HomeMy WebLinkAboutKUM & GO #0951 - PDP210013 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - TRAFFIC STUDY
KUM & GO
STORE # 951
TRA NSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY
Fort Collins , CO
Prepared For:
Kum & Go
1459 Grand Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50309
Prepared By:
Olsson
1880 Fall River Drive, Suite 200
Loveland, CO 80538
Olsson Project No. 020-2883
June 2021
Kum & Go # 2329 Transportation Impact Study
Olsson Project No. 020-3566 June 2021
Olsson / i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 2
2.0 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Surrounding Land Use .............................................................................................. 2
2.2 Roadways ................................................................................................................. 4
2.3 Existing Traffic and Data ........................................................................................... 6
3.0 Project Description ............................................................................................................ 7
3.1 Site Plan ................................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Trip Generation ........................................................................................................ 8
3.3 Trip Assignment and Distribution ............................................................................. 8
4.0 Projected Traffic ...............................................................................................................10
4.1 Background Traffic ...................................................................................................10
4.2 Total Traffic..............................................................................................................11
4.3 Total Traffic Analysis ...............................................................................................12
5.0 Recommendations & Conclusions ...................................................................................17
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Trip Generation ............................................................................................................. 8
Table 2. Intersection Level of Service ....................................................................................... 12
Table 3. Background Traffic Capacity Analysis Summary ......................................................... 13
Table 4. Background + Site Traffic Capacity Summary ............................................................. 13
Table 5. Background Plus Site 2042 Queueing Analysis Summary ........................................... 14
Table 6. LCUASS Form Attachment B - Pedestrian Analysis Worksheet .................................. 15
L IST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A LCUASS Forms
Appendix B 2018 & 2022 & 2042 Background Capacity Analysis
Appendix C 2022 & 2042 Background Plus Site Capacity Analysis Reports
K&G # 2329 Transportation Impact Study
Olsson Project No. 020-3566 June 2021
Olsson / 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of Report & Study Objectives
This report summarizes the transportation impact analysis conducted for a proposed Kum & Go
Convenience Store #951 located on the southwest corner of East Prospect Road and South
Lemay Avenue in Fort Collins, Colorado. The study documents the expected traffic volumes
added to the network and identifies recommendations related to site access and public
improvements. The study is being conducted in accordance with guidance from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers guidelines and the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards
(LCUASS). The LCUASS forms are included in Appendix A. A map showing the location of the
proposed project is illustrated in Figure 1.
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 Surrounding Land Use
The site is located on the southwest corner of East Prospect Road and South Lemay Avenue in
Fort Collins, Colorado. Currently all four corners of the intersection of Lemay and Prospect are
commercial developments. Lesher Middle School is roughly 1000 feet west of the site along
Prospect Road. There is a grade-separated crossing for the Spring Creek Trail approximately 400
feet south of the site along Lemay Avenue. This regional trail provides a pedestrian and bike
connection to Edora Park (~2000 feet east) and Mallard’s Nest/Brookhaven Natural Areas (~2000
feet west) and ultimately ties into the Poudre Trail approximately 1.5 miles east of the stie.
There are numerous medical business parks along Lemay Avenue; most notably, Poudre Valley
Hospital is roughly 1000 feet north of the site. The rest of the land in the general vicinity of the
site consists of a mix of single-family and multi-family residential communities.
There are two bus stops within the site vicinity: one is on the north side of Prospect Road 400 feet
west of Prospect and Lemay, the other is on Lemay along the eastern edge of the site 140 feet
south of Prospect and Lemay. The Spring Creek Trail crosses Lemay via a below-grade crossing
underneath the roadway which connects to sidewalks on both sides of Lemay. Adjacent to the
site the existing sidewalk widths vary between 4 feet and 7 feet, A minimum sidewalk width of 6
feet is required for a four-lane arterial as shown in figure 7-4 of LCUASS. Lemay Avenue provides
a bicycle lane on each side of the standard roadway section that is roughly 6 feet wide including
the gutter and no painted buffer zone. Figure 7-4 of LCUASS illustrates that a 6.5-foot bike lane
and 3 feet wide painted bike lane buffer is typically required for a 4-lane arterial.
A Vicinity Map is shown in Figure 1.
K&G # 2329 Transportation Impact Study
Olsson Project No. 020-3566 June 2021
Olsson / 3
K&G # 2329 Transportation Impact Study
Olsson Project No. 020-3566 June 2021
Olsson / 4
2.2 Roadways
Lemay Avenue has a total 5-lane section due to the center lane painted as yellow lines which
allows left-turns to be made by waiting in the median, not stopping any through-moving vehicles.
Additionally, Lemay Avenue has bike lanes running alongside the roadway in each direction.
Prospect Road is a 4-lane undivided roadway that has no center lane and no bike lanes.
The intersection of Prospect and Lemay is a signalized intersection that is controlled by
coordinated-actuated phasing and currently timed with cycle lengths of 110 and 120 seconds in
the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.
Existing Roadway Geometrics and the nearby existing intersections are shown in Figure 2. The
proposed roadway geometrics are shown in Figure 3.
K&G # 2329 Transportation Impact Study
Olsson Project No. 020-3566 June 2021
Olsson / 5
K&G # 2329 Transportation Impact Study
Olsson Project No. 020-3566 June 2021
Olsson / 6
2.3 Existing Traffic and Data
Traffic counts from the Fort Collins Traffic Count Database were conducted along all legs of
Lemay and Prospect in addition to turning movement counts taken in 2014, 2016, and 2018. The
background volumes used for analysis are predicated on base volumes synthesized from these
historic counts and expected trips to the site. This process was performed due to the inability to
collect accurate traffic data during the lingering reduction in traffic related to Covid-19 pandemic.
The outbreak has had a significant effect on reducing traffic in the region such that data collected
during this time would not necessarily represent typical traffic conditions. To counteract this,
volumes from 2018 were projected using historic growth rates to opening day (2022) volumes.
K&G # 2329 Transportation Impact Study
Olsson Project No. 020-3566 June 2021
Olsson / 7
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Site Plan
The project plans to develop a Kum & Go Convenience Store #951 located on the southwest
corner of East Prospect Road and South Lemay Avenue in Fort Collins, Colorado. The project is
proposing to construct a 3,946-square-foot convenience store with 16-fueling positions. The
project is proposing one full access drive approximately 190 feet south of the intersection of
Lemay and Prospect. The site is also proposing to dedicate right-of-way to create an eastbound
right-turn lane that is channelized with a storage length of roughly 190 feet. Figure 4 shows the
preliminary site plan for the project.
K&G # 2329 Transportation Impact Study
Olsson Project No. 020-3566 June 2021
Olsson / 8
3.2 Trip Generation
Trip generation is typically determined using rates found in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th
Edition). Common Land Use Codes (LUC) are published with rates that can be applied to values
related to the size of the proposed site to estimate the anticipated entering and exiting trips. The
land use codes selected to be applied to the site was Super Convenience Market / Gas Station
(LUC 960). The project is anticipated to generate 3,305 daily trips, 328 AM peak hour trips, and
273 PM peak hour trips. A pass-by reduction of 62% in the AM peak hour and 56% in the PM
peak hour was applied to site trips to account for trips the would be pulled from Lemay Avenue
adjacent to the site. In the opening day scenario, the measured traffic volumes running along
Lemay Avenue are large enough to apply the full pass-by reduction. These would not be trips
added to the network. The trip generation is shown on Table 1.
Table 1. Trip Generation
3.3 Trip Assignment and Distribution
Trip distribution is the process for assigning trips to the study intersections. Several
methodologies can be used to determine the trip distribution of a project. In many cases, a gravity
model is developed, and calculations based on productions and attractions (households and jobs)
are developed. For a gasoline station/convenience store, the best method and most common is
to utilize the existing travel patterns on the adjacent roadways as business to the store is highly
dependent on traffic local to the site. The directional distribution of traffic is a means to quantify
the percentage of site-generated traffic that approaches the site from a given direction and
departs the site back to the original source.
The measured traffic volumes at the intersection of Lemay and Prospect are fairly balanced
across each of the four legs between the AM and PM peak hours; because of this, 25 percent of
the primary trips were generated from each cardinal direction from either Prospect or Lemay.
K&G # 2329 Transportation Impact Study
Olsson Project No. 020-3566 June 2021
Olsson / 9
Pass-by traffic was taken directly from Lemay Avenue, which has a 60/40 split of northbound and
southbound directional traffic that flips from the AM to PM peak hour. This is common along
roadway corridors with numerous commuters to large job generators such as the Poudre Valley
Hospital complex north of the site. As such, the 60/40 split was applied to the pass-by trips for the
AM and PM peak hours accordingly.
Opening day Site Trips produced by the proposed development, including pass-by and primary,
are shown in Figure 5.
K&G # 2329 Transportation Impact Study
Olsson Project No. 020-3566 June 2021
Olsson / 10
4.0 PROJECTED TRAFFIC
4.1 Background Traffic
To obtain the background volumes for both the opening date scenario in 2022 and the horizon
year in 2042, an annual growth rate of 0.5% was applied to Lemay Avenue and an annual growth
rate of 1.5% was applied to Prospect Road. The rate was determined both by the apparent growth
in the historical counts at the intersection and considering planned developments along the
Prospect Road corridor as well as additional potential traffic from interchange improvements at
Interstate 25 (I-25).
Turning movement volumes were projected in 2042 for the long horizon year. Background traffic
volumes for 2021 and 2040 are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 7, respectively.
K&G # 2329 Transportation Impact Study
Olsson Project No. 020-3566 June 2021
Olsson / 11
4.2 Total Tr affic
Expected site trips were combined with background traffic for the Opening Day (2022) and in the
long-range scenario (2042). These volume scenarios were generated on the trip generation,
distribution and assignment calculations discussed earlier in the report. Total Traffic Volumes for
2022 and 2042 are shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9, respectively.
K&G # 2329 Transportation Impact Study
Olsson Project No. 020-3566 June 2021
Olsson / 12
4.3 Total Traffic Analysis
4.3.1 Capacity Analysis
For simplicity, the amount of control delay is equated to a grade or Level of Service (LOS) based
on thresholds of driver acceptance. The amount of delay is assigned a letter grade A through F,
LOS A representing little or no delay and LOS F representing very high delay. Table 2 shows the
delays associated with each LOS grade for signalized and unsignalized intersections.
Table 2. Intersection Level of Service
Level-of-Service
Average Control Delay
(seconds)
Signalized Unsignalized
A ≤ 10 ≤ 10
B > 10-20 > 10-15
C > 20-35 > 15-25
D > 35-55 > 25-35
E > 55-80 > 35-50
F > 80 > 50
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 6th Ed.)
Capacity analyses were performed on both the Background Traffic and Total Traffic scenarios.
The eastbound left turn movement at the stop controlled access drive and Lemay Avenue is
expected to operate with LOS F on both the AM and PM opening day scenarios due to high
conflicting traffic on Lemay Avenue. Additionally, queueing of the northbound left turns at Lemay
and Prospect is expected to reach the site drive, potentially blocking left-turns from exiting the
site during the 95th percentile queuing. This delay is not acceptable according to city standards
and the queing back into the Kum & Go parking lot is expected to make navigating the parking lot
difficult during the peak traffic hours. While this is not uncommon for commercial drives along
arterial streets, it is likely that this movement will operate better outside of peak hours.
The overall signalized intersection of Lemay and Prospect is expected to operate at LOS D in
both the 2022 background and background plus site scenarios. The site does not significantly add
traffic to the intersection and impacts the overall intersection delay by approximately 1 second
during each of the peak hours. In the 2042 scenario, background growth primarily causes the
intersection to degrade to overall LOS F in the PM peak hour. Large-scale intersection capacity
improvements would be required to meet ACF standards should traffic volumes increase at the
rate predicted in this analysis. This should be confirmed as part of a comrehensive study factoring
in overall impacts versus benefits given the constraints from surround urban development.
K&G # 2329 Transportation Impact Study
Olsson Project No. 020-3566 June 2021
Olsson / 13
A summary of the Background Traffic Capacity Analysis Summary and the Background + Site
Capacity Analysis Summary can be seen in Table 4 and Table 5, respectively. The analysis for
the background traffic can be found in Appendix B and the analysis for the Build Condition can
be found in Appendix C.
Table 3. Background Traffic Capacity Analysis Summary
Table 4. Background + Site Traffic Capacity Summary
K&G # 2329 Transportation Impact Study
Olsson Project No. 020-3566 June 2021
Olsson / 14
4.3.2 Queueing Analysis
Queuing for the eastbound and westbound left-turns are expected to exceed the existing storage
capacity provided at Lemay and Prospect. To accommodate the expected 95th percentile
queueing, it is expected that the eastbound left movements will need 375 feet of storage length
and the westbound left movements will need 350 feet of storage length. However, due to the
movements being over capacity and LOS F in the 2042 scenarios, the storage length may exceed
the lengths listed in Table 5.
Table 5. Background Plus Site 2042 Queueing Analysis Summary
K&G # 2329 Transportation Impact Study
Olsson Project No. 020-3566 June 2021
Olsson / 15
4.3.3 Pedestrian and Multimodal Analysis
While many of the person trips to the site are vehicles for refueling, the site is near the Spring
Creek Trail and adjacent to many single-family homes. Additionally, a portion of the site trips will
be solely to the convenience store as customers or employees. These are all sources on non-
motorized trips. There is an opportunity to design the site such that the ability to make these trips
by other means than a single-occupancy vehicle is more desirable. Amenities already included
in the site plan that are expected to encourage alternative transportation methods include:
• The location of the site itself, next to an on-street bike lanes (Lemay Avenue), public
sidewalks, and two TRANSFORT stops
• On-site paved sidewalks that separate bicycle and pedestrian traffic from on-site vehicles
and connect to public bike and pedestrian facilities
• Bike racks shown to be provided on side
The provision of on-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities listed above will help to tie the site into
existing active transportation infrastructure. Additional site features to encourage active
transportation uses could include offering bike amenities in the convenience store and providing
local transit information and/or trail maps in the convenience store. The potential pedestrian
generators are categorized in the LCUASS form B in Table 6.
Table 6. LCUASS Form Attachment B - Pedestrian Analysis Worksheet
K&G # 2329 Transportation Impact Study
Olsson Project No. 020-3566 June 2021
Olsson / 16
4.3.4 Improvements to Mitigate Site Traffic
This study assumes a fairly aggressive growth rate along Prospect due to the interchange
improvement along I-25 and proposed mix-use development near the I-25 corridor and Prospect
Road. This reflects the best estimate of future traffic given the information at hand and the inherent
limited scope of a site-specific traffic impact study. The potential for sustained growth as is shown
on Prospect should be verified as part of a city-wide travel demand modeling exercise.
To maintain acceptable levels of service at Lemay and Prospect, large-scale capital
improvements to the intersection would be require based on the 2042 horizon year volumes
shown in this study. The overall intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour
of the 2042 volume scenario. The site is adding very little delay to these movements.
K&G # 2329 Transportation Impact Study
Olsson Project No. 020-3566 June 2021
Olsson / 17
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this study is to establish the expected traffic volumes that would be generated by
a proposed convenience store gas station located on the southwest corner of East Prospect Road
and South Lemay Avenue in Fort Collins, Colorado. Based on the preceding analysis, the
following can be concluded:
• The project is expected to generate 3,305 daily trips, 328 AM peak hour trips, and 273 PM
peak hour trips.
• The movements at existing intersections operate with acceptable levels of service.
• Movements at the new site drive are expected to operate with acceptable levels of delay
in the future background + site scenarios except for the eastbound left turn. This
movement is expected to experience unacceptable delay in the peak hours.
• This intersection of Prospect and Lemay is expected to operate with acceptable delay in
the opening day (2022) scenarios. By the long term (2042) scenario, the intersection is
expected to operate at LOS F which does not comply with ACF standards. This is primarily
related to background traffic growth. Due to this and the potential for significant impacts
of intersection widening, the expansion of the intersection should be considered as part of
a larger effort to address overall intersection operations.
APPENDIX A
LCUASS Forms
1
Kevin Szuch
From:Steve Gilchrist <sgilchrist@fcgov.com>
Sent:Friday, June 25, 2021 10:29 AM
To:Kevin Szuch
Cc:Shane King
Subject:RE: FoCo Traffic Study Scoping Call - K&G and Dog Day Care & Bar
Attachments:21-06-24_KG 951_LCUASS Scoping and Ped Forms SG.pdf
Kevin and Shane,
Thanks again for meeting yesterday. I have signed off on the BAF for the Kum & Go. Let me know if you have any
questions.
Have a great weekend.
Steve
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
STEVE GILCHRIST
Technical Project Manager
City of Fort Collins
Traffic Operations
626 Linden Street
970-224-6175 office
sgilchrist@fcgov.com
From: Kevin Szuch <kszuch@olsson.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2021 2:17 PM
To: Steve Gilchrist <sgilchrist@fcgov.com>
Cc: Shane King <sking@olsson.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] FoCo Traffic Study Scoping Call - K&G and Dog Day Care & Bar
Hi Steve,
Just to follow-up, I have attached the updated scoping form A & B to include your comments about the transit stop
west of the site and traffic from the Poudre Valley Hospital north of the site.
And on your questions on the Dog Day Care:
o Be clear on what the dog trips are - clarify whether the dogs will stay overnight or not.
o We will need to ask the client. We will adjust the trip generation accordingly.
o Be clear on access to the dog park - are people going into the building before getting access to
the dog park, or is it open for public use?
o We are 95% sure that you will need to go through the business before accessing the
outdoor dog park area. We will confirm this with the client.
Thanks and enjoy the rest of your week!
Chapter 4 – Attachments
Page 4-38 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards – Repealed and Reenacted April 1, 2007
Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins
Attachment A
Transportation Impact Study
Base Assumptions
Project Information
Project Name
Project Location
TIS Assumptions
Type of Study Full: Intermediate:
Study Area Boundaries North: South:
East: West:
Study Years Short Range: Long Range:
Future Traffic Growth Rate
Study Intersections 1. All access drives 5.
2. 6.
3. 7.
4. 8.
Time Period for Study AM: 7:00-9:00 PM: 4:00-6:00 Sat Noon:
Trip Generation Rates
Trip Adjustment Factors Passby: Captive
Market:
Overall Trip Distribution SEE ATTACHED SKETCH
Mode Split Assumptions
Committed Roadway Improvements
Other Traffic Studies
Areas Requiring Special Study
Date:
Traffic Engineer:
Local Entity Engineer:
Chapter 4 – Attachments
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards – Repealed and Reenacted April 1, 2007 Page 4-39
Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins
Attachment B
Transportation Impact Study
Pedestrian Analysis Worksheet
DESTINATION Origin (project land use) Rec. Res. Inst. Ofc/Bus. Com. Ind. Other
(Specify)
Recreation
1) Residential
Institution
(school, church, civic)
Office/Business
Commercial
Industrial
Other (specify)
INSTRUCTIONS:
Identify the pedestrian destinations within 1320’ (1.5 miles for schools) of the project boundary in the
spaces above. The pedestrian Level of Service for the facility/corridor linking these destinations to
the project site will be based on the directness, continuity, types of street crossings, walkway surface
condition, visual interest/amenity, and security of the selected route(s).
12 Dwelling units or more.
VAN
11
S LEMAY AVE2
3
SQUARE FOOTAGE: 3,946
BISTRO-RP-2021V1
TDOCUMENT REVISION DATE: JULY 2013FLAG NOTES:
SHEET NUMBER:
CPM:
SDM:
RDM:
06/XX.XXXX#0951 - FORT COLLINS, COKG PROJECT TEAM:LOT 5 EAST ACRES1459 Grand Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa
50309
P: 515-226-0128
F: 515-223-9873
DATE:
TOM CARRICO
RYAN HALDER
PERRY DEPHILLIPS
CALL 811 SEVENTY-TWO HOURS PRIOR TO
DIGGING, GRADING OR EXCAVATING FOR THE
MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES.DOCUMENT REVISION DATE: JULY 2013Know what's below.
before you dig.CallR www.olsson.comTEL 303.237.20721525 Raleigh St. Suite 400Denver, CO 80204DATEREVISION DESCRIPTION OF 13
C1.0
3 SITE PLANLEGEND
ITE 10th Ed Trip Gen.Daily
Code/Page Land Use Size Avg. Rate/Eq.Trips Enter Exit Enter Exit
960/403 Super Convenience Market/Gas Station 3,946 SF 837.58 3,305 50%50%1,653 1,653
Total 3,305 1,653 1,653
ITE 10th Ed Trip Gen.AM Peak Pass-by Diverted
Code/Page Land Use Size Avg. Rate/Eq.Trips Enter Exit Enter Exit Reduction Reduction Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
960/404 Super Convenience Market/Gas Station 3,946 SF 83.14 328 50%50%164 164 62%0%102 102 0 0 62 62
Total 328 164 164 102 102 0 0 62 62
ITE 10th Ed Trip Gen.PM Peak Pass-by Diverted
Code/Page Land Use Size Avg. Rate/Eq.Peak Trips Enter Exit Enter Exit Reduction Reduction Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
960/405 Super Convenience Market/Gas Station 3,946 SF 69.28 273 50%50%137 137 56%0%77 77 0 0 60 60
Total 273 137 137 77 77 0 0 60 60
March, 2020 18
Trip Generation
ITE TRIP GENERATION (10TH ED)
Rocky Mountain Village
Loveland, CO
Daily Trip Generation
Trip Distribution Total Daily Trips
AM Peak Hour Trips
Trip Distribution Total AM Trips Pass-by Trips Diverted Trips Primary Trips
PM Peak Hour Trips
Trip Distribution Total PM Trips Pass-by Trips Diverted Trips Primary Trips
Chapter 4 – Attachments
Page 4-40 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards – Repealed and Reenacted April 1, 2007
Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins
Attachment C
Transportation Worksheet
This form must be completed and submitted when requesting a waiver of the TIS
submittal and compliance requirements. This form is not required with building permit
applications for residential projects proposing twelve dwelling units or less and no
substantial access changes on a collector or arterial roadway.
Project Name:
Date:
Property Legal Description (lot, block,
subdivision)
Developer:
By:
Title:
Address:
Phone #:
Fax #:
Email:
NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT:
Provide the following information for all non-residential projects:
A. Existing use:
1. Description of existing land use: (if none, proceed with Proposed Use)
2. Existing building area (square footage) for above use(s): (2)
3. Number of employees on site each day: (3)
4. Daily trip ends for employees [mult. line (3) by the number 4]: (4)
5. Number of customers on site each day: (5)
6. Daily trip ends for customers [multiply line (5) by the number 2] (6)
7. Number of venders on site each day (include trash, ups, etc): (7)
8. Daily Trip Ends for venders [mult. line (7) by the number 2]: (8)
9. Total Vehicular Daily Trip Ends [line (4) plus line (6) plus line (8)]: (9)
10. Source of trip generation data (circle one): ITE, business records, traffic engineer,
Chapter 4 – Attachments
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards – Repealed and Reenacted April 1, 2007 Page 4-41
Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins
personal estimate, other: . Attach documentation to
support your data.
11. Number of accesses existing onto the public street(s) from this property:
12. Number of pedestrians visiting the site each day:
13. Number of bicyclists visiting the site each day:
14. Do sidewalks exist along street(s) adjacent to the property? Yes___ No___
15. Are bike lanes existing (striped) along major collector or arterial street(s) adjacent to this
property (on both sides of the street)? Yes___No___ NA___
16. Is the property adjacent to a major collector or arterial street as shown on the City’s
transportation plan? Yes___ No___
B. Proposed use:
1. Description of proposed land use:
2. Proposed building area (square footage) for above use(s): (2)
3. Anticipate number of employees on site each day: (3)
4. Daily Trip Ends for employees [multiply line (3) by the number 4]: (4)
5. Anticipate number of customers on site each day: (5)
6. Daily trip ends for customers [multiply line (5) by the number 2]: (6)
7. Anticipate number of venders on site each day: (7)
8. Daily Trip Ends for venders [multiply line (7) by the number 2]: (8)
9. Total Daily Trip Ends [line (4) plus line (6) plus line (8)]:
10. Source of trip generation data (circle one): ITE, business records, traffic engineer,
personal estimate, other: .
Attach documentation to support your data.
11. Proposed number of accesses onto the public street(s) from this property (does NOT
include any existing accesses proposed to remain for use):
11. Number of existing accesses proposed to remain and be used:
13. Number of pedestrians visiting the site each day:
14. Number of bicyclists visiting the site each day:
15. Are sidewalks proposed to be installed (or exist in good condition) along the street(s)
adjacent to the property? Yes___ No ___
Chapter 4 – Attachments
Page 4-42 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards – Repealed and Reenacted April 1, 2007
Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins
16. Are bike lanes existing or proposed to be installed (to be striped with any required no
parking signs installed) along major collector or arterial street(s) adjacent to this property
(on both sides of the street)? Yes___ No___ NA___
17. Is the property adjacent to a major collector or arterial street as shown on the City’s
current transportation plan? Yes___ No___
If the total trip new trips, (that is the difference between the daily trip ends calculation for any existing use and the total daily trip ends calculated
for the proposed use), is less than 200 and if peak hour and/or daily traffic counts demonstrate that the existing traffic plus the site generated
traffic volumes are within the limits set by City Street Standards, the applicant may request a waiver of the Traffic Impact Study submittal
requirements by signing below.
Signature Date
Full TIS Required: Intermediate TIS Required: TIS Waived:
By: Date:
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards – Repealed and Reenacted April 1, 2007 Page 4-45
Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins
Attachment D
Recommended Improvements Summary
Improvement Description
and Location 1
Responsible Party
Applicant
Committed
Background
Committed 2
Master
Planned 3
Year 200_ (Short Range)
Year 202_ (Long Range)
1. Describe improvement type and location (i.e. intersection or roadway widening, number of
lanes needed, functional classification). Example: Widen First St from Boise Ave to Denver
Ave to 2-lane arterial standards. Be certain to include any necessary offsite bicycle and
pedestrian improvements.
2. The responsible party or project must be identified in this table for any improvements
assigned in this column.
3. Master planned improvements committed by the City or State must be approved and fully
funded at the time this table is completed.
Page 4-46 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards – Repealed and Reenacted October 1, 2002
Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins
Attachment E (Loveland city limits and GMA, and Fort Collins GMA)
Peak Hour Traffic Volume Worksheet for Arterial Links
Directions: For the street segment under study, add or subtract the adjustment factor from each row to a base volume of 800 vehicles per lane.
ENGINEERING FACTORS Condition VPHPL Condition PHV/L Condition VPHPL Condition PHV/L
Lane Width 10' -20 11' 0 12' 10 12' 10
Shoulder Width/Bike Lane w/o gutter less than 2' -20 2' to 5' 0 between 5' and 8' 20 8' or more 30
Intersection Spacing less than 660' -20 660' to 1,320' 0 1,320' to 2,640' 10 1/2 mile or greater 40
Driveway Frequency more than 50/mile -20 20 to 50/mile -5 1 to 19/mile 0 no driveways 40
Number of Through Lanes two 0 four 40 six 50 six 50
Percent Turning Vehicles more than 30% -10 10% to 30% 0 less than 10% 40 less than 10% 40
Auxiliary Lanes none, but needed -30 lefts where needed 20 min. st'd. lefts, rights 30 CDOT st'd. lefts, rights 40
Access Control none, but needed -20 painted left turn lane 0 st'd. physical median 30 median wider than 30' 50
Parking On-street both sides -40 one side -20 none 20 none 20
Percent Truck Traffic more than 5% -10 1% to 5% 0 less than 1% 20 less than 1% 20
Signal Progression (%Band width) less than 10% -30 11 to 30% 0 30% to 50% 40 more than 50% 60
HUMAN FACTORS
Pedestrian Activity more than 60 per hour -20 10 to 60 per hour 0 less than 10 per hour 20 less than 10 per hour 20
Sidewalk Width no walk (less than 3') -20 3' to 4' -5 5' to 8' 0 10' or more 20
Sidewalk to Traffic Lane Distance less than 5' -10 5' to 15' 0 16' to 30' 20 more than 30' 30
Designated Pedestrian Crossings more than 2 per mile -10 2 per mile -5 1 per mile 0 none 20
Proximity to Schools within 500' -10 500' to 1,000' -5 more than 1,000' 0 more than 1,000' 0
Designated School Zones 2 or more per mile -10 1 per mile -5 none 0 none 0
Bicycle Activity more than 30 per hour -10 5 to 30 per hour -5 less than 5 per hour 0 less than 5 per hour 0
At Grade Trail Crossings 2 or more per mile -20 1 per mile -10 none 0 none 0
Adjacent Land Use (Zoning) residential -20 com/industrial 20 agricultural/open space 40 agricultural/open space 40
Typical Home Orientation face arterial -10 not front facing 0 not front facing 0 not front facing 0
Typical Building Setback less than 30' to curb -30 30' to 50' 0 between 50' and 150' 10 more than 150' 50
Bufferyard Width/Intensity no mitigation -20 some mitigation 0 high level mitigation 20 high level mitigation 20
Page 4-46 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards – Repealed and Reenacted October 1, 2002
Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins
Attachment E (Loveland city limits and GMA, and Fort Collins GMA)
Peak Hour Traffic Volume Worksheet for Arterial Links
Directions: For the street segment under study, add or subtract the adjustment factor from each row to a base volume of 800 vehicles per lane.
ENGINEERING FACTORS Condition VPHPL Condition PHV/L Condition VPHPL Condition PHV/L
Lane Width 10' -20 11' 0 12' 10 12' 10
Shoulder Width/Bike Lane w/o gutter less than 2' -20 2' to 5' 0 between 5' and 8' 20 8' or more 30
Intersection Spacing less than 660' -20 660' to 1,320' 0 1,320' to 2,640' 10 1/2 mile or greater 40
Driveway Frequency more than 50/mile -20 20 to 50/mile -5 1 to 19/mile 0 no driveways 40
Number of Through Lanes two 0 four 40 six 50 six 50
Percent Turning Vehicles more than 30% -10 10% to 30% 0 less than 10% 40 less than 10% 40
Auxiliary Lanes none, but needed -30 lefts where needed 20 min. st'd. lefts, rights 30 CDOT st'd. lefts, rights 40
Access Control none, but needed -20 painted left turn lane 0 st'd. physical median 30 median wider than 30' 50
Parking On-street both sides -40 one side -20 none 20 none 20
Percent Truck Traffic more than 5% -10 1% to 5% 0 less than 1% 20 less than 1% 20
Signal Progression (%Band width) less than 10% -30 11 to 30% 0 30% to 50% 40 more than 50% 60
HUMAN FACTORS
Pedestrian Activity more than 60 per hour -20 10 to 60 per hour 0 less than 10 per hour 20 less than 10 per hour 20
Sidewalk Width no walk (less than 3') -20 3' to 4' -5 5' to 8' 0 10' or more 20
Sidewalk to Traffic Lane Distance less than 5' -10 5' to 15' 0 16' to 30' 20 more than 30' 30
Designated Pedestrian Crossings more than 2 per mile -10 2 per mile -5 1 per mile 0 none 20
Proximity to Schools within 500' -10 500' to 1,000' -5 more than 1,000' 0 more than 1,000' 0
Designated School Zones 2 or more per mile -10 1 per mile -5 none 0 none 0
Bicycle Activity more than 30 per hour -10 5 to 30 per hour -5 less than 5 per hour 0 less than 5 per hour 0
At Grade Trail Crossings 2 or more per mile -20 1 per mile -10 none 0 none 0
Adjacent Land Use (Zoning) residential -20 com/industrial 20 agricultural/open space 40 agricultural/open space 40
Typical Home Orientation face arterial -10 not front facing 0 not front facing 0 not front facing 0
Typical Building Setback less than 30' to curb -30 30' to 50' 0 between 50' and 150' 10 more than 150' 50
Bufferyard Width/Intensity no mitigation -20 some mitigation 0 high level mitigation 20 high level mitigation 20
Page 4-48 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards – Repealed and Reenacted October 1, 2002
Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins
Attachment G (Loveland city limits and GMA, and Fort Collins GMA)
Street Traffic Volume Summary Table
Street Segment
Existing
Traffic
Volume
Date Regional
Growth
Traffic
(2005)
Traffic from
Build-out of
Other
Proposed
Development *
Site
Generated
Traffic
(2005)
Total
Traffic
ACF
Traffic
Threshold
ACF
Compliance
(Y/N)
Existing
Volume
Taken
1 Madison; 1st to 7th 600 Jun-99 30 50 10 705 550 YES*
2
3 Madison; 7th to Eisenhower 650 Jun-99 40 50 15 770 800 YES
4
5 Boise; Eisenhower to 11th 800 Jul-00 70 100 30 1,000 1,100 YES
6
7 Boise; 11th to 1st 700 Jul-00 70 80 30 880 1,100 YES
8
9 Boise; 1st to SH402 450 Jul-00 50 50 20 570 600 YES
10
11 1st, Boise to Madison 600 Jul-00 80 80 10 780 600 YES*
12
13 1st; Madison to St. Louis 650 May-99 80 80 10 830 600 YES*
14
15 7th; Boise to Madison 60 Aug-00 5 5 5 75 100 YES
16
17
18
19
20
* Approved developments, not yet built: Aspen Knolls 2nd; Winona 16th; Redi-Shop 2nd
* Proposed developments, not yet approved: Allendale 16th; Winona 17th; Pine Tree 3rd; Apple Farm Estates
Notes/Comments: (*) Within the 2% ACF allowance for streets already at capacity
APPENDIX B
2018 & 2022 & 2042 Background Capacity
Analysis
Queues
1: Lemay Avenue & Prospect Road 06/29/2021
AM Background 2019 12:29 pm 06/29/2021 Baseline Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 234 746 72 175 686 145 120 1001 142 99 601 136
v/c Ratio 1.01 0.75 0.13 0.93 0.76 0.28 0.30 0.66 0.19 0.41 0.41 0.18
Control Delay 89.6 40.6 0.5 77.1 43.4 6.0 15.8 28.3 4.2 19.6 25.4 4.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 89.6 40.6 0.5 77.1 43.4 6.0 15.8 28.3 4.2 19.6 25.4 4.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 115 249 0 83 234 0 41 300 0 33 157 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #255 303 0 #171 287 43 78 386 39 66 231 35
Internal Link Dist (ft) 523 515 227 573
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 190 125 240 240 250 300 250
Base Capacity (vph) 232 1142 611 189 1045 572 463 1520 760 241 1449 736
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.01 0.65 0.12 0.93 0.66 0.25 0.26 0.66 0.19 0.41 0.41 0.18
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Lemay Avenue & Prospect Road 06/29/2021
AM Background 2019 12:29 pm 06/29/2021 Baseline Synchro 11 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 215 686 66 161 631 133 110 921 131 91 553 125
Future Volume (veh/h) 215 686 66 161 631 133 110 921 131 91 553 125
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 234 746 0 175 686 145 120 1001 0 99 601 136
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 254 934 219 837 373 414 1668 293 1639 731
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.24 0.24 0.05 0.47 0.00 0.05 0.46 0.46
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 234 746 0 175 686 145 120 1001 0 99 601 136
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 21.5 0.0 6.5 20.1 8.5 3.9 22.9 0.0 3.2 12.1 5.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.5 21.5 0.0 6.5 20.1 8.5 3.9 22.9 0.0 3.2 12.1 5.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 254 934 219 837 373 414 1668 293 1639 731
V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.80 0.80 0.82 0.39 0.29 0.60 0.34 0.37 0.19
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 254 1147 219 1050 468 538 1668 318 1639 731
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.1 37.8 0.0 36.5 39.8 35.4 14.7 21.6 0.0 16.9 19.2 17.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 36.0 3.3 0.0 18.8 4.2 0.7 0.4 1.6 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.3 9.7 0.0 2.8 9.2 3.3 1.6 9.7 0.0 1.3 5.1 2.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 70.1 41.2 0.0 55.3 44.1 36.0 15.1 23.2 0.0 17.5 19.8 18.0
LnGrp LOS E D E D D B C B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 980 A 1006 1121 A 836
Approach Delay, s/veh 48.1 44.9 22.3 19.3
Approach LOS D D C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.4 55.2 11.0 33.4 9.5 56.1 14.0 30.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.5 36.5 6.5 35.5 6.5 43.5 9.5 32.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.9 14.1 8.5 23.5 5.2 24.9 11.5 22.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 4.7 0.0 4.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 3.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 33.8
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Queues
1: Lemay Avenue & Prospect Road 06/29/2021
AM Background 2022 2:48 pm 06/29/2021 Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 248 791 76 186 727 153 122 1021 145 100 613 138
v/c Ratio 0.80 0.81 0.15 0.76 0.85 0.31 0.34 0.73 0.20 0.50 0.45 0.20
Control Delay 44.3 44.0 3.3 44.0 50.8 7.1 18.6 32.4 4.2 24.5 26.8 3.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 44.3 44.0 3.3 44.0 50.8 7.1 18.6 32.4 4.2 24.5 26.8 3.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 112 266 0 80 255 0 47 327 0 38 172 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #223 339 19 #176 328 50 82 410 38 70 225 35
Internal Link Dist (ft) 523 515 227 573
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 190 125 240 240 250 300 250
Base Capacity (vph) 331 1045 540 252 884 510 357 1406 719 203 1376 706
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.75 0.76 0.14 0.74 0.82 0.30 0.34 0.73 0.20 0.49 0.45 0.20
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Lemay Avenue & Prospect Road 06/29/2021
AM Background 2022 2:48 pm 06/29/2021 Synchro 11 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 228 728 70 171 669 141 112 939 133 92 564 127
Future Volume (veh/h) 228 728 70 171 669 141 112 939 133 92 564 127
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 248 791 0 186 727 153 122 1021 0 100 613 138
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 308 923 270 827 369 381 1538 263 1509 673
Arrive On Green 0.12 0.26 0.00 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.06 0.43 0.00 0.05 0.42 0.42
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 248 791 0 186 727 153 122 1021 0 100 613 138
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 11.4 23.3 0.0 8.6 21.7 9.0 4.2 25.2 0.0 3.5 13.2 6.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.4 23.3 0.0 8.6 21.7 9.0 4.2 25.2 0.0 3.5 13.2 6.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 308 923 270 827 369 381 1538 263 1509 673
V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.86 0.69 0.88 0.41 0.32 0.66 0.38 0.41 0.21
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 355 1050 284 888 396 407 1538 283 1509 673
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.0 38.8 0.0 30.1 40.7 35.8 16.9 24.8 0.0 19.5 22.0 19.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.3 6.5 0.0 6.4 9.6 0.7 0.5 2.3 0.0 0.9 0.8 0.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.8 10.9 0.0 4.1 10.5 3.6 1.7 10.9 0.0 1.5 5.6 2.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.4 45.3 0.0 36.6 50.3 36.6 17.4 27.1 0.0 20.4 22.8 20.6
LnGrp LOS D D D D D B C C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1039 A 1066 1143 A 851
Approach Delay, s/veh 44.1 45.9 26.1 22.2
Approach LOS D D C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.6 51.2 15.1 33.1 9.7 52.1 18.1 30.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.7 40.3 11.5 32.5 6.5 41.5 16.5 27.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.2 15.2 10.6 25.3 5.5 27.2 13.4 23.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.9 0.0 3.1 0.0 6.3 0.2 1.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.0
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Queues
1: Lemay Avenue & Prospect Road 06/30/2021
AM Background 2042 2:48 pm 06/29/2021 Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 334 1065 102 250 980 207 135 1128 160 111 677 153
v/c Ratio 0.98 0.91 0.16 0.93 0.96 0.37 0.48 0.92 0.25 0.74 0.62 0.26
Control Delay 74.4 48.5 1.9 69.1 59.5 11.8 25.2 47.3 6.0 51.5 35.7 5.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 74.4 48.5 1.9 69.1 59.5 11.8 25.2 47.3 6.0 51.5 35.7 5.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 185 377 0 125 357 30 57 397 5 46 216 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #371 #505 13 #282 #494 92 98 #531 50 #117 280 46
Internal Link Dist (ft) 523 515 227 573
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 190 125 240 240 250 300 250
Base Capacity (vph) 341 1164 620 268 1019 562 291 1228 646 150 1092 594
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.98 0.91 0.16 0.93 0.96 0.37 0.46 0.92 0.25 0.74 0.62 0.26
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Lemay Avenue & Prospect Road 06/30/2021
AM Background 2042 2:48 pm 06/29/2021 Synchro 11 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 307 980 94 230 902 190 124 1038 147 102 623 141
Future Volume (veh/h) 307 980 94 230 902 190 124 1038 147 102 623 141
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 334 1065 0 250 980 207 135 1128 0 111 677 153
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 349 1169 290 1024 457 296 1234 170 1159 517
Arrive On Green 0.15 0.33 0.00 0.11 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.35 0.00 0.05 0.33 0.33
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 334 1065 0 250 980 207 135 1128 0 111 677 153
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 15.9 31.6 0.0 10.7 29.8 11.8 5.5 33.4 0.0 4.6 17.4 7.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.9 31.6 0.0 10.7 29.8 11.8 5.5 33.4 0.0 4.6 17.4 7.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 349 1169 290 1024 457 296 1234 170 1159 517
V/C Ratio(X) 0.96 0.91 0.86 0.96 0.45 0.46 0.91 0.65 0.58 0.30
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 349 1169 290 1024 457 340 1234 170 1159 517
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.2 35.4 0.0 27.3 38.5 32.1 23.6 34.3 0.0 28.5 30.9 27.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 37.0 10.7 0.0 22.3 18.6 0.7 1.1 11.9 0.0 8.6 2.2 1.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.1 15.1 0.0 6.3 15.4 4.6 2.4 16.1 0.0 2.3 7.8 3.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 68.2 46.0 0.0 49.5 57.1 32.8 24.7 46.2 0.0 37.1 33.0 29.1
LnGrp LOS E D D E C C D D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1399 A 1437 1263 A 941
Approach Delay, s/veh 51.3 52.3 43.9 32.9
Approach LOS D D D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.9 40.4 17.0 40.7 9.6 42.7 21.5 36.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.1 33.2 12.5 36.2 5.1 38.2 17.0 31.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.5 19.4 12.7 33.6 6.6 35.4 17.9 31.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.4 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 46.3
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Queues
1: Lemay Avenue & Prospect Road 06/29/2021
PM Background 2019 1:18 pm 06/29/2021 Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 165 799 117 201 863 101 121 809 153 204 1368 270
v/c Ratio 0.82 0.85 0.24 0.93 0.89 0.20 0.75 0.55 0.21 0.63 0.88 0.33
Control Delay 56.9 51.9 10.5 74.6 54.7 7.9 49.9 28.8 4.2 24.4 38.3 5.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 56.9 51.9 10.5 74.6 54.7 7.9 49.9 28.8 4.2 24.4 38.3 5.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 84 307 11 105 335 2 46 251 0 81 501 22
Queue Length 95th (ft) #192 386 57 #251 #442 44 #144 314 41 127 606 75
Internal Link Dist (ft) 523 515 227 573
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 190 125 240 240 250 300 250
Base Capacity (vph) 202 958 500 217 987 512 161 1463 743 328 1563 822
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.82 0.83 0.23 0.93 0.87 0.20 0.75 0.55 0.21 0.62 0.88 0.33
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Lemay Avenue & Prospect Road 06/29/2021
PM Background 2019 1:18 pm 06/29/2021 Synchro 11 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 152 735 108 185 794 93 111 744 141 188 1259 248
Future Volume (veh/h) 152 735 108 185 794 93 111 744 141 188 1259 248
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 165 799 0 201 863 101 121 809 0 204 1368 270
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 220 920 246 950 424 188 1504 374 1598 713
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.26 0.00 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.05 0.42 0.00 0.08 0.45 0.45
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 165 799 0 201 863 101 121 809 0 204 1368 270
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.1 25.8 0.0 10.0 28.2 6.0 4.6 20.4 0.0 7.6 41.3 13.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.1 25.8 0.0 10.0 28.2 6.0 4.6 20.4 0.0 7.6 41.3 13.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 220 920 246 950 424 188 1504 374 1598 713
V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.87 0.82 0.91 0.24 0.64 0.54 0.55 0.86 0.38
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 220 962 246 992 442 189 1504 386 1598 713
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.8 42.5 0.0 32.5 42.5 34.4 26.7 25.9 0.0 19.0 29.5 21.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.4 8.3 0.0 19.1 11.7 0.3 7.2 1.4 0.0 1.5 6.1 1.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.3 12.3 0.0 5.6 13.8 0.0 2.3 8.9 0.0 3.2 18.6 5.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.2 50.8 0.0 51.6 54.2 34.7 33.9 27.2 0.0 20.5 35.7 23.4
LnGrp LOS D D D D C C C C D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 964 A 1165 930 A 1842
Approach Delay, s/veh 50.0 52.1 28.1 32.2
Approach LOS D D C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 58.5 15.0 35.6 14.2 55.3 14.0 36.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.5 52.5 10.5 32.5 10.5 48.5 9.5 33.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.6 43.3 12.0 27.8 9.6 22.4 10.1 30.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.5 0.0 2.2 0.1 6.2 0.0 1.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.6
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Queues
1: Lemay Avenue & Prospect Road 06/29/2021
PM Background 2022 2:49 pm 06/29/2021 Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 175 848 124 213 903 107 123 825 155 208 1396 274
v/c Ratio 0.87 0.92 0.24 0.92 0.92 0.20 0.76 0.60 0.22 0.62 0.90 0.34
Control Delay 65.1 59.6 5.8 71.7 57.9 3.5 52.8 32.4 4.9 23.7 40.6 6.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 65.1 59.6 5.8 71.7 57.9 3.5 52.8 32.4 4.9 23.7 40.6 6.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 90 336 0 113 356 0 46 267 0 83 517 24
Queue Length 95th (ft) #214 #453 40 #263 #477 25 #156 353 45 129 #636 79
Internal Link Dist (ft) 523 515 227 573
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 190 125 240 240 250 300 250
Base Capacity (vph) 201 928 515 231 987 539 161 1367 706 382 1550 816
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.87 0.91 0.24 0.92 0.91 0.20 0.76 0.60 0.22 0.54 0.90 0.34
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Lemay Avenue & Prospect Road 06/29/2021
PM Background 2022 2:49 pm 06/29/2021 Synchro 11 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 161 780 114 196 831 98 113 759 143 191 1284 252
Future Volume (veh/h) 161 780 114 196 831 98 113 759 143 191 1284 252
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 175 848 0 213 903 107 123 825 0 208 1396 274
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 216 913 246 972 434 181 1467 367 1575 702
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.26 0.00 0.10 0.27 0.27 0.05 0.41 0.00 0.08 0.44 0.44
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 175 848 0 213 903 107 123 825 0 208 1396 274
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.7 27.9 0.0 10.5 29.7 6.3 4.7 21.3 0.0 7.8 43.2 14.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.7 27.9 0.0 10.5 29.7 6.3 4.7 21.3 0.0 7.8 43.2 14.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 216 913 246 972 434 181 1467 367 1575 702
V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.93 0.86 0.93 0.25 0.68 0.56 0.57 0.89 0.39
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 216 933 246 992 442 181 1467 466 1575 702
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.2 43.5 0.0 32.4 42.5 34.0 27.5 26.9 0.0 19.6 30.6 22.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 20.5 15.0 0.0 25.9 14.4 0.3 9.8 1.6 0.0 1.4 7.8 1.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.9 14.1 0.0 6.3 14.8 2.5 2.5 9.3 0.0 3.3 19.7 5.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 53.6 58.6 0.0 58.3 56.8 34.3 37.3 28.5 0.0 21.0 38.4 24.1
LnGrp LOS D E E E C D C C D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1023 A 1223 948 A 1878
Approach Delay, s/veh 57.7 55.1 29.7 34.4
Approach LOS E E C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 57.7 16.0 35.3 14.6 54.0 14.0 37.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.5 52.5 11.5 31.5 16.8 42.2 9.5 33.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.7 45.2 12.5 29.9 9.8 23.3 10.7 31.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.9 0.3 5.7 0.0 1.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 43.2
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Queues
1: Lemay Avenue & Prospect Road 06/30/2021
PM Background 2042 2:49 pm 06/29/2021 Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 236 1141 167 287 1217 143 136 911 173 230 1542 303
v/c Ratio 1.26 1.12 0.30 1.17 1.07 0.24 1.01 0.74 0.26 0.81 1.05 0.39
Control Delay 180.6 107.8 10.0 139.8 87.6 6.6 105.1 39.2 5.1 45.0 71.1 9.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 180.6 107.8 10.0 139.8 87.6 6.6 105.1 39.2 5.1 45.0 71.1 9.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~179 ~536 18 ~213 ~551 4 ~58 328 0 102 ~682 45
Queue Length 95th (ft) #344 #672 72 #392 #687 50 #193 407 49 #225 #821 112
Internal Link Dist (ft) 523 515 227 573
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 190 125 240 240 250 300 250
Base Capacity (vph) 187 1017 552 246 1135 600 135 1227 662 294 1474 780
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.26 1.12 0.30 1.17 1.07 0.24 1.01 0.74 0.26 0.78 1.05 0.39
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Lemay Avenue & Prospect Road 06/30/2021
PM Background 2042 2:49 pm 06/29/2021 Synchro 11 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 217 1050 154 264 1120 132 125 838 159 212 1419 279
Future Volume (veh/h) 217 1050 154 264 1120 132 125 838 159 212 1419 279
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 236 1141 0 287 1217 143 136 911 0 230 1542 303
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 186 1022 246 1140 509 134 1288 318 1481 660
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.29 0.00 0.10 0.32 0.32 0.04 0.36 0.00 0.10 0.42 0.42
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 236 1141 0 287 1217 143 136 911 0 230 1542 303
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.5 34.5 0.0 12.5 38.5 8.1 5.0 26.4 0.0 9.3 50.0 16.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.5 34.5 0.0 12.5 38.5 8.1 5.0 26.4 0.0 9.3 50.0 16.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 186 1022 246 1140 509 134 1288 318 1481 660
V/C Ratio(X) 1.27 1.12 1.17 1.07 0.28 1.01 0.71 0.72 1.04 0.46
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 186 1022 246 1140 509 134 1288 358 1481 660
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.7 42.7 0.0 34.8 40.8 30.4 34.6 32.8 0.0 24.4 35.0 25.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 155.8 66.0 0.0 110.8 46.6 0.3 81.2 3.3 0.0 6.2 34.9 2.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 11.9 24.3 0.0 12.4 23.9 3.1 5.5 11.9 0.0 4.4 28.2 6.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 189.6 108.7 0.0 145.5 87.4 30.7 115.8 36.1 0.0 30.5 69.9 27.5
LnGrp LOS F F F F C F D C F C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1377 A 1647 1047 A 2075
Approach Delay, s/veh 122.6 92.6 46.5 59.4
Approach LOS F F D E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.5 54.5 17.0 39.0 16.0 48.0 13.0 43.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 50.0 12.5 34.5 14.2 40.8 8.5 38.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.0 52.0 14.5 36.5 11.3 28.4 10.5 40.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.1 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 80.2
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
APPENDIX C
2022 & 2042 Background Plus Site Capacity
Analysis Reports
Queues
1: Lemay Avenue & Prospect Road 06/29/2021
AM Total 2022 3:00 pm 06/29/2021 Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 248 791 93 202 727 153 139 1038 161 100 630 138
v/c Ratio 0.80 0.85 0.19 0.75 0.85 0.31 0.39 0.74 0.22 0.50 0.47 0.20
Control Delay 44.4 47.9 5.8 42.1 50.8 7.1 19.2 32.9 4.4 25.1 28.0 4.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 44.4 47.9 5.8 42.1 50.8 7.1 19.2 32.9 4.4 25.1 28.0 4.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 112 273 0 88 255 0 54 336 0 38 183 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #222 348 33 #180 328 50 92 420 42 70 238 41
Internal Link Dist (ft) 523 515 227 573
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 190 125 240 240 250 300 250
Base Capacity (vph) 332 981 514 284 884 510 364 1403 724 200 1341 685
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.75 0.81 0.18 0.71 0.82 0.30 0.38 0.74 0.22 0.50 0.47 0.20
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Lemay Avenue & Prospect Road 06/29/2021
AM Total 2022 3:00 pm 06/29/2021 Synchro 11 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 228 728 86 186 669 141 128 955 148 92 580 127
Future Volume (veh/h) 228 728 86 186 669 141 128 955 148 92 580 127
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 248 791 0 202 727 153 139 1038 0 100 630 138
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 309 899 277 827 369 380 1534 258 1483 662
Arrive On Green 0.12 0.25 0.00 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.06 0.43 0.00 0.05 0.42 0.42
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 248 791 0 202 727 153 139 1038 0 100 630 138
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 11.4 23.5 0.0 9.3 21.7 9.0 4.8 25.8 0.0 3.5 13.8 6.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.4 23.5 0.0 9.3 21.7 9.0 4.8 25.8 0.0 3.5 13.8 6.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 309 899 277 827 369 380 1534 258 1483 662
V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.88 0.73 0.88 0.41 0.37 0.68 0.39 0.42 0.21
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 355 985 311 888 396 420 1534 281 1483 662
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.2 39.5 0.0 30.0 40.7 35.8 17.2 25.1 0.0 19.9 22.7 20.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.1 8.7 0.0 7.4 9.6 0.7 0.6 2.4 0.0 1.0 0.9 0.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.8 11.2 0.0 4.5 10.5 3.6 2.0 11.1 0.0 1.5 5.9 2.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.3 48.2 0.0 37.4 50.3 36.6 17.8 27.5 0.0 20.9 23.6 21.2
LnGrp LOS D D D D D B C C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1039 A 1082 1177 A 868
Approach Delay, s/veh 46.3 45.9 26.4 22.9
Approach LOS D D C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.3 50.4 15.9 32.3 9.8 52.0 18.2 30.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.3 38.7 13.5 30.5 6.7 41.3 16.5 27.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.8 15.8 11.3 25.5 5.5 27.8 13.4 23.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 5.0 0.1 2.3 0.0 6.2 0.2 1.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.7
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
HCM 6th TWSC
6: Lemay Avenue & Site Access 06/29/2021
AM Total 2022 3:00 pm 06/29/2021 Synchro 11 Report
Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 18.5
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 108 56 76 1123 764 88
Future Vol, veh/h 108 56 76 1123 764 88
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 150 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 117 61 83 1221 830 96
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1655 463 926 0 - 0
Stage 1 878 - - - - -
Stage 2 777 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 89 546 734 - - -
Stage 1 367 - - - - -
Stage 2 414 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 79 546 734 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 79 - - - - -
Stage 1 326 - - - - -
Stage 2 414 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 245.2 0.7 0
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 734 - 79 546 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.113 - 1.486 0.111 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.5 -$ 365.9 12.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - F B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - 9.5 0.4 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon
Queues
1: Lemay Avenue & Prospect Road 06/30/2021
AM Total 2042 3:01 pm 06/29/2021 Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 334 1065 120 266 980 207 152 1146 176 111 695 153
v/c Ratio 0.98 0.93 0.20 0.96 0.96 0.37 0.55 0.93 0.27 0.74 0.63 0.26
Control Delay 74.4 51.3 3.1 73.7 60.1 11.8 27.2 48.7 6.1 51.9 35.8 5.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 74.4 51.3 3.1 73.7 60.1 11.8 27.2 48.7 6.1 51.9 35.8 5.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 185 381 0 137 358 30 65 407 7 46 222 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #370 #514 26 #301 #495 92 109 #544 54 #117 286 46
Internal Link Dist (ft) 523 515 227 573
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 190 125 240 240 250 300 250
Base Capacity (vph) 341 1142 611 278 1016 560 282 1232 656 149 1097 596
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.98 0.93 0.20 0.96 0.96 0.37 0.54 0.93 0.27 0.74 0.63 0.26
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Lemay Avenue & Prospect Road 06/30/2021
AM Total 2042 3:01 pm 06/29/2021 Synchro 11 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 307 980 110 245 902 190 140 1054 162 102 639 141
Future Volume (veh/h) 307 980 110 245 902 190 140 1054 162 102 639 141
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 334 1065 0 266 980 207 152 1146 0 111 695 153
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 348 1147 295 1021 455 298 1237 167 1139 508
Arrive On Green 0.15 0.32 0.00 0.12 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.35 0.00 0.05 0.32 0.32
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 334 1065 0 266 980 207 152 1146 0 111 695 153
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 15.9 31.9 0.0 11.5 29.9 11.8 6.2 34.1 0.0 4.6 18.2 8.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.9 31.9 0.0 11.5 29.9 11.8 6.2 34.1 0.0 4.6 18.2 8.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 348 1147 295 1021 455 298 1237 167 1139 508
V/C Ratio(X) 0.96 0.93 0.90 0.96 0.45 0.51 0.93 0.67 0.61 0.30
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 348 1147 295 1021 455 323 1237 167 1139 508
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.2 36.0 0.0 27.2 38.6 32.1 23.8 34.5 0.0 28.8 31.6 28.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 37.4 12.9 0.0 28.7 19.2 0.7 1.3 13.1 0.0 9.6 2.4 1.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.3 15.6 0.0 7.1 15.5 4.6 2.7 16.6 0.0 2.4 8.1 3.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 68.6 49.0 0.0 55.9 57.8 32.8 25.1 47.6 0.0 38.5 34.0 29.6
LnGrp LOS E D E E C C D D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1399 A 1453 1298 A 959
Approach Delay, s/veh 53.6 53.9 45.0 33.8
Approach LOS D D D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.6 39.8 17.6 40.0 9.6 42.8 21.5 36.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.7 33.7 13.1 35.5 5.1 38.3 17.0 31.6
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.2 20.2 13.5 33.9 6.6 36.1 17.9 31.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.5 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 47.8
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
HCM 6th TWSC
6: Lemay Avenue & Site Access 06/30/2021
AM Total 2042 3:01 pm 06/29/2021 Synchro 11 Report
Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 30.4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 108 56 76 1248 906 88
Future Vol, veh/h 108 56 76 1248 906 88
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 150 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 117 61 83 1357 985 96
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1878 541 1081 0 - 0
Stage 1 1033 - - - - -
Stage 2 845 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 63 485 641 - - -
Stage 1 304 - - - - -
Stage 2 382 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 55 485 641 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 55 - - - - -
Stage 1 265 - - - - -
Stage 2 382 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s$ 454.7 0.7 0
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 641 - 55 485 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.129 - 2.134 0.126 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.4 -$ 683.5 13.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - F B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - 11.6 0.4 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon
Queues
1: Lemay Avenue & Prospect Road 06/29/2021
PM Total 2022 3:01 pm 06/29/2021 Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 175 848 140 229 903 107 139 841 172 208 1412 274
v/c Ratio 0.91 0.94 0.28 0.93 0.90 0.20 0.86 0.61 0.24 0.64 0.92 0.34
Control Delay 73.2 63.3 7.8 72.7 54.1 3.5 68.4 32.3 4.6 24.7 42.3 6.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 73.2 63.3 7.8 72.7 54.1 3.5 68.4 32.3 4.6 24.7 42.3 6.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 90 340 2 126 354 0 57 274 0 83 530 26
Queue Length 95th (ft) #222 #465 53 #282 #470 25 #181 351 46 129 #682 81
Internal Link Dist (ft) 523 515 227 573
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 190 125 240 240 250 300 250
Base Capacity (vph) 193 899 503 246 1005 547 161 1370 718 350 1542 811
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.91 0.94 0.28 0.93 0.90 0.20 0.86 0.61 0.24 0.59 0.92 0.34
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Lemay Avenue & Prospect Road 06/29/2021
PM Total 2022 3:01 pm 06/29/2021 Synchro 11 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 161 780 129 211 831 98 128 774 158 191 1299 252
Future Volume (veh/h) 161 780 129 211 831 98 128 774 158 191 1299 252
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 175 848 0 229 903 107 139 841 0 208 1412 274
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 214 898 258 1005 448 179 1452 358 1554 693
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.25 0.00 0.10 0.28 0.28 0.06 0.41 0.00 0.08 0.44 0.44
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 175 848 0 229 903 107 139 841 0 208 1412 274
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.8 28.1 0.0 11.2 29.3 6.2 5.4 22.0 0.0 7.9 44.5 14.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.8 28.1 0.0 11.2 29.3 6.2 5.4 22.0 0.0 7.9 44.5 14.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 214 898 258 1005 448 179 1452 358 1554 693
V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.94 0.89 0.90 0.24 0.78 0.58 0.58 0.91 0.40
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 214 903 258 1010 450 179 1452 424 1554 693
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.7 44.0 0.0 31.7 41.4 33.1 28.1 27.5 0.0 20.1 31.5 23.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 21.6 17.9 0.0 29.1 10.7 0.3 19.2 1.7 0.0 1.5 9.4 1.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.1 14.5 0.0 6.9 14.2 2.4 3.2 9.6 0.0 3.4 20.6 5.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.3 61.8 0.0 60.9 52.1 33.4 47.3 29.2 0.0 21.6 40.9 24.7
LnGrp LOS E E E D C D C C D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1023 A 1239 980 A 1894
Approach Delay, s/veh 60.7 52.1 31.8 36.5
Approach LOS E D C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.2 57.0 17.0 34.8 14.6 53.5 13.4 38.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.7 52.3 12.5 30.5 14.6 44.4 8.9 34.1
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 46.5 13.2 30.1 9.9 24.0 10.8 31.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.2 0.2 6.0 0.0 1.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 44.2
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
HCM 6th TWSC
6: Lemay Avenue & Site Access 06/29/2021
PM Total 2022 3:01 pm 06/29/2021 Synchro 11 Report
Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 37.7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 76 61 46 984 1548 91
Future Vol, veh/h 76 61 46 984 1548 91
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 150 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 83 66 50 1070 1683 99
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 2368 891 1782 0 - 0
Stage 1 1733 - - - - -
Stage 2 635 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 29 285 344 - - -
Stage 1 128 - - - - -
Stage 2 490 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 25 285 344 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 25 - - - - -
Stage 1 109 - - - - -
Stage 2 490 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s$ 765.3 0.8 0
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 344 - 25 285 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.145 - 3.304 0.233 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 17.2 -$ 1362.4 21.4 - -
HCM Lane LOS C - F C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 - 10.2 0.9 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon
Queues
1: Lemay Avenue & Prospect Road 06/30/2021
PM Total 2042 3:01 pm 06/29/2021 Synchro 11 Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 236 1141 184 303 1217 143 150 927 189 230 1559 229
v/c Ratio 1.26 1.12 0.33 1.23 1.07 0.24 1.05 0.75 0.28 0.84 1.07 0.31
Control Delay 180.6 107.8 11.9 163.6 87.6 6.6 116.0 38.7 4.9 49.8 78.8 8.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 180.6 107.8 11.9 163.6 87.6 6.6 116.0 38.7 4.9 49.8 78.8 8.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~179 ~536 27 ~239 ~551 4 ~75 331 0 104 ~703 34
Queue Length 95th (ft) #344 #672 86 #421 #687 50 #213 410 49 #239 #843 89
Internal Link Dist (ft) 523 515 227 573
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 190 125 240 240 250 300 250
Base Capacity (vph) 187 1017 552 246 1135 600 143 1244 679 277 1459 745
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.26 1.12 0.33 1.23 1.07 0.24 1.05 0.75 0.28 0.83 1.07 0.31
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Lemay Avenue & Prospect Road 06/30/2021
PM Total 2042 3:01 pm 06/29/2021 Synchro 11 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 217 1050 169 279 1120 132 138 853 174 212 1434 211
Future Volume (veh/h) 217 1050 169 279 1120 132 138 853 174 212 1434 211
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 236 1141 0 303 1217 143 150 927 0 230 1559 229
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 186 1022 246 1140 509 142 1290 313 1466 654
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.29 0.00 0.10 0.32 0.32 0.05 0.36 0.00 0.10 0.41 0.41
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 236 1141 0 303 1217 143 150 927 0 230 1559 229
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.5 34.5 0.0 12.5 38.5 8.1 5.5 27.0 0.0 9.3 49.5 11.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.5 34.5 0.0 12.5 38.5 8.1 5.5 27.0 0.0 9.3 49.5 11.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 186 1022 246 1140 509 142 1290 313 1466 654
V/C Ratio(X) 1.27 1.12 1.23 1.07 0.28 1.06 0.72 0.73 1.06 0.35
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 186 1022 246 1140 509 142 1290 338 1466 654
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.7 42.7 0.0 34.8 40.8 30.4 33.3 33.0 0.0 24.6 35.2 24.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 155.8 66.0 0.0 135.4 46.6 0.3 92.2 3.5 0.0 7.5 42.4 1.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 11.9 24.3 0.0 14.0 23.9 3.1 6.2 12.1 0.0 4.5 29.4 4.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 189.6 108.7 0.0 170.1 87.4 30.7 125.5 36.4 0.0 32.1 77.7 25.7
LnGrp LOS F F F F C F D C F C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1377 A 1663 1077 A 2018
Approach Delay, s/veh 122.6 97.6 48.8 66.6
Approach LOS F F D E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 54.0 17.0 39.0 16.0 48.0 13.0 43.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.5 49.5 12.5 34.5 13.1 41.9 8.5 38.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.5 51.5 14.5 36.5 11.3 29.0 10.5 40.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 5.3 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 84.4
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
HCM 6th TWSC
6: Lemay Avenue & Site Access 06/30/2021
PM Total 2042 3:01 pm 06/29/2021 Synchro 11 Report
Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 61.9
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 76 61 46 1089 1791 91
Future Vol, veh/h 76 61 46 1089 1791 91
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 0 150 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 83 66 50 1184 1947 99
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 2689 1023 2046 0 - 0
Stage 1 1997 - - - - -
Stage 2 692 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 18 233 271 - - -
Stage 1 91 - - - - -
Stage 2 458 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 15 233 271 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 15 - - - - -
Stage 1 ~ 74 - - - - -
Stage 2 458 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s$ 1417.1 0.9 0
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 271 - 15 233 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.185 - 5.507 0.285 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 21.3 -$ 2533.2 26.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS C - F D - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - 11.2 1.1 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon