The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLANDMARK APARTMENTS EXPANSION - PDP - PDP120031 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - TRAFFIC STUDYLANDMARK APARTMENTS EXPANSION TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO NOVEMBER 2012 Prepared for: Summit Management Services, Inc. 730 West Market Street Akron, OH 44303 Prepared by: DELICH ASSOCIATES 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: 970-669-2061 FAX: 970-669-5034 Project #1220 DELICH Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 2 Land Use......................................................................................................................... 2 Streets............................................................................................................................. 2 Existing Traffic................................................................................................................. 5 Existing Operation........................................................................................................... 5 Pedestrian Facilities ........................................................................................................ 5 Bicycle Facilities..............................................................................................................5 Transit Facilities ..............................................................................................................8 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT................................................................................. 9 Trip Generation ............................................................................................................... 9 Trip Distribution ...............................................................................................................9 Background Traffic Projections ..................................................................................... 12 Trip Assignment ............................................................................................................ 12 Signal Warrants............................................................................................................. 12 Operation Analysis ........................................................................................................ 12 Geometry ...................................................................................................................... 19 Pedestrian Level of Service........................................................................................... 19 Bicycle Level of Service ................................................................................................ 25 Transit Level of Service................................................................................................. 25 IV. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 26 LIST OF TABLES 1. Current Peak Hour Operation.................................................................................... 8 2. Trip Generation ......................................................................................................... 9 3. Short Range (2017) Background Peak Hour Operation .......................................... 18 4. Long Range (2035) Background Peak Hour Operation........................................... 20 5. Short Range (2017) Total Peak Hour Operation ..................................................... 21 6. Long Range (2035) Total Peak Hour Operation...................................................... 22 DELICH Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES LIST OF FIGURES 1. Site Location ............................................................................................................. 3 2. Current Roadway Geometry...................................................................................... 4 3. Recent Peak Hour Traffic .......................................................................................... 6 4. Adjusted/Balanced Recent Peak Hour Traffic ........................................................... 7 5. Site Plan.................................................................................................................. 10 6. Trip Distribution ....................................................................................................... 11 7. Short Range (2017) Background Peak Hour Traffic................................................ 13 8. Long Range (2035) Background Peak Hour Traffic................................................. 14 9. Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic ........................................................................... 15 10. Short Range (2017) Total Peak Hour Traffic ........................................................... 16 11. Long Range (2035) Total Peak Hour Traffic............................................................ 17 12. Short Range (2017) Geometry ................................................................................ 23 13. Long Range (2035) Geometry................................................................................. 24 APPENDICES A. Base Assumptions Form B. Peak Hour Traffic Counts C. Current Peak Hour Operation/Level of Service Descriptions/Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) D. Short Range (2017) Background Peak Hour Operation E. Long Range (2035) Background Peak Hour Operation F. Short Range (2017) Total Peak Hour Operation G. Long Range (2035) Total Peak Hour Operation H. Pedestrian/Bicycle Level of Service Worksheets DELICH Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION This transportation impact study (TIS) addresses the capacity, geometric, and control requirements for the proposed Landmark Apartments Expansion development. The proposed Landmark Apartments Expansion development is located in the southeast quadrant of the Shields/Prospect intersection in Fort Collins, Colorado. During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made with the owner/developer (Summit Management Services, Inc.), the project engineering consultant (Northstar Design), the project planning consultant (The Neenan Company), Fort Collins Traffic Engineering, and Fort Collins Transportation Planning. The Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions form and related documents are provided in Appendix A. This study generally conforms to the format set forth in the Fort Collins TIS Guidelines in the “Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards” (LCUASS). A scoping discussion was held with the Fort Collins Traffic Engineering staff. Due to the location and neighborhood issues, a full transportation impact study was requested. 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 DELICH Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES Page 2 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The location of Landmark Apartments Expansion 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 or residential. There are residential uses to the east, north, and south of the site. There are commercial uses to the west of the site. Colorado State University is north of the site. The center of Fort Collins lies to the northeast of the proposed Landmark Apartments Expansion site. Streets The primary streets near the Landmark Apartments Expansion site are Shields Street, Prospect Road, and Hobbit Street. Figure 2 shows a schematic of the existing geometry at the key intersections. Shields Street is west of the proposed Landmark Apartments Expansion site. It is a north-south street classified as a four-lane arterial on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Shields Street has a four-lane cross section. At the Shields/Prospect intersection, Shields Street has northbound and southbound left-turn lanes, two through lanes in each direction, and northbound and southbound right-turn lanes. The Shields/Prospect intersection has signal control. At the Shields/Hobbit intersection, Shields Street has a southbound left-turn lane and two through lanes in each direction. The Shields/Hobbit intersection has stop sign control on Hobbit Street. The posted speed limit on this segment of Shields Street is 35 mph. Prospect Road is north of the proposed Landmark Apartments Expansion site. It is an east-west street classified as a four-lane arterial on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Prospect Road has a four-lane cross section. At the Shields/Prospect intersection, Prospect Road has dual eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes, two through lanes in each direction, and an eastbound right-turn lane. The right-turn volume on the westbound approach at the Shields/Prospect intersection indicates the need for a right-turn lane. The need for this right-turn lane has been demonstrated in numerous traffic studies for many years. Building this right-turn lane would likely require acquisition of at least three properties along Prospect Road, east of Shields Street. The decision to build this right-turn lane rests with the City of Fort Collins. The posted speed limit on this segment of Prospect Road is 35 mph. Hobbit Street is south the Landmark Apartments Expansion site. It is an east- west street classified as a local street on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Hobbit Street has a two-lane cross section with parking on both sides of the street. There is no posted speed limit on this segment of Hobbit Street. Prospect Hobbit Shields Stuart Existing Landmark Apartments Lake Sheely SCALE: 1"=500' SITE LOCATION Figure 1 DELICH ASSOCIATES Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 Page 3 CURRENT INTERSECTION GEOMETRY Figure 2 DELICH ASSOCIATES Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 Page 4 Prospect Hobbit Shields - Denotes Lane DELICH Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES Page 5 Existing Traffic Recent peak hour traffic volumes at the Shields/Prospect and Shields/Hobbit intersections are shown in Figure 3. The counts at the key intersections were obtained in March 2012. Raw traffic count data is provided in Appendix B. Since the traffic counts were done on different days, the intersection volumes were averaged (adjusted/balanced). Figure 4 shows the averaged recent peak hour traffic volumes. Existing Operation The Shields/Prospect and Shields/Hobbit intersections were evaluated and the peak hour operation is displayed in Table 1. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix C. The key intersections are currently operating acceptably with existing control, geometry, and signal timing in the morning and afternoon peak hours. The intersections were evaluated using techniques provided in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. A description of level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual and a table showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) are also provided in Appendix C. The Landmark Apartments Expansion site is in an area termed “mixed-use district.” In areas termed “mixed-use district,” acceptable operation at signalized intersections during the peak hours is defined as level of service E or better. At unsignalized intersections, acceptable operation is considered to be at level of service F for any approach leg for an arterial/local intersection. In such areas, it is expected that there would be substantial delays to the minor street movements at unsignalized intersections during the peak hours. This is considered to be normal and acceptable in urban areas. Pedestrian Facilities There are sidewalks along Shields Street, Hobbit Street, and Prospect Road within the pedestrian influence area. Many of the street cross section elements were built prior to the current standards. Therefore, some of the sidewalks may be considered to be substandard. The Spring Creek Trail crosses Shields Street south of West Stuart Street. Bicycle Facilities There are bicycle lanes along Shields Street and along Prospect Road, west of Shields Street, within the study area. Prospect Road, east of Shields Street, is constrained, in that on-street bike lanes do not exist due to the width of Prospect Road. The Spring Creek Trail crosses Shields Street south of West Stuart Street. AM/PM RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3 DELICH ASSOCIATES Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 Page 6 65/164 861/933 143/118 37/176 609/1027 162/237 233/148 691/415 139/131 139/231 246/631 87/235 882/1504 9/27 962/1239 0/8 15/34 4/11 Prospect Hobbit Shields AM/PM AVERAGED RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 4 DELICH ASSOCIATES Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 Page 7 62/168 824/955 137/121 37/176 629/1078 162/237 233/148 691/415 144/137 139/231 246/631 90/247 854/1436 9/26 1007/1211 0/8 16/33 4/11 Prospect Hobbit Shields DELICH Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES Page 8 Transit Facilities Currently, this area of Fort Collins is served by Transfort Routes 19, 2, and 3. Route 19 operates along Shields Street, Route 2 operates, westbound, along Prospect Road, and Route 3 operates eastbound on Prospect Road, west of Shields Street, and northbound on Shields Street, north of Prospect Road. TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB LT D E EB T D D EB RT C D EB APPROACH D D WB LT D E WB T/RT D E WB APPROACH D E NB LT B D NB T C D NB RT B C NB APPROACH C D SB LT C E SB T C D SB RT B C SB APPROACH C D Shields/Prospect (signal) OVERALL C D Shields/Hobbit WB LT/RT C C (stop sign) SB LT B B DELICH Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES Page 9 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Landmark Apartments Expansion is a residential apartment development with 84 dwelling units. Figure 5 shows a site plan of Landmark Apartments Expansion. The existing Landmark Apartments and the proposed expansion are marketed to Colorado State University students. The short range analysis (Year 2017) includes development of Landmark Apartments Expansion and an appropriate increase in background traffic due to normal growth and other potential developments in the area. The long range analysis year is considered to be 2035. The site plan shows that Landmark Apartments Expansion will use existing Hobbit Street to access Shields Street. There will be a pedestrian connection to the sidewalk on Prospect Road. 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 contain in Trip Generation, 9th Edition, ITE was used to estimate the trips that would be generated by the proposed/expected uses at Landmark Apartments Expansion site. Each apartment will have two beds. Therefore, a person was used as the trip generation variable. A trip is defined as a one-way vehicle movement from origin to destination. Table 2 shows the expected trip generation on a daily and peak hour basis. The trip generation of Landmark Apartments Expansion development resulted in 518 daily trip ends, 55 morning peak hour trip ends, and 68 afternoon peak hour trip ends. Due to its proximity to Colorado State University, it was agreed that a 30 percent alternative modes adjustment to the calculated trip generation is appropriate. With the alternative modes adjustment, the motor vehicle trip generation is estimated to be: 362 daily trip ends, 39 morning peak hour trip ends, and 48 afternoon peak hour trip ends. TABLE 2 Trip Generation Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Rate Out Rate In Rate Out 220 Apartments 168 Beds EQ 518 EQ 11 EQ 44 EQ 44 EQ 24 Less 30% Alternative Modes 156 3 13 13 7 Total Assigned Trips 362 8 31 31 17 Trip Distribution Trip distribution for Landmark Apartments Expansion was based on existing/ future travel patterns, land uses in the area, consideration of trip attractions in Fort Collins, and engineering judgment. Figure 6 shows the trip distribution for the short range (2017) and long range (2035) analysis futures. The trip distribution was agreed to by City of Fort Collins staff in the scoping discussions. SCALE: 1"=200' SITE PLAN Figure 5 DELICH ASSOCIATES Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 Page 10 Prospect Hobbit Shields Stuart Lake Sheely 10% 20% 55% 15% SCALE: 1"=500' TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 6 DELICH ASSOCIATES Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 Page 11 DELICH Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES Page 12 Background Traffic Projections Figures 7 and 8 show the respective short range (2017) and long range (2035) background traffic projections. Background traffic projections for the short and long range future horizons were obtained by reviewing the North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan and various traffic studies prepared for this area of Fort Collins. The primary other traffic study in this area is The Grove student housing development southeast of the Landmark Apartments Expansion site. Based upon these sources, it was determined that traffic volumes on Shields Street and Prospect Road would increase by approximately 1.0% per year in the short range future and by approximately 1.25% per year in the long range future. Traffic from The Grove was added to the short range (2017) background traffic volumes. The parcel east of Shields Street, between Hobbit Street and West Stuart Street (extended), is designated as a neighborhood commercial center. The long range (2035) background traffic includes commercial and residential land uses on this parcel. The background traffic growth was agreed to by City of Fort Collins staff in the scoping discussions. Trip Assignment Trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the street system. The assigned trips are the resultant of the trip distribution process. Figure 9 shows the site generated peak hour traffic assignment. Figures 10 and 11 show the respective short range (2017) and long range (2035) total (site plus background) peak hour traffic assignment. 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. The Shields/Prospect is currently signalized. The Shields/Hobbit stop sign controlled intersection will not meet signal warrants in the future. Operation Analysis Operation analyses were performed at the Shields/Prospect and Shields/Hobbit intersections. The operation analyses were conducted for the short range and long range futures, reflecting year 2017 and 2035 conditions, respectively. The long range analyses are provided for informational purposes. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 7, the key intersections operate in the short range (2017) background traffic future, with the existing geometry, as indicated in Table 3. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix D. It is important to note that due to the increased traffic volumes, the signal timing in the morning and AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2017) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 7 DELICH ASSOCIATES Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 Page 13 66/178 869/1005 144/127 39/185 662/1136 172/257 245/156 727/440 151/146 153/248 262/665 95/260 899/1516 9/26 1063/1277 0/8 16/33 4/11 Prospect Hobbit Shields LONG RANGE (2035) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 8 DELICH ASSOCIATES Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 Page 14 90/235 1110/1270 195/170 50/235 840/1450 215/315 310/195 920/550 195/190 185/310 330/840 125/345 1140/1910 20/75 1340/1615 5/10 55/60 5/15 Prospect Hobbit Shields AM/PM Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles AM/PM SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 9 DELICH ASSOCIATES Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 Page 15 3/2 17/9 6/3 4/17 1/3 2/6 7/26 1/5 26/14 5/3 Prospect Hobbit Shields AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2017) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 10 DELICH ASSOCIATES Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 Page 16 69/180 886/1014 150/130 39/185 666/1153 172/257 245/156 727/440 152/149 153/248 262/665 97/266 899/1516 16/52 1063/1277 1/13 42/47 9/14 Prospect Hobbit Shields LONG RANGE (2035) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 11 DELICH ASSOCIATES Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 Page 17 95/235 1125/1280 200/175 50/235 845/1465 215/315 310/195 920/550 195/195 185/310 330/840 130/350 1140/1910 30/100 1340/1615 5/15 80/75 10/20 Prospect Hobbit Shields AM/PM Rounded to Nearest 5 Vehicles DELICH Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES Page 18 TABLE 3 Short Range (2017) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB LT D E EB T D D EB RT C C EB APPROACH D D WB LT D D WB T/RT D E WB APPROACH D E NB LT B D NB T C D NB RT C C NB APPROACH C D SB LT C E SB T C D SB RT B C SB APPROACH C D Shields/Prospect (signal) OVERALL C D Shields/Hobbit WB LT/RT C C (stop sign) SB LT B B DELICH Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES Page 19 afternoon peak hours remained at a 110 second cycle and a 120 second cycle, respectively, but the time allocated to each phase had to be adjusted to achieve acceptable level of service. The adjustment consisted of giving more green time to the east-west approaches. The key intersections will operate acceptably. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 8, the key intersections operate in the long range (2035) background traffic future as indicated in Table 4. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix E. The operation analyses assume that the westbound right-turn lane will exist. The Shields/Prospect intersection will not achieve level of service E or better for all movements during the afternoon peak hour. The eastbound left-turn movements will operate at level of service F. The Shields/Hobbit intersection will operate acceptably. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 10, the key intersections operate in the short range (2017) total traffic future, with the existing geometry, as indicated in Table 5. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix F. As with the background operation, due to the increased traffic volumes, the signal timing in the morning and afternoon peak hours remained at a 110 second cycle and a 120 second cycle, respectively, but the time allocated to each phase had to be adjusted to achieve acceptable level of service. The key intersections will operate acceptably. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 11, the key intersections operate in the long range (2035) total traffic future as indicated in Table 7. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix G. The operation analyses assume that the westbound right-turn lane will exist. The Shields/Prospect intersection will not achieve level of service E or better for all movements during the afternoon peak hour. The eastbound left-turn movements will operate at level of service F. The Shields/Hobbit intersection will operate acceptably. Geometry Figure 12 shows a schematic of the required short range (2017) geometry. This is the existing geometry at the Shields/Prospect and Shields/Hobbit intersections. At the Shields/Prospect intersection, a westbound right-turn lane is required with the current traffic. Figure 13 shows a schematic of the long range (2035) geometry. The only difference between the short range (2017) and long range (2035) geometry is the addition of a westbound right-turn lane at the Shields/Prospect intersection. The decision to build this right-turn lane rests with the City. This site will contribute no traffic to this movement. Pedestrian Level of Service Appendix H shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the Landmark Apartments Expansion site. There will be five pedestrian destinations within 1320 feet of Landmark Apartments Expansion site. These are: 1) the residential area to the east DELICH Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES Page 20 TABLE 4 Long Range (2035) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB LT D F EB T D D EB RT C D EB APPROACH D E WB LT D E WB T D E WB RT D D WB APPROACH D E NB LT C E NB T D E NB RT C C NB APPROACH D E SB LT D E SB T C E SB RT B C SB APPROACH C E Shields/Prospect (signal) OVERALL D E Shields/Hobbit WB LT/RT C E (stop sign) SB LT B C DELICH Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES Page 21 TABLE 5 Short Range (2017) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB LT D E EB T D D EB RT C C EB APPROACH D D WB LT D E WB T/RT D E WB APPROACH D E NB LT B D NB T C D NB RT C C NB APPROACH C D SB LT C E SB T C E SB RT B C SB APPROACH C E Shields/Prospect (signal) OVERALL C D Shields/Hobbit WB LT/RT C D (stop sign) SB LT B B DELICH Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES Page 22 TABLE 6 Long Range (2035) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM EB LT D F EB T D D EB RT C D EB APPROACH D E WB LT E E WB T D E WB RT D D WB APPROACH D E NB LT C E NB T D E NB RT C C NB APPROACH D E SB LT D E SB T C E SB RT B C SB APPROACH C E Shields/Prospect (signal) OVERALL D E Shields/Hobbit WB LT/RT C E (stop sign) SB LT B C SHORT RANGE (2017) GEOMETRY Figure 12 DELICH ASSOCIATES Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 Page 23 Prospect Hobbit Shields - Denotes Lane LONG RANGE (2035) GEOMETRY Figure 13 DELICH ASSOCIATES Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 Page 24 Prospect Hobbit Shields - Denotes Lane DELICH Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES Page 25 of the site, 2) Colorado State University and the residential area to the north of the site, 3) the residential area to the northwest of the site, 4) the commercial area to the west of the site, and 5) the commercial area to the southwest of the site. This site is in an area type termed “other.” As mentioned earlier, many of the street cross section elements were built prior to the current standards. Therefore, some of the sidewalks may be considered to be substandard. Acceptable pedestrian level of service will not be achieved for all pedestrian destinations. The Pedestrian LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix H. The minimum level of service for “other” is C for all areas of evaluation. The Spring Creek Trail crosses Shields Street south of West Stuart Street. Bicycle Level of Service Appendix H shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of Landmark Apartments Expansion development. There will be three bicycle destinations within 1320 feet of Landmark Apartments Expansion development. These are: 1) the commercial area to the west of the site, 2) the commercial area to the southwest of the site, and 3) Colorado State University to the north of the site. The Bicycle LOS Worksheet is provided in Appendix H. The base level of service is C and is B for each of the bicycle destinations. This site is connected to Shields Street. Therefore, it is concluded that level of service B can be achieved. The Spring Creek Trail crosses Shields Street south of West Stuart Street. Transit Level of Service This area of Fort Collins is served by Transfort Routes 19, 2, and 3. Route 19 operates along Shields Street, Route 2 operates, westbound, along Prospect Road, and Route 3 operates eastbound on Prospect Road, west of Shields Street, and northbound on Shields Street, north of Prospect Road. DELICH Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 ASSOCIATES Page 26 IV. CONCLUSIONS This study assessed the impacts of Landmark Apartments Expansion on the street system in the vicinity of the proposed development in the short range (2017) and long range (2035) future. As a result of this analysis, the following is concluded: - The development of Landmark Apartments Expansion is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. At full development, Landmark Apartments Expansion will generate approximately 362 daily trip ends, 39 morning peak hour trip ends, and 48 afternoon peak hour trip ends. - All intersections operate acceptably with the existing traffic and geometry. Current traffic volumes indicate that a westbound auxiliary right-turn lane is required at the Shields/Prospect intersection. This additional geometry will improve the operation at these intersections. - The Shields/Prospect intersection is currently signalized. The Shields/Hobbit stop sign controlled intersection will not have traffic signals in the future. - In the short range (2017) future, given development of Landmark Apartments Expansion and an increase in background traffic, the key intersections will operate acceptably. - In the long range (2035) future, given development of Landmark Apartments Expansion and an increase in background traffic, the Shields/Prospect intersection will not achieve level of service E or better for all movements during the afternoon peak hour. The Shields/Hobbit intersection will operate acceptably. - The short range (2017) geometry is shown in Figure 12. This is the current geometry. - The long range (2035) geometry is shown in Figure 13. At the Shields/Prospect intersection, a westbound right-turn lane is required with the current traffic. The decision to build this right-turn lane rests with the City. - Acceptable level of service is achieved for bicycle and transit modes based upon the measures in the multi-modal transportation guidelines and the Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan. Many of the street cross section elements were built prior to the current standards. APPENDIX A 1 2 3 4 APPENDIX B 5 6 7 APPENDIX C 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Prospect & Shields Recent AM Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/18/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1560 3433 3347 1769 3539 1555 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.30 1.00 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1560 3433 3347 562 3539 1555 277 3539 1583 Volume (vph) 233 691 144 90 246 139 62 824 137 162 629 37 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 274 813 169 106 289 164 72 958 159 191 740 44 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 122 0 80 0 0 0 93 0 0 24 Lane Group Flow (vph) 274 813 47 106 373 0 72 958 66 191 740 20 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 2 1 4 2 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.7 28.6 28.6 6.9 16.8 49.4 43.8 43.8 57.5 47.9 47.9 Effective Green, g (s) 19.7 30.6 30.6 7.9 18.8 51.4 45.8 45.8 59.5 49.9 49.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.28 0.28 0.07 0.17 0.47 0.42 0.42 0.54 0.45 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 615 984 434 247 572 324 1474 647 281 1605 718 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.23 0.03 c0.11 0.01 0.27 c0.06 0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.09 0.04 c0.31 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.83 0.11 0.43 0.65 0.22 0.65 0.10 0.68 0.46 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 40.3 37.2 29.5 48.9 42.6 16.6 25.7 19.6 17.3 20.8 16.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 5.8 0.1 1.2 2.7 0.3 2.2 0.3 6.4 1.0 0.1 Delay (s) 40.8 43.0 29.7 50.1 45.2 17.0 27.9 19.9 23.7 21.7 16.7 Level of Service DDCDD BCBCCB Approach Delay (s) 40.7 46.2 26.2 21.9 Approach LOS DDCC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 32.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Prospect & Shields Recent PM Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/18/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3382 1770 3539 1548 1770 3539 1554 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3382 166 3539 1548 165 3539 1554 Volume (vph) 148 415 137 247 631 231 168 955 121 237 1078 176 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 157 441 146 287 734 269 185 1049 133 269 1225 200 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 110 0 31 0 0 0 79 0 0 99 Lane Group Flow (vph) 157 441 36 287 972 0 185 1049 54 269 1225 101 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 1 3 2 6 2 5 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.5 27.2 27.2 14.3 32.0 55.1 42.9 42.9 61.9 46.3 46.3 Effective Green, g (s) 9.5 29.2 29.2 14.3 34.0 57.1 44.9 44.9 63.9 48.3 48.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.28 0.48 0.37 0.37 0.53 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 272 861 385 409 958 242 1324 579 297 1424 625 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.12 0.08 c0.29 0.08 0.30 c0.12 0.35 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.29 0.03 c0.37 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.51 0.09 0.70 1.01 0.76 0.79 0.09 0.91 0.86 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 53.3 39.2 35.1 50.8 43.0 27.5 33.4 24.4 33.8 32.8 22.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.0 0.5 0.1 5.4 32.8 13.4 4.9 0.3 29.0 7.0 0.6 Delay (s) 56.3 39.8 35.2 56.2 75.8 40.8 38.3 24.7 62.8 39.8 23.5 Level of Service E D D E E D D C E D C Approach Delay (s) 42.4 71.4 37.3 41.5 Approach LOS D E D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 48.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 10 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Hobbit & Shields Recent AM Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/18/2012 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 4 16 1007 0 9 854 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 19 1157 0 11 1005 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Median storage veh) 1 Upstream signal (ft) 650 pX, platoon unblocked 0.86 vC, conflicting volume 1681 579 1157 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1157 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 524 vCu, unblocked vol 1629 579 1157 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 98 96 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 197 459 599 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 24 772 386 11 502 502 Volume Left 5 0 0 11 0 0 Volume Right 19 00000 cSH 362 1700 1700 599 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.45 0.23 0.02 0.30 0.30 Queue Length 95th (ft) 500100 Control Delay (s) 15.6 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C B Approach Delay (s) 15.6 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 11 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Hobbit & Shields Recent PM Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/18/2012 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 11 33 1211 8 26 1436 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate (vph) 13 38 1376 9 28 1528 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Median storage veh) 1 Upstream signal (ft) 650 pX, platoon unblocked 0.69 vC, conflicting volume 2200 693 1385 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1381 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 819 vCu, unblocked vol 2291 693 1385 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 91 90 94 cM capacity (veh/h) 136 386 490 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 51 917 468 28 764 764 Volume Left 13 0 0 28 0 0 Volume Right 38 09000 cSH 265 1700 1700 490 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.19 0.54 0.28 0.06 0.45 0.45 Queue Length 95th (ft) 17 00400 Control Delay (s) 21.8 0.0 0.0 12.8 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C B Approach Delay (s) 21.8 0.0 0.2 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 12 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level-of-Service Average Total Delay sec/veh A < 10 B > 10 and < 15 C > 15 and < 25 D > 25 and < 35 E > 35 and < 50 F > 50 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level-of-Service Average Total Delay sec/veh A < 10 B > 10 and < 20 C > 20 and < 35 D > 35 and < 55 E > 55 and < 80 F > 80 13 Table 4-3 Fort Collins (City Limits) Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) Land Use (from structure plan) Other corridors within: Intersection type Commercial corridors Mixed use districts Low density mixed use residential All other areas Signalized intersections (overall) DE*DD Any Leg EEDE Any Movement EEDE Stop sign control (arterial/collector or local— any approach leg) N/A F** F** E Stop sign control (collector/local—any approach leg) N/A C C C * mitigating measures required ** considered normal in an urban environment 14 APPENDIX D 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Prospect & Shields Short Bkgrd AM Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/18/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1560 3433 3343 1769 3539 1555 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.28 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1560 3433 3343 521 3539 1555 236 3539 1583 Volume (vph) 245 727 151 95 262 153 66 869 144 172 662 39 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 288 855 178 112 308 180 77 1010 167 202 779 46 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 128 0 83 0 0 0 99 0 0 25 Lane Group Flow (vph) 288 855 50 112 405 0 77 1010 68 202 779 21 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 2 1 4 2 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 29.2 29.2 6.9 18.1 48.7 43.1 43.1 56.9 47.3 47.3 Effective Green, g (s) 19.0 31.2 31.2 7.9 20.1 50.7 45.1 45.1 58.9 49.3 49.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.28 0.28 0.07 0.18 0.46 0.41 0.41 0.54 0.45 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 593 1004 442 247 611 304 1451 638 263 1586 709 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.24 0.03 c0.12 0.01 0.29 c0.07 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.10 0.04 c0.34 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.85 0.11 0.45 0.66 0.25 0.70 0.11 0.77 0.49 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 41.1 37.2 29.2 49.0 41.8 17.2 26.8 20.0 18.8 21.5 17.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 7.1 0.1 1.3 2.7 0.4 2.8 0.3 12.6 1.1 0.1 Delay (s) 41.7 44.3 29.3 50.3 44.5 17.6 29.6 20.4 31.5 22.6 17.0 Level of Service DDCDD BCCCCB Approach Delay (s) 41.7 45.6 27.6 24.1 Approach LOS DDCC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 33.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Prospect & Shields Short Bkgrd PM Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/18/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3380 1770 3539 1548 1770 3539 1554 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3380 177 3539 1548 163 3539 1554 Volume (vph) 156 440 146 260 665 248 178 1005 127 257 1136 185 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 166 468 155 302 773 288 196 1104 140 292 1291 210 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 116 0 32 0 0 0 79 0 0 100 Lane Group Flow (vph) 166 468 39 302 1029 0 196 1104 61 292 1291 110 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 1 3 2 6 2 5 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.6 28.4 28.4 15.2 34.0 52.6 40.0 40.0 60.2 43.8 43.8 Effective Green, g (s) 9.6 30.4 30.4 15.2 36.0 54.6 42.0 42.0 62.2 45.8 45.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.13 0.30 0.46 0.35 0.35 0.52 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 275 897 401 435 1014 248 1239 542 304 1351 593 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.13 0.09 c0.30 0.08 0.31 c0.13 0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.28 0.04 c0.37 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.52 0.10 0.69 1.01 0.79 0.89 0.11 0.96 0.96 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 53.4 38.5 34.3 50.2 42.0 29.1 36.8 26.4 36.5 36.1 24.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.7 0.6 0.1 4.8 31.9 15.6 9.9 0.4 40.9 15.9 0.7 Delay (s) 57.1 39.1 34.4 54.9 73.9 44.7 46.7 26.8 77.4 52.1 25.4 Level of Service E D C D E D D C E D C Approach Delay (s) 42.0 69.7 44.5 53.1 Approach LOS D E D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 53.4 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 17 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Hobbit & Shields Short Bkgrd AM Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/18/2012 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 4 16 1063 0 9 899 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 19 1222 0 11 1058 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Median storage veh) 1 Upstream signal (ft) 650 pX, platoon unblocked 0.85 vC, conflicting volume 1772 611 1222 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1222 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 550 vCu, unblocked vol 1731 611 1222 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 97 96 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 181 437 566 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 24 815 407 11 529 529 Volume Left 5 0 0 11 0 0 Volume Right 19 00000 cSH 341 1700 1700 566 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.07 0.48 0.24 0.02 0.31 0.31 Queue Length 95th (ft) 600100 Control Delay (s) 16.3 0.0 0.0 11.5 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C B Approach Delay (s) 16.3 0.0 0.1 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 18 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Hobbit & Shields Short Bkgrd PM Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/18/2012 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 11 33 1277 8 26 1516 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate (vph) 13 38 1451 9 28 1613 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Median storage veh) 1 Upstream signal (ft) 650 pX, platoon unblocked 0.65 vC, conflicting volume 2317 730 1460 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1456 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 862 vCu, unblocked vol 2490 730 1460 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 90 90 94 cM capacity (veh/h) 125 365 459 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 51 967 493 28 806 806 Volume Left 13 0 0 28 0 0 Volume Right 38 09000 cSH 246 1700 1700 459 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.21 0.57 0.29 0.06 0.47 0.47 Queue Length 95th (ft) 19 00500 Control Delay (s) 23.4 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C B Approach Delay (s) 23.4 0.0 0.2 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 19 APPENDIX E 20 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Prospect & Shields Long Bkgrd AM Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/18/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1560 3433 3539 1583 1769 3539 1555 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1560 3433 3539 1583 472 3539 1555 163 3539 1583 Volume (vph) 310 920 195 125 330 185 90 1110 195 215 840 50 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 326 968 205 132 347 195 95 1168 205 226 884 53 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 109 0 0 152 0 0 118 0 0 29 Lane Group Flow (vph) 326 968 96 132 347 43 95 1168 87 226 884 24 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 2 1 4 2 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.9 30.8 30.8 6.0 15.9 15.9 44.1 39.8 39.8 56.2 47.9 47.9 Effective Green, g (s) 21.9 32.8 32.8 7.0 17.9 17.9 46.1 41.8 41.8 58.2 49.9 49.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.06 0.16 0.16 0.42 0.38 0.38 0.53 0.45 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 683 1055 465 218 576 258 249 1345 591 267 1605 718 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 c0.27 0.04 c0.10 0.01 0.33 c0.10 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.03 0.15 0.06 c0.35 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.92 0.21 0.61 0.60 0.17 0.38 0.87 0.15 0.85 0.55 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 39.0 37.3 28.9 50.2 42.7 39.6 20.0 31.6 22.4 29.0 21.9 16.7 Progression 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 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 12.2 0.2 4.7 1.8 0.3 1.0 7.8 0.5 21.2 1.4 0.1 Delay (s) 39.5 49.5 29.1 54.8 44.5 39.9 21.0 39.4 22.9 50.2 23.3 16.8 Level of Service DDCDDDCDCDCB Approach Delay (s) 44.5 45.2 35.9 28.2 Approach LOS DDDC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 38.0 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 21 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Prospect & Shields Long Bkgrd PM Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/18/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1557 1770 3539 1548 1770 3539 1554 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1557 164 3539 1548 151 3539 1554 Volume (vph) 195 550 190 345 840 310 235 1270 170 315 1450 235 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 205 579 200 363 884 326 247 1337 179 332 1526 247 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 158 0 0 204 0 0 83 0 0 101 Lane Group Flow (vph) 205 579 42 363 884 122 247 1337 96 332 1526 146 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 1 3 2 6 2 5 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 23.0 23.0 14.0 29.0 29.0 57.2 43.4 43.4 67.0 49.2 49.2 Effective Green, g (s) 8.0 25.0 25.0 14.0 31.0 31.0 59.2 45.4 45.4 69.0 51.2 51.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.21 0.21 0.12 0.26 0.26 0.49 0.38 0.38 0.58 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 229 737 330 401 914 402 266 1339 586 351 1510 663 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.16 0.11 c0.25 0.11 0.38 c0.15 c0.43 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.08 0.35 0.06 0.39 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.90 0.79 0.13 0.91 0.97 0.30 0.93 1.00 0.16 0.95 1.01 0.22 Uniform Delay, d1 55.6 45.0 38.6 52.3 44.0 35.8 35.6 37.3 24.7 38.2 34.4 21.8 Progression 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 Incremental Delay, d2 32.7 5.5 0.2 23.3 21.9 0.4 36.1 24.2 0.6 33.9 25.8 0.8 Delay (s) 88.3 50.5 38.8 75.6 65.9 36.2 71.7 61.5 25.3 72.0 60.2 22.5 Level of Service F D D E E D E E C E E C Approach Delay (s) 56.0 62.0 59.3 57.6 Approach LOS EEEE Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 58.9 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 22 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Hobbit & Shields Long Bkgrd AM Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/18/2012 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 5 55 1340 5 20 1140 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 5 58 1411 5 21 1200 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Median storage veh) 1 Upstream signal (ft) 650 pX, platoon unblocked 0.82 vC, conflicting volume 2055 708 1416 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1413 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 642 vCu, unblocked vol 2067 708 1416 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 96 85 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 141 377 477 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 63 940 475 21 600 600 Volume Left 5 0 0 21 0 0 Volume Right 58 05000 cSH 331 1700 1700 477 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.19 0.55 0.28 0.04 0.35 0.35 Queue Length 95th (ft) 17 00300 Control Delay (s) 18.4 0.0 0.0 12.9 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C B Approach Delay (s) 18.4 0.0 0.2 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 23 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Hobbit & Shields Long Bkgrd PM Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/18/2012 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 15 60 1615 10 75 1910 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 63 1700 11 79 2011 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Median storage veh) 1 Upstream signal (ft) 650 pX, platoon unblocked 0.58 vC, conflicting volume 2868 855 1711 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1705 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1163 vCu, unblocked vol 3486 855 1711 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 80 79 78 cM capacity (veh/h) 79 301 367 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 79 1133 577 79 1005 1005 Volume Left 16 0 0 79 0 0 Volume Right 63 0 11 0 0 0 cSH 193 1700 1700 367 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.41 0.67 0.34 0.22 0.59 0.59 Queue Length 95th (ft) 46 0 0 20 0 0 Control Delay (s) 36.0 0.0 0.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS E C Approach Delay (s) 36.0 0.0 0.7 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 24 APPENDIX F 25 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Prospect & Shields Short Total AM Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/18/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1560 3433 3343 1769 3539 1555 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.28 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1560 3433 3343 517 3539 1555 223 3539 1583 Volume (vph) 245 727 152 97 262 153 69 886 150 172 666 39 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 288 855 179 114 308 180 80 1030 174 202 784 46 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 128 0 83 0 0 0 103 0 0 25 Lane Group Flow (vph) 288 855 51 114 405 0 80 1030 71 202 784 21 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 2 1 4 2 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 29.2 29.2 6.9 18.1 48.7 43.1 43.1 56.9 47.3 47.3 Effective Green, g (s) 19.0 31.2 31.2 7.9 20.1 50.7 45.1 45.1 58.9 49.3 49.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.28 0.28 0.07 0.18 0.46 0.41 0.41 0.54 0.45 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 593 1004 442 247 611 302 1451 638 257 1586 709 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.24 0.03 c0.12 0.01 0.29 c0.07 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.11 0.05 c0.35 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.85 0.11 0.46 0.66 0.26 0.71 0.11 0.79 0.49 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 41.1 37.2 29.2 49.0 41.8 17.2 27.0 20.1 19.2 21.5 17.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 7.1 0.1 1.4 2.7 0.5 3.0 0.4 14.6 1.1 0.1 Delay (s) 41.7 44.3 29.3 50.4 44.5 17.7 30.0 20.4 33.8 22.6 17.0 Level of Service DDCDD BCCCCB Approach Delay (s) 41.7 45.6 27.9 24.6 Approach LOS DDCC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 33.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 26 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Prospect & Shields Short Total PM Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/18/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3380 1770 3539 1548 1770 3539 1554 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3380 177 3539 1548 163 3539 1554 Volume (vph) 156 440 149 266 665 248 180 1014 130 257 1153 185 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 166 468 159 309 773 288 198 1114 143 292 1310 210 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 119 0 32 0 0 0 81 0 0 98 Lane Group Flow (vph) 166 468 40 309 1029 0 198 1114 62 292 1310 112 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 1 3 2 6 2 5 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.6 28.2 28.2 15.4 34.0 52.7 40.0 40.0 60.1 43.7 43.7 Effective Green, g (s) 9.6 30.2 30.2 15.4 36.0 54.7 42.0 42.0 62.1 45.7 45.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.13 0.30 0.46 0.35 0.35 0.52 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 275 891 398 441 1014 249 1239 542 304 1348 592 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.13 0.09 c0.30 0.08 0.31 c0.13 c0.37 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.28 0.04 0.37 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.53 0.10 0.70 1.01 0.80 0.90 0.12 0.96 0.97 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 53.4 38.7 34.5 50.1 42.0 29.5 37.0 26.4 36.5 36.5 24.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.7 0.6 0.1 5.0 31.9 15.9 10.5 0.4 40.9 18.6 0.7 Delay (s) 57.1 39.3 34.6 55.1 73.9 45.4 47.5 26.8 77.4 55.2 25.5 Level of Service E D C E E D D C E E C Approach Delay (s) 42.1 69.7 45.2 55.3 Approach LOS D E D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 54.3 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 27 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Hobbit & Shields Short Total AM Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/18/2012 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 9 42 1063 1 16 899 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.85 0.85 Hourly flow rate (vph) 11 49 1222 1 19 1058 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Median storage veh) 1 Upstream signal (ft) 650 pX, platoon unblocked 0.85 vC, conflicting volume 1789 611 1223 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1222 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 566 vCu, unblocked vol 1751 611 1223 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 94 89 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 179 436 566 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 60 815 408 19 529 529 Volume Left 11 0 0 19 0 0 Volume Right 49 01000 cSH 348 1700 1700 566 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.17 0.48 0.24 0.03 0.31 0.31 Queue Length 95th (ft) 15 00300 Control Delay (s) 17.5 0.0 0.0 11.6 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C B Approach Delay (s) 17.5 0.0 0.2 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 28 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Hobbit & Shields Short Total PM Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/18/2012 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 14 47 1277 13 52 1516 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.94 0.94 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 54 1451 15 55 1613 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Median storage veh) 1 Upstream signal (ft) 650 pX, platoon unblocked 0.65 vC, conflicting volume 2376 733 1466 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1459 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 917 vCu, unblocked vol 2581 733 1466 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 86 85 88 cM capacity (veh/h) 118 363 456 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 70 967 498 55 806 806 Volume Left 16 0 0 55 0 0 Volume Right 54 0 15 0 0 0 cSH 246 1700 1700 456 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.29 0.57 0.29 0.12 0.47 0.47 Queue Length 95th (ft) 28 0 0 10 0 0 Control Delay (s) 25.4 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS D B Approach Delay (s) 25.4 0.0 0.5 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 29 APPENDIX G 30 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Prospect & Shields Long Total AM Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/18/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1560 3433 3539 1583 1769 3539 1555 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1560 3433 3539 1583 468 3539 1555 163 3539 1583 Volume (vph) 310 920 195 130 330 185 95 1125 200 215 845 50 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 326 968 205 137 347 195 100 1184 211 226 889 53 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 108 0 0 152 0 0 120 0 0 29 Lane Group Flow (vph) 326 968 97 137 347 43 100 1184 91 226 889 24 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 2 1 4 2 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.9 30.8 30.8 6.0 15.9 15.9 44.1 39.8 39.8 56.2 47.9 47.9 Effective Green, g (s) 21.9 32.8 32.8 7.0 17.9 17.9 46.1 41.8 41.8 58.2 49.9 49.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.06 0.16 0.16 0.42 0.38 0.38 0.53 0.45 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 683 1055 465 218 576 258 247 1345 591 267 1605 718 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 c0.27 0.04 c0.10 0.02 0.33 c0.10 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.03 0.15 0.06 c0.35 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.92 0.21 0.63 0.60 0.17 0.40 0.88 0.15 0.85 0.55 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 39.0 37.3 28.9 50.2 42.7 39.6 20.1 31.8 22.5 29.1 21.9 16.7 Progression 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 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 12.2 0.2 5.6 1.8 0.3 1.1 8.5 0.6 21.2 1.4 0.1 Delay (s) 39.5 49.5 29.1 55.8 44.5 39.9 21.2 40.3 23.0 50.3 23.3 16.8 Level of Service D D C E DDCDCDCB Approach Delay (s) 44.6 45.5 36.6 28.2 Approach LOS DDDC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 38.3 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 31 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Prospect & Shields Long Total PM Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/18/2012 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1557 1770 3539 1548 1770 3539 1554 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1557 164 3539 1548 151 3539 1554 Volume (vph) 195 550 195 350 840 310 235 1280 175 315 1465 235 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 205 579 205 368 884 326 247 1347 184 332 1542 247 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 162 0 0 204 0 0 85 0 0 100 Lane Group Flow (vph) 205 579 43 368 884 122 247 1347 99 332 1542 147 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 1 3 2 6 2 5 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 23.0 23.0 14.0 29.0 29.0 57.2 43.4 43.4 67.0 49.2 49.2 Effective Green, g (s) 8.0 25.0 25.0 14.0 31.0 31.0 59.2 45.4 45.4 69.0 51.2 51.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.21 0.21 0.12 0.26 0.26 0.49 0.38 0.38 0.58 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 229 737 330 401 914 402 266 1339 586 351 1510 663 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.16 0.11 c0.25 0.11 0.38 c0.15 c0.44 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.08 0.35 0.06 0.39 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.90 0.79 0.13 0.92 0.97 0.30 0.93 1.01 0.17 0.95 1.02 0.22 Uniform Delay, d1 55.6 45.0 38.6 52.4 44.0 35.8 35.6 37.3 24.8 38.2 34.4 21.8 Progression 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 Incremental Delay, d2 32.7 5.5 0.2 25.4 21.9 0.4 36.1 26.0 0.6 33.9 28.7 0.8 Delay (s) 88.3 50.5 38.8 77.8 65.9 36.2 71.7 63.3 25.4 72.1 63.1 22.5 Level of Service F D D E E D E E C E E C Approach Delay (s) 55.9 62.5 60.6 59.8 Approach LOS EEEE Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 60.1 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 32 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Hobbit & Shields Long Total AM Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/18/2012 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 10 80 1340 5 30 1140 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 11 84 1411 5 32 1200 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Median storage veh) 1 Upstream signal (ft) 650 pX, platoon unblocked 0.82 vC, conflicting volume 2076 708 1416 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1413 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 663 vCu, unblocked vol 2093 708 1416 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 92 78 93 cM capacity (veh/h) 139 377 477 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 95 940 475 32 600 600 Volume Left 11 0 0 32 0 0 Volume Right 84 05000 cSH 317 1700 1700 477 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.30 0.55 0.28 0.07 0.35 0.35 Queue Length 95th (ft) 31 00500 Control Delay (s) 21.1 0.0 0.0 13.1 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C B Approach Delay (s) 21.1 0.0 0.3 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 33 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Hobbit & Shields Long Total PM Michael Delich Synchro 6 Matthew J. Delich , P. E. 11/18/2012 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 20 75 1615 15 100 1910 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 21 79 1700 16 105 2011 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Raised Median storage veh) 1 Upstream signal (ft) 650 pX, platoon unblocked 0.58 vC, conflicting volume 2924 858 1716 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1708 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1216 vCu, unblocked vol 3580 858 1716 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 71 74 71 cM capacity (veh/h) 73 300 365 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 100 1133 582 105 1005 1005 Volume Left 21 0 0 105 0 0 Volume Right 79 0 16 0 0 0 cSH 181 1700 1700 365 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.55 0.67 0.34 0.29 0.59 0.59 Queue Length 95th (ft) 72 0 0 29 0 0 Control Delay (s) 46.8 0.0 0.0 18.8 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS E C Approach Delay (s) 46.8 0.0 0.9 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 34 APPENDIX H 35 Prospect Hobbit Shields tuart Lake Sheely SCALE: 1"=500' PEDESTRIAN INFLUENCE AREA DELICH ASSOCIATES Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 36 Pedestrian LOS Worksheet Project Location Classification: Other Level of Service (minimum based on project location classification) Description of Applicable Destination Area Within 1320’ Destination Area Classification Directness Continuity Street Crossings Visual Interest & Amenities Security Minimum C C C C C 1 Actual A C A B A Neighborhood to the east of the site Residential Proposed A C A B A Minimum C C C C C 2 Actual B C A B A Neighborhood to the north of the site & CSU Residential & Institution Proposed B C A B A Minimum C C C C C 3 Actual A C A B A Neighborhood to the northwest of the site Residential Proposed A C A B A Minimum C C C C C 4 Actual A C A B A Commercial area to the west of the site Commercial Proposed A C A B A Minimum C C C C C 5 Actual A C A B A Commercial area to the southwest of the site Commercial Proposed A C A B A 6 Minimum 7 Actual Proposed Minimum 8 Actual Proposed Minimum 9 Actual Proposed Minimum 10 Actual Proposed 37 Prospect Hobbit Shields tuart Lake Sheely SCALE: 1"=500' BICYCLE INFLUENCE AREA DELICH ASSOCIATES Landmark Apartments Expansion TIS, November 2012 38 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 Commercial area to the west of the site Commercial B B B 2 Commercial area to the southwest of the site Commercial B B B 3 Colorado State University Institution B B B 4 39