The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTHE LEARNING EXPERIENCE @ MIRAMONT OFFICE PARK - PDP - PDP130023 - REPORTS - TRAFFIC STUDYP.O. BOX 19768, BOULDER, COLORADO 80308-2768 PHONE: 303.652.3571 | WWW.FOXTUTTLE.COM October 3, 2013 Mark Cevaal, PE Redland 8000 South Lincoln Street, Suite 206 Littleton, CO 80122 RE: The Learning Experience at Miramont Traffic Impact Study Dear Mr. Cevaal: The Fox Tuttle Transportation Group has completed a traffic impact study for The Learning Experience project proposed within the Miramont office park in Fort Collins. The project is proposing to construct a 10,000 square foot (SF) day care use on a currently vacant site located at the northwest corner of Broadway and Oakridge Drive. Access is proposed at existing access locations along Broadway aligning with Oakridge Drive and with a Sam’s Club access driveway. The purpose of this study is to assist in identifying potential traffic impacts within the study area as a result of this development project. The traffic study addresses existing and near‐term (Year 2015) peak hour intersection conditions in the study area. The information contained in this study is anticipated to be used by the City in identifying any intersection or roadway deficiencies and potential improvements that may be required of the project. This memorandum summarizes our analyses, findings, and recommendations. Project Description The project proposes to develop a 10,000 SF day care facility. A vicinity map is shown on Figure 1. The proposed site and access plan is provided on Figure 2. Access to the site is proposed as follows: • Access on Broadway via the existing west leg of the Broadway & Oakridge Drive intersection • Access on Broadway via an existing shared driveway aligning with the Sam’s Club access approximately 230’ north of Oakridge Drive Both accesses are shared with existing office use in the Miramont development. The Learning Experience at Miramont Traffic Impact Study October 3, 2013 Page 2 Study Area The study area boundaries were developed in consultation with City staff and took into consideration the amount of site traffic added to the surrounding street network and planned access. The existing study area street network consists of arterial and collector streets. The primary public roadways that serve the project site are discussed in the following text. E. Harmony Road is a four‐lane to six‐lane major arterial with bicycle lanes that provides east‐ west access through the City of Fort Collins. The posted speed limit on Harmony Road is 45 miles per hour (mph) in the site vicinity. Broadway is a two‐lane collector roadway with bicycle lanes that provides north‐south access through the study area with direct access to adjacent uses. The posted speed limit on Broadway is 30 mph in the site vicinity. The intersection of Broadway with E. Harmony Road is controlled with a traffic signal. Oakridge Drive is a two‐lane collector roadway that provides east‐west access through the immediate area with direct access to adjacent uses. The posted speed limit on Oakridge Drive is 25 mph in the site vicinity. The intersection of Oakridge with Broadway is controlled with stop signs on the minor street (Oakridge) approaches. Existing Traffic Volumes Weekday AM / PM peak hour turning‐movement and daily roadway volumes were collected in July and September 2013 for this project. The existing traffic volumes are illustrated on Figure 3. Count data sheets are provided in the Appendix. Existing Intersection Capacity and Queue Analysis In determining the operational characteristics of an intersection, “Levels of Service” (LOS) A through F are applied, with LOS A indicating very good operations and LOS F indicating congested operations. The intersection LOS is represented as a delay in seconds per vehicle for the intersection as a whole and for each turning movement. A more detailed discussion of LOS methodology is contained in the Appendix for reference. Criteria contained in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) was applied for these analyses in order to determine existing levels of service during peak hour periods. The Learning Experience at Miramont Traffic Impact Study October 3, 2013 Page 3 The results of the LOS calculations for the intersections are summarized in Table 1. The intersection level of service worksheets are attached in the Appendix. The data in the tables show that all study area intersections are operating with acceptable overall levels of service. No existing capacity deficiencies or mitigation measures were identified for existing traffic volumes. Future Traffic Volumes and Roadway Network Per discussions with City staff, a 1.25% annual growth rate was assumed to account for future background traffic growth in the study area. There are no major roadway network or capacity improvements planned by the City within the study area within the short‐term planning horizon. Using these assumptions, the Year 2015 background traffic volumes were calculated and are summarized on Figure 4. Year 2015 Background Scenario Analysis (Without Proposed Development) The study area intersections were evaluated to determine baseline operations for the 2015 scenario and to identify any capacity constraints associated with background traffic. The Level of Service criteria discussed in prior sections was applied to the study area intersections to determine impacts with the addition of site build out traffic volumes in the short‐term. The results of the LOS calculations for the intersections are summarized in Table 1. The intersection level of service worksheets are attached in the Appendix. The data Table 1 shows that all study area intersections will continue to operate well overall with no changes in overall intersection or movement Levels of Service. Therefore, no capacity deficiencies or mitigation measures were identified for the Year 2015 background traffic scenario. Trip Generation To establish the volume of new trips that will be added to the area roadway network with redevelopment of the site, trip generation estimates for the proposed site uses were calculated based on rates contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual. The ITE trip rates for land use #565 “Day Care Center” were applied to estimate proposed traffic for the site. As shown in Table 2 and based on ITE methodology and the assumptions discussed in this section, the project is anticipated to generate the following trips at build out: The Learning Experience at Miramont Traffic Impact Study October 3, 2013 Page 4 • 741 weekday daily trips • 122 weekday AM peak hour trips • 123 weekday PM peak hour trips Trip Distribution and Assignment The estimated traffic volumes presented in Table 2 was distributed onto the adjacent street network based on existing traffic characteristics of the area, as well as land use and traffic patterns in the greater project area. Using these distribution assumptions, the projected site traffic was assigned to the study area roadway network for the weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour periods. The site‐generated volumes are shown on Figure 5 along with the assumed distribution percentages. Intersection Capacity Analysis for Year 2015 + Project Scenario The site‐generated traffic volumes were added to the Year 2015 background volumes to analyze potential site impacts in the short‐term build out scenario. The Year 2015 + site‐generated traffic volumes are illustrated on Figure 6. The level of service criteria discussed in prior sections was applied to the study area intersections to determine impacts with the addition of site‐build out traffic volumes in the short‐term. The results of the LOS calculations for the intersections are summarized in Table 1. The data contained in Table 1 illustrates that all study area intersections will continue to operate acceptably overall with no changes in overall or individual movement Levels of Service grades, with the following exception: • In the PM peak hour at Harmony Road & Broadway, the westbound left‐turn movement is projected to go from LOS D to LOS E. LOS E for this movement could be mitigated to LOS D with one additional second of green time given to the westbound left‐turn (taken away from the eastbound through). However, given that other turning movements are currently operating at LOS E at this intersection we would anticipate that the City would prefer to maintain green times and progression bandwidths on Harmony. No other deficiencies or mitigation measures were identified. The LOS analysis shows that the existing northbound shared left‐through‐right lane on Broadway at Oakridge can continue to service volumes with the project with minimal delays. Given the 30 mph speed limit on Broadway, the additional right‐ turn volumes at Sam’s Club and Oakridge Drive accesses do not warrant the addition of right‐turn deceleration lanes at these accesses using NCHRP Report 273 criteria. The LOS result also do not indicate capacity constraints with the existing shared through‐right lane configurations. The Learning Experience at Miramont Traffic Impact Study October 3, 2013 Page 5 Conclusions The Learning Experience at Miramont project is proposing to construct a 10,000 SF day care facility at the northwest corner of Broadway and Oakridge Drive in the City of Fort Collins. Access is proposed at existing access locations along Broadway. This traffic study evaluated existing and short term (Year 2015) peak hour intersection conditions in the study area with the project to identify potential operational issues and to recommend mitigation measures. The project is anticipated to generate approximately 741 daily trips, with 122 trips occurring in the AM peak hour and 123 trips occurring in the PM peak hour. It was determined that the project‐added traffic volumes can be accommodated on the existing roadway and intersection network with minimal effects. No mitigation measures were identified as necessary to support development of the project as proposed. Sincerely, FOX TUTTLE TRANSPORTATION GROUP, LLC Steve Tuttle, P.E., PTOE Principal Tables and Figures: Table 1 – Peak Hour Intersection LOS Summary Table 2 – Trip Generation Estimate Figure 1 – Site Vicinity Figure 2 – Site Plan Figure 3 – Existing Traffic Volumes Figure 4 – Year 2015 Background Traffic Volumes Figure 5 – Site‐Generated Traffic Volumes Figure 6 – Year 2015 + Site‐Generated Traffic Volumes FT# 13068 The Learning Experience at Miramont Traffic Impact Study 10/3/2013 Existing Year 2015 Background Year 2015 w/ Project Intersection and AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Lanes Groups Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS SIGNAL CONTROL Harmony Rd & Boardwalk 18.6 B 33.9 C 18.9 B 35.2 D 19.3 B 37.5 D Eastbound Left 7.2 A 18.1 B 7.3 A 19.3 B 7.4 A 19.5 B Eastbound Through 13.7 B 29.4 C 14.0 B 31.0 C 14.2 B 31.3 C Eastbound Right 9.6 A 17.1 B 9.7 A 17.4 B 10.0 A 17.8 B Westbound Left 8.2 A 36.9 D 8.4 A 41.3 D 8.6 A 60.3 E Westbound Through 12.0 B 25.1 C 12.2 B 26.1 C 12.3 B 26.4 C Westbound Right 10.3 B 16.2 B 10.5 B 16.6 B 10.5 B 16.7 B Northbound Left 39.1 D 53.2 D 39.2 D 56.5 E 40.0 D 76.2 E Northbound Through 53.4 D 56.6 E 54.0 D 55.8 E 55.0 D 56.2 E Northbound Right 44.2 D 44.1 D 44.2 D 43.9 D 44.2 D 43.8 D Southbound Left 41.7 D 62.1 E 42.5 D 66.1 E 42.7 D 66.5 E Southbound Through 47.5 D 79.9 E 47.5 D 81.4 F 47.9 D 84.7 F Southbound Right 44.1 D 44.2 D 44.2 D 44.1 D 44.2 D 44.0 D STOP CONTROL Boardwalk & Oakridge Dr 3.6 A 3.4 A 3.7 A 3.4 A 4.3 A 4.2 A Eastbound Left+Through+Right 10.3 B 12.9 B 10.4 B 12.8 B 12.4 B 15.8 C Westbound Left 11.3 B 14.1 B 11.4 B 14.5 B 11.8 B 15.3 C Westbound Through+Right 10.0 A 10.2 B 10.1 B 10.3 B 10.4 B 10.6 B Northbound Left 0.2 A 0.0 A 0.2 A 0.0 A 0.6 A 0.5 A Southbound Left 7.9 A 7.9 A 7.9 A 8.0 A 7.9 A 8.0 A Boardwalk & Sam's Club 0.5 A 1.8 A 0.6 A 1.9 A 1.0 A 2.2 A Eastbound Left+Through+Right 10.9 B 13.4 B 11.1 B 13.7 B 11.8 B 15.4 C Westbound Left+Through+Right 9.9 A 11.3 B 10.0 A 11.6 B 10.2 B 11.9 B Northbound Left 7.7 A 8.2 A 7.7 A 8.3 A 7.8 A 8.4 A Southbound Left 7.8 A 8.0 A 7.9 A 8.0 A 7.9 A 8.1 A Note: Delay represented in average seconds per vehicle. Table 1 - Intersection Level of Service Summary 13068_LOS.xls FT#13068 The Learning Experience at Miramont Traffic Impact Study 10/3/2013 Average Daily Trips A.M. Peak Hour Trips P.M. Peak Hour Trips Land Use Size Unit Rate Total In Out Rate Total In Out Rate Total In Out Day Care Center - ITE #565 10 1,000 SF 74.06 741 371 370 12.18 122 65 57 12.34 123 58 65 Source: ITE Trip Generation 9th Edition. 2012. Table 2. Trip Generation Estimate trip gen.xls - Trip Generation FT Project # Original Scale Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r t a t i o n G r o u p FOX VICINITY MAP THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE AT MIRAMONT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 13068 1"=1000' 10/4/13 SGT 1 FT Project # Original Scale Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r t a t i o n G r o u p FOX SITE PLAN THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE AT MIRAMONT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 13068 1"=40' 10/4/13 SGT 2 FT Project # Original Scale Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r t a t i o n G r o u p FOX EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE AT MIRAMONT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 13068 NTS 10/4/13 SGT 3 FT Project # Original Scale Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r t a t i o n G r o u p FOX YEAR 2015 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE AT MIRAMONT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 13068 NTS 10/4/13 SGT 4 FT Project # Original Scale Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r t a t i o n G r o u p FOX SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE AT MIRAMONT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 13068 NTS 10/4/13 SGT 5 FT Project # Original Scale Date Drawn by Figure # T r a n s p o r t a t i o n G r o u p FOX YEAR 2015 TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE AT MIRAMONT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 13068 NTS 10/4/13 SGT 6 The Learning Experience at Miramont Traffic Impact Study October 3, 2013 P.O. BOX 19768, BOULDER, COLORADO 80308-2768 PHONE: 303.652.3571 | WWW.FOXTUTTLE.COM APPENDIX Attachment A – TIS Base Assumptions Level of Service Definitions Intersection Capacity Worksheets Traffic Count Data Sheets The Learning Experience at Miramont Traffic Impact Study October 3, 2013 Attachment A – TIS Base Assumptions The Learning Experience at Miramont Traffic Impact Study October 3, 2013 Level of Service Definitions LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS In rating roadway and intersection operating conditions with existing or future traffic volumes, “Levels of Service” (LOS) A through F are used, with LOS A indicating very good operation and LOS F indicating poor operation. Levels of service at signalized and unsignalized intersections are closely associated with vehicle delays experienced in seconds per vehicle. More complete level of service definitions and delay data for signal and stop sign controlled intersections are contained in the following table for reference. Level of Service Rating Delay in seconds per vehicle (a) Definition Signalized Unsignalized A 0.0 to 10.0 0.0 to 10.0 Low vehicular traffic volumes; primarily free flow operations. Density is low and vehicles can freely maneuver within the traffic stream. Drivers are able to maintain their desired speeds with little or no delay. B 10.1 to 20.0 10.1 to 15.0 Stable vehicular traffic volume flow with potential for some restriction of operating speeds due to traffic conditions. Vehicle maneuvering is only slightly restricted. The stopped delays are not bothersome and drivers are not subject to appreciable tension. C 20.1 to 35.0 15.1 to 25.0 Stable traffic operations, however the ability for vehicles to maneuver is more restricted by the increase in traffic volumes. Relatively satisfactory operating speeds prevail, but adverse signal coordination or longer vehicle queues cause delays along the corridor. D 35.1 to 55.0 25.1 to 35.0 Approaching unstable vehicular traffic flow where small increases in volume could cause substantial delays. Most drivers are restricted in ability to maneuver and selection of travel speeds due to congestion. Driver comfort and convenience are low, but tolerable. E 55.1 to 80.0 35.1 to 50.0 Traffic operations characterized by significant approach delays and average travel speeds of one‐half to one‐third the free flow speed. Vehicular flow is unstable and there is potential for stoppages of brief duration. High signal density, extensive vehicle queuing, or corridor signal progression/timing are the typical causes of vehicle delays at signalized corridors. F > 80.0 > 50.0 Forced vehicular traffic flow and operations with high approach delays at critical intersections. Vehicle speeds are reduced substantially and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time because of downstream congestion. (a) Delay ranges based on 2010 Highway Capacity Manual criteria. The Learning Experience at Miramont Traffic Impact Study October 3, 2013 Intersection Capacity Worksheets HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing 1: Boardwalk & Oakridge Dr AM TLE at Miramont Traffic Impact Study Synchro 8 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 0 1 1 18 3 79 4 167 23 82 93 2 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 1 1 21 4 93 5 196 27 96 109 2 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 618 536 111 524 524 210 112 224 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 304 304 219 219 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 314 233 304 305 vCu, unblocked vol 618 536 111 524 524 210 112 224 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 96 99 89 100 93 cM capacity (veh/h) 474 536 943 593 560 830 1478 1345 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 2 21 96 228 96 112 Volume Left 0 21 0 5 96 0 Volume Right 1 0 93 27 0 2 cSH 683 593 816 1478 1345 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.00 0.07 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 3 10 0 6 0 Control Delay (s) 10.3 11.3 10.0 0.2 7.9 0.0 Lane LOS BBBAA Approach Delay (s) 10.3 10.2 0.2 3.7 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing 2: Boardwalk & Sam's Club AM TLE at Miramont Traffic Impact Study Synchro 8 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 40010103 24036 17613 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 50010124 28247 20715 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 1102 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 530 522 215 512 528 284 222 286 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 229 229 291 291 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 301 293 221 236 vCu, unblocked vol 530 522 215 512 528 284 222 286 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 100 100 100 100 98 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 616 593 825 634 593 755 1347 1276 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 5 13 4 286 7 222 Volume Left 514070 Volume Right 0 12 0 4 0 15 cSH 616 742 1347 1700 1276 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.17 0.01 0.13 Queue Length 95th (ft) 110000 Control Delay (s) 10.9 9.9 7.7 0.0 7.8 0.0 Lane LOS B A A A Approach Delay (s) 10.9 9.9 0.1 0.2 Approach LOS B A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing 99: Boardwalk & Harmony AM TLE at Miramont Traffic Impact Study Synchro 8 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 51 901 123 49 736 248 106 109 39 125 69 65 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 13 12 15 12 12 16 12 11 12 10 10 10 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 3.0 5.5 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 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) 1828 3539 1698 1769 3539 1750 1764 1801 1563 1651 1739 1453 Flt Permitted 0.31 1.00 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00 0.58 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 604 3539 1698 388 3539 1750 1308 1801 1563 1014 1739 1453 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 60 1060 145 58 775 292 112 118 46 147 81 76 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 59 0 0 118 0 0 41 0 0 68 Lane Group Flow (vph) 60 1060 86 58 775 174 112 118 5 147 81 8 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 2 2 4 1 1 4 Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 6 6 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 70.0 64.5 64.5 70.0 64.5 64.5 19.2 10.6 10.6 19.8 10.9 10.9 Effective Green, g (s) 72.0 65.5 65.5 72.0 65.5 65.5 21.2 11.6 11.6 21.8 11.9 11.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.65 0.60 0.60 0.65 0.60 0.60 0.19 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.11 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 6.5 6.5 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) 467 2107 1011 335 2107 1042 291 189 164 258 188 157 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.30 c0.01 0.22 0.03 c0.07 c0.05 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.50 0.09 0.17 0.37 0.17 0.38 0.62 0.03 0.57 0.43 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 7.1 12.9 9.5 7.9 11.5 10.0 38.3 47.1 44.1 38.8 45.9 44.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.8 6.3 0.1 2.9 1.6 0.1 Delay (s) 7.2 13.7 9.6 8.2 12.0 10.3 39.1 53.4 44.2 41.7 47.5 44.1 Level of Service ABAABBDDDDDD Approach Delay (s) 12.9 11.4 46.1 43.8 Approach LOS B B D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing 1: Boardwalk & Oakridge Dr PM TLE at Miramont Traffic Impact Study Synchro 8 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 2 3 3 25 0 118 0 166 26 103 288 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 4 4 29 0 139 0 195 31 121 339 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 931 807 339 797 792 211 339 226 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 581 581 211 211 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 349 226 586 581 vCu, unblocked vol 931 807 339 797 792 211 339 226 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 93 100 83 100 91 cM capacity (veh/h) 351 417 703 423 429 830 1220 1343 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 9 29 139 226 121 339 Volume Left 2 29 0 0 121 0 Volume Right 4 0 139 31 0 0 cSH 467 423 830 1700 1343 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.07 0.17 0.13 0.09 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 6 15 0 7 0 Control Delay (s) 12.9 14.1 10.2 0.0 7.9 0.0 Lane LOS B B B A Approach Delay (s) 12.9 10.9 0.0 2.1 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing 2: Boardwalk & Sam's Club PM TLE at Miramont Traffic Impact Study Synchro 8 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 23 1 9 11 0 47 5 276 5 29 371 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 27 1 11 13 0 55 6 325 6 34 436 1 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 1102 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 897 848 437 855 845 328 438 331 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 505 505 339 339 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 392 342 516 506 vCu, unblocked vol 897 848 437 855 845 328 438 331 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 94 100 98 97 100 92 99 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 428 456 619 455 460 714 1122 1229 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 39 68 6 331 34 438 Volume Left 27 13 6 0 34 0 Volume Right 11 55 0601 cSH 468 644 1122 1700 1229 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.11 0.01 0.19 0.03 0.26 Queue Length 95th (ft) 790020 Control Delay (s) 13.4 11.3 8.2 0.0 8.0 0.0 Lane LOS B B A A Approach Delay (s) 13.4 11.3 0.1 0.6 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing 99: Boardwalk & Harmony PM TLE at Miramont Traffic Impact Study Synchro 8 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 60 1244 317 110 1274 297 258 173 104 258 201 94 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 13 12 15 12 12 16 12 11 12 10 10 10 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 3.0 5.5 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.99 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) 1829 3539 1698 1770 3539 1749 1768 1801 1563 1651 1739 1453 Flt Permitted 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 192 3539 1698 120 3539 1749 530 1801 1563 701 1739 1453 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 71 1464 373 129 1341 349 272 188 122 304 236 111 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 185 0 0 157 0 0 104 0 0 85 Lane Group Flow (vph) 71 1464 188 129 1341 192 272 188 18 304 236 26 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 2 2 4 1 1 4 Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 6 6 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 65.1 59.6 59.6 68.1 61.1 61.1 32.6 16.9 16.9 33.2 17.2 17.2 Effective Green, g (s) 67.1 60.6 60.6 70.1 62.1 62.1 34.6 17.9 17.9 35.2 18.2 18.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.51 0.51 0.58 0.52 0.52 0.29 0.15 0.15 0.29 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 6.5 6.5 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) 196 1787 857 180 1831 905 325 268 233 340 263 220 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.41 c0.05 0.38 0.12 0.10 c0.13 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 0.11 0.37 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.14 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.36 0.82 0.22 0.72 0.73 0.21 0.84 0.70 0.08 0.89 0.90 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 17.0 25.1 16.5 24.1 22.5 15.7 36.4 48.5 43.9 37.8 50.0 44.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 4.3 0.6 12.7 2.6 0.5 16.8 8.0 0.1 24.4 29.9 0.2 Delay (s) 18.1 29.4 17.1 36.9 25.1 16.2 53.2 56.6 44.1 62.1 79.9 44.2 Level of Service B C B D C B D E D E E D Approach Delay (s) 26.6 24.3 52.4 65.5 Approach LOS C C D E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Year 2015 Background 1: Boardwalk & Oakridge Dr AM TLE at Miramont Traffic Impact Study Synchro 8 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 0 1 1 20 5 80 5 170 25 85 95 2 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 1 1 24 6 94 6 200 29 100 112 2 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 636 554 113 540 541 215 114 229 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 313 313 226 226 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 324 241 314 314 vCu, unblocked vol 636 554 113 540 541 215 114 229 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 96 99 89 100 93 cM capacity (veh/h) 461 526 940 583 551 825 1475 1339 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 2 24 100 235 100 114 Volume Left 0 24 0 6 100 0 Volume Right 1 0 94 29 0 2 cSH 675 583 802 1475 1339 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.00 0.07 0.07 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 3 11 0 6 0 Control Delay (s) 10.4 11.4 10.1 0.2 7.9 0.0 Lane LOS BBBAA Approach Delay (s) 10.4 10.4 0.2 3.7 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Year 2015 Background 2: Boardwalk & Sam's Club AM TLE at Miramont Traffic Impact Study Synchro 8 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 50010105 245510 18015 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 60010126 288612 21218 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 1102 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 556 550 221 538 556 291 229 294 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 244 244 303 303 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 312 306 235 253 vCu, unblocked vol 556 550 221 538 556 291 229 294 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 100 100 100 100 98 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 599 577 819 619 579 748 1339 1267 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 6 13 6 294 12 229 Volume Left 6160120 Volume Right 0 12 0 6 0 18 cSH 599 734 1339 1700 1267 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.17 0.01 0.13 Queue Length 95th (ft) 110010 Control Delay (s) 11.1 10.0 7.7 0.0 7.9 0.0 Lane LOS B A A A Approach Delay (s) 11.1 10.0 0.2 0.4 Approach LOS B A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Year 2015 Background 99: Boardwalk & Harmony AM TLE at Miramont Traffic Impact Study Synchro 8 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 55 925 125 50 755 255 110 110 40 130 70 70 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 13 12 15 12 12 16 12 11 12 10 10 10 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 3.0 5.5 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 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) 1828 3539 1698 1769 3539 1750 1764 1801 1563 1651 1739 1453 Flt Permitted 0.30 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00 0.58 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 586 3539 1698 371 3539 1750 1307 1801 1563 1000 1739 1453 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 65 1088 147 59 795 300 116 120 47 153 82 82 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 60 0 0 122 0 0 42 0 0 73 Lane Group Flow (vph) 65 1088 87 59 795 178 116 120 5 153 82 9 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 2 2 4 1 1 4 Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 6 6 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 70.0 64.4 64.4 69.8 64.3 64.3 19.3 10.6 10.6 19.9 10.9 10.9 Effective Green, g (s) 72.0 65.4 65.4 71.8 65.3 65.3 21.3 11.6 11.6 21.9 11.9 11.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.65 0.59 0.59 0.65 0.59 0.59 0.19 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.11 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 6.5 6.5 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) 458 2104 1009 324 2100 1038 293 189 164 258 188 157 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.31 c0.01 0.22 0.03 c0.07 c0.05 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.05 0.11 0.10 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.52 0.09 0.18 0.38 0.17 0.40 0.63 0.03 0.59 0.44 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 7.2 13.1 9.5 8.1 11.7 10.1 38.3 47.2 44.2 38.9 45.9 44.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.9 6.8 0.1 3.6 1.6 0.2 Delay (s) 7.3 14.0 9.7 8.4 12.2 10.5 39.2 54.0 44.2 42.5 47.5 44.2 Level of Service ABAABBDDDDDD Approach Delay (s) 13.2 11.6 46.3 44.2 Approach LOS B B D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Year 2015 Background 1: Boardwalk & Oakridge Dr PM TLE at Miramont Traffic Impact Study Synchro 8 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 2 5 5 25 0 120 0 170 25 105 295 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 6 6 29 0 141 0 200 29 124 347 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 950 824 347 818 809 215 347 229 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 594 594 215 215 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 356 229 603 594 vCu, unblocked vol 950 824 347 818 809 215 347 229 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 93 100 83 100 91 cM capacity (veh/h) 343 411 696 410 422 825 1212 1339 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 14 29 141 229 124 347 Volume Left 2 29 0 0 124 0 Volume Right 6 0 141 29 0 0 cSH 476 410 825 1700 1339 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.07 0.17 0.13 0.09 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 6 15 0 8 0 Control Delay (s) 12.8 14.5 10.3 0.0 8.0 0.0 Lane LOS B B B A Approach Delay (s) 12.8 11.0 0.0 2.1 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Year 2015 Background 2: Boardwalk & Sam's Club PM TLE at Miramont Traffic Impact Study Synchro 8 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 25 1 10 15 0 50 5 285 5 30 380 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 29 1 12 18 0 59 6 335 6 35 447 1 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 1102 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 924 871 448 880 869 338 448 341 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 518 518 350 350 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 406 353 530 519 vCu, unblocked vol 924 871 448 880 869 338 448 341 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 93 100 98 96 100 92 99 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 416 448 611 444 452 704 1112 1218 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 42 76 6 341 35 448 Volume Left 29 18 6 0 35 0 Volume Right 12 59 0601 cSH 458 620 1112 1700 1218 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.12 0.01 0.20 0.03 0.26 Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 10 0020 Control Delay (s) 13.7 11.6 8.3 0.0 8.0 0.0 Lane LOS B B A A Approach Delay (s) 13.7 11.6 0.1 0.6 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Year 2015 Background 99: Boardwalk & Harmony PM TLE at Miramont Traffic Impact Study Synchro 8 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 65 1275 325 115 1305 305 265 175 105 265 205 95 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 13 12 15 12 12 16 12 11 12 10 10 10 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 3.0 5.5 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.99 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) 1829 3539 1698 1770 3539 1749 1768 1801 1563 1651 1739 1453 Flt Permitted 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 0.41 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 174 3539 1698 121 3539 1749 510 1801 1563 704 1739 1453 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 76 1500 382 135 1374 359 279 190 124 312 241 112 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 190 0 0 159 0 0 105 0 0 85 Lane Group Flow (vph) 76 1500 192 135 1374 200 279 190 19 312 241 27 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 2 2 4 1 1 4 Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 6 6 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 64.8 59.2 59.2 67.8 60.7 60.7 33.0 17.2 17.2 33.4 17.4 17.4 Effective Green, g (s) 66.8 60.2 60.2 69.8 61.7 61.7 35.0 18.2 18.2 35.4 18.4 18.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.50 0.50 0.58 0.51 0.51 0.29 0.15 0.15 0.29 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 6.5 6.5 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) 187 1775 851 181 1819 899 324 273 237 341 266 222 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.42 c0.05 0.39 0.12 0.11 c0.13 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 0.11 0.38 0.11 0.13 0.01 c0.14 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.41 0.85 0.23 0.75 0.76 0.22 0.86 0.70 0.08 0.91 0.91 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 17.9 25.9 16.8 25.9 23.2 16.0 36.3 48.3 43.7 38.0 49.9 43.8 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 1.4 5.2 0.6 15.3 3.0 0.6 20.2 7.5 0.1 28.1 31.4 0.3 Delay (s) 19.3 31.0 17.4 41.3 26.1 16.6 56.5 55.8 43.9 66.1 81.4 44.1 Level of Service B C B D C B E E D E F D Approach Delay (s) 27.9 25.4 53.6 67.9 Approach LOS C C D E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Year 2015 w/ Project 1: Boardwalk & Oakridge Dr AM TLE at Miramont Traffic Impact Study Synchro 8 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 20 5 10 20 10 80 15 170 25 85 95 30 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 24 6 12 24 12 94 18 200 29 100 112 35 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 679 594 129 576 597 215 147 229 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 329 329 250 250 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 350 265 326 347 vCu, unblocked vol 679 594 129 576 597 215 147 229 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 95 99 99 96 98 89 99 93 cM capacity (veh/h) 436 508 920 551 522 825 1435 1339 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 41 24 106 247 100 147 Volume Left 24 24 0 18 100 0 Volume Right 12 0 94 29 0 35 cSH 525 551 775 1435 1339 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.04 0.14 0.01 0.07 0.09 Queue Length 95th (ft) 6 3 12 1 6 0 Control Delay (s) 12.4 11.8 10.4 0.6 7.9 0.0 Lane LOS BBBAA Approach Delay (s) 12.4 10.6 0.6 3.2 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Year 2015 w/ Project 2: Boardwalk & Sam's Club AM TLE at Miramont Traffic Impact Study Synchro 8 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 30 0010105 265510 20540 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 35 0010126 312612 24147 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 1102 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 624 618 265 591 638 315 288 318 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 288 288 326 326 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 335 329 265 312 vCu, unblocked vol 624 618 265 591 638 315 288 318 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 94 100 100 100 100 98 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 568 551 774 592 547 726 1274 1242 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 35 13 6 318 12 288 Volume Left 35 1 6 0 12 0 Volume Right 0 12 0 6 0 47 cSH 568 711 1274 1700 1242 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.19 0.01 0.17 Queue Length 95th (ft) 510010 Control Delay (s) 11.8 10.2 7.8 0.0 7.9 0.0 Lane LOS B B A A Approach Delay (s) 11.8 10.2 0.1 0.3 Approach LOS B B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Year 2015 w/ Project 99: Boardwalk & Harmony AM TLE at Miramont Traffic Impact Study Synchro 8 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 55 925 155 65 755 255 135 115 55 130 75 70 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 13 12 15 12 12 16 12 11 12 10 10 10 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 3.0 5.5 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 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) 1828 3539 1698 1769 3539 1750 1765 1801 1563 1651 1739 1453 Flt Permitted 0.31 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00 0.56 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 589 3539 1698 368 3539 1750 1300 1801 1563 975 1739 1453 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 65 1088 182 76 795 300 142 125 65 153 88 82 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 74 0 0 122 0 0 58 0 0 73 Lane Group Flow (vph) 65 1088 108 76 795 178 142 125 7 153 88 9 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 2 2 4 1 1 4 Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 6 6 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 69.6 64.0 64.0 70.0 64.2 64.2 19.5 10.7 10.7 19.9 10.9 10.9 Effective Green, g (s) 71.6 65.0 65.0 72.0 65.2 65.2 21.5 11.7 11.7 21.9 11.9 11.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.65 0.59 0.59 0.65 0.59 0.59 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.11 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 6.5 6.5 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) 457 2091 1003 327 2097 1037 295 191 166 255 188 157 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.31 c0.01 0.22 0.04 c0.07 c0.05 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.06 0.14 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.06 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.52 0.11 0.23 0.38 0.17 0.48 0.65 0.04 0.60 0.47 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 7.3 13.3 9.8 8.3 11.8 10.2 38.7 47.2 44.1 38.9 46.1 44.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.4 1.2 7.8 0.1 3.8 1.8 0.2 Delay (s) 7.4 14.2 10.0 8.6 12.3 10.5 40.0 55.0 44.2 42.7 47.9 44.2 Level of Service ABBABBDEDDDD Approach Delay (s) 13.3 11.6 46.5 44.5 Approach LOS B B D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Year 2015 w/ Project 1: Boardwalk & Oakridge Dr PM TLE at Miramont Traffic Impact Study Synchro 8 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 30 10 15 25 5 120 10 170 25 105 295 20 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 35 12 18 29 6 141 12 200 29 124 347 24 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 988 859 359 856 856 215 371 229 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 606 606 238 238 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 382 253 618 618 vCu, unblocked vol 988 859 359 856 856 215 371 229 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 89 97 97 92 99 83 99 91 cM capacity (veh/h) 326 401 686 380 401 825 1188 1339 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 65 29 147 241 124 371 Volume Left 35 29 0 12 124 0 Volume Right 18 0 141 29 0 24 cSH 396 380 792 1188 1339 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.16 0.08 0.19 0.01 0.09 0.22 Queue Length 95th (ft) 14 6 17 1 8 0 Control Delay (s) 15.8 15.3 10.6 0.5 8.0 0.0 Lane LOS C C B A A Approach Delay (s) 15.8 11.4 0.5 2.0 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 4.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Year 2015 w/ Project 2: Boardwalk & Sam's Club PM TLE at Miramont Traffic Impact Study Synchro 8 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 50 1 10 15 0 50 5 310 5 30 400 25 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 59 1 12 18 0 59 6 365 6 35 471 29 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 1102 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 991 938 485 933 950 368 500 371 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 556 556 379 379 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 435 382 554 571 vCu, unblocked vol 991 938 485 933 950 368 500 371 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 85 100 98 96 100 91 99 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 393 427 582 426 426 678 1064 1188 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total 72 76 6 371 35 500 Volume Left 59 18 6 0 35 0 Volume Right 12 59 0 6 0 29 cSH 416 597 1064 1700 1188 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.17 0.13 0.01 0.22 0.03 0.29 Queue Length 95th (ft) 15 11 0020 Control Delay (s) 15.4 11.9 8.4 0.0 8.1 0.0 Lane LOS C B A A Approach Delay (s) 15.4 11.9 0.1 0.5 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Year 2015 w/ Project 99: Boardwalk & Harmony PM TLE at Miramont Traffic Impact Study Synchro 8 Report Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 65 1275 355 130 1305 305 295 180 120 265 210 95 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 13 12 15 12 12 16 12 11 12 10 10 10 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 3.0 5.5 5.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.99 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) 1829 3539 1698 1770 3539 1749 1768 1801 1563 1651 1739 1453 Flt Permitted 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 171 3539 1698 121 3539 1749 479 1801 1563 691 1739 1453 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.85 0.95 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Adj. Flow (vph) 76 1500 418 153 1374 359 311 196 141 312 247 112 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 209 0 0 160 0 0 117 0 0 85 Lane Group Flow (vph) 76 1500 209 153 1374 199 311 196 24 312 247 27 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 2 2 4 1 1 4 Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 6 6 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 64.6 59.0 59.0 67.4 60.4 60.4 33.5 17.5 17.5 33.5 17.5 17.5 Effective Green, g (s) 66.6 60.0 60.0 69.4 61.4 61.4 35.5 18.5 18.5 35.5 18.5 18.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 0.50 0.50 0.58 0.51 0.51 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.30 0.15 0.15 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 6.5 6.5 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) 186 1769 849 179 1810 894 324 277 240 340 268 224 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.42 c0.06 0.39 c0.14 0.11 0.13 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 0.12 c0.43 0.11 c0.15 0.02 0.14 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.41 0.85 0.25 0.85 0.76 0.22 0.96 0.71 0.10 0.92 0.92 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 18.1 26.0 17.1 29.6 23.4 16.1 37.4 48.2 43.6 38.0 50.0 43.8 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 1.5 5.3 0.7 30.6 3.0 0.6 38.8 8.0 0.2 28.5 34.7 0.2 Delay (s) 19.5 31.3 17.8 60.3 26.4 16.7 76.2 56.2 43.8 66.5 84.7 44.0 Level of Service B C B E C B E E D E F D Approach Delay (s) 28.0 27.3 63.1 69.5 Approach LOS C C E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group The Learning Experience at Miramont Traffic Impact Study October 3, 2013 Count Data Sheets