Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPEIGHTS PUD PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - 17 92 A - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - TRAFFIC STUDYf 00 M 0 OD O 0 O J 0 0 z ,If, W O J W z W a z z a m Cl) K u.i s C3 J W C -13 W Oct F- M 10 r a 10 O Cl) z cc W W z co z W J U • z 0 F- 0 a N z x • U LL LL cc MEMORANDUM To: Dana Lockwood, Architect Fort Collins Staff From: Matt Delich --�el Date: March 30, 1992 Subject: Speights PUD traffic study (File: 9216MEM1) This memorandum documents the findings of various traffic analyses related to the Speights PUD in Fort Collins, Colorado. Speights PUD is a commercial/residential development located on the east side of Timberline Road approximately 0.15 miles north of Caribou Road. The site location is shown in Figure 1. Data used in these analyses was obtained through field observations, and review of previous traffic studies performed for projects in this area: 1. Timberline Farm Site Access Study, August 1989 2. Collindale Business Park Site Access Study, July 1988. The Sunstone subdivision to the east has been developed with just a few lots either vacant or homes under construction. There is an elementary school to the east, along Caribou Road. The Collindale Business Park is west of the site across Timberline Road. It is largely undeveloped to date. The Timberline Farm Subdivision is to the south between Caribou Road and Harmony Road. It, too, is largely undeveloped. There is a single family detached residential subdivision to the northeast of the site. The Speights PUD is a commercial/residential development as shown in Figure 2. The initial phases include a veterinary clinic and five single family lots. These uses will likely be developed in the next year. The veterinary clinic will gain access from Timberline Road. The five residential lots will access Stoney Creek Drive to Caribou Road. The parcel to the south of the veterinary clinic will be developed in the future. Economic conditions will determine the timing and use on this parcel. For analysis purposes, this parcel was assumed to be a small office use. A floor area ratio of 4:1 was assumed. Access would be shared with the veterinary clinic. This use was included in the long range analysis. Peak hour traffic counts were obtained at the Timberline/ Caribou and Caribou/Stoney Creek intersections in March, 1992, as shown in Figure 3. Raw traffic data is provided in Appendix A. Table 1 shows the peak hour operation at these two intersections. Calculations forms are provided in Appendix B. Even though there were no vehicles counted on some movements, the operational analysis assumed one vehicle ft ft Table 5 2010 Intersection Operation Level of Service Intersection AM PM Timberline/Caribou (signal) 6 Phase B (13.1 S/V) D (26.7 S/V) 6 Phase C (15.5 S/V) C (20.2 S/V) Caribou/Stoney Creek NB LT/T/RT A A SB LT/T/RT A A EB LT A A WB LT A A Timberline/Access WB RT A A SITE LOCATION Figure 1 I Speights P.U.D. N -"-- 1 /0" 1 - - - Veterinary Clinic Single Family , Access Single Family CARIBOU ROAD SUNSTONE DRIVE SITE PLAN Figure 2 Ili APPENDIX A MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E. 3413 BANYAN AVENUE LOVELAND, CO 80538 A M M A M r� M TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE CO/U14TS 3/ observer DRteqZ Dey`%KOKS City F-OKT Cot-GfVS R Rivet tum 8 . Stmiola INTERSECTION OF T�fr RL 1N6- AND CAet Boo L. Left turn TIME BEGINS 7/A.r 6GK LI AJE TM3tc2G/A.M N�AOL Souls eAKI A00 eAR1600 TOTAL Ept Waet TU from NORTH from SOUTH from EAST Imm WEST R S L Total R S L Total R S L Total R S L Total Ifs 1 0 -74 3 -7-1 I-Z -71 I 8Z 159 9 0 9 ($ 6 O o d 18 1'77 730 to 7Z S 7-7 4 7Z o 7& ts3 I O to z8 0 o d z& 11g1 7- 4 II 75 1 7 93 o IW 175 12 1 O 15 3G O o d 3G 1211 0 0 171 77 53 o 5-7 13 14 o Iz zG l0 J e zG II(00 %IS U Z G I 5 0 s 11Z(p z0 0 O o 20 114(a I I I I A6-QI5 O zil z5 3o(o 11-7 t97 1 1315- 6Z l Z O 4 log U O 0 O to $. 17Z 1RTF: o.f(. 1 I I I I 4r s O l 10 B 7Z 0 g0 I to 7 0 o 1-7 L O 0 Z 1 10 117 113 t to 0 5- 15 O O o O 1 Z330 8107 to 9s 1-7 O(s 2o1 7 o S 1?- O O O 1 2 I z181s 54T�5S0 OOO iaT 14 119 Zs-0 1 0 O o 0 II zro 5�S © $ z7 115 I 94 II Z2(o ZO O O O z0 24(o 1 n7_1 so-53o 0 3gs (DI 441p (,5 3'Iq Z A(n e97- s$ Q o 10 1 O 11 5S( 9S0 71LF=o.91 MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E. 3413 BANYAN AVENUE LOVELAND, CO 80538 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS 3 I Observer Date Z 9L Day City F-OR i (20L.(Lt.0 $ R e Right tum S. StratOM INTERSECTION OF STONby CrzAND e.Ap-lf30(J Le LeRtum TIME BEGINS �-ro"&y Cie. StpA-eKe C'.K. TOTA0-Af NoMh South 1 moo � A R I RoQ T� wow wow TOTAL ALL from NORTH tram SOUTH from EAST from WEST R S L Total R S L Total S L Tmal R 5 L Total !S q o 0 9 0 o z s 11 0 '7 z 9 0 7 3 0 113 1 0 14 o O Z Z. l (A O 1 3 1 1 4- I 4- 9 2 3 1 3 9 4y Ilo 1 o II o 0 4 5- o za o Zz 5- g S 1 40 ss boo 9 1 O o 9 13 I 3 1 7 1(y o 1A- 3 17 IS- b- O 10 Z-7 1 43 S"I s 9 U i t z 4- I I 1 Its-51S 4f 2 6 43 13 I 1I I I>" 5 Io G Z l Z I'I 42 104. 11(02 I I PwF:o,7F I I I 1 I 1 I5 7 0 0 7 C) 1 3 4 0 7 0 -7 7 19 zs 3G 4.30 o o !o I o I Z 13 1 8 0 5 13 S 2 3 3 2 I o 445 3 0 o 3 I D o z Z S o 7 0 7 1 1& to 27 s4 131 soo I o I Z. o O I 3 0 o Z .IS IS' 3Z 41 144 5'S D 1 o O S S l4 O 7 0 7 Z-7 11 44- s/ (y5 I '.01J36 IV 0 z z0 1 0 9 lU 3o I 31 0 3Z 14 71 I IZ(a 158 FIR NiF=o.7t Asi1. APPENDIX,B fi 1985 HCM: UNSIGN ALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 <YXXiXYXXX X.t X1M:XXYMXXZtYt X'X�.<1:>MZtX'X X1Y>.<X%XXXItYYY: ):Y YX"X M:M M'.XY:YXXX:KXXy IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED. MAJOR STREET_. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ...................... .9 AREA POPULATION ...................... 80000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... timberline NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. mid DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)._.... 3/23/92 .TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. am pm 92 93 95 2010 OTHER INFORMATION.... INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 1 46 1 25 THRU 1 1 297 281 RIGHT 1 62 17 1 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE -------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NE SB ------- --.------------------- LANES 2 2 1 1 CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT V(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ----------- --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 1 260 239 239 238 THROUGH 1 333 324 > 324 > 323 > RIGHT 1 684 684 > 440 684 > 438 683 >A .. MINOR STREET WB LEFT 56 297 289 289 233 C THROUGH 1 337 329 > 329 > 328 > 6 RIGHT 76 833 833 > 813 833 > 736 757 >A A MAJOR STREET S8 LEFT 31 785 785 785 754 A NB LEFT 1 818 818 618 _ 817 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... timberlin_ DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 3/23/92 ;� pm 92 93 95 2010 OTHER INFORMATION.... 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 tXXYXXXZXYXXMxi}'XX�xX<XY:YY:Y«XtXxh:l::f'.X YXR)'R:KxYxv:.'I:YZXxx x:AftKXXYXXxx>:Y XM'. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------- ------------------------ — AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... .9 AREA POPULATION ...................... 80000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... timberline NAME OF THE ANALYST ................... mid DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)._.... 3/23/92 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. am m 92 93 95 2010 OTHER INFORMATION.... INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL -------------------------- ----- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES -------------------------- --- ---- ---- -- --- ------ ----- - -- ---- EB WE NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT i 21 1 1 61 THRU 1 1 379 385 RIGHT 1 37 65 1 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------- E8 WB NB SB ---------------------------- LANES I 2 LANE U_:,*,EE L TC; L 4 CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) C (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------ -------- --------- ------------ ----------- --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 1 158 141 'THROUGH 1 201 187 RIGHT 1 588 588 MINOR STREET WB LEFT 26 182 168 THROUGH 1 215 199 RIGHT 45 730 730 MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 75 667 667 NB LEFT 2 716 716 141 140 > 187 > 186 > > 284 588 > 281 587 >C .. 168 142 D > 199 > 198 > D > 682 730 > 636 685 >A A -667 592 A 716 713 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... timberline DATE .AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... .1/23/92 ; am m 9° 93 95 2010 OTHER INFORMATION.... 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Paae-1 XX.X tk1XY:CXXXXXY.YXXYYXXXXJKKYXXYM:YXXX X:C):XYY.XKKYXXY:CXYYXX'A A: f:KYXYXXV:Y>Y. Y:1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------- ---- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... .9 AREA. POPULATION ...................... 80000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... stoney creek NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. mid DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 3/23/92 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. am pm 93 95 2010 OTHER INFORMATION.... INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ----------------- -------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 11 6 11 1 THRU 20 56 1 2 RIGHT 11 1 _ 41 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE . --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------ - ----- ------- ------- LANES 1 1 LANE USAGE LTR LT;: CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH --------------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET NB LEFT 13 762 728 > 728 > 715 > THROUGH 1 884 873 > 779 873 > 761 872 RIGHT 4 999 999 > 999 > 995 > .. MINOR STREET SB LEFT 1 799 787 > 787 > 786 > A THROUGH 2 879 868 > 984 868 > 930 866 >A A RIGHT 50 997 997 > 997 > 947 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 13 1000 1000 1000 987 A WB LEFT 7 1000 1000 1000 993 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ----------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... stoney cre-k DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 3/23/92 am pm 92 93 95 2010 OTHER INFORMATION.... 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 X'XYXYX):XXXMYXtX11t YIkYtY XI:X XXXXIYX>XtY%'XX:KX):X.�.X KX<MXI X.X XY>M:X X>.Y XX IDENTIFYING INFORMATION INFORMATION ----------------- ------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... .9 AREA POPULATION ...................... 80000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET,....... stoney creek NAME OF THE ANALYST.- mid DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 3/23/92 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. am pm 92 93 95 2010 OTHER INFORMATION.... INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SE ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 41 1 9 2 THRU 71 31 1 1 RIGHT 14 1 1 18 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WE. NB SE ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 LANE US4CE L" CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT_ v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------ ------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET NB LEFT 11 - 730 698 > 698 > 687 > .THROUGH 1 826 801 > 726 801 > 712 799 >I RIGHT 1 996 996 > 996 > 994 > MINOR STREET SB LEFT 2 742 718 > 718 > 715 > A THROUGH 1 819 794 > 951 794 > 925 792 >A A RIGHT 22 998 998 > 998 > 976 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 50 1000 1000 1000 950 A WB LEFT 1 1000 1000 1000 999 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.__. stoney creek DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 3/23/92 ; am pm 92 93 95 2010 OTHER INFORMATION.... so counted from these selected movements. Peak hour operation at these intersections is acceptable. Acceptable operation is defined as level of service D or better. Trip generation for the Speights PUD is shown in Table 2. Land between the Speights PUD and Caribou Road is currently vacant. While there are no development proposals for this property, it was assumed to be developed with 16 single family detached dwelling units. This is also shown in Table 2. This land use was included in the long range analysis. Trip distribution for the Speights PUD was based upon the development projections of the City of Fort Collins and existing traffic count data. The trip distribution for the commercial uses was assumed to be 70 percent to/from the north and 30 percent to/ from the south. The trip distribution for the residential uses was assumed to be 55 percent to/from the north and 45 percent to/ from the south. Figure 4 shows the 1993 peak hour traffic with development of the veterinary clinic and the five dwelling units. Background traffic was factored by 103 percent. Table 3 shows the peak hour operation at the Timberline/Caribou, Caribou/Stoney Creek, and Timberline/Access intersections. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix C. Operation for all movements with stop sign control is acceptable. The access to Timberline Road is recommended to be a full -turn intersection at this development/traffic level. Figure 5 shows the short range (1995) peak hour traffic at the key intersections with development of the veterinary clinic and five dwelling units. Figure 5 also reflects partial development of Timberline Farm Subdivision and Collindale Business -Park. These non -related developments primarily impact the Timberline/Caribou intersection. A signal would not be warranted at this intersection considering these traffic projections. Table 4 shows the peak hour operation at the key intersections. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix D. Operation is acceptable except for the left -turns from Caribou at Timberline. Based upon the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (1985 HCM) technique for stop sign controlled intersections, these left turns are at level of service E. Based upon recent research, it was found that the 1985 HCI4 capacity technique for stop sign controlled intersections gives an overstatement of the level of service. The expected delay to the southbound left turns would be 14-24 seconds per approach vehicle in the morning peak for westbound left turns, and 20-31 seconds per approach vehicle in the afternoon peak'for eastbound and westbound left turns. By other criteria in the 1985 HCM, the level of service of these left turns is more appropriately defined as level of service C/D. I have attached a copy of two research papers discussing this subject in Appendix E. Much of the data used in my research was obtained in Fort Collins. The conclusions of my research are supported in a similar study conducted in Boston, Massachusetts. It is my conclusion that the level of service E shown in Table 1 should be tempered when considering the additional operational information APPENDIX C 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS pace-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... .9 AREA POPULATION ...................... 60000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET --------- caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... timberline NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. mid DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 3/23/92 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. ................ NALYZED................. 0- pm 92 I�%s /95 2010 OTHER INFORMATION.... �/ �/ INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ------------------- =------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES -------- -- - --- - ----- -- ---- ---- ---- — - -- - -- ----- -- -- — ------ EB WB NB BE. ____ ____ ---- LEFT 1 48 1 27 THRU 1 1 308 290 RIGHT 1 66 16 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE -------------------------------------------- c3WE: N& SE. _______ _______ ______________ CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Pace-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) ^- (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- -------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 1 246 224 224 223 C THROUGH 1 319 310 > 310 > 309 > RIGHT 1 675 675 > 425 675 > 423 674 >. MINOR STREET WB LEFT 59 285 277 277 218 C THROUGH 1 324 315 > 315 > 314 > B RIGHT 81 821 621 > 802 821 > 720 740 >A A MAJOR STREET SE LEFT 33 773 773 773 740 A NE LEFT 1 809 809 809 607 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _____________________________________________-----________ NAM° OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ------ caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... Limberlin- DAT_ A.0D TIME OF THE ANAL YS I'5..... `_./"' ,/9 am pm 92 95 2010 OTHER INFORMATION_._. 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING, SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... .9 AREA POPULATION ...................... 80000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET_ ....... caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... timberline NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. mid DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/_yy)...... 3/23/92 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. am ISm192 93 95 2010 OTHER INFORMATIOt.... INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WE NB SE ---- ---- ---- --- LEFT 1 THRU 1 1 391 398 RIGHT 1 39 68 1 NUMBER OF LANES .AND LANE USAGE ----- ------------------------------------------------------- EE. WE. NE. SH _____________________------- LANES CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TI AL MOVEMENT SHAREll RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (PCPh) c (PCPh) c (Ptah) c = c - v LOS P M SH R SH ------- -------- -------- ------- --- ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 1 150 132 132 130 "THROUGH 1 191 176 > 176 > 175 RIGHT 1 578 578 > 270 578 > 267 577 >. MINOR STREET WB LEFT 28 169 155 155 127 D THROUGH 1 202 186 > 186 > 185 > D RIGHT 48 718 718 > 670 718 > 621 670 >A, A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 79 654 654 654 574 A NB LEFT 2 705 705 705 702 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... timberline DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. .... 23/92 : an: Pn: 92 ^095 2010 OTHER INFORMATION---- 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Pave-1 AY:Y KKIXSY.K F1 a'f:KY.KYi.K I'F F.ii ..Fxx<KI:.F:F2K.K1JFx:t xY t::v•. <.F.x 1:4 x'>cx KF�KxY: Y. Y:Y.:C Y. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... .9 AREA POPULATION ...................... 80000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET --------- caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... stoney creek NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. mid DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)----- . 3/23/92 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. am pm 92 a 95 2010 OTHER. INFORMATION.... INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ------------------------ ---------------------- — ----------- ------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EASTfWEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ER WB Nn SE ____ ____ ____ ---- LEFT 12 6 11 1 THRU 91 SE 1 2 RIGHT 1i 1 _ 45 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- ?E. - WB NE'. SS ------- ------- --- - LANE CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET NB LEFT 13 753 717 > 717 > 104 > THROUGH 1 880 866 > 769 858 > 751 867 >A RIGHT 4 999 999 > 999 > 995 > A MINOR STREET SB LEFT 1 795 782 > 782 > 781 > A THROUGH 2 874 863 > 985 66S > 926 860 >A A RIGHT 55 997 997 > 997, > 942 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 15 1000 1000 1000 985 A WB LEFT 7 1000 1000 1000 993 A. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... stoney creek DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... S/Z3/S2 am Pm 92 95 2010 OTHER INFORMATION.... 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS rage-1 zxxv.x»::.:*'xxxv:xa:xxxxxxv:�'.v:x.'axxxx axxx.x rxxvxxxxzxxr. x,sxxxxx v:.xxxxxxxxxv: �: x. x.xx IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _____________________________________________________________________ AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... .9 AREA POPULATION ...................... 80000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... stoney creel: NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. mid DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 3/233/�92 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. am lA m192 O95 2010 OTHER INFORMATION_... �/ INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------- --- --- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE SOUTHSOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES - ________________________________________________________________ ES WE 114B S6 ____ ____ ____ ---- LEFT 45 1 9 THRU 13 32 1 RIGHT 14 1 21 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------- EE WE. NE, SB -------------- ------- ------- LANES CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-`_'ERVICE ?age-3 _____________________________________________________________________ POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) a (pcph) c (pcph) c = f - v LOS p M SH R SH _______ ________ _____________________ ____________ --- MINOR STREET NB LEFT THROUGH RIGHT MINOR STREET SB LEFT 'THROUGH RIGHT MAJOR STREET EB LEFT Wb LEFT 11 719 683 1 618 791 1 996 996 2 734 708 1 611 784 26 998 998 55 1000 1000 1 1000 1000 > 683 > 672 > A > 713 791" > 699 790 >.' > 996 > 994 > > 708 > 706 > A > 955 784 > 925 733 >A A > 998 > 973 > A 1000 945 A 1000 999 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION i------------------------------------- ________________________________ NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... stoney creek OA.TE AND TIME OF THE A.NALYSIS..... 3/23/92 : am pm S2 _095 2010 OTHER INFORMATION.... 1965 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------- ------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... .9 AREA POPULATION ...................... 60000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... access NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... timberline NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. mid DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 3/23/92 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. a Pm 9 93 95 2010 OTHER INFORMATION.... INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ------- ---------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WE; NB SE ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT -- 1 tE 4 THRU -- !. 072 316 RIGHT -- 3 2 18• NUMBER OF LANES --- - ---- ------ ------------ - --------- -- -- - - ------- ---- - ----- - - - EB WB NS SE. -------------- ------- ------- LANES. -- i ' CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE pane-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT. S4ARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- -------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET WS LEFT 1 256 255 > 255 > 253 > 509 > 504 RIGHT 4 764 764 > 764 > 761 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 5 726 726 726 721 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... access NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... timberline ��� DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 3/23/92 em Pm 9'J 9195 2010 OTHER INFORMATION.... -) 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ».x rxr»:xrr»:xr:r.x»x:xxxxr:x.crrx.r.xr:xxxxr».rxr:rr.xxr..rr:xxxrrxxx»: »:xxx»:.r r»: r. x. �:x r:r IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... .9 AREA POPULATION ...................... 80000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... access NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... timberline NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. mid DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 3/23/92 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. am pm 92( a 2010 ��// OTHER INFORMATION.... INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES _________________________________________________________ EB W6 NB SE� LEFT -- _ 16 3 THRU -- 2 429 461 RIGHT -- 4 1 18 NUMBER OF LANES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EE, WB NE: _.. ------- ------- ------- LANES -- 1 1 CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 _____________________________________________________________________ POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- ------ ---------------- ------------ --- MINOR STREET WB LEFT 2 169 168 > 168 > 166 > '` > 343 > 336 RIGHT 5 714 714 > 714 > 709 > A MAJOR STREET j SB LEFT 4 678 678 678 675 A i IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------------------------- ------------------ NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... access NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... timberline DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 3/23/92 ; a pR 92 93 95 2010 OTHER INFORMATION.... APPENDIX D 1995 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS face-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... .9 AREA POPULATION ...................... 80000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ------- timberline NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. mid' DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 3/23/92 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. am pm 92 93 Q 2010 OTHER INFORMATION .... INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES -------------------- -------------------------------------- EB WP. N5 SE. LEFT --14 --74 --66 --34 TH RU 2 6 326 307 RIGHT 19 96 25 46 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------- EB WE. NB SE. ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 2 'I CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) C (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH -------------- ------- ----------- ------------ --- MINOR STREET EB LEFT 17 172 137 THROUGH 2 248 224 RIGHT 23 636 636 MINOR STREET WB LEFT 90 202 177 THROUGH 7 243 219 RIGHT 120 798 798 MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 42 747 747 NS LEFT 81 743 743 137 120 > 224 > 221 > 541 636 > 515 613 >,. 14—y4 177 86 E > 219 > 212 > C > 693 798 > 566 679 >A A 747 706 A 743 662 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION - -- --- --- ------ --- --------- ---------- ------ ----------------- NA.ME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ...... caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... timberlin. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALY=:`..... 3/23/92 am pm 92 9` O _'010 OTHER. INFORMATION.... 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 XZXZ:I.ZXXf ZT�".!;ZZZ!!Z.TY.XZ'X YXy;F41:.TT ZZZZZCXX X.Y.ZZ'a.Z XZ'1i Z, Z; Z;!T Z-!1TNtY:!"I. Y,Z Y'f IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... .9 AREA POPULATION ...................... 80000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ......... caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... timberline NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. mid DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 3/23/92 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. am Pm 92 93 95 2010 OTHER INFORMATION.... INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ----- ----- -- - ------------ ------------------ -------------- -- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION:.NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN ' TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NE SS ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 45 40 16 100 THRU 6 2 414 422 RIGHT 61 60 96 13 NUMBER OF LANES ANO LANE USAGE ------------------------------------------------------- ---- EB WE; NE: se. ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 " POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (Pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS ------- P -------- --------- M ------------ SH ------------ R SH --- MINOR STREET 21-31 EB LEFT 55 112 87 87 32. ` 'THROUGH 7 152 126 > 128 > 121 RIGHT 75 555 555 > 428 555 > 346 481 >. MINOR STREET y 0-30 WB LEFT 49 119 89 89 40 E THROUGH 2 164 139 > 139 > 136 > D RIGHT 73 684 684 > 607 684 > 531 611 >A A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 122 609 609 609 487 A NB LEFT 22 674 674 674 652 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET.,..., caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET..._ timberline DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS.._._ S/23/92 ; am Fm 92 93 02010 OTHER INFORMATION_._. N M provided above. In my judgment, the left -turn exits from Caribou are in the level of service C/D category. Figure 6 shows the long range peak hour traffic at full development of the Speights PUD as well as other nearby properties mentioned earlier. These traffic projections would relate to a year 2010 forecast. At this level of traffic, a signal would become warranted at the Timberline/Caribou intersection. The need for this signal would be between 1995 and 2010. Traffic should be monitored to determine when the signal warrants are met. Table 5 shows the peak hour operation at the key intersections. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix F. With six phase operation (C = 100), the through traffic on Timberline Road was at level of service D. Since Timberline is classified as a major arterial, adjustments were made to achieve level of service C. This was accomplished with eight phase operation (C = 120). With the projected through traffic on Timberline Road, left - turn exits from the Speights access would be unacceptable, even considering the above research and the availability of gaps that would occur due to signals on Timberline Road. Therefore, it is recommended that this intersection be changed to right-in/right- out when unacceptable operation occurs for a number of hours during the day. The Caribou/Stoney Creek intersection will operate acceptably with stop sign control. 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Pace-1 YYYYYA..YXYY I:Y YYYYtitYYXX I.�:YYXY'I:i'YY:XYY.Y.Yf_Y.X.YYV:X YYXYY:YMz.Y T'.XY:1; ]. i.i 4YY.Y Y::K Y'♦ IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE PUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... .9 AREA POPULATION ...................... 80000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... stoney creek NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. mid DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)....._ 3/23/92. TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. am pm 92 93 02010 OTHER INFORMATION.... INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL -------- -------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------- ES W8 NE, SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 7 53 THRU 28 77 1 2 RIGHT 20 1 _ 48 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE EB WE NE, SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) C (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ----- -------- --------- ----------- ------------ --- MINOR STREET NB LEFT 65 714 678 > 678 > 613 > THROUGH 1 844 832 > 692 832 > 622 630 >A RIGHT 4 998 998 > 998 > 994 > A MINOR STREET S6 LEFT 1 754 741 > 741 > 739 > A THROUGH 2 833 821 > 961 821 > 919 819 >A A RIGHT 59 996 996 > 996 > 937 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 16 1000 1000 1000 964 A WB LEFT 9 1000 1000 1000 991 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... stoney cre--' DATE AND TIME OF THE .ANALYSIS._... S/23/9[ am pm 9_' 9'' 9� 2010 OTHER INFORMATION.._. 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... .9 AREA POPULATION ...................... 60000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... stoney creek NAME OF THE ANALYST... ............... mid DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 3/23/92 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. ................ am a 92 93(D 2010 OTHER INFORMATION.... INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STO? SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB 56 ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 46 1 36 THRU 95 46 1 1 RIGHT 61 1 1 22 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NS SS ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 1 1 i LAN- (�SA.GE LTR CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE. RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAP -.CITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (Pcph) c (pcoh) c (ccph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET NS LEFT 44 659 625 > 625 > 581 > ^ .THROUGH 1 756 729 > 633 729 > 586 727 RIGHT 1 954 954 > 954 > 952 > MINOR STREET SB LEFT 2 651 626 > 626 > 624'> A THROUGH 1 727 701 > 937 701 > 907 700 >A A RIGHT 27 997 997 > 997 > 971 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 59 1000 1000 1000 941 A WB LEFT 1 9S9 989 989 988 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.__. stoney creel: O DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS.. . 3/23/92 : am 92 95 9`` 010 OTHER INFORMATION.... 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 Y YY W.I:YW.Y YYYYYYYYYWYWYA:YY};YyWYWKWtYRW.WW.WWWYX-YYY.>YYYyW}"Y .AX }.XYZWYYWY:W3X"}: - CAPACITY AND _______________________ LEVEL -OF -SERVICE _ __ Page-3 ________________ IDENTIFYING INFORMATION I POTEN- ACTUAL —--------------------------------------- ---------------- ------ FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS M SH R SH PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... .9 I ------ -- ----- --------- ------------ ------------ --- AREA POPULATION. ..................... 80000 MINOR STREET - NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET --------- access WB LEFT 1 196 195 > 195 > 194 > > 427 > 422 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... timberline - RIGHT 4 707 707 > 707% > 703 > A NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. i mid MAJOR STREET DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 3/23/92 SB LEFT 5 672 672 672 667 A TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. (9 pm 92 93 95 2010 - OTHER INFORMATION.._.. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL -------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- --------- — ---_ ------------------------ NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... access - INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION NAME OF THE DATE AND TIME NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... OF THE ANALYSIS..... timbertina 3/23/92 _ :am pm 92 93 95 2010 ' OTHER INFORMATION_... MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES -------------- ------------------------------------------------ ES W8 Ng SE: LEFT -- 1 18 e THRU -- 2 436 383 RI CH i -- 3 L 1; NUMBER OF LANES ------------------------------------------------------- ---- EB WB NP SE. . _______ _______ _______ LANES __ 1 _______ 1 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 .'«:«:r axx»:xxrxsxsxxxxsxxxxsxsysxs»:sxx x'sxe»:»:s xxxsxsxx»x ».sx»-: ssn»:xxxxsy:»:»:»: IDENTIFYING INFORMATION -------------------------------------- -------------- -------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET_. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... .9 AREA POPULATION ...................... 80000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... access NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... timberline NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. mid DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 3/23/92 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. am p� 92 93 95 2010 OTHER INFORMATION.... INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- ES WB NE. SE; ---- ---- ---- --- LEFT -- 2 18 _ THRU -- 2 518 533 RIGHT -- a 1 13 NUMBER OF LANES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EE WE. NB SE. ------- ------ ------ ----- LANES -- i 1 1 CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3. - ---- - -------- --- - -- --- -------- -------- -- ------ -- - ---------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE FATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcoh) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH i ------ ------- -------- ----------- ------------ --- MINOR STREET WB LEFT 2 127 126 > 126 > 124 > > 271 > 263 RIGHT 5 634 634 > 634 > 629 > MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 4 603 603 603 599 A I IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... access NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... timberline DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 3/23/92 ; an, a 92 93 G2010 OTHER INFORMATION.... I APPENDIX E 'pip s, f ISkin INTI'IZNI(A.►NTAIN SI C"11ON Raw, IDAHO -- ___ —JULY 15-18, 1990 Compendium of Technical Papers Institute Of Transportation Engineers 43rd Annual Meeting Boise, Idaho July 15-189 1990 Intersection Delay At Unsignalized Intersections Matthew J. Delich, P.E. Private Consultant Loveland, Colorado ABSTRACT The technique described in The High Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Chapter 10, Unsignalized Intersections relates a calcu- lated reserve capacity to level of service to a very unspecific description of expected delay. The signalized intersection technique in the Highway Capacity Manual relates level of service to a range of stopped delay per vehicle. It would seem to be consistent to relate level of service at an unsignalizal intersection to a range of actual delay per approach vehicle. This research provides some limited data on intersection delay related to the calculated reserve capacity at selected T-intersections. At the time traffic volumes were collected, inter- section delays were also obtained for selected movements. The intersection delay technique is described in the Manual of Traffic Engineer- ing Studies, nE,1976, Chapter 8. By compar- ing the calculated reserve capacity using the counted traffic volumes to the observed aver- age delay per approach vehicle, a table of delays per approach vehicle could be deter- mined. This, in turn, could be plotted to determine a range of delay given a calculated level of service. INTRODUCTION The means of evaluating the operation at an unsignalized intersection is by determining the level of service. The procedure in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (IICM) is primarily 145 taken from a German document (reference 1), which uses gaps in The major traffic steam utilized by vehicles cnw%ing or turning through That steam. In the IICM, the Ievcl of sei vice is related to vehicle delay. this is especially true in the evaluation nt a sigmdind intersection. 1lowev- cr, in the case of an unsignalized intersection, level of service is related to a nebulous mea- sure of delay that can mean different things na different people. RFSGItCI1 OBJECI'I VES This research was undertaken to relate level of service to a definitive range of vehicle delay for the minor street tndlic now. The objec. lives of the research were: Compare the level of service (reserve capacity) to a range of vehicle delay, in seconds, for the stopped traffic on the minor street. Determine a curve which best de- scribes than range of vehicle delay. RESEARCH APPROACH AND LIMITA. 'PIONS 'traffic counts were couducled at a number of stop sign umtrolled intersections in Foil Collins, Colorado and Cheyenne, Wyoming. 'Rrese volumes were used to determine reserve capacity in passenger cars per hour (pcph) Intersection Delay At Unsignalized Intersections according to procedures documented in the TICK Ifighway capacity software developed by the Federal highway Administration, U.S.- D.O.T. was used to petiorm these calculations. Along with the trallic volumes, vehicle delay was measured for each approach vehicle according to proccduacs described in Chapter 8, "Intersection Delays," Manual of T'rallic Enzinccrinc Studies. Due to change% in critical gap size due to speed, number or Innes on the major street, and number of legs nl the intersection, only-I'- inlerseclions were evaluated. Fur0rcr, in all cases, the major succt was live lanes (4 through lanes and nue left -tun Inns) and The speed limit on the major steel wits 35 mph. INTERSECTION DELAY S I'UI)Y Al the time traffic vulumcs were obtained at each of the intersections, traffic delays were also obtained for both right- and left -turning vehicles from The minor street. The methodol- ogy used was a procedure which involved counting the number of vehicles occupying an intersection approach (right- or left -turn lanes constitute two approaches) at successive time intervals for the observation period. Tlic successive time interval selected was every 15 seconds. Each successive count represented an instantaneous density or number of vehicles occupying the intersection approach per time interval. These counts were accompanied by total volume counts of each approach. The average delay per vehicle in each approach can be expressed by: D = Nt/V where: 1) = Average delay per approach vehicle N = 'Total density roont, or The sum of vehi- cles observed dutimg the petiodic density counts each l seconds l = Time intervals between .density obscrva- lions (15 seconds) 146 V = Total volume entering the ap- proach during the study period. A total of 61 fifteen minute observations were conducted. The average delay per approach vehicle for both right and left turns for each observation was tabulated. The calculated delays were rounded to the nearest whole second. The calculated delay per approach vehicle for right turns ranged from 2 seconds to 29 seconds. The mean was calculated at 9.9 seconds. The calculated delay per approach vehicle for left turns ranged from 6 seconds to 105 seconds. 'Ile mean was calculated at 27T seconds. LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION Using the same 15 minute periods from the intersection delay study portion of this re- search, level of service calculations were per- formed. Since the level of service calculation requires hourly traffic, the volumes for each 15 minute period was factored by four. This not only gives an hourly volume, but also assumes a peak hour factor of 1.0. Reserve capacity in passenger cars per hour (pcph) was tabulated for the right turns and left turns for each observation. The calculated reserve capacities ranged from 36 to 882 pcph for the right turns. The mean was calculated at 565.5 pcph. Most of the calculated levels of service were in the A category (> 400 pcph). The calculated reserve capacities ranged from - 75 to 241 pcph for the left turns. The mean was calculated at 60.9 pcph. Most of the calculated levels of service were in the r category (IM-21N) pcph), E category (04(), pcph), and F category (< 0 pcph). ANALYSIS Using the output data for right turns and left tunas from the delay study and the capacity study, each corresponding observation point was plotted and least squares graphical analysis was performed. Figure 1 shows the plot of calculated reserve capacity versus calculated delay per approach vehicle for the right turns. The results of the graphical analysis are also plotted. By calculat- ing confidence interval as a range of delay per approach for each calculated reserve capacity, a reasonable prediction of delay can be made. For example, a calculated reserve capacity of 400 pcph would yield a delay per right -turn approach vehicle of 10-15 seconds. Figure 2 shows the plot of calculated reserve capacity versus calculated delay per approach vehicle for left turns. 7hc results of the graphical analysis are also plotted. Using The confidence interval, a prediction of the range of delay can be made. I lowe ver, the data for the left turns is all in The AW to +200 range of values. Therefore, the delay for left turns is only valid for reserve capacitics at The lower end of the style using The data considered in this study. For example, a calculated reserve capacity of 100 pcph would yield a delay per Icft-turn approach vehicle of 12-22 seconds. The sire of this range indicates that more data is needed to reduce the prediction range. CONCLUSIONS Given the limited data obtained (61 observa- tions), it appears as though the methodology can give a reasonable indication of the range of delay for vehicles entering a street at a stop sign controlled T-intersection. flowever, more data is needed to fill in gaps: Data is needed at intersections where the right turns operate at levels of service B, C, D, E Data is needed at intersections where the left turns operate at levels of ser- vice A, B, C. At a number of the analyzed intersections, there were signals upstream from the analyzed intersections. Some of Ihese signals were as 147 District 6 1990 Annual Meeting close as 1/4 mile away. 7Jncre was no signal progression pattern on the major street. However, it was noticed that both operation and delay were influenced by vehicle queues created by the signals on the main street. This was not accounted for in any of the calcula- tions or analyses. An effort should be made to select intersections which are not affected by main street signals. llie statistical analysis on this data and addi- tional data should be much more rigorous than that used in this analysis. 'Ida curves devel- oped using all die data should Ix: malhennali- caly derived and adequately tested using ar:ecpicd stalislicai prarlires. 'Ilse data presented is only for a T-intersection with a four -tune (plus Icfl-turn lane) main sttect with a poslrxl slaxd of 35 mph. Dala should also be collected al a number of main street postal speeds (45 nnph and 55 mph). Dala should also lie collected for a T-intersec- liun on a two-lane sheet at various panted spew limits. If the additional data and analyses for a T- intersection point toward the validity of this approach, then similar data should be collected and analyses performed at four - leg intersections. BIBLIOGRAPHY Box, Paul D. and Joseph C. Oppenlander, PhD. Manual of Traffic I incering Studies, 41h Fdilion. Arlington, Virginia: Institute of Transportation Enginects, 1976, Pgs. IIKrl 12. Ross, Roger P. el al. Ilighwav G•macily Manual, Slnccial Repurl 2(k). Washinglon, D.C.: Trauslurrtalion Rcseatch Board, 1985. Chapter 11). REFERENCE 1. Werkbi ll for Lichisigualanhhgen all I.and- slrussenAusgubc 1972', Puaschungsgescllschufl Intersection Delay Al Unsignallzed Intersections fur ilex Strasscnwcacn, Kohn, Germany (1972). 148 .aiar.:iYS#f..r' «�d.:e4i.Nic•*:Iw+, - - _ - r.;•-.+dw�n:ik".".,:s�".%9�i' 3r".we.i�+.""'", District D 10DO Annual Meeting RESERVE CAPACITY Ipephl COMPARISON OF RESERVE CAPACITY AND DELAY FOR RIGHT TURNS AT A T-INTERSECTION Flyer. 1 149 Intersection Delay At Unsignallzed intersections 10 - I i• I • I I 00 1 -r. � •� _ i if 1 _ . _ I 1 I •}� •_ 1• 1 1 0 -_- ___ -� -� ..... .,... •m fee rm 0 -It RESERVE CAPACITY Ipephl COMPARISON OF RESERVE CAPACITY AND DELAY FOR LEFT TURNS AT A T-INTERSECTION .. Flpm• _ 150 A METHODOLOGY FOR USING DELAY STUDY DATA TO ESTIMATE TUE EXISTING AND FUTURE LEVEL OF SERVICE AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS By Harni Heffron (A)a and Georgy Bezkorovainy (M)b INTRODUCTION The level of service at unsignalized intersections is often overstated by the 1985 H1511w87 CapaClty Manual (HCH) methodology. The HCH analysis for unsignalized intersections may show a LOS E or LOS F operation with lengthy delays and, presumably, long queues. However, from field observation, the intersection functions relatively well with short queues and minor delays on the approaches controlled by STOP signs and no delays to mainline traffic. Many reviewing agencies require the use of the HCH methodology to determine level of service. However, HCH states that "because the methodologies (for calculating unsignalized level of service] result in a qualitative evaluation of delay, it is also recommended, if possible, that some delay data be collected. This will allow for a better quantification and description of existing operating conditions at the location under study." HCH does not, however, include a methodology to relate delay study results for an unsignalized intersection with a level of service designation. HCM defines the level of service of an unsignalized intersection using "reserve capacity", an analytically -defined variable that is not easily field -verified. The procedure is based on the German method of capacity determination at rural intersections. This method has not been extensively validated or calibrated for U.S. conditions., nor does it estimate delay in quantitative terms.l This paper presents a methodology to use delay study data to determine the existing level of service and to estimate future operating conditions at unsignalized intersections. In developing the methodology, delay studies were performed at more than 50 unsignalized T-intersections in eastern and central Massachusetts. Minor approaches of these intersections were controlled by stop signs, yield signs and uncontrolled (implied yield). The results of these delay studies will also be compared to the delay calculated using the ITCH unsignalized intersection analysis. This paper relies on the existing HCH methodology as the basis to estimate existing and future level of service from delay data. Until changes are made in the ITCH procedure, the existing HCH methodology for unsignalized intersections will continue to be modified to yield results that better approximate existing and future conditions. a Transportation Engineer Bruce Campbell 6: Associates, Boston HA b Vice President Bruce Campbell 6 Associates, Boston MA UNSICNALIZED INTERSECTION DELAY Delay was adopted as a measure of effectiveness for signalized intersections in the 1985 HCH for many reasons; two reasons are that the concept of delay is understood by the user community and delay can be measured in the field.3 The application of delay for unsignalized intersections should follow this same reasoning. The.Xeserve capacity is related to average vehicle delay using the following equation from the ITE Handbook2: d — 1 (1) (a - b) d — average delay a — service rate b — side -street arrival rate Recognizing that capacity is the service rate and volume is the arrival rate at an unsignalized Intersection, this formula shows that the average vehicle delay is the reciprocal of reserve capacity. The average seconds of delay per vehicle is calculated using the following equation: Average Delay (see/veh) - 3600 (see/hr) (2) Reserve Capacity (veh/hr) Table 1 shows the level of service designations which correspond to reserve capacity and average vehicle delay. Because the average delay per vehicle approaches infinity as the reserve capacity goes to zero, LOS F will be defined by any delay over 60 seconds. The average delay values for unsignalized intersections shown in Table 1 are very similar to the delay values used to define the level of service of signalized intersections. Table 1 is taken from Table 10-3 in the HCH. Table 1 Level -of -Service Criteria For Unsignalized Intersections Average ** Level of Reserve Capacity Stopped Delay Service (Pass Cars Per Hour) (sec/veh) A > 400 < 9.0 B 300 - 399 9.1 to 12.0 C 200 - 299 12.1 to 18.0 :D 100 - 199 18.1 to 36.0 E 0 - 99 36.1 to 60.0 F * > 60.0 * Demand exceeds capacity; extreme delays will be encountered ** Calculated from Equation (2) —1— N AM / PM Q. N 1992 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3 HEASURED DELAY VS. CALCULATED DELAY Delay studies at unsignalized intersections are relatively easy to perform and can be performed in conjunction with a turning movement count at low volume intersections. The observer measures the time between when a vehicle stops for a stop sign or conflicting traffic and pulls onto the major street. The measurement includes the time waiting in queue. The stopped delay is measured for random vehicles turning left or right from the minor street or turning left from the major street. The average delay during the peak hour is calculated using a modified signalized intersection delay equation: Average Delay (sec/veh) a Total Delay (sec) (3) Number of Observations For locations with a shared lane for left and right turns on the minor street, the stopped delay for each movement should be kept separate if future conditions will be projected from the data since the level of service of each movement is calculated separately and then combined as a shared lane movement. Special consideration, discussed later, should be given to shared lane approaches where the right turn delay will be increased by a high left turn volume. The existing level of service for the shared lane is the weighted average of the combined movements. Bruce Campbell 6 Associates performed delay studies at more than 50 unsignalized intersections in eastern and central Massachusetts. For all study locations, a traffic count was also performed, and the level of service was calculated using the HCM methodology. To date, only a few delay studies have been performed at 4-legged intersections, so only the data for T-intersections are included in this paper. The average delay per vehicle was calculated using equation (3). Figures 1 through 3 compare the results of the measured delay and the calculated delay. The curves are from regression equations relating conflicting flow and average delay. At this point there have been no attempts to correlate the delay data to another variable such as speed, movement demand or type of control. For all three critical movements at an unsignalized intersection --the left turn from the minor street, right turn from the minor street and left turn from the major street --the measured delay was found to be shorter than the calculated delay. These data suggest that drivers are selecting smaller gaps than those recommended in the 1965 HCM. Using the methodology described below to back -calculate to the critical gap, it was found that at over 80 percent of the locations, the critical gap for both the minor left and right turn movements was less than 6.0 seconds. It was originally suspected that the smaller gap size determined for the study locations would result in higher accidents rates at these locations. However, most of the intersections studied had accident rates less than 0.5 Acc/Million Entering vehicles, and none had accident rates over 2.0 Acc/MEV. In Massachusetts, intersections with an accident rate of less than 2.0 are not considered high accident locations. 0 O 1r FIGURE 1 IThousondsl CONTLM NG FLOW FIGURE 2 CONFLICTING FLOW VS AVERAGE DELAY I FFT TURN PROM MINOR SIREEI I I nousonon CONfLICTNG FLOW FIGURE 3 CONFLICTING FLOW VS AVERAGE DELAY RN;IIf Il1RN FROM MINOR 51 REEI �1C11LNED MEnS�ED o.f 0.4 Us iThousonds) CON! LICING FLOW Intersections with a shared lane on the minor approach provided conflicting results for the left and right turn movements. In many cases, the critical gap determined from the delay data for the right turn was higher than the gap determined for the minor left turn. This phenomenon is most likely due to the time a right turner spends waiting in queue behind a left turner. Because of the queue, the measured delays for the two movements were not dramatically different. Since the critical gap calculation relies on the movement's conflicting flow, the right turn gap calculates to a higher value then the left turn gap. Generally, the minor left turn is the most critical movement at an intersection, and the delay data for the left turn is not significantly affected by a shared lane. In retrospect, if delay data measurements did not include stopped delays in a queue, then the calculated gaps would be higher for left turns than right turns in all instances. However, not recording delays in a queue would give an unfair representation of existing field conditions. To further illustrate the shared lane phenomenon affecting right -turning vehicles, the results in Figures 1 and 2 show a large disparity between the calculated delays vs. measured delays. However, in the case of right -turning vehicles, the measured delays were only 2-3 seconds less than the calculated delays. The presence of left -turning vehicles in the shared lane had, most likely, a significant impact on the delay values recorded for right -turning vehicles. Further research on shared -lane approaches is needed. ESTIMATING FUTURE LEVEL OF SERVICE The following procedure is suggested to estimate future level of service from existing delay data. It relies on the existing HCH methodology, and basically back -calculates from delay to capacity to determine the gap being accepted by drivers. Once the gap is determined, the future capacity and level of service can be estimated using the same gap. The capacity for an unsignalized intersection movement can be determined from delay by rearranging equation (2) as follows: Capacity (veh/hr) a 3600 (see/hr) ♦ Side Street Demand (4) Average Delay (nee/veh) The HCH equations relate critical gap to "potential capacity." the potential capacity for the left turn from the major street and right turn from the minor street are the same as capacity, but the capacity of the minor left turn needs to be converted to potential capacity discounting the impedance factor of the major left turn. She impedance factor is determined using the following equation (the variable names correspond to the variables in HCH): r V l 1.2052 (5) I — 1 - 0.0038 IILLOO x C4 J P4 I — Impedance Factor V4 — Left turn volume from major street Cp4 - Capacity of left turn from major street The potential capacity of the minor left turn is then calculated using: _ Cm7 (6) Cp7 I C 7 — Potential capacity of the minor left turn Cm7 — Actual capacity of the minor left turn (determined from delay data) Using Figure 10-3 in the 1985 HCH, the critical gap can be estimated from the potential capacity and conflicting flow. Alternatively, the equations in Karsten G. Baass' article "The Potential Capacity of Unsignalized Intersections" (ITE Journal, October 1987, pp. 43-46.) can be used to determine the gap. The estimated critical gap may be lower than 4.0 seconds for low volume locations, but it is recommended that 4.0 be the minimum gap used. NCH's Figure 10-3 also" hows the minimum critical gap to be 4.0 seconds. . Once the critical gap is estimated from the delay data, the future level of service at a location is determined using the standard BCH methodology. This methodology is not recommended for intersections with high accident experience, or where vehicles on the side street are forcing a gap in the major street traffic stream. The following is an example of this methodology's application: EXAMPLE: A delay study and turning movement count were performed at the T-intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Bristow Street in Saugus, Massachusetts. The PH peak hour turning movement volumes and vehicle delays are summarized below: Average Peek Hour Conflicting Delay per Maximum .Semple Movement volume Flow Vehicle Delay Size Minor Left 107 1227 13.7 64 92 Minor Right 33 653 5.4 28 31 Major Left 36 653 3.8 14 15 According to the HCH methodology, the left turn from Bristow Street to Lincoln Avenue operates at LCS F. The delay study data, however, show that the left turn operates at LOS C. The capacity of each movement is calculated using equation (4). Movement Demand Capacity Minor Left 107 vph 370 vph Minor Right 33 700 Major Left 36 983 The potential capacity of the minor left turn is calculated using the impedance factor from equation (5). The impedance factor is determined from the demand and capacity of the major left turn, I — 1 - 0.0038(100 x_)6)1.2052 _ 0.98 983 and potential capacity, Cp7 — 370 — 378 vph 0.98 —3— The conflicting flow of the minor left turn — 1227 vph. Using Figure 10-3 in the HCM, a critical gap of approximately 4.5 seconds is located for a potential capacity of 378 and a conflicting flow of 1227. These steps are illustrated in the flow chart in Figure 4. Under the future conditions, the conflicting flow is estimated to increase to 1400 vph, and the minor left turn demand will increase to 170 vph. The future potential capacity located on Figure 10-3 is 300 vph for a gap of 4.5 seconds and conflicting flow of 1400 vph. The actual capacity accounts for the impedance factor (for this example the impedance factor is assumed to be 0.98). Cm7 — 300 x 0.98 — 294 vph The reserve capacity — 294 - 170 — 124 vph, and the average delay is calculated using equation (2), Delay — 360 — 29.0 sec. 124 The level of service for the future conditions will be LOS D. CONCLUSION The methodology presented in this paper provides one way to quantify the operation of an unsignalized inter- section when the HCM methodology does not correlate with field observations. Future operating conditions can also be defined on the basis of existing conditions delay data. The delay methodology should not be used for intersections with high accident experience or where vehicles on the side street are forcing agap in the major street traffic stream. Further research is needed for intersections with a shared lane on the minor approach since the right turn delay is affected by the left turn movement. Data collected for the left turn movement on a shared lane approach should not be significantly affected. Delay is a measure of effectiveness that should be applied to unsignalized intersections because it is easily measured and also easily understood. Future revisions of the MGM methodology should include delay. i REFERENCES 1. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. "Research Problem Statements: Highway Capacity", Transporation Research Circular Number 319. Washington D.C., June 1987, page 27. 2. Institute of Transporation Engineers. T ansporation and Traffic Engineering Handbook Prentiss Hall Inc.; 1982, pp. 499-536. 3. Roess, Roger P. and McShane, William R. "Changing Concepts of Level of Service in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual: Some Examples," ITE Journal, May 1987, pp. 27-31. FIGURE 4 ESTIMATING FUTURE LOS FLOW CHART Existing Future Conditions Conditions Measure Future LOS Delays I I Table 1 Avg. Delay I I Avg. Delay Per Vehicle Per Vehicle Equation (3) Equation (2) Capacity of Reserve Cap. Movement Subtract Equation (4) i Demand Impedance Actual Factor Capacity Equation (5) Equation (6) Potential Potential Capacity Capacity from Equation (6) HCM Fig. 10-3 Critical Gap Assume Same HCM Fig. Critical Gap 10-3 for Future 4. Baass, Karsten G. "The Potential Capacity of unsignalized Intersections", ITE Journal, October, 1987, pp. 43-46.. 5. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209. Washington D.C., 1985. —4_ v APPENDIX F 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..caribou/timberline AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... m.id DATE.........." 23/92 TIME......... am pm 2010 COMMENT....... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 35 95 70 65 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 5 15 940 1310 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 20 115 50 85 12.0 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 0.00 N 0 0 0.95 5 Y 20.5 3 WB 0.00 0.00 N 0 0 0.95 5 Y 20.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 5 Y 14.5 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 5 Y 14.5 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 100.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X W8 LT X SB LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PO x GREEN 22.0 0.0 '0.0 0.0 GREEN 8.0 55.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.124 0.240 22.6 C 22.5 C TR. 0.069 0.240 22.3 C WB L 0.259 0.240 23.5 C 24.0 C TR 0.366 0.240 24.3 C NB L 0.045 0.700 3.5 A 10.0 E TR 0.543 0.570 10.4 B SB L 0.045 0.700 3..A 13.3 E TR 0.766 0.570 13.8 B -- --- --- --------------- -- ----- --------- - - - --- --- - ------------ -- INTERSECTION: Delay = 13-1 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.564 LOS = 6 is 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..caribou/'timberline AREA TYPE ----- OTHER ANA.LYST....... mjd DATE ..........3/2-�/92 TIME.......... art, om 2010 COMMENT....... ------------------------------------------------------------------ -- VOLUMES - GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 195 80 20 130 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 15 5 1355 1725 :_TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 65 100 10 20 12.0 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12. 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.L 12.0 12.0 12_.0 12.0 ------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 0.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 25.8 3 WB 0.00 0.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 25.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 19.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 Y 19.8 3 ------------------ ------ ------------- ----------- -- ------------------ SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 100-0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X. X TH X TH X RT X RT x PD x PD X WB LT X SB LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT x F'D X PO X GREEN 23.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 8.0 54.0 0.0 0-0 YELLOW 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS .APP- DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.664 0.250 29.1 D 27.2 D TR 0.225 0.250 22.7 C WB L 0.255 0.250 22.9 C 23-1 C TR 0.303 0.250 23.3 C NB L 0.045 0.690 3.8 A 14-b B TR 0.798 0.560 15.0 B SB L 0.329 0.690 - 5.1 B 35.8 D TR 1.022 0.560 38.0 D -- -------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 26.7 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.831 LOS = D 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT FFF.FFXYXXXXFFXFF%tYFXFFX:F FFYXYFFFFFFXkYXY Y'RYY.FYXYFFFFFFW.YFYX'X YIFFXFXXYYXXX INTERSECTION..caribou/timberline AREA TYPE.. --- OTHER IZ ANALYST ........mjd DATE .........23/92 TIME ......... .an pm 2010 COMMENT....... ----------------- --------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 35 95 70 65 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 5 15 940 1310 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 20 115 50 85 12.0 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb - Y/N min T EB 0.00 0.00 N 0 0 0.95 5 Y 20.5 3 WB 0.00 0.00 N 0 0 0.95 5 Y 20.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 5 Y 14.5 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 5 Y 14.5 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 120.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X x NB LT x x TH x TH x RT x RT x PD x PD x WB LT x X SB LT x x TH x TH x RT x RT x PD x PD x GREEN 8.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 8.0 67.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.054 0.267 24.9 C 26.2 D TR 0.105 0.158 32.9 D WB L 0.054 0.267 24.9 C 32.2 D TR 0.555 0.158 37.5 D NB L 0.075 0.683 4.8 A 11.7 B TR 0.538 0.575 12.2 B SB L 0.055 0.683 4.8 A. 15.4 C TR 0-159 0.575 15.8 C -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION:------ INTERSECTION: Delay = 15.5 (=ec/veh V/C = 0.567 LOS = C y 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ##FF##XFX:#X##.W.#X#X#:XXX####XXX#XX#.RX:XX:F#:#FF#YX.]K tXFYYX:#X#FWYXXYYFXFMt%YX#FYk INTERSECTION..caribou/timberline AREA TYPE..... OTHER ANALYST....... mjd DATE.......... 3/23/92 TIM------------ am pn. 2010 COMMENT....... VOLUMES a GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 195 80 20 130 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 15 5 1355 1725 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 65 100 10 20 12.0 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.' 12.0 12.0 12.0 12. 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb EB 0.00 0.00 N 0 0 0.95 5 WB 0.00 0.00 N 0 0 0.95 5 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 5 SB - 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 5 PH-1 EB LT x TH RT PD WB LT x TH RT PD GREEN 3.0 YELLOW 5.0' --------------- LANE GRP EB L TR WB L TR 1.B L TR SB L TR ------------- INTERSECTION --------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 X NB LT x TH x RT x PD x SB LT x TH x RT x PD 16.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 5.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW LEVEL OF SERVICE V/C G/C DELAY LOS 0.064 0.258 25.5 D 0.356 0.150 35.2 D 0.054 0.256 25.4 D 0.479 0.150 36.7 D 0.055 0.692 4.5 A. 0.726 0.583 14.6 6 0.419 0.692 7.0 B 0.929 0.583 23.2 C PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE Y/N min T Y 20.5 3 Y 20.5 3 Y 14.5 3 Y 14.5 3 -------------- CYCLE LENGTH = 120.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 x x X x x X x x x x 8-0 68.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------- APP. DELAY APP_ L0, 28. D 31.6 D 14.5 B 22.1 C ---------------------------------------------------------- Delay = 20.2 (sec/veh) V/C = C.701 LOS = C 1965 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 xxa:xxxxxxxxsv.r:a:xwxxxx>xxxxv:v:x«x xxxxrxxxxxxww xxxxxxxxxx'x xxx xf.x xr'f:xxxxf IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------- ----------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED. MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... .9 AREA POPULATION ...................... 80000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... stoney creek NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. mid DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 3/23/32 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. pm 92 93 a 95 2010 OTHER INFORMATION.... INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ----------------------- ----------- ---------------- ------- ------- EB WB NB SE; ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT ZU 1 40 1 THRU 45 125 1 1 RIGHT 55 1 5 60 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------' EB WB ------- NB SB ------- . -------------- LANES 1 1 I i LANE USAGE_ LTR LTA . i CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHAPED RESERVE RATE .CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) C (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH --=---- ----- -- ----- --- ----------- ------------ --- MINOR STREET NB LEFT 49 623 583 > 583 > 534 > THROUGH 1 754 740 > 613 740 > 557 739 >f RIGHT 6 996 996 > 996 > - 990 > MINOR STREET SB LEFT 1 648 633 > 633 > 632 > A THROUGH 1 726 715 > 941 715 > 865 714 >A A RIGHT 73 954 954 > 954 > 880 > A MAJOR STREET ES LEFT 24 994 994 994 970 A WB LEFT 6 998 998 998 992 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... stoney cr--l- DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 3/2S/92 ;cam pm 92 93 95 ZOtU OTHER INFORMATION.... D 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS F'a ae-1 i MMY<ZtY.Y.Y t1M1: M.Y.%%%YMMMMMMMMMMMYYYT:MIRY.<.YY:K%<MX f'MYYMMM1Y.y.YMfM>'K3MXM.Yl IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... .9 AREA POPULATION ...................... 80000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... stoney creek NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. mid DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy).._... 3/23/92 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. am E)92 93 95 20 00 OTHER INFORMATION.... INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ------------------------------------------------------------ -------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EE WB NB 5E ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 60 5 80 1 THRU 125 75 1 1 _ RIGHT 60 1 5 -30 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EE; WB NB ------- SE. ------- ------- ------- LANES CAN, USAGE LTR LTR CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Paae-3 ----------------c---------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(Pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) C (pcph) c = c —v LOS P I M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ----------- MINOR STREET NB LEFT 98 588 547 > 547 > 449 > A THROUGH 1 684 651 > 561 651 > 456 650 >A RIGHT 6 919 919 > 910 > 913 > MINOR STREET SB LEFT 1 584 553 > 553 > 552 > A THROUGH 1 655 623 > 954 623 > 915 622 >A A RIGHT 37 996 996 > 996 > 959 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 73 1000 1000 1000 927` A WB LEFT 6 980 980 980 974 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------------------------------------------------------------ NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... caribou NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... stoney creek DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 3/23/92 ; am am 92 93 95 O10 OTHER INFORMATION.... 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZEO INTERSECTIONS Page-1 Z]:%XXZZM:XXY.XXZ1XiZY):XZ FZX%ZZZY'.Zii:KZt'%ZM:Y ZYZZX%W.YZXZZZCZZ.Z ]'. ]'X ZZXXXiXiX IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------- _____________________________________________________ AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET_. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... .9 AREA POPULATION ...................... 80000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... access NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... timberline NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. mjd DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 3/23/92 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. am pm 92 93 95 �010 OTHER INFORMATION.... INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSEC.TION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES _____________________________________________________________________ EB WB NB S8 ____ ____ ____ ---- LEFT -- 0 18 0 THRU -- 2 1070 1460 RIGHT -- 10 20 13 NUMBER OF LANES -- ---- -------------------------------------------------- ------- EE; WE'. NE SF ------- . _______ _______ LANES -- t CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 - -- — - --- - --- --------- ------ ----- -- -- ----------------- -- - -- - - - POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET WB LEFT 0 48 48 > 48 > 48 > > 611 > 599 >A RIGHT 12 611 611 > 611 > 599 > A MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 0' 222 222 222 222 C IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... access NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... timberline DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 3/23/92 art. pm 92 93 9 2070 OTHER INFORMATION.... (k , 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 KY:Y.WW'K.K WW3YXW:WWWWWWKWI:T:Kx'KfiW2WWYWWWWWI I'Y_SY]:1 WW K.KW).W i.K'K WW �: Y.WK<WWWW t.x Yt IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ----------------------------------- ------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... .9 AREA POPULATION ...................... 80000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... access NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... timberline NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. mid DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 3/23/92 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. am a 92 93 95 2010 OTHER INFORMATION.... INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- "I. WE, NB SE. ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT -- 0 18 0 THP.0 -- - 1640 1875 RIGHT -- 20 10 13 NUMBER OF LANES ---------------------------- — ----------------------------------- EB W5 NE. SE, --------------------- ------- LANES CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Paae-3 ----------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET W8 LEFT 0 48 48 > 48 > 48 > > 425 > 400 >Ai RIGHT 24 425 425 > 425 > 400 > A MAJOR STREET - SB LEFT 0 127 127 127 127 D IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... access NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... timberline DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 3/23/92 : am 8 92 93 9 2010 OTHER INFORMATION.... -Ao 00 as Table 1 1992 Intersection Operation Level of Service Intersection AM PM Timberline/Caribou EB LT EB T/RT WB LT WB T/RT SB LT NB LT Caribou/Stoney Creek NB LT/T/RT SB LT/T/RT EB LT WB LT Land Use C A C A A A A A A A Table 2 Trip Generation Daily Trips Vet Clinic 160 Commercial/Office - 110 4.5 KSF Timberline Access Subtotal 270 5 Single Family D.U. 50 Speights PUD Total 320 16 Single Family D.U. South of Speights PUD 160 D C D A A A A A A A A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Trips Trips Trips Trips in out in out 6 4 4 6 11 2 2 11 17 6 6 17 1 3 3 2 18 9 9 19 3 9 10 6 M AM/PM N 1993 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 4 ft so Table 3 1993 Intersection Operation Level of Service Intersection AM PM Timberline/Caribou EB LT EB T/RT WB LT WB T/RT SB LT NB LT Caribou/Stoney Creek NB LT/T/RT SB LT/T/RT EB LT WB LT Timberline/Access WB LT/RT SB LT C D A C C D A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A B A A Table 4 1995 Intersection Operation Level of Service Intersection AM PM Timberline/Caribou EB LT EB T/RT WB LT WB T/RT SB LT NB LT Caribou/Stoney Creek NB LT/T/RT SB LT/T/RT EB LT WB LT Timberline/Access WB LT/RT SB LT D E A B E E A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A C A A 0 a co co U) co CC) 3/4 pp r r- N O M a W Z J cc W m ACCESS N N O cM 1f O r � r \-98/60 v M M �— 6/2 1 ,r— 74/40 14/45 ---` 2/6 —► 19/61�` cv-,4M (O In OcoN N co SITE CARIBOU AM / PM 00 Y W W U } W Z O co N N � r N -t N � 13/48 28/95 —► 2 0 / 6 1 1/1 77/46 7/1 (o r M M r co) to Q N SHORT RANGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 5 a o ti o 0 co v �— 10/20 / ACCESS SITE 00 0 'o � N 0 h 0 T W z J cc W m 2 to N n � O O co N O Lo r Loo �-1 15/ 100 -4--15 / 5 ) U.*— 95/80 CARIBOU 35/ 195 ---/ 1 T 5/15 —► 20/65 —� N U) 0 cc) 0 0 cn v rn AM / PM ft Y W W m :i W z O F- N M :� :� 0 00 ozz 20/60 45/125 55/60 `— NOM. -0-125/75 r 5/5 02 up ZO ) oz v e LONG RANGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 6