 9.3 1.1 3.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.4 14.3 14.4 4.0 10.0 10.1 9.5 13.1 9.3 14.2 3.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.35 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 552 1138 1077 470 1157 1080 255 363 218 130 363 309 V/C Ratio(X) 0.32 0.45 0.45 0.46 0.34 0.34 0.31 0.73 0.54 0.08 0.21 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 580 1138 1077 608 1157 1080 383 573 344 235 573 487 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.93 0.93 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.2 10.2 10.3 7.0 8.9 9.0 36.9 36.8 35.3 43.5 32.9 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 1.2 1.3 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.7 2.9 2.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °kite Back of Q (50%), vehAn 1.2 5.9 5.8 1.5 4.1 3.9 1.8 6.3 2.7 0.3 1.6 0.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 6.5 11.4 11.5 7.7 9.7 9.9 37.6 39.7 37.4 43.8 33.2 0.0 Lane Grp LOS A B B A A A D D D D C Approach Vol, veh/h 1169 982 463 87 Approach Delay, s/veh 10.7 9.3 38.8 34.5 Approach LOS B A D C Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 2 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.4 64.0 10.4 65.0 23.0 23.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 52.5 14.0 59.5 29.0 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 5.4 16.4 6.0 12.1 15.1 16.2 Green Ext Time (pc), s 0.1 7.6 0.4 7.8 1.7 1.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctri Delay 15.8 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report sb am.syn APPENDIX C 1 ' Table 4-3 Fort Collins (GMA and City Limits) Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) Land Use (from structure plan) Other corridors within: Low density Intersection type Commercial Mixed use mixed use All other corridors districts residential areas Signalized intersections D E' D D (overall) Any Leg E E D E Any Movement E E D E Stop sign control N/A F" F" E (arterial/collector or local — any approach leg) Stop sign control N/A C C C (arterial/arterial, arterial/collector, or collector/local—any approach le mitigating measures required "" considered normal in an urban environment 11 11 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ' I Level -of -Service Average Total Delay sec/veh A < 10 B >10and <15 c > 15 and < 25 D > 25 and < 35 E > 35 and < 50 F > 50 11 11 11 11 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 11 Level -of -Service Average Total Delay sec/veh A <10 > 10 and < 20 B c > 20 and < 35 D > 35 and < 55 E > 55 and < 80 F > 80 11 11 11 1 i 1 1 Lanes and Geometrics Recent PM 5: Whitcomb Street/Meridian & Lake Street --* --v 4 '- 4Q 4% t /W �► ♦ -r Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4* 4* 4 ♦ r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (0r6) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fed Bike Factor Frt 0.973 0.949 0.976 0.850 At Protected 0.990 0.996 0.992 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1794 0 0 1761 0 0 1803 0 1770 1863 1583 Fit Permitted 0.990 0.996 0.992 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1794 0 0 1761 0 0 1803 0 1770 1863 1583 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 693 876 670 233 Travel Time (s) 15.8 19.9 15.2 5.3 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Aggie Village North 12/23l2013 Synchro 8 Light Report Delich Associates recent pm.syn Z� HCM 2010 AWSC Recent PM , 5: Whitcomb Street/Meridian & Lake Street ' Intersection ' Intersection Delay, s/veh 14.7 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol,veh/h 39 115 39 17 118 82 18 78 20 122 265 104 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 46 135 46 20 139 96 21 92 24 144 312 122 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 3 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 3 1 1 HCM Control Delay 15.4 15.8 12.7 14.5 HCM LOS C C B B Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 16% 20% 8% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 67% 60% 54% 0% 100% 0% Vol Right, % 17% 20% 38% 0% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 116 193 217 122 265 104 LT Vol 78 115 118 0 265 0 Through Vol 20 39 82 0 0 104 RT Vol 18 39 17 122 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 136 227 255 144 312 122 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.275 0.446 0.485 0.277 0.558 0.195 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.26 7.077 6.84 7.075 6.566 5.852 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 495 511 528 511 552 617 Service Time 4.989 4.793 4.555 4.775 4.266 3.552 HCM Lane WC Ratio 0.275 0.444 0.483 0.282 0.565 0.198 HCM Control Delay 12.7 15.4 15.8 12.5 17.2 10 HCM Lane LOS B C C B C A HCM 95th-tile Q 1.1 2.3 2.6 1.1 3.4 0.7 Notes — : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report ' I recent pm.syn Lanes and Geometrics Recent AM 5: Whitcomb Street/Meridian & Lake Street 4,- t .4\ t 4/ Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 41� 4 + r Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 Storage Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 Lane U61. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Fri 0.986 0.918 0.990 0.850 Flt Protected 0.986 0.996 0.993 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1811 0 0 1703 0 0 1831 0 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.986 0.996 0.993 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1811 0 0 1703 0 0 1831 0 1770 1863 1583 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 693 876 670 233 Travel Time (s) 15.8 19.9 15.2 5.3 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other I' Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report recent am.syn HCM 2010 AWSC Recent AM 5: Whitcomb Street/Meridian & Lake Street Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 16.1 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol,veh/h 62 137 24 18 70 135 40 217 21 59 79 25 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 73 161 28 21 82 159 47 255 25 69 93 29 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 3 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 3 1 1 HCM Control Delay 16.4 14.9 19.8 11.2 HCM LOS C B C B Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLnl SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 14% 28% 8% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 78% 61% 31% 0% 100% 0% Vol Right, % 8% 11% 61% 0% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 278 223 223 59 79 25 LT Vol 217 137 70 0 79 0 Through Vol 21 24 135 0 0 25 RT Vol 40 62 18 59 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 327 262 262 69 93 29 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of UtiI (X) 0.615 0.501 0.471 0.146 0.182 0.052 Departure Headway (Hd) 6.764 6.877 6.461 7.547 7.035 6.318 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 533 525 556 475 509 566 Service Time 4.504 4.621 4.205 5.294 4.782 4.065 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0,614 0.499 0,471 0.145 0.183 0.051 HCM Control Delay 19.8 16.4 14.9 11.6 11.4 9.4 HCM Lane LOS C C B B B A HCM 95th-tile Q 4.1 2.8 2.5 0.5 0.7 0.2 Notes — : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report ' recent am.syn z4 1 Lanes and Geometrics Recent PM 10: Centre Avenue & Lake Street ~ 41 /, Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� 4 y Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.965 0.918 Flt Protected 0.980 0.981 Satd. Flow (prot) 1798 0 0 1825 1678 0 Flt Permitted 0.980 0.981 Said. Flow (perm) 1798 0 0 1825 1678 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 876 601 658 Travel Time (s) 19.9 13.7 15.0 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Aggie Village North 12/2312013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report recent pm.syn HCM 2010 AWSC Recent PM 10: Centre Avenue & Lake Street Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.2 Intersection LOS B Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Vol, veh/h 207 72 106 158 71 109 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 244 85 125 186 84 128 Number of Lanes 1 0 0 1 1 0 Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Left NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 11.3 11.7 10.4 HCM LOS B B B Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 Vol Left, % 39% 0% 40% Vol Thru, % 0% 74% 60% Vol Right, % 61% 26% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 180 279 264 LT Vol 0 207 158 Through Vol 109 72 0 RT Vol 71 0 106 Lane Flow Rate 212 328 311 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.3 0.429 0.426 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.103 4.706 4.943 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 697 758 721 Service Time 3.191 2.779 3.019 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.304 0.433 0.431 HCM Control Delay 10.4 11.3 11.7 HCM Lane LOS B B B HCM 95th-tile Q 1.3 2.2 2.1 Notes - : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates 1 Synchro 8 Light Report ' recent pm.syn Z Z I , Lanes and Geometrics Recent AM 10: Centre Avenue & Lake Street __* -.* 4 ~ Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations j. 4 y Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.971 0.914 Flt Protected 0.987 0.982 Satd. Flow (prot) 1809 0 0 1839 1672 0 Fit Permitted 0.987 0.982 Said. Flow (perm) 1809 0 0 1839 1672 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 876 601 658 Travel Time (s) 19.9 13.7 15.0 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report recent am.syn 11 L HCM 2010 AWSC Recent AM , 10: Centre Avenue & Lake Street Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.9 ' Intersection LOS B Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Vol, veh/h 171 47 58 160 92 163 , Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 201 55 68 188 108 192 ' Number of Lanes 1 0 0 1 1 0 Approach EB WB NB , Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Left NB EB ' Conflicting Lanes Left 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 ' HCM Control Delay 10.6 11 11.2 HCM LOS B B B Lane NBLn1 EBLnt WBLn1 Vol Left, % 36% 0% 27% Vol Thru, % 0% 78% 73% Vol Right, % 64% 22% 0% ' Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 255 218 218 LT Vol 0 171 160 , Through Vol 163 47 0 RT Vol 92 0 58 Lane Flow Rate 300 256 256 ' Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.403 0.347 0.359 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.836 4.873 5.045 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes ' Cap 738 731 705 Service Time 2.913 2.959 3.132 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.407 0.35 0.363 , HCM Control Delay 11.2 10.6 11 HCM Lane LOS B B B HCM 95th-tile 0 2 1.6 1.6 ■ Notes — : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8light Report , recent am.syn Zrj I Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Recent PM 6: Whitcomb Street & Prospect Road 1 4- Phase Number 2 4 6 8 Movement NBTL EBTL SBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max Maximum Split (s) 40 80 40 80 Maximum Split (%) 33.3% 66.7% 33.3% 66.7% Minimum Split (s) 23 23.5 23 23.5 Yellow Time (s) 3 4 3 4 All -Red Time (s) 2 1.5 2 1.5 Minimum Initial (s) 7 10 7 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 3 3 3 Minimum Gap (s) 3 3 3 3 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 14 54 14 54 End Time (s) 54 14 54 14 Yield/Force Off (s) 49 8.5 49 8.5 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 38 117.5 38 117.5 Local Start Time (s) 0 40 0 40 Local Yield (s) 35 114.5 35 114.5 Local Yield 170(s) 24 103.5 24 103.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 120 Control Type Actuated -Coordinated Natural Cycle 50 Offset 14 (12%), Referenced to phase 4:EBTL and 8:WBTL, Start of Red splits and Phases: 6: Whitcomb Street & Prospect Road A, ez --spa X-06 08 Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Synchro 8 Light Report Delich Associates recent pm.syn K] HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis (ZcxwAGv1 Recent PM 6: Whitcomb Street & Prospect Road � ~ � 4'� I /� Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 0 +t r 4 r Volume (vph) 37 702 12 31 870 76 14 4 26 183 7 140 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 10 10 12 10 10 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, pedbbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.93 Flpb, pedbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1648 3293 1644 3255 1645 1370 1569 1371 Flt Permitted 0.23 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.78 1.00 0.72 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 395 3293 549 3255 1340 1370 1182 1371 Peak -hour factor, PH 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 42 798 14 35 989 86 16 5 30 208 8 159 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 23 0 0 73 Lane Group Flow (vph) 42 811 0 35 1071 0 0 21 7 0 216 86 Confl. Peds. (Whr) 4 5 5 4 21 29 29 21 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4 1 5 21 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 82.8 82.8 82.8 82.8 26.7 26.7 26.7 26.7 Effective Green, g (s) 83.8 83.8 83.8 83.8 27.7 27.7 27.7 27.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 275 2299 383 2273 309 316 272 316 v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.06 0.02 0.01 c0.18 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.35 0.09 0.47 0.07 0.02 0.79 0.27 Uniform Delay, dl 6.1 7.2 5.8 8.1 36.1 35.7 43.5 37.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.68 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.0 14.7 0.5 Delay (s) 7.3 7.7 5.0 6.2 36.2 35.7 58.1 38.3 Level of Service A A A A D D E D Approach Delay (s) 7.7 6.1 35.9 49.7 Approach LOS A A D D Intersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Aggie Village North 12/2312013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report ' recent pm.syn rK ' Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Recent PM 6: Whitcomb Street & Prospect Road Phase Number 2 4 6 8 Movement NBTL EBTL SBTL WBTL LeadA_ag Lead -Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max Maximum Split (s) 40 80 40 80 Maximum Split (%) 33.3% 66.7% 33.3% 66.7% Minimum Split (s) 23 23.5 23 23.5 Yellow Time (s) 3 4 3 4 All -Red Time (s) 2 1.5 2 1.5 Minimum Initial (s) 7 10 7 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 3 3 3 Minimum Gap (s) 3 3 3 3 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 14 54 14 54 End Time (s) 54 14 54 14 Yield/Force Off (s) 49 8.5 49 8.5 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 38 117.5 38 117.5 Local Start Time (s) 0 40 0 40 Local Yield (s) 35 114.5 35 114.5 Local Yield 170(s) 24 103.5 24 103.5 Intersection Summary Cycle Length 120 Control Type Actuated -Coordinated Natural Cycle 50 Offset: 14 (12%), Referenced to phase 4:EBTL and B:WBTL, Start of Red Splits and Phases: 6: Whitcomb Street & Prospect Road • (02 `�H4 o6 08 I' Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report recent pm.syn I' r HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Recent PM 6: Whitcomb Street & Prospect Road Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations I +T* 0 4T f 4T r Volume (veh/h) 37 702 12 31 870 76 14 4 26 183 7 140 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 0.99 0.96 0.99 0.94 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In 186.3 186.3 190.0 186.3 186.3 190.0 190.0 186.3 186.3 190.0 186.3 186.3 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 Cap, veh/h 390 2299 37 412 2131 177 53 10 454 59 0 449 Arrive On Green 0.63 0.63 0.62 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 524 3654 60 669 3387 281 0 33 1514 0 0 1496 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 42 407 404 35 544 527 21 0 7 216 0 86 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hAn 524 1863 1850 669 1863 1805 33 0 1514 0 0 1496 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.9 12.4 12.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 5.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.9 12.4 12.4 13.6 0.0 0.0 35.0 0.0 0.4 35.0 0.0 5.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.16 0.76 1.00 0.96 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 390 1172 1164 412 1172 1136 63 0 454 59 0 449 V/C Ratio(X) 0.11 0.35 0.35 0.09 0.46 0.46 0.34 0.00 0.02 3.67 0.00 0.19 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 390 1172 1164 412 1172 1136 63 0 454 59 0 449 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1,00 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.0 10.6 10.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 43.5 0.0 29.5 59.6 0.0 31.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.4 1.2 1.2 3.1 0.0 0.0 1241.2 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 °,bile Back of Q (50%), vehAn 0.5 5.5 5.4 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.2 22.2 0.0 2.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s1veh 9.5 11.4 11.4 1.5 1.2 1.2 46.6 0.0 29.5 1300.8 0.0 31.4 Lane Grp LOS A B B A A A D C F C Approach Vol, veh/h 853 1106 28 302 Approach Delay, s/veh 11.3 1.2 42.3 939.3 Approach LOS B A D F Timer Assigned Phs 4 8 2 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 80.0 80.0 40.0 40.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 74.5 74.5 35.0 35.0 Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 14.4 15.6 37.0 37.0 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 9.1 9.1 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 129.3 HCM 2010 LOS F Notes Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Synchro 8 Light Report Delich Associates recent pm.syn E Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Recent AM 6: Whitcomb Street & Prospect Road j.1 q Phase Number 2 4 6 8 Movement NBTL EBTL SBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max Maximum Split (s) 26 84 26 84 Maximum Split (%) 23.6% 76.4% 23.6% 76.4% Minimum Split (s) 23 23.5 23 23.5 Yellow Time (s) 3 4 3 4 AI -Red Time (s) 2 1.5 2 1.5 Minimum Initial (s) 7 10 7 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 3 3 3 Minimum Gap (s) 3 3 3 3 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 38 64 38 64 End Time (s) 64 38 64 38 Yield/Force Off (s) 59 32.5 59 32.5 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 48 21.5 48 21.5 Local Start Time (s) 0 26 0 26 Local Yield (s) 21 104.5 21 104.5 Local Yield 170(s) 10 93.5 10 93.5 Intersection Summa Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated -Coordinated Natural Cycle 50 Offset 38 (350/6), Referenced to phase 4:EBTL and 8:WBTL, Start of Red Splits and Phases: 6: Whitcomb Street & Prospect Road 4L 4�� It Aggie Village North 12/24/2013 Synchro 8 Light Report Delich Associates recent am.syn HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis (Zom+oq) Recent AM 6: Whitcomb Street & Prospect Road t --* j- *-- Ak_ t IAP- �► 1 -� Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ft +T+ *T F *T F Volume (vph) 73 893 14 32 413 161 3 10 25 42 17 34 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 10 10 12 10 10 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, pedbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.95 Flpb, pedbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1645 3294 1651 3138 1709 1315 1599 1409 At Permitted 0.41 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.78 1.00 Satd Flow (perm) 704 3294 468 3138 1629 1315 1292 1409 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0,89 Adj. Flow (vph) 82 1003 16 36 464 181 3 11 28 47 19 38 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 24 0 0 0 25 0 0 34 Lane Group Flow (vph) 82 1018 0 36 621 0 0 14 3 0 66 4 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 1 1 3 18 37 37 18 Confl. Bikes (#Ihr) 1 2 16 1 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 89.5 89.5 89.5 89.5 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Effective Green, g (s) 90.5 90.5 90.5 90.5 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 579 2710 385 2581 162 131 129 140 v/s Ratio Prot c0.31 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.08 0.01 0.00 c0.05 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.38 0.09 0.24 0.09 0.02 0.51 0.03 Uniform Delay, dl 2.0 2.5 1.9 2.2 44.9 44.6 47.0 44.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 2.88 3.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 3.4 0.1 Delay (s) 2.5 2.9 5.8 7.1 45.2 44.7 50.3 44.8 Level of Service A A A A D D D D Approach Delay (s) 2.9 7.0 44.9 48.3 Approach LOS A A D D Intersection Summa HCM 2000 Control Delay 7.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.39 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Aggie Village North 12/24/2013 Synchro 8 Light Report ' Delich Associates recent am.syn '4 1 tTiming Report, Sorted By Phase Recent AM 6: Whitcomb Street & Prospect Road '�- T-• l Phase Number 2 4 6 8 ' Movement NBTL EBTL SBTL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead -Lag Optimize Recall Mode None C-Max None C-Max Maximum Split (s) 26 84 26 84 Maximum Split (%) 23.6% 76.4% 23.6% 76.4% Minimum Split (s) 23 23.5 23 23.5 Yellow Time (s) 3 4 3 4 All -Red Time (s) 2 1.5 2 1.5 Minimum Initial (s) 7 10 7 10 ' Vehicle Extension (s) 3 3 3 3 Minimum Gap (s) 3 3 3 3 ' Time Before Reduce (s) Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry Yes Yes Yes Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 38 64 38 64 End Time (s) 64 38 64 38 Yield/Force Off (s) 59 32.5 59 32.5 Yield[Force Off 170(s) 48 21.5 48 21.5 Local Start Time (s) 0 26 0 26 ' Local Yield (s) 21 104.5 21 104.5 Local Yield 170(s) 10 93.5 10 93.5 ' Intersection Summary Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated -Coordinated Natural Cycle 50 Offset: 38 (35%), Referenced to phase 4:EBTL and B:WBTL, Start of Red 1 1 1 1 ano maser: b: vunxtcomD weer & rrospect Koac Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates t- Synchro 8 Light Report recent am.syn HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Recent AM ' 6: Whitcomb Street & Prospect Road t _ i 'r ~ 4'_ 4% t 1* Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 1 4T+ *T r *T r Volume (veh/h) 73 893 14 32 413 161 3 10 25 42 17 34 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 ' Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.92 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In 186.3 186.3 190.0 186.3 186.3 190.0 190.0 186.3 186.3 190.0 186.3 186.3 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 Cap, veh/h 574 2824 42 447 2051 697 73 228 214 198 72 214 , Arrive On Green 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 798 3661 55 551 2660 904 209 1560 1463 947 490 1463 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 82 510 508 36 324 299 14 0 3 66 0 4 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hAn 798 1863 1853 551 1863 1701 1770 0 1463 1437 0 ' 1463 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.3 8.9 8.9 5.3 14.2 14.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.3 0.0 0.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.7 8.9 8.9 14.2 14.2 14.4 0.7 0.0 0.2 4.1 0.0 0.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.53 0.21 1.00 0.71 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 574 1437 1429 447 1437 1312 284 0 214 256 0 214 WC Rabo(X) 0.14 0.36 0.36 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.26 0.00 0.02 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 574 1437 1429 447 1437 1312 398 0 312 351 0 312 ' HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(l) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.8 3.7 3.7 17.6 14.1 14.2 37.9 0.0 37.6 39.5 0.0 37.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.3 0A 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 ' Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (500/6), vehAn 0.8 3.1 3.1 0.8 7.3 6.8 0.3 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.0 0.1 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 8.3 4.4 4.4 17.9 14.4 14.6 38.0 0.0 37.7 40.1 0.0 37.7 , Lane Grp LOS A A A B B B D D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 1100 659 17 70 Approach Delay, s/veh 4.7 14.7 38.0 39.9 t Approach LOS A B D D Timer Assigned Phs 4 8 2 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 84.0 84.0 19.1 19.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 78.5 78.5 21.0 21.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 20.7 16.4 2.7 6.1 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 7.6 7.6 0.2 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 CM Delay 9.9 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report ' recent am.syn IZ Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Recent PM 9: Centre Avenue & Prospect Road * Phase Number 2 3 4 6 7 8 Movement NBTL WBL EBTL SBTL EBL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize Recall Mode None None C-Max None None C-Max Maximum Split (s) 40 28 52 40 11 69 Maximum Split (%) 33.3% 23.3% 43.3% 33.3% 9.2% 57.5% Minimum Split (s) 23 8 23.5 23 8 23.5 Yellow Time (s) 3 3 4 3 3 4 All -Red Time (s) 2 1 1.5 2 1 1.5 Minimum Initial (s) 7 4 10 7 4 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 Minimum Gap (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 16 56 84 16 56 67 End Time (s) 56 84 16 56 67 16 Yield/Force Off (s) 51 80 10.5 51 63 10.5 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 40 80 119.5 40 63 119.5 Local Start Time (s) 0 40 68 0 40 51 Local Yield (s) 35 64 114.5 35 47 114.5 Local veld 170(s) 24 64 103.5 24 47 103.5 Intersection Summa Cycle Length 120 Control Type Actuated -Coordinated Natural Cycle 60 Offset 16 (13%), Referenced to phase 4:EBTL and B:WBTL, Start of Red Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Synchro 8 Light Report Delich Associates recent pm.syn 11 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Recent PM ' 9: Centre Avenue & Prospect Road ' __§, -,V '- t 1 t /'' 1' 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vi 0 Vi +T+ I + r T r Volume (veh/h) 43 798 70 206 814 36 77 86 271 50 152 86 ' Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A-pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 0.93 0.84 0.91 0.79 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In 186.3 186.3 190.0 186.3 186.3 190.0 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap,veh/h 469 2091 175 572 2311 98 202 359 256 245 359 240 ' Arrive On Green 0.08 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.65 0.64 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow,veh/h 1774 3383 284 1774 3545 150 1116 1863 1330 1139 1863 1243 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 46 472 458 222 460 452 83 92 44 54 163 11 ' Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1774 1863 1804 1774 1863 1832 1116 1863 1330 1139 1863 1243 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9 0.0 0.0 3.6 11.3 11.3 7.0 4.1 2.7 4.2 7.7 0.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.9 0.0 0.0 3.6 11.3 11.3 14.7 4.1 2.7 8.3 7.7 0.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.16 1.00 0.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 469 1151 1115 572 1214 1194 202 359 256 245 359 240 V/C Ratio(X) 0.10 0.41 0.41 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.41 0.26 0.17 0.22 0.45 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 544 1151 1115 891 1214 1194 392 678 484 439 678 452 ' HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.1 0.0 0.0 3.9 8.0 8.0 41.8 33.9 33.3 37.4 35.3 32.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 1.0 1.1 0.4 0.9 0.9 1.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.1 ' Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.2 4.6 4.6 2.0 1.9 0.9 1.2 3.7 0.2 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 6.1 1.0 1.1 4.3 8.9 8.9 43.2 34.3 33.7 37.9 36.2 32.6 ' Lane Grp LOS A A A A A A D C C D D C Approach Vol, veh/h 976 1134 219 228 Approach Delay, s/veh 1.3 8.0 37.5 36.4 ' Approach LOS A A D D Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 2 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.9 65.7 10.2 69.0 23.1 23.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 46.5 24.0 63.5 35.0 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 2.9 2.0 5.6 13.3 16.7 10.3 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 8.1 0.6 8.2 1.4 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 CM Delay 10.5 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Aggie Village North 12/23013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report ' recent pm.syn /0 11 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Recent AM 9: Centre Avenue & Prospect Road 1 ` -♦ 4- Phase Number 2 3 4 6 7 8 Movement NBTL WBL EBTL SBTL EBL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize Recall Mode None None C-Max None None C-Max Maximum Split (s) 34 18 58 34 11 65 Maximum Split (%) 30.9% 16.4% 52.7% 30.9% 10.0% 59.1 % Minimum Split (s) 23 8 23.5 23 8 23.5 Yellow Time (s) 3 3 4 3 3 4 All -Red Time (s) 2 1 1.5 2 1 1.5 Minimum Initial (s) 7 4 10 7 4 10 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 Minimum Gap (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0. 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 11 11 11 11 Dual Entry Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 79 3 21 79 3 14 End Time (s) 3 21 79 3 14 79 Yield/Force Off (s) 108 17 73.5 108 10 73.5 Yeld/Force Off 170(s) 97 17 62.5 97 10 62.5 Local Start Time (s) 0 34 52 0 34 45 Local Yield (s) 29 48 104.5 29 41 104.5 Local Yield 170(s) 18 48 93.5 18 41 93.5 Intersection Summa Cycle Length 110 Control Type Actuated -Coordinated Natural Cycle 60 Offset: 79 (72%), Referenced to phase 4:EBTL and 8:WBTL, Start of Red ana rnases: y: uemre Avenue & mospecr Koao Aggie Village North 12/2312013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report recent am.syn HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Recent AM ' 9: Centre Avenue & Prospect Road ' Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tT 0 1 ? r '� ? r Volume (veh/h) 144 710 106 168 527 119 53 216 203 9 59 26 ' Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1,00 0.98 1.00 0.98 0.86 0.71 0.93 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In 186.3 186.3 190.0 186.3 186.3 190.0 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 562 1961 272 520 1865 375 260 363 220 138 363 308 ' Arrive On Green 0.09 0.82 0.80 0.07 0.62 0.61 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 3192 443 1774 3000 603 1137 1863 1130 948 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 169 487 464 198 385 360 62 254 104 11 69 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hAn 1774 1863 1772 1774 1863 1740 1137 1863 1130 948 1863 1583 ' Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 7.1 7.3 3.7 9.6' 9.7 4.7 12.4 7.9 1.1 3.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 7.1 7.3 3.7 9.6 9.7 7.7 12.4 7.9 13.4 3.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.35 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 562 1144 1089 520 1158 1082 260 363 220 138 363 308 V/C Ratio(X) 0.30 0.43 0.43 0.38 0.33 0.33 0.24 0.70 0.47 0.08 0.19 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 592 1144 1089 665 1158 1082 389 574 348 246 574 488 , HCM Platoon Ratio 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.94 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.9 4.1 4.2 5.6 8.8 8.9 36.0 36.5 34.7 42.8 32.8 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 1.1 1.1 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.5 2.5 1.6 0.2 0.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50°/6), vehAn 1.1 2.5 2.4 1.3 4.0 3.8 1.4 6.0 2.3 0.3 1.4 0.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 6.2 5.2 5.3 6.1 9.5 9.7 36.4 39.0 36.3 43.0 33.0 0.0 Lane Grp LOS A A A A A A D D D D C Approach Vol, veh/h 1120 943 420 80 Approach Delay, s/veh 5.4 8.9 37.9 34.4 , Approach LOS A A D C Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 2 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.3 64.3 10.1 65.0 23.0 23.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 52.5 14.0 59.5 29.0 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 5.3 9.3 5.7 11.7 14.4 15.4 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.1 7.3 0.4 7.3 1.6 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 12.9 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes Aggie Village North 12/23/2013 Delich Associates Synchro 8 Light Report ' I recent am.syn APPENDIX B 7 A! 8 :0( 8 :1! 8 :3( 8 :4! 9 :0( 9 A! 9 :3( 7 :45 8 :00 8 :15 8 :30 8 :45 9 :00 9 :15 9 :30 Total Lake/Whitcomb West Leg East Leg South Leg North Leg Bikes I Peds Bikes I Peds I Bikes I Peds I Bikes Peds 0 3 3 10 4 1 0 7 0 8 11 28 20 5 1 16 0 8 14 33 27 6 1 18 0 9 17 42 31 7 1 22 0 16 20 51 37 7 1 35 0 21 27 75 56 10 2 Si 1 28 30 90 60 10 3 62 1 33 41 106 72 11 4 80 0 3 3 10 4 1 0 7 0 5 8 18 16 4 1 9 0 0 3 5 7 1 0 2 0 1 3 9 4 1 0 4 0 7 3 9 6 0 0 13 0 5 7 24 19 3 1 16 1 7 3 15 4 0 1 11 0 5 11 16 12 1 1 18 1 33 41 106 72 11 4 80 Total 28 61 18 22 38 75 42 64 Peak Hour t 1 O ZY, 24 Z z4 24 0 5464 2 37 41 4- 4 3 ^ �:G58 Z, 219 3 :lS 3 :30 3 :45 4 :00 4 :15 4 :30 4 :45 5 :00 3 :15 3 :30 3 :45 4 :00 4 :15 4 :30 4 :45 5 :00 Total 3 4 3 6 2 1 7 5 5 10 3 19 5 6 14 25 8 17 4 31 6 14 18 31 10 20 6 42 8 16 21 39 10 23 7 53 9 20 24 42 13 26 71 58 ill 22 28 58 16 28 7 70 16 27 35 66 19 31 8 82 21 31 45 79 3 4 3 6 2 1 7 5 2 6 0 13 3 5 7 20 3 7 1 12 1 8 4 6 2 3 2 11 2 2 3 8 0 3 1 11 1 4 3 3 3 3 0 5 2 2 4 16 3 2 0 12 5 5 7 8 3 3 1 12 5 4 10 13 19 31 8 82 21 31 45 79 Total 31 56 42 33 26 35 42 51 Peak Hour 10 20 6 5 1 42 35- 8 (0 6 16 ,O �O 21 j S Z 39 3 7 162 Hour Total 129 139 153 177 219 Peak Hour 219 Hour Total 162 Peak Hour 157 136 136 154 162 q 7 A! 8 :0( 8 :L 8 :3( 8 A! 9 :0( 9 :1! 9 :3( 7 :45 8 :00 8 :15 8 :30 8 :45 9 :00 9 :15 9 :30 Total Peak Hour 3 :15 3 :30 3 :45 4 :00 4 :15 4 :30 4 :45 5 :00 Prospect/Whitcomb West Leg East Leg South Leg North Leg Bikes I Peds I Bikes I Peds I Bikes I Peds I Bikes I Peds 3 5 2 4 0 1 0 0 3 6 3 8 0 2 1 1 3 8 11 24 1 2 1 2 3 9 15 29 1 2 1 2 3 9 17 39 1 3 2 2 3 12 19 42 1 3 3 2 3 22 27 59 2 31 3 4 4 27 31 66 2 3 3 5 nl pl 3 5 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 1 1 1 0 2 8 16 1 0 0 1 0 1 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 1 1 0 0 3 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 10 8 17 1 0 0 2 1 5 4 7 0 0 0 1 4 27 31 66 2 3 3 5 3 :15 3 :30 3 :45 4 :00 4 :15 4 :30 4 :45 5 :00 Total Peak Hour . 21 jci 21 5 29 4 5 Hour Total Total 15 62 9 61 28 61 10 71 14 79 Peak Hour 9 38 18 79 t o .r_187 ti16 , 33374 1 1' 2 1 3 79 ©000000a Hour Total Total 17 90 Peak Hour 28 88 18 71 27 66 15 55 11 13 16 90 1 4 90 7 :4! 8 :01 8 :1! 8 :3( 8 A! 9 :01 9 :V 9 :3( 7 :45 8 :00 8 :15 8 :30 8 :45 9 :00 9 :15 9 :30 Total Lake/Center West Leg East Leg South Leg North Leg Bikes I Peds I Bikes I Peds Bikes I Peds I Bikes I Peds 1 10 11 63 0 3 7 27 32 215 1 4 12 37 41 255 3 7 18 45 49 295 4 8 24 63 61 392 6 10 30 82 70 533 6 11 35 99 85 642 7 12 41 127 102 794 13 12 1 10 11 63 0 3 0 0 6 17 21 152 1 1 0 0 5 10 9 40 2 3 0 0 6 8 8 40 1 1 0 0 6 18 12 97 2 2 0 0 6 19 9 141 0 1 0 0 5 17 15 109 1 1 0 0 6 28 17 152 6 0 0 0 41 227 102 794 13 12 0 0 Hour Total Total 88 419 198 468 69 446 64 525 137 670 Peak Hour 176 148 209 670 Peak Hour 3 232.0 1482 53 1 434499:60 4 9 5 415 O 0 C 0 670 3 :15 3 :30 3 :45 4 :00 4 :15 4 :30 4 AS 5 :00 3 :15 3 :30 3 :45 4 :00 4 :15 4 :30 4 :45 5 :00 Total 13 20 3 86 2 1 26 38 8 203 3 4 30 49 12 264 5 12 39 58 21 320 5 15 52 77 26 375 7 21 64 87 28 431 7 25 80 100 32 526 8 27 102 117 42 624 10 34 13 20 3 86 2 1 0 0 13 18 5 117 1 3 0 0 4 11 4 61 2 8 0 0 9 9 9 56 0 3 0 0 13 19 5 55 2 6 0 0 12 10 2 56 0 4 0 0 16 13 4 95 1 2 0 0 22 17 10 98 2 7 0 0 1 22 117 42 624 10 34 0 0 Peak Hour z. 63&1 10594) 4 211" 7(p3045 )(a19 3 0 0 Hour Total Total 125 458 157 433 90 360 86 401 100 471 Peak Hour 84 131 156 471 471 7 A! 8 :0( 8 :1! 8 :3( 8 :4! 9 :0( 9 :1! 9 :3( 7 :45 8 :00 8 :1515 8 :30 8 :45 9 :00 ' 9 :1515 9 :30 Total Prospect/Center West Leg East Leg South Leg North Leg Bikes I Peds I Bikes I Peds Bikes I Peds I Bikes I Peds 3 9 9 4 0 0 0 3 12 12 32 21 0 0 0 3 23 19 45 2S 0 1 0 6 30 25 54 26 1 1 0 6 35 38 66 38 2 1 0 6 45 52 81 S9 2 2 0 6 50 59 104 80 2 2 1 6 55 75 126 102 3 3 1 6 :.p kl; jlu S4 NR C0 wr, _ 3 9 9 4 0 0 0 3 9 3 23 17 0 0 0 0 11 7 13 4 0 1 0 3 7 6 9 1 1 0 0 0 5 13 12 12 1 0 0 0 10 14 15 21 0 1 0 0 5 T55 7 23 21 0 0 1 0 5 16 22 22 1 1 0 0 75 126 102 3 3 1 6 Total 28 52 39 24 43 61 57 67 F -- 1qG Peak Hour 3 251Z a6 50 72 I 61 76 9 L 2 0 2 O 1 1 a 0 228 3 :15 3 :3 ' 3 :45 4 :0 4 :15 ' 4 :30 4 :45 5 :00 ' 3 :15 3 :30 ' 3 :45 4 :00 4 :15 4 ' 4 :30 :4545 5 :00 Tota I 7 12 5 17 0 1 3 0 18 25 9 33 0 1 3 0 22 33 11 46 0 3 3 0 30 42 22 54 3 4 4 0 42 56 25 63 4 6 4 1 56 64 28 64 41 6 4 1 66 72 34 87 5 7 5 1 81 78 41 106 5 8 5 1 7 12 5 17 0 1 3 0 11 13 4 16 0 0 0 0 8 2 13 0 2 0 0 9 11 8 3 1 1 0 14 3 9 1 2 0 1 112 8 3 1 0 0 0 0 8 6 23 1 1 1 0 6 7 19 0 1 0 0 78 41 106 5 8 5 1 Total 45 44 29 41 42 26 50 48 I' 415—y17 Peak Hour Z Siq 4363Z p� 19 3 ;� 523j 2 1 Z 4 Z c 1 1 166 Hour Total 143 158 167 185 228 Peak Hour 228 Hour Total 159 156 138 159 166 Peak Hour 166 Z = S ug 3 JL N 1 COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY WEST CAMPUS EXISTING AUTOMOBILE VOLUMES Dm ' MY 0& =3 - ta:seam / Uw. . m .. baj. P.M: R:\CCN-7TO\1Y1� - Calmatl. Stab U h..nyV4W - 1107 cai h W tlnlrWy.Ep / W.1: FIGURE 3.1 Colorado$tateUniversily— [mn.d +o°m'Amoomm % APPENDIX A IV. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS ' This study assessed the impacts of the Aggie Village North development on the short range (2016) street system in the vicinity of the proposed development. As a result of this analysis, the following is concluded: • The development of the Aggie Village North site is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. At full development, the Aggie Village North site will ' generate approximately 695 daily vehicle trip ends, 58 morning peak hour vehicle trip ends, and 83 afternoon peak hour vehicle trip ends. • Current operation at the key intersections is acceptable • In the short range (2016) future, given development of the Aggie Village North site and an increase in background traffic, the key intersections operate acceptably with existing control, geometry, and signal timing in the morning and afternoon peak hours. • Acceptable level of service is achieved for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes based upon the measures in the multi -modal transportation guidelines. GL—DELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013 ASSOCIATES ,p r Page 30 Pedestrian Level of Service ' Appendix E shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the Aggie Village North site. The Aggie Village North site is located within an area termed as a "pedestrian district," which sets the level of service threshold at LOS A & B for all measured factors. There are four destination areas within 1320 feet of the proposed Aggie Village North: 1) the Colorado State University Campus; 2) the residential neighborhood west of the site; 3) the residential neighborhood to the southwest of the site; and 4) the Spring Creek Trail. In most cases, sidewalks exist within the pedestrian influence area. It is assumed that sidewalks will be completed as properties develop. Appendix E contains a Pedestrian LOS Worksheet. Bicycle Level of Service Based upon Fort Collins bicycle LOS criteria, there are two destination areas (CSU & Spring Creek Trail) within 1320 feet of the Aggie Village North. The bicycle level of service is acceptable. The bicycle LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix E. There will be bicycle storage facilities on site, as well as indoor bicycle parking in the Lake Street Garage across the street from Aggie Village North. Transit Level of Service Currently, Transfort serves this area of Fort Collins with Route 7 and Route 2. Route 7 runs from the Mall Transfer Point, along Drake Road, Centre Avenue, through the CSU Campus, and to the CSU Transit Center. Route 2 operates on Whitcomb Street serving neighborhoods west of the CSU Campus. There are transit stops very ' close to this site. In addition, transit service and route frequency enhancements are planned to be implemented by/before 2016. Connections will be made to the Fort Collins MAX system. It is expected that these improvements will reduce single occupant vehicle trips to off -campus destinations. - 1 —DELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December2013 j=—ASSOCIATES Page 29 E N O 1. Ct U .ad - Denotes Lane SHORT RANGE (2016) GEOMETRY Figure 18 DELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December2013 ASSOCIATES Page 28 TABLE 4 Short Range (2016) Total Peak Hour Operation '( _> ; �tx vsY �4?r Tt' - ''✓- a- .i ���i%+cl+k5 �i r 2t"�i T Y1 r 4 .0 -, r t S. c.i f° t '' ,+ • f.aOtd­.� a..Trlalx�� .i Prospect/Centre (signal) EB LT A A EB T B A EB RT B A EB APPROACH B A WB LT A A WBT B A WB RT B A WB APPROACH B ANB LT D D NB T D C NB RT D C NB APPROACH D D SB LT D D SB T C D SB RT A C SB APPROACH D D OVERALL B B Prospect/Whitcomb (signal) EB LT A A EB T/RT A A EB APPROACH A A WB LT A A WB T/RT A A WB APPROACH A A NB LT/T D D NB RT D D NB APPROACH D D SB LT/T D E SB RT D D SB APPROACH D D OVERALL A B Centre/Lake (all -way stop) EB T/RT B B WB LT/T B B NB LT/RT B B OVERALL B B Whitcomb/Lake (all -way stop) EB LT/T/RT C C WB LT/T/RT C C NB LT/T/RT C B SB LT B B SB T B C SB RT A B SB APPROACH B C OVERALL C C __/I LDELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013 1, rASSOCIATES Page27 TABLE 3 Short Range (2016) Background Peak Hour Operation ' ww 9 Lf 'ni "3'o W1 Ss' v{� t " �' L1 if�l.�.FLt1St+�'—) t wIvl L' .Sl J l.lr G.i Ghr'/,t,i a.Fl.. 'Fo �_.a.f �1'.,'i,�t?1)t:�L't1:�.Yr.. Ijx}T•°7s,!'tJnf , { �Ry,< ..:t n2 d.ZRiij ''ecfFiY �k kv { �fAliV�#�lA'l } k1t t<, t�?ns j'Y,yi>k.itlhn� !g4'l itf.TL Prospect/Centre (signal) EB LT A A EB T B A EB RT B A EB APPROACH B A WB LT A A WBT A A WB RT A A WB APPROACH A A NB LT p p NB T D C NB RT D C NB APPROACH D p SB LT D D SB T C D SB RT A C SB APPROACH C D OVERALL B B P (sisignal)gnal) t/Whitcomb EB LT A A EB T/RT A A EB APPROACH A A WB LT A A WB T/RT A A WB APPROACH A A NB LT/T D D NB RT D p NB APPROACH D D SB LTrr D E SB RT D D SB APPROACH D D OVERALL A B Centre/Lake (all -way stop) EB T/RT B B WB LTrr B B NB LT/RT B B Whitcomb/Lake (all -way stop) EB LTIT/RT C ;jBOVERALL WB LT/T/RT C NB LTfr/RT C B SB LT B g SB T B C SB RT A g SB APPROACH B C OVERALL C C DELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013 ASSOCIATES —7-'pr Page 26 E 0 U w 2/38 58/2 d m � N � co ch N_ 1/10 m 3/6 1/3 2/1 0 -N ��� LO M - 0/4 ---a— 8:45-9:45am/3:45-4:45pm SHORT RANGE (2016) TOTAL PEDESTRIAN PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 0/0 01004 M � N Cl)�� 3/3 1/16 0/0 A& N co C=Mn� 0) Lake 0/1 O Q�(O � ® 1/2 Prospect Ui 1/2 N c a> U Figure 17 1 I- DELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013 %j rASSOCIATES Page25 N M Lf) >_ O U a-. >t 0/15 —y 3/6 0 4/6 0 —y 43/24 0/1 N 0/0 0 0/0 ? n o ,I.M 5/1 o Lake MMMMMMW rn �� JC 0/1 - 8:45-9:45am/3:45-4:45pm SHORT RANGE (2016) TOTAL BICYCLE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC _m-�//4—DELICH -7, rASSOCIATES 2/1 m w a) U co Q to Prospect Figure 16 Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013 Page 24 N 0 U t 1! r Cl) cliO4 Lo rn LO C — 166178 —4271898 32/3131 78/52 921l723 14/12 q v m O N 0to N 8:45-9:45am/3:45-4:45pm SHORT RANGE (2016) TOTAL VEHICLE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC /L—DELICH `)VI rASSOCIATES N -m*- 166/166 62/112 17 — 78/93 o a M o n r T qT cD +�Cl) Cj N U Figure 15 Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013 Page 23 Lake Prospect assignment of the site generated peak hour vehicle traffic. The site generated vehicle traffic was combined with the background traffic to determine the total forecasted vehicle traffic at the key intersections. Figure 15 shows the short range (2016) total peak hour vehicle traffic at the key intersections. Figures 16 and 17 show the short range (2016) total peak hour bicycle and pedestrian traffic at the key intersections, respectively. Signal Warrants As a matter of policy, traffic signals are not installed at any location unless warrants are met according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). None of the stop sign controlled intersections are expected to meet peak hour signal warrants. ' Operation Analysis Operation analyses were performed at the key intersections. The operation analyses were conducted for the short range analysis, reflecting a year 2016 condition. As mentioned earlier, the ProspectNVhitcomb intersection has shared left-turn/through lanes on the Whitcomb Street legs. Therefore, the Prospect/Whitcomb intersection was analyzed using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (2000HCM) software. ' Using the short range (2016) background peak hour traffic volumes, the key intersections operate as indicated in Table 3. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix C. The key intersections operate acceptably with existing control, geometry, and signal timing in the morning and afternoon peak hours. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 15, the key intersections operate in the short range (2016) total condition as indicated in Table 4. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix D. The key intersections operate similar to the background operation with existing control, geometry, and signal timing in the morning and afternoon peak hours. Geometry ' The short range (2016) geometry is shown in Figure 18. The geometry at the analyzed intersections is the existing geometry. As mentioned earlier, according to LCUASS, eastbound and westbound right -turn lanes are required with the existing traffic volumes at the Prospect/Centre intersection. At the Prospect/Whitcomb intersection, a westbound right -turn lane is required with the existing traffic. Typically, when turn lanes are shown to be required based on volumes, they are not built unless ' the operation at the subject intersection is determined to be unacceptable. �411­—DELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013 %,; [—ASSOCIATES Page 22 A& E N 0 Ct U f— 8:45-9:45am/3:45-4:45pm SITE GENERATED VEHICLE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Figure 14 J,/ A—DELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013 7,/ ("ASSOCIATES Page21 N 0 U >L 2138 0/0 58/2 —y 0/0 � 04 m o co �N M�aO C O�04 tzsm - (7 ODN 1/10 3/3 IT 3/� 1 /16 1/3 0/0 - 2/1 o � 0/1 o �n N N N (p t/4 o Prospect 1/2 1/1 �— 8:45-9:45am/3:45-4:45pm SHORT RANGE (2016) BACKGROUND PEDESTRIAN PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 13 LDELI CH Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013 i [-ASSOCIATES Page 20 A& N w 0/15 0/0 o O 316 O O < N n O ' 0/0 c� N N "' �- o Lake 4/6 — 5/1 38�2 — 4/4 0/1 1/1 o ®p 2/0 N u� --' 0/0 N �® � Prospect on I 2/1 a� L V a) U 8:45-9:45am/3:454:45pm SHORT RANGE (2016) BACKGROUND BICYCLE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 12 JALDELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013 =7 t=ASSOCIATES Page 19 I" 0 U L f— c) to O N I N Q c i 140/86 N m m �— 72/122 19/18 � 64/40 I I I 141/118 25l40 m o A `04 N V N ^ 166/78 L M t° — 427/898 32/31 75/38 !� 1 9211723 — v N 14/12 —y M N �— 8:45-9:45am/3:45-4:45pm SHORT RANGE (2016) BACKGROUND VEHICLE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC N —-165/163 621112 176/213 —o 50/75 C Q) r 123/37 543/839 4--)� 182/220 I I I 732/822 122/84 n (D N (0 n N N W, Figure 11 --/I I DELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December2013 ('ASSOCIATES Page 18 Lake Prospect University N South - U) M c W N N Pitkin 10% 5% z r L Lake •b i rv`,Z - ;§ 1 25% H r - Prospect a� a o � a� U E U >c SCALE: 1"=500' TRIP DISTRIBUTION --// L—DELICH 0 r=ASSOCIATES Figure 10 Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013 Page 17 TABLE 2 Trip Generation Existing Aggie Village North 220 Apartment 300 Beds 1 3.31 993 1 0.06 1 18 New Aggie Village North 220 Apartment 1000 Beds 3.31 3310 0.06 60 0.22 220 0.26 260 0. 14 140 New Trips 2317 42 154 182 98 30% Vehide Trips 695 12 46 54 29 30% Bicycle Trips 695 13 46 55 30 40% Pedestrian Trips 927 17 62 73 39 I�7:L—=DELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013 1 -7k ;r—ASSOCIATES Page 16 sa:a�!�'�p�y S a•�Ia1•- xf�. t��wlre r.�a 1 `� ti L � .�, f MW� �`� i�Ap fa..�J�4y4�+u•C�' 41 'L `, 54 I X �'y M �•5'i'.i YYY gtKL to 6 mw am 13 eF9tsrYap®cs - � �t3�T2iG ` Y 1 f 1 ■ 'y' � r � tt '� tLI as 'S ➢°a '� Y ~' ' y Y 1 Y PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ' Aggie Village North is a proposed residential redevelopment with approximately 1000 beds. Figure 9 shows a site plan of the Aggie Village North development. The site plan shows access toffrom Lake Street. It will replace the existing Aggie Village ' North residential facility. The existing Aggie Village North has approximately 300 beds. The short range analysis (Year 2016) includes development of the Aggie Village North site and an appropriate increase in background traffic, due to normal growth, and other ' approved developments in the area. Trip Generation Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development such as this upon the existing and proposed street system. A compilation of trip generation information ' contained in Trip Generation, 9r" Edition, ITE was used to estimate trips that would be generated by the proposed/expected use at this site. Table 2 shows the daily and peak hour trip generation for the existing Aggie .Village North site (300 beds) and the ' redeveloped Aggie Village North site (1000 beds). Since the current proposal uses a parking ratio of one space per three beds, it is assumed that the travel mode split is 30 ' percent vehicle trips and 70 percent bicycle/pedestrian trips. Current bicycle and pedestrian counts indicate that there are slightly more pedestrians than bicycles. Therefore, it is assumed that 30 percent of trips will utilize the bicycle mode of travel ' and 40 percent will utilize the pedestrian mode of travel. There will be ten "zip car" spaces on the site. Trip Distribution Directional distribution of the generated trips was determined for the Aggie Village ' North site. It is assumed that all bicycle and pedestrian traffic will be to/from the CSU Campus. Figure 10 shows the vehicle trip distribution used for the Aggie Village North site. Background Traffic Projections Figures 11, 12, and 13 show short range (2016) background peak hour vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic projections at the key intersections, respectively. All modes of traffic at the key intersections were increased at a rate of one percent per year for the short range (2016) background traffic forecasts. ' Trip Assignment ' Trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the street system. The assigned trips are the resultant of the trip distribution process. Using the trip distribution shown in Figure 10, Figure 14 shows the m--�,;/"LDELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013 ,i, l r—ASSOCIATES Page 14 The Prospect/Centre intersection is in an area termed "mixed -use district." In areas termed "mixed -use districts," acceptable operation at signalized intersections during the peak hours is defined as level of service E or better for the overall intersection, and level of service E or better for any leg or movement. It is important to note that, since the Prospect/Whitcomb intersection has shared left-turn/through lanes on the Whitcomb Street legs, the signalized analysis, using the 2010HCM software, has errors using shared lanes. This anomaly has been recognized by the City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer also. Therefore, the Prospect/Whitcomb intersection was analyzed using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (2000HCM) software and the operation is also shown in Table 1. Subsequent analyses for the Prospect/Whitcomb intersection use the 2000HCM software. Pedestrian Facilities There are sidewalks along Prospect Road, Centre Avenue, Whitcomb Street, and Lake Street. Bicycle Facilities Bicycle lanes exist on Centre Avenue and Lake Street. Prospect Road has no bicycle lanes. Bike lanes are not required on local or connector streets. Transit Facilities Currently, Transfort serves this area of Fort Collins with Route 7 and Route 2. Route 7 runs from the Mall Transfer Point, along Drake Road, Centre Avenue, through the CSU Campus, and to the CSU Transit Center. Route 2 operates on Whitcomb Street serving neighborhoods west of the CSU Campus. There are transit stops very close to this site. —� LDELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013 ��� ASSOCIATES Page 13 TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation l jj' 'feA'.' i✓ yN. " w y Y{`��.yy��,Y tr. Prospect/Centre (signal) EB LT A A EB T A A EB RT A A EB APPROACH A A WB LT A A WBT A A WB RT A A WB APPROACH A A NB LT D D NB T D C NB RT D C NB APPROACH D D SB LT D D SB T C D SB RT A C SB APPROACH C D OVERALL B B P (siggnal)gnal) Prospect/Whitcomb EB LT AA AA EB T A (A) B (A) EB RT A (A) B (A) EB APPROACH A (A) B (A) WB LT B (A) A (A) WB T B (A) A (A) WB RT B (A) A (A) WB APPROACH B (A A A NB LTTT D (D) D (D) NB RT D (D) C (D) NB APPROACH D (D) D (D) SB LTTT D (D) F (E SB RT D (D) C (D) SB APPROACH D D F (D) OVERALL A (A) F (B) Centre/Lake (all -way stop) EB T/RT B B WB LTTT B B NB LT/RT B B OVERALL B B Whitcomb/Lake (all -way stop) EB LTTT/RT C C WB LTTT/RT B C NB LTTT/RT C B SB LT B B SB T B C SB RT A A SB APPROACH B B OVERALL C B (ZUUUHGM) --"L—DELICH —7lr= ,ASSOCIATES Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013 Page 12 E 0 U V_ L 2137 56/2 to M l\ 00 N 1/10 3/� 1/3 ao tz: 1120 tD LO 2/1 rn N R �N N I N O. M 0/4 --w— 8:45-9:45am/3:45-4:45pm FACTORED RECENT PEDESTRIAN PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 0/0 0/0 ,D to O N � O r O D' 3/3 _/16 0/0 0/1 ch C (D O co Q) 1/2 1/2 kvu Lake co oProspect Figure 8 _--/,/ LDELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December2013 rASSOCIATES Page 11 0 N U >.0 0/15 0/0 f 3/6 0/0 co _ M O O O CO N N �- `° "' Lake 4/6 _ 5/1 37/2 4/4 0/1 1/1 2/0 --� rn m to V N� M® 0/3 co Prospect 0/1 v1 2/1 a> U - 8:45-9:45am/3:45-4:45pm FACTORED RECENT BICYCLE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7 LDELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December2013 1 rASSOCIATES Page 10 R O U L O0 N 04 135/82 ,� rn rn r U' �— 70/118 I`" �J 18/17 62/39 !� 1 137/115 — 00 0D 24/39 o C N rZ ,W N N I C 0Iq � 161176 Cl) v — 413/870 !"04— 32/31 73137 1 893/702 a 1 N CD N --- 8:45-9:45am/3:45-4:45pm FACTORED/BALANCED RECENT VEHICLE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC N � 160/158 58/106 171/ � I 47n2 tz0 C rn �0 ` m rn � 119/36 N °' � 527/814 168/206 144/43 � !� 1 (� M1798 y ^I m tosno in N O N N U Figure 6 _ �4— DELI CH Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013 �j j=--ASSOCIATES Page Lake Prospect A& E N 0 U >L 2/37 0/0 — 56/2 0/0 aD CIA a0 ��O N (O (O N 1/10 r r 3/3 Lake C 3/6 1/16 8:45-9:45am/ 8:45-9:45am/ 3:15-4:15pm 4:15-5:15pm 1/3 0/0 2/1 0/1 N 0, eN N V I Q V Q M � M to 0 0/4 � Prospect 1/2 vi m C c N U RECENT (2-19-13) PEDESTRIAN PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC —�/1_—DELICH B 1-=ASSOCIATES Figure 5 Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013 Page 8 0 N 0 U >L 0/15 _ 0/0 o 3/6 0/0 � 0 0 o N�� N N M N a/s 5/1U) Lake 37/2 a/4 _ 8:45-9:45am/ 8:45-9:45am/ 3:15-4:15pm 4:15-5:15pm _ 0/1 1/1 2/0 — oro _ a ®O N �- N N�`' �® N N 0/3 CV) 0/1 0/1 v1 2/1 a� L V U RECENT (2-19-13) BICYCLE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC _--w-/11--DELICH -/ I —ASSOCIATES Figure 4 Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013 Page 7 r_ O U L 0q O ((DD N N � 135/82 � rn rn N - Ln 70/118 AJ j !� 18/17 6621391� 1 f r 137/115 m co 0 C N 24/39 o n � N N 8:45-9:45am/ 3:15-4:15pm Ln 158177 Cl) IT �— 404/885 31/32 73/37 �` 1 880/709 14/12 N � O N RECENT (2-19-13) VEHICLE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC _--/,/L—DELICH ASSOCIATES N � 160/158 /- 57/104 171 /207 — 47no—� C CD rn m -.,,— 8:45-9:45am/ 4:15-5:15pm 00 IT q 119/36 '0 , t C4 "' D' �— 537n99 1 i 168/206 146/43 --1' t r 720f790 y ( qh 107/69 v -- N LO c') N O N k" u Figure 3 Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013 Page 6 Lake Prospect Whitcomb/Lake intersection, Whitcomb Street has all northbound movements combined in a single lane. The north leg (Meridian Avenue) has separate southbound left -turn, ' through, and right -turn lanes. The Whitcomb/Lake intersection has all -way stop sign control. ' Lake Street is an east -west street designated as a collector street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Lake Street has a two-lane cross section with parking on both sides of the street. At the Centre/Lake and Whitcomb/Lake ' intersections, Lake Street has all eastbound and westbound movements combined in single lanes. ' Existing Traffic ' Figures 3, 4, and 5 show recent peak hour vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic counts at the Prospect/Centre, Prospect/Whitcomb, Centre/Lake, and Whitcomb/Lake intersections, respectively. Recent count data was obtained in February 2013 and provided by Colorado State University (CSU). These are the analysis peaks in this TIS. Raw count data is provided in Appendix A. ' In the months since the counts were performed, The Grove Student Housing development has been constructed south of Prospect Road. Since The Grove is ' occupied by CSU students, the bicycle, pedestrian, and (to a lesser degree) vehicle counts at the Prospect/Centre and Centre/Lake intersections are greater today as compared to the February counts. Therefore, the recent peak hour vehicle, bicycle, and ' pedestrian traffic counts at the key intersections (Figures 3, 4, and 5) were factored to reflect conditions with The Grove development. The increase in traffic was based upon comparing City of Fort Collins peak hour vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic counts ' performed before construction of The Grove and counts performed after construction of The Grove. Figures 6, 7, and 8 show factored recent peak hour vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic counts at the key intersections, respectively. ' Existing Operation The Prospect/Centre, Prospect/Whitcomb, Centre/Lake, and Whitcomb/Lake intersections were evaluated and the peak hour operation is displayed in Table 1. ' Calculation forms are provided in Appendix B. The Prospect/Centre and Prospect/ Whitcomb intersections are currently operating acceptably with existing signal control, geometry, and signal timing in the morning and afternoon peak hours. The Centre/Lake ' and Whitcomb/Lake intersections are currently operating acceptably with existing all - way stop sign control and geometry in the peak hours. The intersections were evaluated using techniques provided in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual ' (2010HCM). A description of level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual and a table showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) are also provided in Appendix B. �lL—DELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December2013 ,p t=ASSOCIATES Page 5 1 0 N Ct U .09 - Denotes Lane EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY Figure 2 �,l1-- DELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013 7,1 rASSOCIATES Page U7 I- I I Laurel Plum CA r v m _N a s A University South m w N I Pitkin ggg1e Village North`- - rpy ��a; n N e Lake Prospect o°) o V Rolland Moore JI;ALt: l -=l UUU SITE LOCATION ---/��—DELICH (-'ASSOCIATES Figure 1 Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013 Page 3 IL EXISTING CONDITIONS ' The location of the Aggie Village North site is shown in Figure 1. It is important that a thorough understanding of the existing conditions be presented. Land Use ' Land uses in the area are primarily commercial, institutional (CSU), or residential. Land adjacent to the site is flat (<2% grade) from a traffic operations perspective. This site is near the center of Fort Collins. Colorado State University and the Fort Collins CBD are north of the proposed Aggie Village North site. This site is on the CSU Campus. Roads The primary streets near the Aggie Village North site are Prospect Road, Centre ' Avenue, Whitcomb Street, and Lake Street. The existing geometry at the key intersections is shown in Figure 2. Prospect Road is to the south of (adjacent to) the Aggie Village North site. It is classified as a four -lane arterial street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Prospect Road has a four -lane cross section near the Prospect/Centre intersection. At ' the Prospect/Centre and Prospect/Whitcomb intersections, Prospect Road has eastbound and westbound left -turn lanes and two travel lanes in each direction. ' According to LCUASS, eastbound and westbound right -turn lanes are required with the existing traffic volumes at the Prospect/Centre intersection. At the Prospect/Whitcomb intersection, a westbound right -turn lane is required with the existing traffic. Typically, ' when turn lanes are shown to be required based on volumes, they are not built unless the operation at the subject intersection is determined to be unacceptable. The Prospect/Centre and Prospect/Whitcomb intersections have signal control. The existing speed limit in this area is 35 mph. Centre Avenue is to the east of (adjacent to) the Aggie Village North site. In this ' area, it is a north -south street designated as a collector street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, it has a two-lane cross section. At the Prospect/Centre intersection, Centre Avenue has northbound and southbound left -turn lanes, one through lane in each direction, and northbound and southbound right -turn lanes. At the Centre/Lake T-intersection, Centre Avenue has the northbound movements combined in a single lane. The Centre/Lake intersection has all -way stop sign control. ' Whitcomb Street is a north -south street designated as a local street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Whitcomb Street has a two-lane cross section ' with parking on both sides of the street. At the Prospect/Whitcomb intersection, Whitcomb Street has the northbound movements combined in a single lane, a combined southbound left-turn/through lane, and a southbound right -turn lane. At the __/1'LDELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013 1, [-ASSOCIATES Page 2 I. INTRODUCTION This intermediate transportation impact study (ITIS) addresses the capacity, geometric, and control requirements at and near the proposed Aggie Village North., The proposed Aggie Village North site is located in the. northwest quadrant of the Centre/Prospect intersection in Fort Collins, Colorado. During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made with the project developer (CSU) and the Fort Collins Traffic Engineering staff. This study generally conforms to the format set forth in the Fort Collins transportation impact study guidelines contained in the "Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards" (LCUASS). The study involved the following steps: • Collect physical, traffic, and development data; • Perform trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment; • Determine peak hour traffic volumes; • Conduct capacity and operational level of service analyses on key intersections; • Analyze signal warrants; • Conduct level of service evaluation of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of transportation. L-DELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013 -7.,ri rASSOCIATES Page 1 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Site Location............................................................................................................. 3 2. Existing Intersection Geometry ................................................................................. 4 3. Recent (2-19-13) Vehicle Peak Hour Traffic............................................................. 6 4. Recent (2-19-13) Bicycle Peak Hour Traffic.............................................................. 7 5. Recent (2-19-13) Pedestrian Peak Hour Traffic........................................................ 8 6. Factored/Balanced Recent Vehicle Peak Hour Traffic .............................................. 9 7. Factored Recent Bicycle Peak Hour Traffic............................................................ 10 8. Factored Recent Pedestrian Peak Hour Traffic....................................................... 11 9. Site Plan.................................................................................................................. 15 10. Trip Distribution....................................................................................................... 17 11. Short Range (2016) Background Vehicle Peak Hour Traffic ................................... 18 12. Short Range (2016) Background Bicycle Peak Hour Traffic ................................... 19 13. Short Range (2016) Background Pedestrian Peak Hour Traffic .............................. 20 14. Site Generated Vehicle Peak Hour Traffic Assignment ........................................... 21 15. Short Range (2016) Total Vehicle Peak Hour Traffic .............................................. 23 16. Short Range (2016) Total Bicycle Peak Hour Traffic ............................................... 24 17. Short Range (2016) Total Pedestrian Peak Hour Traffic ......................................... 25 18. Short Range (2016) Geometry ................................................................................ 28 APPENDICES A. Recent Peak Hour Traffic B. Current Peak Hour Operation/Level of Service Descriptions/Fort Collins LOS Standards C. Short Range (2016) Background Peak Hour Operation D. Short Range (2016) Total Peak Hour Operation E. Pedestrian/Bicycle Level of Service 11—DELICH Aggie Village North TIS, December 2013 [—ASSOCIATES TABLE OF CONTENTS ' I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS.......................................................................................... 2 ' Land Use......................................................................................................................... 2 Roads.............................................................................................................................. 2 Existing Traffic ................... .............................................................................................. 5 ' Existing Operation........................................................................................................... 5 PedestriansFacilities.. .................................................................................................. 13 BicycleFacilities............................................................................................................ 13 ' Transit Facilities............................................................................................................ 13 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................. 14 ' Trip Generation............................................................................................................. 14 TripDistribution............................................................................................................. 14 Background Traffic Projections..................................................................................... 14 TripAssignment............................................................................................................ 14 SignalWarrants............................................................................................................ 22 ' Operation Analysis........................................................................................................ 22 Geometry...................................................................................................................... 22 Pedestrian Level of Service.......................................................................................... 29 ' Bicycle Level of Service................................................................................................ 29 TransitLevel of Service................................................................................................. 29 IV. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................30 LIST OF TABLES 1. Current Peak Hour Operation................................................................................. 12 2. Trip Generation....................................................................................................... 16 3. Short Range (2016) Background Peak Hour Operation .......................................... 26 4. Short Range (2016) Total Peak Hour Operation..................................................... 27 —/1'�--DELICH a ��r, r ASSOCIATES 991e Village North TIS, December 2013 AGGIE VILLAGE NORTH TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO DECEMBER 2013 Prepared for: CSU Facilities Management Prepared by: DELICH ASSOCIATES 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: 970-669-2061 FAX: 970-669-5034 / /1// r Project #1389 1 inch = 250 feet Aggie Village North N 500 W. Prospect Rd. W E Aggie Village North. SPAR #130005 Planning & Zoning Hearing 1-9-2014 Page 8 Utility Plan, Architectural Renderings, and Project Description dated December 23, 2013 2. Transportation Impact Memorandum (to be distributed) 3. Proposed Intra-Campus Circulator Route Map 4. Neighborhood Meeting Notes, November 18, 2013 Aggie Village North, SPAR #130w5 Planning & Zoning Hearing 1-9-2014 Page 7 expressed that the City should be working collaboratively with CSU to address "big picture" issues of neighborhood compatibility as the student population increases, CSU expands on -campus facilities and more infill and redevelopment occurs. One resident provided comments to staff by telephone that echoed the parking concerns raised during the neighborhood meeting. 5. Findings of Fact/Conclusions: A. The proposed Aggie Village North is subject to evaluation by the City of Fort Collins as a Site Plan Advisory Review, pursuant to State Statute Section 31-23- 209, C.R.S., and the location, character, and extent of the proposed building conforms to the adopted Master Plan (City Plan) of the City of Fort Collins. B. The proposal complies with the West Central Neighborhood Plan with respect to its location, character and extent. C. The location of the proposed Aggie Village North provides for an efficient use of land and is the most appropriate location for additional student housing. D. The character of the proposed Aggie Village North architecture, site design and landscaping is consistent with the adopted Aesthetic Standards for the Colorado State University Campus. E. The extent of impacts generated by the proposed Aggie Village North to the City's storm drainage, and transportation systems, and water and sewer systems can be accommodated through existing utility infrastructure. Parking impacts to the surrounding area are reduced through the provision of on -site vehicle parking and the promotion of alternative modes of transportation. Further, orientation of buildings, open space areas, fencing and landscape buffering has reduced the extent of impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Aggie Village North - Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA130005. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Development Plans: Location and Context Diagram, Site/Landscape Plan, Emergency Access Diagram, Street Sections, Parking Plan, Stormwater and Aggie Village North, SPAR #130005 Planning & Zoning Hearing 1-9-2014 Page 6 nearby. The student tenant mix will be 75% single undergraduates; 25% graduates and post -doctoral students. The undergraduate residents will include about 500 members of the [CC Community (international and domestic undergraduates that want to live in an international community) and other upper class students. It is also envisioned that many tenants will be taking advantage of the MAX Prospect station and internal CSU Circulator and therefore inclined to use Lake Street as a primary pedestrian and bicycle route (see attached Intra-Campus Circulator Route Map). 3. Storm Drainage Drainage around the proposed buildings will be conveyed via surface drainage through curb and gutter, inlets, storm piping and sheet flow away from the buildings. Storm water is anticipated to be conveyed through storm piping to an existing 42" storm line located along the western properly line. Flows from the 42" line are eventually conveyed to the Spring Creek, South of the site. On -site detention and water quality facilities are anticipated and will have to be incorporated into the site layout. Caution will have to be taken at the northeast corner of the site as this is within the CSU 100-year floodplain. Preliminary estimates show an increase in impervious surface area of approximately 90,000- 100,000 sf. Low Impact Development strategies will be explored to decrease the required detention volume, while serving to enhance water quality at the same time. Pervious parking could be achieved by installing permeable pavers and an underdrain system. Coordination with CSU will need to occur to determine the appropriate erosion control measures to be in place during construction. Further coordination will most likely be required to determine allowable street capacities for stormwater conveyance off site. 4. Public Outreach: A neighborhood information meeting was held on November 18, 2013 at Yates Hall, just northeast of the project site. Detailed neighborhood meeting minutes are attached to this staff report. At the neighborhood meeting, most of the expressed neighborhood concerns centered on the adequacy of parking to accommodate the increase in dwelling units from 150 to 480. Some residents Aggie Village North, SPAR #1300u6 Planning & Zoning Hearing 1-9-2014 Page 5 impact summary and is satisfied that the proposal will not measurably impact the transportation system for the range of transportation modes. The proposed development Plan shows the entryway to a potential bicycle and pedestrian underpass to be constructed at the Prospect Road and Center Avenue intersection. While the underpass design and construction is not funded as a City capital project or through the Aggie Village North project, the staff supports inclusion of the underpass approach on the development plan as there is a demonstrated need for a safer bicycle and pedestrian crossing at this intersection. The City will conduct a detailed analysis of Prospect Road corridor, from College Avenue to Shields Street, during 2014 as part of the West Central Neighborhoods Plan Update. Strategies for improving the Prospect Road Corridor will consider ways to make the area more functional, safe and identifiable for pedestrian, bicycles, buses and cars. The project will culminate in a preliminary roadway design (30% engineering) that will include an examination of the bicycle/pedestrian underpass along with ultimate street design cross- section for travel lanes, bicycle and transit facilities, sidewalks, landscaping and other design amenities. The submitted development plan retains the existing seven foot -wide attached sidewalk along Prospect Road, which is inconsistent with the City's adopted standard for wider, detached sidewalks along arterial streets. Staff will defer taking a position on the final sidewalk width and location until the Prospect Road street design alternatives are considered later this year. 2. Parking On -site parking will be provided within a surface parking lot on the west side of the site, through "tuck under" parking beneath buildings, and within a below - grade parking garage under the building fronting Lake Street. The 250 On -site parking stalls are configured as follows: • +/- 70 Surface parking stalls • +/- 60 Garden -level parking stalls • +/- 120 Below -grade parking stalls • +/- 10 Car Sharing Parking Stalls (i.e. Zipcar) Anticipated parking demand based on CSU's past experience with the proposed tenant group shows a close match with proposed parking supply on -site and Aggie Village North, SPAR #130005 Planning & Zoning Hearing 1-9-2014 Page 4 Aggie Village North that are compatible with those materials and colors within the adjacent campus and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood. 2. Site Design Residential Buildings within Aggie Village North have been sited to create common open space areas serving residents; non-residential buildings are oriented toward the north and east toward the vitality of the Main Campus and increased pedestrian activity along Lake Street. Courtyards in between buildings have been configured to maximize sun exposure during the winter months and create active gathering spaces. 3. Landscaping A densely -planted landscape buffer area fronts Prospect Road, which includes a row of mature Blue Spruce trees coupled with a row of existing street trees. Future enhancements along Prospect Road will include enhanced fencing behind the landscape screen and strategic placement of new deciduous trees, both of which will improve the visual appearance from Prospect Road and enhance privacy and safety for Aggie Village North residents. Street frontages along both Lake Street and Center Avenue will be landscaped to reinforce the importance of these streets as a gateway to the University and increasing prominence as major pedestrian corridors. A plaza space anchored with bosque of trees helps to define the main building entry at the comer of Center and Lake Street. A full complement of street trees will be planted along Lake Street in accordance with the City's adopted standards. B. Extent The extent of impacts generated by the building to the City's storm drainage, water, sanitary sewer, and transportation systems, can be accommodated through existing utility infrastructure. 1. Transportation System A Transportation Impact Memorandum was submitted and accepted by the City's Traffic Operations and Engineering Departments. Staff has reviewed the traffic Aggie Village North, SPAR #130u05 Planning & Zoning Hearing 1-9-2014 Page 3 The site is located in the West Central Neighborhoods Plan area, and designated within the Campus District. The proposed project complies with the intent of the Campus District cited in the Plan, as the proposal is categorized as a "higher intensity use(s), such as large apartment complexes, dormitories, fraternities, (and) sororities". Further, the proposed building height complies with the suggested maximum height of 5 stories stated in the adopted Plan given that 80 foot setbacks are provided from Prospect Road. Housing Policy HO 14 of the West Central Neighborhoods Plan specifically "encourages and supports Colorado State University in development of student housing on Colorado State University property". B. Character The immediate site area is dominated by University -related uses: the CSU main campus lies immediately to the north, the recently constructed CSU parking structure with a ground floor restaurant and office space to the east, the Aggie Village South directly across Prospect Road to the south, and multi -family housing mixed in with single family residential to the west. This is a highly pedestrian -used area, with Lake Street and Center Avenue traveled by students and faculty to and from campus. The intersection of Prospect and Center Avenue functions as the visual and functional "gateway" to the CSU Campus and is designated as such on the adopted CSU Main Campus Master Plan. The proposed housing project fits into CSU's design vision embodied in the Aesthetic Guidelines adopted by the University in 2006. The Aesthetic Guidelines Program is meant to implement the recommendations of the campus master plan by: • Establishing the framework to incrementally build new facilities. • Reinforcing the patterns of campus open spaces, edges and features. • Setting criteria for building composition and materials. • Developing a consistent palette of site furnishings, including signage, paving, lighting, and furniture (benches, trash, etc.). 1. Architecture The existing buildings at CSU's main campus exhibit a wide range of materials and colors, although the predominant materials are natural stone, light colored brick and pre -cast concrete. Exterior materials and colors have been chosen for Aggie Village North, SPAR;;130005 Planning & Zoning Hearing 1-9-2014 Page 2 COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Not Zoned CSU CSU Main Campus South Not Zoned (CSU) and Employment E CSU Student housing and ropes course; hotel East Not Zoned CSU Parking Structure West High Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood H-M-N Single-family and multi -family residential 2. Right of Advisory Review: Colorado Revised Statutes provide two specific references which allow the City to review the planning and location of public facilities: A. Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. provides that no public building shall be constructed or authorized in a city until the "location, character and extent thereof' has been submitted for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. In the case of disapproval, the Planning and Zoning Board shall communicate its findings to Colorado State University. The disapproval of the Planning and Zoning Board may be overruled by the Colorado State University Board of Governors by a vote of not less than two-thirds of its membership. Under Section 31-23-209, C.R.S., the Planning and Zoning Board should make a finding as to the location, character, and extent of the public building relative to the adopted Master Plan (City Plan) of the City. Such findings help ensure that the proposed project conforms to the adopted plan of the City of Fort Collins. 3. Analysis: A. Location The project site fronts on Prospect Road, Center Avenue and Lake Street and lies within a Colorado State University Annexation Area and is therefore not zoned. The existing Aggie Village student housing has occupied the site for more than 50 years. Fort`of I EM NO MEETING DATE January 9. 2014 STAFF Cameron Gloss PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PROJECT: Aggie Village North - Site Plan Advisory Review #SPA130005 APPLICANT: Colorado State University OWNER: Same PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to deconstruct the 150-unit Aggie Village North Apartments and replace them with 408,000 square feet of new student apartments. The new facility includes 1,000 beds within 480 apartment units, dispersed within a variety of unit types, from studio units to four -bedroom configurations. Non-residential uses along the Lake Street frontage will provide amenities serving the resident student population, including student lounges, group kitchens, flex rooms and a small amount of retail. Building heights will be staggered, ranging between 3 and 5 stories. 250 on -site parking will be provided within a surface parking lot on the west side of the site, through "tuck under" parking spaces beneath buildings, and within a below -grade parking garage under the building fronting Lake Street. The Aggie Village North site is 8.7 acres in size is not zoned. RECOMMENDATION: Approval EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Site Plan Advisory Review complies with State Statutes as to the location, character and extent of the project. Planning Services 281 N College Ave - PO Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750