Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROSPECT/1-25 ODP - 20-03 - REPORTS - TRAFFIC STUDY• Roundabouts are a viable long-term alternative to traditional intersections at the 1-25 off -ramps. The final decision however should not be made until a more in-depth investigation is conducted during preliminary design of the in- terchange. Comparable operating conditions can be expected with either design. In summary, the transportation demands associated with Prospect / 1-25 can be at least partially mitigated by implementation of the improvements noted in this study. Future traffic demands, however; will require reconstructing the Prospect Road —1-25 interchange. These improvements will facilitate acceptable operating conditions in the vicinity of this development for the foreseeable future. 29 X. CONCLUSIONS Based upon the analyses, investigations, and findings documented in earlier sections of this report, the following can be concluded: .. Current roadway operations are generally acceptable in the area of the Prospect / 1-25 site. Less than desirable operations currently exist at the west frontage road and northbound 1-25 off ramp intersections with Pros- pect Road while other intersections operate at acceptable levels of service. • Site traffic associated with the Prospect / 1-25 development is expected to be 1,077 morning peak hour trips, 1,860 afternoon peak hour trips, and 16,967 trips per day. These trips represent an aggressive development scheme on this site which may or may not be realized in the future. • Intersection levels of service will remain acceptable at most locations through the short-term with the Prospect / 1-25 site fully built. Given the lim- ited geometry, the 1-25 interchange will operate at less than acceptable lev- els. This condition is. of regional significance and will occur whether or not the Prospect/1-25 development is built. • Pedestrian and bicycle evaluations were not conducted given the lack of attractions near the site. Since all internal and adjacent improvements as- sociated with Prospect / 1-25 will be built to current standards, all pedestrian and bicycle criteria will be satisfied. Future developments will connect to and expand the Prospect / 1-25 improvements. • Transit service is not currently available; however, future transit operations are expected to achieve a level of service consistent with future demand. • Over the long-term, area operations will be very acceptable provided im- provements are made at the 1-25 / Prospect Road interchange. 28 There are no pedestrian attractions within the distance specified by City evaluation criteria. Consequently, no level of service analysis was conducted. As the area matures, the sidewalk system planned with this development will be supplemented and expanded. VIII. BICYCLE FACILITIES There are no bicycle facilities within 1,320 feet of the Prospect / 1-25 site. This is consistent with the existence of an older roadway system and the rural environment. The bicycle facilities planned with the Prospect / 1-25 development will conform to current City criteria. They will provide connections to future bicycle facilities thereby accommodating the integration of bicycles into the site. There are no bicycle attractions within the distance specified by City evaluation criteria. Consequently, no level of service analysis was conducted. As the area matures, the available bicycle facilities will be supplemented and expanded. IX. TRANSIT Transit service is not currently available to serve this site. TransFort is expected to provide service in concert with passenger demand. When appropriate, transit service will be provided. Consequently, transit operations were not evaluated. 27 D. Roundabout Analysis The City requested roundabout analyses at the Prospect Road intersections with the 1-25 off ramps. This analysis was conducted using long-term traffic estimates. Antick pated operating levels of service are shown below.. Roundabout Location Long -Term Level of Service AM Pk Hr. PM Pk Hr. Prospect— Southbound Ramps . A B Prospect — Northbound Ramps A B As indicated, very acceptable operating conditions are expected with roundabouts at the off -ramp intersections. This indicates that roundabouts are a viable alternative at these intersections subject to right-of-way and other design considerations. Operating conditions, however, will be similar to those calculated with traditional intersections and therefore, a more detailed comparison should be conducted during preliminary design of the interchange. Capacity worksheets are provided in Appendix G. VII. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES There are no existing sidewalks within 1,320 feet of the Prospect / 1-25 site. This is consistent with an older roadway system and the rural environment. The pedestrian system planned adjacent and internal to the Prospect / 1-25 develop- ment will conform to current City criteria. It will provide usable connections to future sidewalks as they are built thereby accommodating the integration of pedestrians into the site. LONG-TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC OPERATIONS (With Project) Intersection Control Movement/ Direction Level of Service AM Pk Hr. PM Pk Hr. Prospect — East Frontage Signal EB LT D D EB TH A A EB RT D C WB LT C C WB TH C D WB RT C C NB LT D D NB TH/RT B B SIB LT D D SB TH D D SIB RT C D ON Prospect — Carriage Stop EB LT A A SIB LT C C SIB RT B B Major Access — Carriage Stop NB LT A A SIB LT A A WB LT/TH/RT A A EB LT/TH B A EB RT A A With interchange reconstruction, vastly improved operations can be expected. This is demonstrated by the levels of service calculated for the long-term which assumes the interchange is improved. With that improvement, very acceptable conditions are expected through the 2025 time frame. Worksheets are available in Appendix F. 25 LONG-TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC OPERATIONS (With Project) Intersection Control Movement/ Direction Level of Service AM Pk Hr. PM Pk Hr. Prospect — West Frontage Signal EB LT A A EB TH A A EB RT A A WB LT A A WB TH A A WB RT A A NB LT C C NB TH/RT C C SB LT C C SB TH/RT C C Overall A A Prospect - Southbound Ramp Signal EB TH/RT B B WB LT C C WB TH A A SB LT/TH C C J .vcF,r1'"9?CSEw-6. 45.a.. reA `ett2i.u.'KtF E Y4%t. REIML'ik: Prospect -Northbound Ramp Signal EB LT B B EB TH A A WB TH B B NB LT C C 24 SHORT-TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC OPERATIONS (With Project) Intersection Control Movement/ Direction Level of Service AM Pk Hr. PM Pk Hr. Prospect — East Frontage Signal EB LT D D EB TH A A EB RT C B WB LT C C WB TH C D WB RT C C NB LT C D NB TH/RT B B SIB LT D D SIB TH D D SB RT B D Prospect — Carriage Stop EB LT A A SIB LT C C SIB RT B B Major Access — Carriage Stop NB LT A A SIB LT A A WB LT/TH/RT A A EB LT/TH A A. EB RT A A As indicated above, short-term total traffic conditions will be less than desirable at the northbound and southbound 1-25 off -ramp intersections. This condition assumes some mitigation given the installation of traffic signals; however, without reconstruct- ing the interchange, operations will continue to be sub -standard. All other intersec- tions will operate acceptably. Capacity worksheets are available in Appendix E. 23 As shown, operating conditions will be generally acceptable except for the Prospect Road — Southbound 1-25 ramp intersection. Even with traffic signal installation, this intersection will operate at less than desirable levels. Capacity worksheets are avail- able in Appendix D. C. Total Traffic Operating Conditions Short-term and long-term operating conditions were assessed using total traffic, which includes full development of this project. This investigation used the peak hour traffic shown on Figures 9 and 10 and the short- and long-term roadway geometry shown on Figures 11 and 12, respectively. Resultant operating conditions are shown below for the short-term SHORT-TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC OPERATIONS (With Project) Intersection Control Movement/ Direction Level of Service AM Pk Hr. PM Pk Hr. Prospect — West Frontage Stop EB LT/TH/RT B B WB LT/TH/RT B B NB LT/TH/RT F F SB LT/TH F F SB RT C E Prospect — Southbound Ramp Signal EB TH/RT F F WB LT/TH F F SB LT F F Y gip- ``5' $Y gipOyveral(w v%i ...tif f eki4F r WA tr.F f, 3- =57 Ft'�g4Fk ri:NZIF CAS Prospect — Northbound Ramp Signal EB LT/TH F F WB TH F F WB RT C B NB LT F F NB RT D F Overall,> Fp,ti3 F 22 SHORT-TERM BACKGROUND TRAFFIC OPERATIONS (Without Project) Intersection Control Movement/ Direction Level of Service AM Pk Hr. PM Pk Hr. Prospect — West Frontage Stop EB LT/TH/RT B B WB LT/TH/RT A B NB LT/TH/RT F F SB LT/TH F F SB RT C C Prospect — Southbound Ramp Signal EB TH/RT C F WB LT/TH E E SB LT D. E Prospect — Northbound Ramp Signal EB LT/TH E D WB TH D B WB RT C B NB LT D D NB RT C C @rf4 Overallx 2 nd 'U k � p stu K+�'K'.% x x kR nx NETv T'. . Y..: Prospect — East Frontage Signal EB LT B B EB TH A A EB RT C B WB LT C C WB TH C C WB RT C C NB LT C D NB TH/RT B B SB LT D D SB TH D D SB RT B B <,rr r3 tmxo xa ��,Overall < e C<-F°'* a i c J INL `� k 21 m A U Access Access Access LEGEND: * = Free Turn Lane •~�? \ Access IV O 4 d f ♦- R- m ?►� 4- Access 3 \ / m \ i c � \\ / w \` / \ / .\ \\ N / � \ i Prospect � L ��► I� Y" Figure 12 LONG-TERM ROADWAY GEOMETRY m E A U Access Access Access ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Access LEGEND: * = Free Turn Lane f0 C * k— Im 7 _ Access U. m 3 trIm m m ; \ 1 W ' 'Prospect C. vc— to y +47. Figure 11 SHORT-TERM ROADWAY GEOMETRY rounded to the nearest 5 vehicles or rounded up to a minimum of 5 vehicles. Total peak hour traffic was reviewed from an auxiliary lane standpoint. The results of this review are discussed in the following section. A. Auxiliary Lane Requirements Traffic movements at the critical intersections and site access points were reviewed. This review resulted in the determination that auxiliary lanes will be needed to serve short-term traffic demands. _Auxiliary lanes were assessed using Fort Collins criteria, CDOT criteria, generally accepted traffic engineering principles, and the standard street sections for those streets which will be built in the future. Traffic signal needs were determined based upon the traffic signal warrants presented in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Findings stated in the Paradigm traffic impact study were also considered. It should be noted that auxiliary lanes are currently needed at the 1-25 interchange and will continue to be needed in the future. Realistically, these lanes can only be built as part of re -constructing the interchange. Accordingly, no improvements were assumed at the interchange until after the short-term time frame. Resultant roadway geometry for short- and long-term conditions is shown on Figures 11 and.12, respectively. B. Background Operating Conditions Short-term (2008) operating conditions were assessed using short-term background traffic as shown on Figure 9 and the anticipated short-term roadway geometry. Resultant operating conditions are shown below. ig LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour N - Nominal NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. 3 R 85/12! 1285/' r 1 Y 10110 70145 300/1890 •on lit11 0" a ono Access Access N^ 1 r \ N N Access B f2 t' 515 NM J 1015 5120 1 (� NINoov 15n5Z o�o wN' \ Access k-1401345 � 92011445 11560 155/265� �+ i35 9851910- a Access a ro h 0 V w N O N0/35 � / J l..-4o5nls 25on1s-� `\\ y U.155/355'� Z / w \ I W \ \ N /1 Prospect �IM 355/4 0 0 i-105190 S15I420 34s/aas t v� Figure 10 660/5107 c 0 'y "' LONG-TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC m m E W U Access Access LEGEND: AMIPM Peak Hour Access N - Nominal NO o `off t5/5 J N/N 515 NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. 5/20 v) j NIN —` Oom 15f75Z zzN \ Access O) �m t �70011235 �'--1140/1230 110/1901 c `185/485 825f/55� s h LL 600/675—� Access 465/815--). , b O m 3 04 OO / I0 i �0 \ I 00 �- --i orz10 0, , O / - ° 225/180---* 130/300 W Prospect m mom C99011400� t O U n g N t 60/50 65I705 275/410 �'- 83 11240 d1 = i 75165 495/405 1 j �' 310/370 T Figure 9 we 4701365� voQ "BO Y�SNO SHORT-TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC LEGEND: AMIPM Peak Hour N - Nominal NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehiUes. n mA L t-70165 —1220/ 70145 i11720'� soS2 10/107 0 'o Access I Access Access / f L 90/110 .tom 7651735 155265--o / 565/570- a Access N Prospect / i NV� Q^o .) j t10/10 105190 75/55 (66015110-14 0265 N r mac Figure 8 onr LONG-TERM BACKGROUND TRAFFIC 41 r� C N i) Access Access LEGEND: AM/PM Peek Hour N - Nominal Access NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. Access a l� N m h 545/525 m f / — 1080I875 110/1901 c / j 1101130 405/415— v o `O 345/470— ro Access U. 465/8157 ro h at 3 ti / K / e c / \\ � w Prospect \ N V O uCi2o t-50/45 O rv� t5/5 1 ~ 5 501945 mN 2 205/100 1 75/65 50/30 55/40 1 (' 775/1230 w Q � as/190 �m,n Figure 7 5/57 viouZ 470/385i aoo nNN SHORT-TERM BACKGROUND TRAFFIC a immediate needs. Reconstructing the interchange is of regional significance and well beyond the scope of any one development. For analysis purposes, no short-term improvements were assumed built except for those associated with planned nearby development. B. Background Traffic Background traffic was developed using an annual growth rate of 2 percent per year. This factor was applied to existing traffic volumes to approximate future arterial and collector street traffic consistent with the time frames requested by the City. Traffic associated with development of the Paradigm property was also considered. This parcel is located in the southeast corner of the interchange and will generate some 11,500 daily trips based upon the traffic study for that parcel. For analyses purposes, the Paradigm property was assumed built -out in the short-term. Background traffic is presented on Figures 7 and 8 for the short-term and long-term time frames, respec- tively. VI. TRAFFIC IMPACTS In order to assess operating conditions with Prospect / 1-25 fully operational, capacity analyses were conducted at the Prospect Road intersections with both frontage roads, both 1-25 Ramps and Carriage Parkway. Also, the primary site access inter- section was evaluated. Total traffic (background traffic combined with site traffic) was developed for the 2008 and 2025 time frames. Short-term (2008) total traffic is shown on Figure 9 and long-term (2025) total traffic is shown on Figure 10. Traffic was 13 W A U nAccess Access N� t 5/20 5!5 o� a o � \ LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour N - Nominal o o,,, t 5/5 Access N NN 11 IN /0 5/20 1 NOTE: Rounded to neareal 5 vehicles. NIN00 n 15/75� p00 e� \ \ Access N k— 50/235 Ix o 1551710 W 80/355 420/340 � /* c - �-75/355 _ - Access LL 2551205 �1 h • / K Ca \ / m oo L \\ I e .% � 55 45 22511801 \\\ h mZ / 20180--� \ / m \ % W \ I � \\ N / �\ \\ i Prospect yC m o� 55/45 tNM95 _ 10 N * 440/3851 I 215/170' (� 225/180� Figure 6 z PEAK HOUR SITE TRAFFIC 3 25%' 0 o O 001 O Access Prospect Access m a m E m U Access Access Access 10% Figure 5 SITE TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION As indicated, the Prospect / 1-25 development is expected to generate 1,077 morning external peak hour trips, 1,860 afternoon external peak hour trips and 16,967 external trips per day when fully built. This is based upon a very aggressive development scenario. This is considered appropriate for evaluation purposes. However, much less traffic may actually be realized. C. Trip Distribution Trip distribution is a function of the origin and destination of site users and the avail- able roadway system. In this case, all traffic must use Prospect Road, the east Frontage Road or Carriage Parkway to directly access the site. Current demographic biases reflect heavy weighting to and from the urban Fort Collins area during both the morning and afternoon peak hour periods. The distribution of site traffic as agreed to in the scoping session is shown on Figure 5. Resultant peak hour site traffic is shown on Figure 6. A. Roadway Improvements No major roadway improvements are planned in the area of the site in the near -term future. The Prospect/1-25 interchange is the most notable deficiency in the area street system. While not scheduled for reconstruction, it is clearly one of the more 10 to N W H co w W F- Z Figure 4 CONCEPT PLAN IV. DEVELOPMENT ISSUES A. Project Description Prospect / 1-25 is a mixed -use development with some 84.83 acres of industrial park, 31 acres of retail, and 20.70 acres of residential area. It will have an internal circula- tion system. comprised of local and collector streets. Direct site access to the frontage road and Carriage Parkway is planned with follow-on access to Prospect Road and other arterial streets. The above uses are consistent with the planning effort for submittal of an Overall Development Plan and are subject to future changes. A concept plan is presented on Figure 4. B. Site Traffic Site traffic was estimated using the Institute of. Transportation Engineers (ITE) publi- cation, "Trip Generation, 6th Edition", a nationally recognized reference. The retail, industrial park and residential land use classifications were selected to estimate site traffic as the development is currently envisioned Land Use . D.U. Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Out Rate In Out Industrial Park 84.83 AC 63.11 5,354 10.17 716 147 10.47 186 702 Retail 31.00AC(1) 42.92 13,308 1.03 195 124 3.74 556 603 Residential 20.70 AC (2) 9.57 191 0.75 4 11 1.01 13 7 SUB -TOTAL 18,853 915 282 755 1,312 10% Internal Trips (1,886) (92) (28) (76) (131) =�IETWTRIPS��s r C 4',ui�rn `"MR;a S.., h�. �� �.P�'h`A''"5.i��i..d".5'��dE r °>ce... sS t z $ ""f '+4 �._3��,2 �au�i.'s 823� ' P���^r�.,Y,.° 254 ' -may &t ��?` 679 �•- 1 181 ;- (1) Assumes 310,000 S.F. of shopping center space. (2) Assumes 20 D.U. r;1 m 'Oepect figure 3 IADWAY GEOMETRY D. Existing Traffic Operations Highway Capacity Manual procedures were used to quantify current intersection oper- ations. Resultant levels of service (LOS) are indicated below for both morning and afternoon peak hour conditions. This was undertaken for all key intersections. Traffic volumes from Figure 2 were loaded onto the current roadway geometry, which is shown on Figure 3. Functional geometry was used in these and follow-on analyses. For definition purposes, functional geometry reflects the geometry available for use and not necessarily the striped roadway section EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS Intersection Control Movement/ Direction Level of Service AM Pk Hr. PM Pk Hr. Prospect —West Frontage Stop EB LT/TH/RT A A WB LT/TH/RT A B NB LT/TH/RT E F SB LT/TH F F SBRT C C Prospect — Southbound Ramp Stop WB LT/TH A B SB LT D D Prospect — Northbound Ramp Stop EB LT/TH A A NB LT F F NB RT A A Prospect — East Frontage Stop EB LT/TH/RT A A WB LT/TH/RT A A NB LT/TH/RT B B SB LT/TH/RT B A Per City standards, stop sign controlled intersections with arterial streets are allowed to operate at LOS `F'. As shown above, all intersections currently operate at accept- able levels. Capacity work sheets are presented in Appendix C. 2 LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour N = Nominal c L K ^3 11710/136 r 725/506 1 5 96/175 - � 26130 89I165-+ ,� h LL 421/739-y nIV ^CD m I � \ / m / LL C \ / W \ N / \1 N / Prospect yy *1) O L92 k-1/2 ' mN 2 j j ka 1I5 69 125 - 64I9163 25/36Z r Flgure 2 CURRENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC III. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Existing Road Network The Prospect / 1-25 site is located in the northeast corner of the 1-25 — Prospect Road interchange. Major roadways serving the area are Prospect Road, 1-25, and the Frontage Roads paralleling 1-25. Prospect Road is a two-lane east -west arterial roadway. It extends from Fort Collins to the areas east of 1-25. The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour which reduces to 35 miles per hour in the immediate area of 1-25. In the future, Prospect Road is planned as a four -lane arterial. The east and west frontage roads parallel 1-25 and have one lane in each direction. The posted speed limits are 45 miles per hour which reduces to 35 miles per hour on the approaches to Prospect Road. All intersections are .under stop sign control throughout the study area. Additionally, virtually all intersection approaches have one approach lane. B. Surrounding Land Uses The Prospect / 1-25 site is currently vacant as is most of the surrounding area. C. Existing Traffic Weekday morning and afternoon peak hour traffic counts were obtained at the 1-25 interchange and frontage road intersections. These counts are presented on Figure 2. Count tabulations are available in Appendix B. 4 II. AGENCY DISCUSSIONS Prior to undertaking this study, a scoping session was held with Eric Bracke, City Traffic Engineer. During that discussion, it was determined that a full transportation impact study was appropriate. Key items of agreement and direction are identified below. An assessment of internal pedestrian, bicycle, and transit levels of service needs to be conducted. • The Prospect Road intersections with the 1-25 ramps, the east and west frontage roads and Carriage Parkway (future) should be investigated during weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. • An assessment of existing and future conditions is appropriate. The appro- priate future time frames were identified as the years 2008 and 2025. • Traffic growth on nearby arterial streets of 2% per year is reasonable to es- timate future background traffic. • Roundabout analyses were requested at both 1-25 ramps under long-term conditions. The above items are included or addressed in the following sections of this report. The City's Transportation Impact Study base assumptions and pedestrian destina- tions forms are attached in Appendix A. 3 VICINITY MAP SCALE =1•-zoos :'......... ZONED E o In ZONED C --- LARIMER COUNTY Figure 1 2 VICINITY MAP INTRODUCTION Prospect / 1-25 is a planned mixed -use development along the north side of Prospect Road between Interstate 25 (1-25) and the east frontage road in Fort Collins, Colo- rado. A vicinity map is presented on Figure .1. This transportation impact study follows the established guidelines for such studies as are applicable and appropriate to the proposed project. The following key steps were undertaken as part of this study. Obtain current traffic and roadway data in the immediate area of the site. • Evaluate current operations to establish base conditions. • Determine site generated traffic volumes and distribute this traffic to the nearby street system. • Estimate roadway traffic volumes for future conditions. Evaluate operations with Prospect / 1-25 fully operational. Inventory, evaluate, and assess the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit net- works serving the site. • Identify deficiencies and recommend measures to mitigate the impact of site generated traffic and enhance the alternate travel mode systems as appropriate. Key areas of investigation are documented in the following sections of this transporta- tion impact study. This report is being prepared for submittal to the City as part of the Overall Development Plan. List of Figures Figure1 Vicinity Map...............................................................................................2 Figure 2 Current Peak Hour Traffic ................................. :......................... :............. 5 Figure 3 Current Roadway Geometry ..................................:........:..........................7 Figure4 Concept Plan.............................................................................................9 Figure 5 Site Traffic Distribution............................................................................11 Figure6 Peak Hour Site Traffic.............................................................................12 Figure 7 Short -Term Background Traffic...............................................................14 Figure 8 Long -Term Background Traffic................................................................15 Figure 9 Short -Term Total Traffic..........................................................................16 Figure 10 Long -Term Total Traffic...........................................................................17 Figure 11 Short -Term Roadway Geometry .............................................................19 Figure 12 Long -Term Roadway Geometry.., ........................................................... 20 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................1 II. AGENCY DISCUSSIONS......................................................................................3 III. EXISTING CONDITIONS.............................................................:.........................4 A. Existing Road Network.....................................................................................4 B. Surrounding Land Uses...................................................................................4 C. Existing Traffic .......................... :........................................................................ 4 D. Existing Traffic Operations...............................................................................6 IV. DEVELOPMENT ISSUES......................................................................................8 A. Project Description..................................................:........................................8 B. Site Traffic........................................................................................................8 C. Trip Distribution..............................................................................................10 V. FUTURE CONDITIONS.......................................................................................10 A. Roadway Improvements.................................................. :............................. 10 B. Background Traffic.........................................................................................13 VI. TRAFFIC IMPACTS.............................................................................................13 A. Auxiliary Lane Requirements.........................................................................18 B. Background Operating Conditions...................................:.............................18 C. Total Traffic Operating Conditions..................................................................22 D. Roundabout Analysis.....................................................................................26 VII. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES..................................................................................26 VIII.BICYCLE FACILITIES.........................................................................................27 IX. TRANSIT.............................................................................................................27 X. CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................28 Transportation Impact Study PROSPECT / 1-25 Fort Collins, Colorado Prepared For: Horton Cattle Co. P.O. Box 517 Eaton, CO 80615 Prepared By: � �gEORGf6"'.101 Eugene G. Coppola, P.E. �������;•�GtST •• ,°,oh F. P. O. Box 260027 ='�J:•P Littleton, CO 80163 * . 303-792-2450 tD N • � p -ZIL •P�O ONA ,,,N�4,0 May 30, 2003 : co% -jr Roundabout Analysis Prospect/1-25 Ramps FLOW �^ veh 0 1795 645 735 CAPACITY veh 529 2481 807 1745 AVE DELAY min 0 0.09 0.44 0.06 MAX DELAY min 0 0.14 0.9 0.08 AVE QUEUE veh 0 3 5 1 MAX QUEUE veh 0 4 9 1 o n--& U..... FLOW veh 0 2094 480 865 CAPACITY veh 327 2491 682 1585 AVE DELAY min 0 0.19 0.78 0.08 MAX DELAY min 0 0.35 1.75 0.12 AVE QUEUE veh 0 7 6 1 MAX QUEUE veh 0 11 14 2 uQ _ 1 nnn Rnnna VnlunnP-c geometric measure leg 1 leg 2 le 3 leg 4 IF nl 9.10 9.40 3.40 8.40 L m 200.00 200.00 10.00 100.60 V m 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 RAD m 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.40 N d 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 DIA m 60.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 FLOW veh 075 1060 0 1250 CAPACITY veh 1596 2372 508 1632 AVE DELAY min 0.09 0.05 0 0.2 MAX DELAY min 0.13 0.06 0 0.35 AVE QUEUE veh 1 1 . 0 4 MAX QUEUE veh 2 1 0 7 FLOW veh 870 1445 0 1745 CAPACITY veh 1240 1736 230 2239 AVE DELAY min 0.23 0.34 0 0.13 MAX DELAY min OA2 0.71 0 0.21 AVE QUEUE veh 3.6 8 0 4 MAX QUEUE veh 0 16 0 5 Ave Delay 9.2 secs LOS = A Ave Delay 14.8 secs LOS = 8 Ave Delay 6.9 secs LOS = A Ave Delay 13.5 secs LOS = B APPENDIX G Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 215 355 0 0 215 35 Peak=Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 238 394 0 0 238 38 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 — — 0 — — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L T TR Upstream Signal_ 0 0 7-1 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 45 0 340 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 50 0 377 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration L R WB Northbound Southbound Approach EB Movement 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 238 50 377 C (m) (vph) 1299 280 787 v/C 0.18 0.18 6.48 95% queue length 0.67 0.64 2.62 Control Delay 8.4 20.6 13.7 LOS A C B . Approach Delay — — 14.5 Approach LOS — — B HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of rionoa, aai Kignm mesewea �< TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY general l�ftz�iittart ; 5�� Ir�fc�rmaiE�r� ......:.. :.: Analyst GC Agency/Co. Date Performed 2003 Analysis Time Period eym Intersection CARRIAGE - PROSPECT Jurisdiction Analysis Year ST T O Project Description East/VNest Street: PROSPECT North/South Street: CARRIAGE Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Veh cle.lka rnes:>anr .... .Ad t sttm MCI Eastbound :..::...:.:.:...:.:::.:...:::: Westbound Major Street Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 250 155 0 0 405 30 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 277 172 0 0 450 33 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Confiuration L T TR Llstream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 20 0 120 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 22 0 133 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration L R ::,>;:; LI<of:<S'evice;i>';>[i>>`> €�e�a :Queue•:L�xt tfs.'attd �:._:.: Approach EB _ ...... WB Northbound ................................................... Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 1 9 10 11 1 12 Lane Configuration L i R v (vph) 277 22 133 C (m) (vph) 1090 273 601 v/c 0.25 0.08 0.22 95% queue length 1.01 0.26 0.64 Control Delay 9.4 19.3 12.7 LOS A C B Approach Delay — — 13.6 Approach LOS — — B HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All KlghtS neservea version a.ic TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY GeMera[nfc,ma#tan . Siil� [ttrEnatto>r ..:.' . Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period GC 512 03 AMIM Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year B STREET - CARRIAGE ST L Project Description East/West Street: B STREET North/South Street: CARRIAGE Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 1letlrcle {%E£tmes artid Ac#`tstlmeits Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 10 70 5 5 35 15 Peak -Hour Factor PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 10 73 5 5 36 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - - Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration L TR LT R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 5 0 5 20 0 75 Peak -Hour Factor PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 0 5 21 0 76 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT I I R �eFz�:. Q>�eue:.Lets ih,. <<::><>: <:::<:>r:>»::<:::::>::::>::::;::::>::=>s::>:>;::>>:>:::»>::>::<:>�<:::::>>::>::<:::<::::::>::::: .:..... Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT LTR LT R v (vph) 10 5 10 21 78 C (m) (vph) 1568 1533 835 795 1042 v/c 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.07 95%.queue length 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.24 Control Delay 7.3 7.4 9.4 9.7 8.7 LOS A A A A A Approach Delay - - 9.4 8•9 Approach LOS - - A A Copyright 02000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY G. fl, a bim I. . . .......... ....... . ............ ........ .. .... .... ...... .4 1' for . ... ..... .. ....... F Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period GC R812003 PM Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year B STREET - CARRIAGE Project Description EastNVest Street: B STREET North/South Street: CARRIAGE Intersection Orientation: North -South IStud y Period (hrs): 0.25 V. niume ... ........ . .............. ......... .. . . ..... ... . .. Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 60 25 10 5 60 20 Peak -Hour -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 63 26 10 5 63 21 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 - Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes I 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration L TR LT R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 10 0 5 5 0 15- Peak-Hour Factor, PHIF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hou . rly Flow Rate, HFR 10 0 5 1 5 0 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 11 1 Configuration LTR - LT R LSO ....... d 0- :.% , IN, . .. ........ Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT LTR LT R v (vph) 63 5 15 5 15 C (m) (vph) 1526 1588 775 704 1007 VIC 0.04 0.00 .0.02 0.01 0.01 95% queue length 0.13 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.05 Control Delay 7.5 7.3 9.7 10.2 6.6 LOS A A A B A Approach Delay - - 9.7 9.0 Approach LOS A A Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c SHORT REPORT eae.ia€Ininr►natann :: Stfrriormatirt ;:"XI. .IF Analyst GC Agency or Co. Date Performed 5126qPI9q Time Period AM PM Intersection NB RAMPS - PROSPECT Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year ST e T TOT YO r �:ani :'1€€nin ;in t1t' '>'><'<''>?>"?i>I>«> 5>i'>i>?i >`:c>':''.';' < ''>>'`:.>i. s >'>''[> <'«'> ':`>€ir'`:>>»'?>'>` '»>>'?'><<':.'>'>ri`. EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Lane group L T T L Volume v h 265 910 1445 670 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 1 10.95 Actuated P/A P P P I I P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 12.0 1. Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 5 5 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 1 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasinq EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 10.0 G= 50.0 G= G= G= 30.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 Y= 5 Iy= I Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 1 Cycle Length C = 100.0 iax>E Grew °' Ca ac€antr'flai and i.t3S �?+e#in€rya#gin .. .. . EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 279 956 1521 705 Lane group cap. 966 2166 1805 1051 v/c ratio 0.29 0.44 0.84 0.67 Green ratio 0.60 0.60 0.50 0.30 Unif. delay dl 13.2 110.9 1 121.6 30.7 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 0.6 0.7 5.0 3.4 PF factor 1.000 0.125 0.333 1.000 Control delay 14.0 2.0 12.2 34.1 Lane group LOS B A 8 C Apprch. delay 4.7 12.2 34.1 Approach LOS A B C Intersec. delay 14.0 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c SHORT REPORT Analyst GC Agency or Co. Date Performed 5/ 2003 Time Period AM PM Intersection NB RAMPS - PROSPECT Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year STOBG OT KVolume an&Timm tln ut � � �G, � �� � :,a�. ..-�. .�, ��� �;',s����•� EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Lane group L T T L Volume v h 155 985 920 875 % Heav veh 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 Actuated P/A P I P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 1 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 5 5 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 1 0 N N1 0 N N 0 N N N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 15.0 G= 40.0 G= G= G= 35.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 JY= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 Lane 'rQ p Sa IM9Control Dela. , and LOS De'term nation, EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 163 1037 968 921 Lane group cap. 946 1986 1444 1226 v/c ratio 0.17 0.52 0.67 0.75 Green ratio 0.55 0.55 0.40 0.35 Unif. delay d1 12.4 14.2 1 124.6 28.7 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 0.4 1.0 2.5 4.3 PF factor 1.000 0.185 0.556 1.000 Control delay 12.8 3.6 1 16.2 32.9 Lane group LOS B A 8 C Apprch. delay 4.9 16.2 32.9 Approach LOS A B C Intersec. delay 16.8 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c SHORT REPORT Num. of Lanes 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Lane group T L T L Volume v h 865 535 1560 310 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Actuated /A P P P P A P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 5 3 5 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 PedBike/RTOR Volume 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 1 1 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parldng N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing WB Only Thru & RT 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 30.0 G= 37.0 G= G= G= 23.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= IY= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 C7i1.%iU Ca.:,GfT3#CF1.8 aEiC.{i$t.B$E1ii(iE.tS EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 911 563 1642 326 Lane group cap. 1336 1051 2419 805 v/c ratio 0.68 0.54 0.68 0.40 Green ratio 0.37 0.30 0.67 0.23 Unif. delay d1 126.5 129.2 110.0 32.7 Delay factor k 6.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 2.8 2.0. 1.6 1.5 PF factor 0.608 1.000 0.152 1.000 Control delay 19.0 31.1 3.1 34.2 Lane group LOS B C A C Apprch. delay 19.0 10.2 34.2 Approach LOS B B C Intersec. delay 14.8 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c SHORT REPORT Analyst GC Agency or Co. Date Performed WO03 Time Period , fffm Intersection SB RAMPS - PROSPECT Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year S7CLT)BG 6T) F� . .. . . ..... V . ... .. . ..... .. . . . ... ..... EB we NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Lane group T L T L Volume (yph) 735 230 1565 1380 1 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.95 10.95 10.95 0.95 Actuated (P/A) P P I P - P P Startup lost time 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 5 3 5 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 ao Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 izo Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking/hr I I Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing WB Only Thru & RT 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 G = 30.0 G = 36.0 G = I G = G= G= G = Timing jY= 0 5 Y= 1Y= Y= 5 Y= IY= Y= _JY= Duration of Analysis hrs) = a25 ICycle Length C = 100.0 ft EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 1774 1 242 1647 400 Lane group cap. 1300 1051 2383 840 v/c ratio om a23 a69 10.48 Green ratio a36 0.30 0.66 10.24 Unif. delay dl 26.1 26.3 10.6 32.6 Delay factor k 10.50 1� a50 10.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 12.0 0.5 1.7 1.9 PF factor ,86.25 1.000 0.147 1.000 Control delay 1 3E 26.8 3.2 34.5 Lane group LOS B C A C Apprch. delay 18.3 6.3 .34.5 jApproach LOS B A C Intersec. delay 13.0 Intersection LOS B HCS2000T'A Copyright C 2000 University of Florida, AM Rights Reserved version 4.1 c SHORT REPORT Geneea i fom ation-''`` _ , - 4�v, MWERMSite Informations='' Analyst GC Agency or Co. Date Performed 5/28/ Time Period A PM Intersection EAST FRONTAGE - PROSPECT Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year S T OT _ iY.olume;and•T:iFnin iln ut.��� . -,� �` f - .. .. •` � �*.� �� u.�F:"`.._. ���. EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 Lane group L T R L T R L TR L T R Volume v h 420 445 510 90 450 10 650 35 35 90 40 690 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 Actuated P/A P P P P P P P P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0. 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 4 5 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N. Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 G= 20.0 G= 28.0 G= G= G= 25.0 G= 17.0 G= G= Timing Y= 0 JY= 5 Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 5 1Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 LanemGr�ou �Ca ace .�Contcol�D"ela, .- ancl�LOS Determiriafion , �:�s Q_.,,� ,y �� �a: EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 442 468 537 95 474 11 684 74 95 42 621 Lane group cap. 700 912 775 263 532 452 876 738 229 323 678 v/c ratio 0.63 0.51 0.69 0.36 0.89 0.02 0.78 0.10 0.41 0.13 0.92 Green ratio 0.20 0.48 0.48 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.25 0.42 0.17 0.17 0.42 Unif. delay d1 36.6 17.9 20.3 28.8 34.5 26.1 34.9 17.6 1 37.1 35.2 27.3 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 4.3 2.1 5.1 3.8 19.7 0.1 6.8 0.3 5.5 0.8 19.2 PF factor 1.000 0.385 1.000 1.000 0.741 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 40.9 9.0 25.3 32.7 45.3 26.2 41.8 17.8 42.5 36.1 46.5 Lane group LOS D A C C D C D B D D D Apprch. delay _ 24.8 42.9 39.5 45.4 Approach LOS C D D D Intersec. delay 35.3 Intersection LOS D HCS2000TM Copyright® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c SHORT REPORT Analyst GC Agency or Co. Date.Performed 5/ 2003 Time Period AM PM Intersection EAST FRONTAGE - PROSPECT Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year S L OT VoQ e,andiTimin EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT I LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1. 1 1 Lane group L T R L T R L TR L T R Volume v h 515 345 660 105 355 10 540 30 30 30 70 265 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Actuated P/A P P P P P- P P I P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 120 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 4 5 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 j 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 1 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 20.0 G= 28.0 G= G= G= 25.0 G= 17.0 G= G= Y= 0 JY= 5 Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs= 0.25 Cycle Len th C = 100.0 Lane Gro_u Ca aci .. Control Dela .and LO.S DeterrriF tion EB WB NB SIB Adj. flow rate 542 363 695 111 374 11 568 64 1 32 1 74 1226 Lane group cap. 700. 912 775 290 532 452 876 738 231 323 678 v/c ratio 0.77 0.40 0.90 0.38 0.70 0.02 0.65 0.09 0.14 0.23 0.33 Green ratio 0.20 0.48 0.48 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.25. 0.42 0.17 0.17 0.42 Unif. delay d1 37.9 16.7 123.7 29.0 32.3 26.1 133.6 117.5 35.3 35.8 19.6 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 8.2 1.3 15.2 3.8 7.6 0.1 3.7 0.2 1.2 1 1.6 1.3 PF factor 1.000 0.385 1.000 1.000 0.741 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 46.0 -7.7 38.9 32.8 31.5 17.7 36.5 37.5 20.9 Lane group LOS D A D C C L6237.3 D B D D C Apprch. delay 34.3 31.7 35.3 26.1 Approach LOS I C C D C Intersec. delay 33.2 . Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c SHORT REPORT Analyst GC Intersection WEST FRONTAGE - PROSPECT Agency or Co. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 5/282 Time Period AMUM Jurisdiction Analysis Year ST( 'T)BG dOT EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L T R L T R L TR L TR Volume v h 45 1890 10 10 1620 125 10 5 10 100 5 105 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Actuated P/A P P P P P P P P I P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 4 5 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1100 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/fir Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasinq EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G= 65.0 G= G= G= G= 25.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 5 Y= Y= IY= IY= 5 Y= IY= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 r di4 Cai{#tf _ C ':aGl Calr}tr..at 0":: mom Bter#1}ir#a#r f1 EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 47 1989 11 11 117.05 132 11 16 105 10 Lane group cap. 174 2346 1050 129 2346 1050 357 426 355 440 v/c ratio 0.27 0.85 0.01 0.09 0.73 0.13 0.03 0.04 0.30 0.02 Green ratio 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Unif. delay dl 7.4 113.6 1 6.2 6.5 11.6 6.7 28.3 128.4 1 30.4 28.3 Delay factor k 6.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 10.50 0.50 0.50 10.50 -1 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 3.8 4.0 . 0.0 1.3 2.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.1 0.1 PF factor 0.438 0.143 1.000 1.000 0.143 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 7.0 6.0 6.2 7.8 3.7 1 6.9 28.5 26.6 32.5 28.4 Lane group LOS A A A A A A C C C C Apprch. delay 6.0 3.9 28.5 32.1 Approach LOS A A C C Intersec. delay 6.0 Intersection LOS A HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c SHORT REPORT Analyst GC Intersection Agency or Co. Date Performed Y{2003 Time Period 6gM)pM Jurisdiction WEST FRONTAGE - PROSPECT Area Type All other areas Analysis Year S L BG TOT kl Eui_::a f.. I r u,t:«:>:<::<:>;:>::;:»::;::::>::;:::;;:;<:>;<:;:>:>::>?:>:>:<::„:>:;:::::<:r:»:»»::»>::::>::>::::::»::>::::::;:>:::::>>:::::::>::_;::€:><::> m .m.. ncf T€m n : , .:..:....... . WB NB EB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L T R L T R L TR L TR Volume v h 70 1300 10 10 1285 85 10 5 10 80 5 60 % Heavyveh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Actuated P/A P P P P P P P P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 4 5 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr. Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 PhasingEW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 65.0 G= G= G= G= 25.0 G= �G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y- Y- ly= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 ane Gr�u Ca aci:; Cantrvt>:tartct�.tr'rtmt�tiiln:;::::<::;::;: ......................:.:.:. NB SB EB WB Adj. flow rate 74 1368 11 11 1353 89 11 16 84 5 Lane group cap. 248 2346 1050 245 2346 1050 359 426 355 475 v/c ratio 0.30 0.58 0.01 0.04 0.58 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.24 0.01 Green ratio 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Unif. delay dl 7.6 9.9 6.2 6.3 19.8 16.5 128.3 28.4 129.9 28.2 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0:50 10.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 3.1 1.1 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.6 0.0 PF factor 0.438 0.143 1.000 1.000 0.143 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 6.4 2.5 6.2 6.7 2.4 6.6 28.5 28.6 31.5 28.2 Lane group LOS A A A A A A C C C C Apprch. delay 2.7 2.7 28.5 31.3 Approach LOS A A C C Intersec. delay 3.8 Intersection LOS q HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c APPENDIX F TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY ... S* 1 00 ........ ......... ........ ......... . . ....... . . ......... Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed e me Period Tim GC 8 M&03 An Intersection B STREET- CARRIAGE Jurisdiction 'Analysis Year LTO Project Description . EastNVest Street: B STREET INorth/South Street: CARRIAGE Intersection Orientation: North -South IStud y Period (hrs): 0.25 V WON . . .. fid. thl S, Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 10 10 5 5 10 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 --0.90 11 5 5 11 16 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0- 0 1 1 Configuration L TR LT R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 5 0 5 20 0 75 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR. 5 0 5 22 0 83 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 ILanes 0 1 0 .0 1 Configuration LTR - LT I R ve, Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT LTR LT R v (vph) if 5 10 22 83 C (m) (vph) 1600 1615 897 871 1076 VIC 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.08 N25 95% queue length 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.08 0. Control Delay 7.3 7.2 9.1 9.2 8 8.6 LOS A A J_ A A A ,Approach Delay 9.1 8.8 jApproach LOS A A Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY . . ... ..... . Sties.......... Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period GC AqV2003 4m,/Pm Intersection B STREET - CARRIAGE Jurisdiction Analysis Year L T& Project Descripti;n EastNVest Street: B STREET [North/South Street: CARRIAGE Intersection Orientation: North -South IStud y Period (hrs): 0.25 .. ....... ... ... ....... . ....... .. .. -V US Southbound . ....... Major Street Northbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L:::� T R Volume 10 10 5 5 10 20 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 .0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR if 11 5 5 11 22 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 - Median Type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration L TR LT R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement .7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 5 0 5 5 0 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 0 5 5 0 16 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT I R nth . ... .. . .. . .......... ........... Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LT LTR LT R v (vph) 11 5 10 -5 16 C (m) (vph) 1592 1615 948 871 1076 VIC 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 95% queue length 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 Control Delay 7.3 7.2 6.8 9.2 8.4 LOS A A A A A Approach Delay 8.8 8.6 Approach LOS A A Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, AM Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY ±Gen:era n' ... . .. ... Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period GC 5/28 ,aQ03 AMFM Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year CARRIAGE - PROSPECT T (0)T Project Description EastNVest Street: PROSPECT INorth/South Street: CARRIAGE Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 ...... . ... ...... me Vdhilde.-M" aftesiand .. ....... . . .. .......... Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 180 300 0 0 210 25 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 200 333 0 0 233 27 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 — Median Type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes I 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L T TR U stream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound — Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 40 0 310 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 44 0 344 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 10 0 0 1 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach 'P N N Storage - 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration I L I ... ... . ... ... ... .... . .. rid ............. . .............. .............. ... ........... ......... . .. . Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L =R v (vph) 200. 44 344 C (m) (vph) 1316 335 798 VIC 0.15 0.13 0.43 95% queue length 0.54 0.45 2.19 Control Delay 17.4 12.9 LOS _-8.2 A C B Approach Delay 13.4 ,Approach LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, Al Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Genlrainfarrtttron..... ; .... Sit (tt#orrtttEor> ..;.:..::.; :: Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period GC 82003 AM PM Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year CARRIAGE - PROSPECT OLT OT Project Description EastNVest Street: PROSPECT North/South Street: CARRIAGE Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 d n...........:..... VdhtGtelatumes.:... . _.......xx: .:...:...:: ::.:...:...:: Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 225 130 0 0 340 25 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 250 144 0 0 377 27 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 . I - - Median Type Two Way Left Tum Lane RT Channelized 0 -.0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 10 0 70 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 11 0 77 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration L R Feta::, Ctuee:Len fh,;€axtd l suet of .S.erv> c.. .::><:: ... Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 250 11 77 C (m) (vph) 1166 320 663 VIC 0.21 0.03 0.12 95% queue length 0.81 0.11 0.39 Control Delay 8.9 16.7 11.1 LOS A C 8 Approach Delay — — 11.6 Approach LOS — — B HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c SHORT REPORT General=lnfomiattoi�' ,�f ���_ s Siteinfo mation�T '� �� a ?��. Analyst GC Agency or Co. Date Performed 5/28/ 03 Time Period AA" Intersection EAST FRONTAGE - PROSPECT Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year S LT BG OT {/olumegand^timin ` In 'u �- . EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 Lane group L T R L T R L TR L T R Volume v h 405 370 365 65 410 50 465 25 25 85 30 675 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated P/A P P P I P I P P P P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 4 5 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1100 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 112.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 G= 23.0 G= 27.0 G= G= G= 25.0 G= 15.0 G= G= Timing Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis(hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 Lane GrouCa aci " ,Con r>o1Dela sand " L'' sOS pefer=,minat�or>€ - EB WB NB SIB Adj. flow rate 450 411 406 72 456 56 517 56 94 33 639 Lane group cap. 805 950 808 267 513 436 876 703 205 285 694 v/c ratio 0.56 0.43 0.50 0.27 0.89 0.13 0.59 0.08 0.46 0.12 0.92 Green ratio 0.23 0.50 0.50 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.40 0.15 0.15 0.43 Unit. delay dl 34.0 16.0 16.7 28.7 35.1 27.6 33.0 18.6 38.8 36.8 26.9 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 2.8 1.4 2.2 2.5 20.0 0.6 2.9 0.2 7.2 0.8 19.5 PF factor 1.000 0.333 1.000 1.000 0.753 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 36.8 6.8 18.9 31.2 46.5 128.2 35.9 18.8 1 46.0 37.6 46.4 Lane group LOS D A B C D C D B D D D Apprch. delay 21.3 42.8 34.2 46.0 Approach LOS C D C D Intersec. delay 33.5 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c SHORT REPORT Gener la lnformntion s ,. �.a=. #.a_ .5 rteglnf `rmatton 4 x Analyst GC Agency or Co. M Date Performed 5/ Time Period M Intersection EAST FRONTAGE - PROSPECT Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year S LT BG TOT hVolume.a^d Ttmtn 'In Y4 YVAzazg" ht-a.: '.0 £ 4-0kcYwsL£'.o.'.i v b si. Fi ztr #..i P.F *+.vE+fh3 $ , EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT- TH RT Num. of Lanes 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 Lane group L T R L T R L TR L T R Volume v h 495 310 470 75 275 60 385 20 20 25 50 155 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 10.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 10.90 0.90 10.90. 0.90 Actuated P/A P P P P P P P P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2!0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 4 5 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 100 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N" N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 G= 23.0 G= 27.0 G= G= I G= 25.0 G= 15.0 G= G= Timing Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= IY= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 z Lane:.Grdu a act " ��Cont�olDela ,and�LOSUeterminat on� EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 550 344 522 83 306 67 428 44 28 56 61 Lane group cap. 805 950 808 284 513 436 876 703 208 285 694 v/c ratio 0.68 0.36 0.65 0.29 0.60 0.15 0.49 0.06 0.13 0.20 0.09 Green ratio 0.23 0.50 0.50 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.40 0.15 0.15 0.43 Unif. delay di 35.2 15.3 118.5 28.9 131.8 27.8 132.0 18.5 1 36.9 137.2 16.9 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 4.7 1.1 . 4.0 2.6 5.0 0.7 1.9 0.2 1.3 1.5 0.2 PF factor 1.000 0.333 1.000 1.000 0.753 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 39.8 6.2 22.4 31.5 29.0 28.5 34.0 18.6 38.2 38.8 17.1 Lane group LOS D A C C I C C C B D D B Apprch. delay 25.2 29.4 32.6 29.6 Approach LOS C C C C Intersec. delay 27.6 Intersection LOS LC HCS2000TM Copyright© 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4. 1 c SHORT REPORT Cerserafinfamrsatiinn ;.:; Sit e.:IrtfermatAn .. Analyst GC Agency or Co. Date Performed 5282 Time Period AMUM Intersection NB RAMPS - PROSPECT Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year (9BG OT UQ[um�;arlt#7€LttiCi Sri i1L:`.:',;.;'%::::.::::::..,:i"::.:.:;'i.::'.;'.€::°:':::;:.:: EB WB NS SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 .1 0 0 0 Lane group LT T R L R Volume v h 190 755 1235 315 480 385 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 10.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated /A P P P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 5 5 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 PedBike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 G= 10.0 G= 55.0 G= I G= G= 25.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 0 IY= 5 IY= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 lCycle Length C = 100.0 an Grau -P, EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 1050 1372 350 533 428 Lane group cap. 690 1045 888 451 404. v/c ratio 1.52 1.31 0.39 1.18 1.06 Green ratio 0.65 0.55 0.55 0.25 0.25 Unif. delay d1 17.5 1 122.5 12.9 137.5 37.5 Delay factor k 0.50 1 1 0.50 0.50 10.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 1242.2 1 147.7 1.3 102.5 61.4 PF factor 0.143 0.614 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 244.7 161.5 14.2 140.0 98.9 Lane group LOS F F B F F Apprch. delay 244.7 131.6 121.7 Approach LOS F F F Intersec. delay 160.8 Intersection LOS F HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c r SHORT REPORT ..A. Analyst GC Agency or Co. Date Performed /2003 Time Period &PM Intersection NB RAMPS - PROSPECT Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year BG O Yattrrt� antf T€m€�r . ut; .................... .:..: . NB SB EB WB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Lane group LT T R L R Volume v h 110 625 700 115 625 450 % Heavy veh 0 1 0 1 0 1 D 1 0 0 PHF 0.90 0.90 10.90 10.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated /A P P P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival e 5 5 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parldng N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 20.0 G= 35.0 G= G= I G= 35.0 1 G= IG= G= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 1 Y= I Y Iy= Duration ofAnal sis hrs = 0.25 ICycle Length C = 100.0 a e Gresu ` Ca ac[ ON Ct� tar[ci f�t75 ple#err[[[nat[i' . . ....:..:....... EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 1039 778 128 694 500 Lane group cap. 604 665 565 632 565 v/c ratio 1.72 1.17 0.23 1.10 0.88 Green ratio 0.55 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Unif. delay d1 1 122.5 1 132.5 22.9 32.5 30.6 Delay factor k 1 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 331.1 92.0 0.9 65.6 18.1 PF factor 0.185 0.641 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 335.2 112.8 23.9 98.1 48.8 Lane group LOS F F C F D Apprch. delay 335.2 100.2 77.4 Approach LOS F F E Intersec. delay 169.3 Intersection LOS F HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c SHORT Analyst GC Agency or Co. Date Performed 52WA3 Time Period AMfl� Intersection SB RAMPS - PROSPECT Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year (S) LT BG (?�T) .................. ........... V*I P A"Arl K . ..... RN W V.- X. .. .... EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH Num. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lane group TR LT LT Volume (yph) 675 815 485 1230 1260 1 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.90 0.90 10.90 10.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated (P/A) P P P I P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 12.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 5 5 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parldng N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 Unit Extension .3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing WB Only I EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 11111111V G = 20.0 1 G = 55.0 G = G = G = 15.0 G= G= -dY= G = ly= 0 IY= 5 Y= Y = IY= 5 Y= Y=- . Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 ICycle Length C = 100.0 X. es'a4s" .. . ... ..... EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 1656 1906 290 Lane group cap. 968 718 272 Wc ratio 1.71 2.65 1.07 Green ratio 0.55 0.75 1 0.15 Unif. delay dl 122.5 112.5 1 42.5 Delay factor k 10.50 0.50 1 10-50 1. Increm. delay d2 324.2 748.6 1 73.2 1 PF factor 0.988 096 - i 1.000 1.000 Control delay 346.5 761.1 115.7 Lane group LOS F 1 F' F� .1 Apprch. delay 346.5 761.1 115.7 Approach LOS F F F Intersec. delay 534.2 Intersection LOS F IN rZ HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c SHORT lyst GC Intersection SB RAMPS - PROSPECT ncy or Co. Area Type All other areas a Performed 12003 Jurisdiction �y e Period AMpM Analysis Year �LT BGn EB WB NB SB LT_ TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane group TR LT LT Volume v h 600 465 185 1140 320 1 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated P/A P P P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 5 5 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasinq WB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 G= 20.0 IY= G= 55.0 G= I G= G= 15.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 0 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 11184 1473 357 Lane group cap. 1983 1017 272 v/c ratio 1.20 1.45 1.31 Green ratio 0.55 0.75 0.15 Unif. delay dl 22.5 1 112.5 42.5 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 101.8 1 207.3 164.4 PF factor 0.469 0.349 1.000 Control delay 112.3 211.7 206.9 Lane group LOS F F F Apprch. delay 112.3 211.7 206.9 Approach LOS F F F Intersec. delay 172.1 Intersection LOS F HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General:lnformation , x ; W S tte; formation= .. n Analyst GC Agency/Co. Date Performed 5/28 03 Analysis Time Period AMffM Intersection WEST FRONTAGE - PROSPECT Jurisdiction Analysis Year ELT BG TOT O Project Description East/West Street: PROSPECT North/South Street: WEST FRONTAGE Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 U@I11CI@ �/O._IW_ nt@Sala} Atl� 5 RlefltS ' .= ll E s Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 30 1400 5 5 1240 105 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 33 1555 5 5 1377 116 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T, R Volume 5 0 5 85 0 75 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 0 5 94 0 83 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 10 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Dela Q eu ue "'. n th`� an I eve" o Service' Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LT R v (vph) 33 5 10 94 83 C (m) (vph) 456 430 2 2 166 v/c 0.07 0.01 5.00 47.00 0.50 95% queue length 0.23 0.04 2.50 14.02 2.43 Control Delay 13.5 13.5 46.6 LOS 8 B F F E Approach Delay — — Approach LOS j— — F F TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General .1nformatton. Analyst GC Intersection WESTFRONTAGE- PROSPECT Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed A812003 Analysis Year EX ST LT BG TOT Analysis Time Period A PM Project Descri tion East/West Street: PROSPECT North/South Street: WEST FRONTAGE Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudv Period (hrs): 0.25 Movement 1 L Volume 50 Peak -Hour Factor, PH 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 55 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 Median Type RT Channelized Lanes 0 Configuration LTR Upstream Signal Minor Street Movement 7 L Volume 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 Percent Grade (%) Flared Approach Storage RT Channelized Lanes 0 Approach EB Movement 1 Lane Configuration LTR v (vph) 55 C (m)(vph) 701 v/c 0.08 95% queue length 0.25 Control Delay 10.6 LOS B Approach Delay — Approach LOS — 0 0 0 0 0 0 s 0 s v� a7;5� 0 1 1 R E5 Southbound 10 11 12 LT R 77 50 26 313 2.96 0.16 9.44 0.56 18.7 F C 735.3 F APPENDIX E SHORT REPORT Analyst GC Intersection NS RAMPS - PROSPECT Agency or Co. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 5/2MF,3 Jurisdiction PW�� Time Period AMUM Analysis Year (ST(BG)TOT ... ... .... . ......... . . .. ... EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Lane group LT T R L R Volume (yph) 190 415 525 80 480 180 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHIF 0.90 0.90 1 10.90 0.90 0.90 2:-N 90 0 Actuated (P/A) P P P P I P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 5 5 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N I N 0 N N N Parking/hr I Bus stops/hr 1 0 0 0, 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EB Only I EW Perm 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 G= 10.0 G= I G= G= 35.0 G= G-- G= Timing IY= 0 Y= 5 Y= IY= IY= 5 Y= IY= --� Y= Duration of Analysis Mrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 " ". ..... ..... ... .. ... . ..... .... 1.0 N an Grcu1-0 t I .1 -.. I P0. 'W -PACRY G t EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 1672 583 89 533 200 Lane group cap. 1646 855 727 632 565 v/c ratio 11.04 0.68 0.12 0.84 0.35 Green ratio 0.55 0.45 0.45 0.35 0.35 Unif. delay d1 22.5 1 121.8 16.0 30.0 1 1 24.1 Delay factor k 0.50 1 10.50 0.50 0.50 1 10.50 + Increm. delay d2 146.3 4.4 0.3 113.0 1.7 PF factor , 0.185 0,455 . 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 50.5 14.3 16.4 42.9 25.8 Lane group LOS D B 8 D CEt Apprch. delay 50.5 14.6 38.3 Approach LOS D B D lintersec. delay 34.5 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c SHORT REPORT Analyst GC Intersection NB RAMPS - PROSPECT Agency or Co. Area Type All other areas Date Performed W003_ Jurisdiction Time Period V PM Analysis Year T G TOT EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Lane group LT T R L R Volume v h 110 405 545 65 625 205 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated P/A P I P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 5 5 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parldng N 0 N N. 0 N N 0 N N N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 15.0 1 G= 35.0 G = G= G= 40.0 G= G= G= I Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = i00.0 EB WB NB SB Adj, flow rate 572 1606 72 694 228 Lane group cap. 542 665 565 722 646 v/c ratio 1.06 0.91 0.13 0.96 0.35 Green ratio 0.50 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.40 Unif. delay d1 25.0 131.0 22.1 129.2 21.0 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 54.1 18.9 0.5 25.3 1.5 PF factor 0.333 0.641 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 62.4 38.8 122.6 54.5 22.5 Lane group LOS E. D C D C Apprch. delay 62.4 37.0 46.6 Approach LOS E D D Intersec. delay 47.8 Intersection LOS D HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Keserveo version 4. 1 c SHORT REPORT ......:..::.::.. :;°:::::.. . - :Sifer►rirorrnat>onIX Analyst GC Agency or Co. Date Performed 5/28 3 Time Period AM PM Intersection SB RAMPS - PROSPECT Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year ST LT&G TOT Yo[ritte and €min :i.n vt ..... . . . EB WB NB SB LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane group TR LT LT Volume v h 470 815 130 875 125 1 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.90. 0.90 0.90 0.90 1 1 0.90 0.90 Actuated /A P P P P I P P P Startup lost time 12.0 2.0 1 1 12.0 Ext. eff. green 12.0 2.0 1 12.0 Arrival type 5 5 1 13 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 1 13.0 PedBike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 Lane Width - . 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasina WB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 G= 15.0 G= 65.0 G= G= G= 10.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= IY= IY= 5 1 Y= ly= I Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 ICycle Length C = 100.0 a Oran ' Ca ace Controi.lIi ea ::end �.45termtnror EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 1428 1116 140 Lane group cap. 1129 999 161 v/c ratio 1.26 1.12 0.77 Green ratio 0.65 0.80 0.10 Unif. delay d1 117.5 1 110.0 43.9 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 126.4 66.4 26.9 PF factor 0.711 0.250 1.000 Control delay 138.8 68.9 70.8 Lane group LOS F E E Apprch. delay 138.8 68.9 70.8 Approach LOS F E E Intersec. delay 106.2 Intersection LOS F HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c SHORT REPORT Peneraixxinmratln>t Analyst GC Agency or Co. Date Performed A 2003 Time Period PM Intersection SB RAMPS - PROSPECT Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 0L BG OT ':<?'<>`:':=''':.<``:`:>`>`':>[»'[>`>>z€z'`a<2i><<3>j€i'!;>;;>>`i><;`:<[>i>i'>><'<«``i>f':.jii?`>i:'>`:i<_»'>'si"'> 1tn[ume arse Iirt><..: EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lane group TR LT LT Volume v h 345 465 110 1060 155 1 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 1 10.90 10.90 Actuated /A P P I P I P P P P Startu p lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 5 5 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 PedBike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 112.0 112.0 112.0 Parking/Grade/Parldng N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing WB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 20.0 G= 55.0' G= G= G= 15.0 G= G= G= Y=.O IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= IY= Iy= Duration of Analysis hrs= 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 CST]#rc? 8. r'} . s'1n �.C)S �@twt#Titi3d l '.`::' :::':'::::::.`.:::.::'.::.:..is EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 900 1300 173 Lane group cap. 964 1154 272 v/c ratio 0.93 1.13, 0.64 Green ratio 0.55 0.75 0.15 Unif. delay dl 120.8 1 112.5 39.9 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 16.8 68.5 10.8 PF factor 0.165 0.200 1.000 Control delay 20.7 71.0 50.8 Lane group LOS C E D Apprch. delay 20.7 71.0 50.8 Approach LOS C E D Intersec. delay 50.4 Intersection LOS D HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY G rreraf. inf t;�iEa�n n" t0f rmai Analyst GC Agency/Co. Date Performed 5/28 03 Analysis Time Period AMUM (M Intersection WEST FRONTAGE - PROSPECT Jurisdiction ,,, Analysis Year EX ST TG TOT Project Description East/West Street: PROSPECT North/South Street: WEST FRONTAGE Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 1 1118taS Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 30 1230 5 5 945 45 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 33 1366 5 5 1050 50 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 5 0 5 50 0 75 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 0 5 55 0 83 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R €�e[a ": Gtueue exF tit :=aid l eves flf Approach EB Seat...... .. WB . Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LT R v (vph) 33 5 10 55 83 C (m) (vph) 642 507 19 14 269 v/c 0.05 0.01 0.53 3.93 0.31 95% queue length 0.16 0.03 1.45 7.78 1.27 Control Delay 10.9 12.2 325.0 24.2 LOS B B F F C Approach Delay — — 325.0 757.4 Approach LOS — — F F TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Genet fin%zrMa.t...;: Analyst GC Agency/Co. Date Performed 2003 Analysis Time Period M PM Intersection WEST FRONTAGE - PROSPECT Jurisdiction �- Analysis Year EX ST LT�BG TOT Project Description East/West Street: PROSPECT North/South Street: WEST FRONTAGE Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 i3CE5:�%DLtl11E* a13tlIC4t5#ill@[ItS: ........... >.. Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 50 775 5 5 870 50 Peak -Hour Factor PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 55 861 5 5 966 55 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 5 0 5 30 0 45 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 0 5 33 0 50 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 1 0 0 0- 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R 4efa Gfuue Len tE� Approach ar'd ievel:o#.erne EB WB ..,.. Northbound .....: ................... Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LT R v (vph) 55 5 10 33 50 C (m) (vph) 688 786 59 40 300 v/c 0.08 0.01 0.17 0.82 0.17 95% queue length 0.26 0.02 0.56 3.11 0.59 Control Delay 10.7 9.6 78.1 242.6 19:4 LOS 8 A F F C Approach Delay — — 78.1_ 108.1 Approach LOS — — F F SHORT REPORT _ -: .'F#€�wL, i€jl'3 'S5 FA` $". General:lnfonna.. P'�''''AR&'+_CLc xF2 TS'' =:' {•- Site;lnformationz„ tt x k.... z= Analyst GC Agency or Date Performed 5/28/2,Rt,�3 Time Period AM(�P-M/j Intersection EAST FRONTAGE - PROSPECT Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year T BG OT - t z-,x Volume and'Tiinin •ln u� EA u EB WB NB SB LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 Lane group L T R L T R L TR L T R Volume v h 40 190 365 65 100 5 465 25 25 5 30 40 % Heavy veh - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated P/A P I P P I P P P P P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 4 5 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 100 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 1 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0. 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 23.0 G= 27.0 G= JG= G= 25.0 G= 15.0 G JG= Y= 0 Y= 5 IY= ly= IY= 0 Y= 5 1Y= ly= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 1 Cycle Length C = 100.0 EaW:` drou z,- acl ,,,-o , ohKDela , vand.LOS EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 44 211 406 72 111 6 517 56 6 33 0 Lane group cap. 701 950 808 321 513 436 876 703 205 285 694 v/c ratio 0.06 0.22 0.50 0.22 0.22 0.01 0.59 0.08 0.03 0.12 0.00 Green ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.40 0.15 0.15 0.43 Unif. delay d1 12.9 114.1 16.7 28.4 128.3 26.7 33.0 18.6 36.3 36.8 16.2 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 0.2 0.5 . 2.2 1.6 1.0 0.1 2.9 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.0 PF factor 0.767 0.333 1.000 1.000 0.753 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 10.1 5.2 18.9 30.0 22.3 26.8 35.9 18.8 1 36.5 37.6 16.2 Lane group LOS 8 A B C C C D I B D D B Apprch. delay 14.0 25.4 34.2 37.4 Approach LOS B C C D Intersec. delay 24.0 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c SHORT REPORT _N 3 Analyst GC Agency or Co. Date Performed 5/ak2003 Time Period AM M Intersection EAST FRONTAGE - PROSPECT Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year S LTBGTOT ��- NH`K €Vmuu EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 Lane group L T R L T R L TR L T R Volume v h 55 85 1470 75 205 5 385 20 20 5 50 20 % Heavy veh 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.90 0.90 10.90 10.90 10.90 0.90 0.90 10.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Actuated P/A P P P P P P P P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival e 4 5 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Onl NS Perm 1 07 08 G= 23.0 G= 27.0 G= G= G= 25.0 G= 15.0 G= G= Timing Y= 0 IY= 5 Y= I Y= 1Y= 0 Y= 5 jY= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 C cle Length C = 100.0 .Lane Grou aCa aci , ,Control�_Q,ela ffi and LOSRetermnation EB WB NB SIB Adj. flow rate 61 94 522 83 228 6 428 44 6 56 0 Lane group cap. 628 950 808 357 513 436 876 703 208 285 694 v/c ratio 0.10 0.10 0.65 0.23 0.44 0.01 0.49 0.06 0.03 0.20 0.00 Green ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.40 0.15 0.15 0.43 Unif. delay dl 13.3 13.2 118.5 28.4 130.3 26.7 32.0 18.5 36.3 37.2 16.2 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 0.3 0.2 4.0 1.5 2.8 0.1 1.9 0.2 0.3 1.5 0.0 PF factor 0.767 0.333 1.000 1.000 0.753 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 10.5 4.6 22.4 30.0 25.6 26.8 34.0 18.6 36.5 38.8 16.2 Lane group LOS B A C C I C C C B D D B Apprch. delay 18.9 26.8 32.6 38.5 Approach LOS B C C D Intersec. delay 25.5 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c No Text Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 360 739 30 506 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 400 821 33 562 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 9 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 10 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Qeta,a ee „:>">:'[ Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LTR v (vph) 33 10 C (m) (vph) 578 140 v/C 0.06 0.07 95% queue length 0.18 0.23 Control Delay 11.6 32.7 LOS B D Approach Delay — — 32.7 Approach LOS — — D HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University or Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 .204 420 26 725 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 204 466 28 . 805 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 11 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 12 1 0 0 Percent Heav Vehicles 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR €ieCa:' Queu..e Leri tb;.and Lavi�Lof Service ...:: ::..::.:.:.; ..:.....:.:..s:. Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LTR v (vph) 28 12 C (m) (vph) 930 175 v/c 0.03 0.07 95% queue length 0.09 0.22 Control Delay 9.0 27.1 LOS A D Approach Delay — — 27.1 Approach LOS — — D HCS2000TM Copyright® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved version a.tc TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Genera[ tnfottatEan SEf(t�fort�taittt ; Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period GC 5123 � 0 AMU'nn/ ��JJ Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year WEST FRONTAGE - PROSPECT ST LT BG TOT (Y Project Description East/West Street: PROSPECT North/South Street: WEST FRONTAGE Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 .... 1.-ObIc a Uatu. t s ac Eck d u:stmerits ,....... . Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 1 6 L T R L T R Volume 26 1068 3 3 652 25 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 28 1186 3 3 724 27 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - - 0 - - Median T e Undivided RT Channelized 0 1 1 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 0 j 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 4 0 3 32 0 69 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 0 3 35 0 76 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R ae�a :Giueue hat. .arid .Leueit)f.ervi we.... Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LT R v (vph) 28 3 7 35 76 C (m) (vph) 868 594 51 41 421 v/c 0.03 0.01 0.14 0.65 0.16 95% queue length 0.10 0.02 0.44 3.27 0.65 Control Delay 9.3 11.1 66.5 246.5 15.4 LOS A B F F C Approach Delay - - 86.5 88.3 Approach LOS - - F F TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst GC Agency/Co. Date Performed 8/2003 Analysis Time Period A PM WESTFRONTAGE- Intersection PROSPECT Jurisdiction �\ Analysis Year T LT BG TOT (EX ,6 Project Description East/West Street: PROSPECT North/South Street: WEST FRONTAGE Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle ..... ....... Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T. R Volume 46 566 4 0 952 31 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 51 628 4 0 1057 34 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 2 0 3 8 0 38 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 0 3 8 0 42 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R vela": Giusue€>"e tft iartd t"euet ofenr�ce Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration I LTR I LTR I I LTR I I LT I I R v (vph) 51 0 5 I 8 42 C (m) (vph) 647 960 101 56 270 v/c 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.14 0.16 95% queue length 0.26 0.00 0.15 0.46 0.54 Control Delay 11.0 8.8 42.5 79.7 20.8 LOS- I B I A I I E F C Approach Delay �— — 42.5 30.2 Approach LOS I — I — I E I D TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY .. EASTFRO - Analyst GC Intersection PROSPECTTAGE Agency/Co. Date Performed 52803 Jurisdiction Analysis Year ®ST LT BG TOT Analysis Time Period AM M Project Description East/West Street: PROSPECT North/South Street: EAST FRONTAGE Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 25 163 36 5 89 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 27 181 40 5 98 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 40 2 4 3 7 34 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 44 2 4 3 7 37 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR E�efa ;GtueueLen #it nd.L veif of asru ce EB WB .. Northbound Southbound Approach Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (vph) 27 5 50 47 C (m) (vph) 1505 1360 555 830 v/c 0.02 0.00 0.09 0.06 95% queue length 0.05 0.01 0,30 0.18 Control Delay 7.4 7.7 12.1 9.6 LOS A A B A Approach Delay — — 12.1 9.6 Approach LOS — — B A TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Genera[ Cnfeir�mtErn... Side infrmatton. Analyst y GC Intersection EAST FRONTAGE - PROSPECT Agency/Co. Date Jurisdiction �T LT BG TOT �/M Analysis Year Analysis Time Period Analysis Time M M on West Street: PROSPECT F North/South Street: EAST FRONTAGE section Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5, 6 L T R L T R Volume 39 64 25 1 186 1 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 43 71 27 1 206 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 'Volume 19 2 3 6 7 19 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 21 2 3 6 7 21 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR QeFa::.Gtusue:'en tF�and.level.QfSev�ce.. :.. . ....... . Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 1 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR v (vph) 43 1 26 34 C (m)(vph) 1376 1508 567 695 v/c 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.05 95% queue length 0.10 0.00 0.14 0.15 Control Delay 7.7 7.4 11.7 10.4 LOS I A A B B Approach Delay — — 11.7 10.4 (Approach LOS — — I B I B TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY . . Ger�. gem ...... ........ ..... ... .. .. .......... .. 17 y'. .1. .17 SH6.31. . . ....... ... ....... . ....... ... . .............. ... Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period GC 5/28A03 AM eMj Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year NB RAMPS - PROSPECT f--,C\ lov I Project Description East/West Street: PROSPECT INorth/South Street: NB 1-25 RAMPS Intersection Orientation: East-West IStud y Period (hrs): 0.25 WHO V ea... Um man ...... ...IX X ..... . . .. ­ ...... IX 1. .' ....... Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 175 185 0 0 136 17 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 194 205 0 0 136 is Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 777-1-0 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LT T R Upstream 0 0 - Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 438 0 35 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 486 0 38 0 0 .0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 6 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (0/6) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 0 0 Configuration LT R .. ........ _v.e xx . ...... ........ ... .. ... .... .. xxx........ .... . . Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT R v (vph) 194 486 38 C (m) (vph) 1439 336 841 V/C 0.13 1.45 0.05 95% queue length- 0.47 25.81 0.14 Control Delay 7.9 246.8 9.5 LOS A F Approach Delay 229.6 Approach LOS F HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eriera{Jnftfcin Sife trifp�cntar�Mx Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year NB RAMPS - PROSPECT (EX ) �J Analyst GC Agency/Co. Date Performed B/2003 Analysis Time Period M M Project Description EastMest Street: PROSPECT North/South Street: NB 1-25 RAMPS Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 eh#( Votumes,.td i4d ustntents Westbound Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 98 89 0 0 170 6 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 1 0.90 1.00 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 108 98 0 0 170 6 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LT T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 569 0 19 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 632 0 21 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0. 1 1 0 0 0 Configuration LT R E eCa.., Q�e e L n try and Level of ' 'ekv Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT R v (vph) 108 632 21 C (m) (vph) 1412 501 963 v/c 0.08 1.26 0.02 95% queue length 0.25 25.62 0.07 Control Delay 7.8 157.9 8.8 LOS A F A Approach Delay — — 153.1 Approach LOS — — F HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4:1 c APPENDIX C R = right turn S = straight I = laR h m MATTHEW' J. DEUCH, P.E. 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE LOVELAND, CO 80538 Phone: 70 669.2061 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Date: 5.16-03 Observer: Shelley Day' Thursday Judsdlctlon: FortCollins Intersection: ProspectlE. Frontage Road Time tiepins Northbound: EFR Southbound:. EFR Total nodhlaouth Eastbound: Prospect Westbound: Prospect Total easlhveat Total All L. S R Total L S R Total L S R Total L S R Total 7:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 •3 3 3 4 10 2 18 0 26 0 26 42 45 7;15 4 0 0 4 0 1 5 B 10 6 15 4 25 1 28 0 29 54 64 7:30 1 1 1 3 0 1 7 8 11 12 10 8 30 1 39 1 41 71 82 7:45 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 4 6 9 13 3 25 0 40 0 40 65 71 8;00 7 1 2 10 1 4 4 9 19 8 16 4 28 0 53 0 53 81 100 8:15 8 0 0 8 3 2 9 14 22 13 20 12 45 0 51 0 51 96 118 8:30 3 1 0 4 1 0 4 5 9 9 15 6 30 1 42 1_ 44 74 83 8:45 1 0 .1 2 0 1 6 7 9 7 16 6 29 0 33 0 33 62 71 7:454:45 119 1 2 1 3 24 8 1 7 119 32 56 39 164 125 128 1 1 188 1 1 188 1 316 372 PHF 0.6 0.57 0.71 0.89 4:00 8. 0 1 9 2 0 9 11 20 10 1 34 1 4 48 0 24 1 25 73 93 4:15 11 2 0 13 0 2 6 8 21 8 28 7 43 0 20 0 20 63 84 4:30 12 1 2 15 2 1 12 15 30 12 46 9 67 1 24 0 25 92 122 4:45 7 0 1 8 0 0 10 10 18 4 40 11 55 . 2 19 0 21 76 94 5:00 7 1 0 8 1 4 9 14 22 6 41 6 55 . 0 22 0 22 77 99 5:15 14 0 1 1 15 0 2 3 5 20 1 36 10 47 2 24 2 28 75 1 95 5.30 8 2 1 11 2 1 8 11 22 5 38 8 51 1 22 1 24 75 1 97 5:45 5 1 0 6 1 0 7 8 14 4 31 4 39 0 1 18 0 18 57 71 4:3M:30 140 1 2 1 4 46 3 1 7 134 44 1 90 125 1163 136 1 224 1 5 189 1 2 1 96 320 1 410 PHF 1 0.77 0.73 1 1 0.84 1 1 0.86 R = right turn S = stralght MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E. 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE LOVELAND, CO 80538 Phone: 970 669.2061 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Date: 4.8-03 Observer: Shelley Day: Tuesday Jurisdiction: Fort Collins Intersection: ProspecM. Frontage Road L - IDII WIII Time Begins Northbound: WFR Southbound: WFR Total northlsouth Eastbound: Pros ect Weetbound: Prospect Total sasttwest Total All L 8 R Total L 8 R Total L 8 R Total L 8 R Total 7:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 5 5 9 126 0 135 0 169 6 165 300 305 7:15 0 0 1 1 2 0 6 8 1 9 14 122 2 138 1 171 7 179 317 326 7:30 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 8 6 12 146 1 158 0 204 11 215 373 379 7:45 1 0 1 2 2 0 10 12 14 7 136 0 143 0 250 7 257 400 414 8:00 1 1 3 0 10 13 14 12 138 0 150 0 283 5 288 438 452 8:15 1 2 2 0 13 i5 17 15 147 3 165 0 215 8 223 388 405 :30 j 1 2 0 9 11 12 12 118 2 13 00 182 6 186 320 332 []8-4q5 0 0 1 0 6 7 7 9 121 0 130 0 174 6 180 310 317 7:30.8:30 2 1 0 1 3 8 8 1 0 38 46 51 146 1566 1 4 1 616 0 1952 131 983 1599 1650 PHF 1 0.63 0.77 1 0.93 0.05 4:00 0 0 0 0 6 0 17 23 23 7 209 0 216 0 143 3 146 362 385 4:15 2 0 0 2 9 0 20 29 31 5 238 2 245 0 157 10 1 167 412 443 4:30 2 0 2 4 7 0 26 33 37 11 259 0 270 1 154 6 161 431 468 4:45 0 0 0 0 7 0 11 18 18 5 301 1 307 1 167 3 171 478 496 5:00 0 0 1 1 9 0 12 21 22 5 270 0 275 .1 174 6 181 466 478 5:15 0 0 1 1 9 0 15 24 25 6 220 0 220 0 167 5 172 398 423 5:30 0 0 0 0 7 0 13 20 20 9. 183 0 192 0 143 6 149 341 361 5:45 1 0 0 1 5 0 11 18 17 7 191 1 190 0 148 7 155 354 371 4:16.5:15 4 0 3 1 7 32 1 0 169 101 108 126 110681 3 1 1097 3 1652 125 1 680 1 1777 1 1885 PHF 1 0.44 0.77 1 0.89 1 0.94 R = right turn S = straight I_ = laff him MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E. 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE LOVELAND, CO 80538 Phone: 970 669.2061 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Date: 4.9-03 Observer: Shelley Day: Wednesday Jurisdiction: Fort Collins Intersection: ProspectlSB 1.25 Ramp Time Begins Northbound: Southbound: 8B Ramp Total northisouth Eastbound: Prospect Westbound: Prospect Total easthwest Total All L 8. R Total L 8 R Total L S 1 R Total L S R Total 7:00 0 1 35 36 36 35 84 119 4 134 138 257 293 7:15 0 1 38 39 39 48 90 138 3 119 122 260 299 7:30 0 0 45 45 45 33 90 123 10 170 180 303 348 7:45 0 1 60 61 61 54 95 149 5 201 206 355 418 8:00 0 1 44 45 45 42 132 174 5 210 215 389 434 8:15 0 5 40 45 45 52 94 146 11 1156 167 313 358 8:30 0 4 31 35 35 56 100 136 5 1158 163 311 354 8:45 0 2 34 36 36 47 91 138 7 146 153 291 327 7:45.8:45 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 111 1 0 1175 1 186 1 186 1 0 1204 14211 625 126 1725 1 0 1 751 1 1376 1 1562 PHF nla 1 0.78 1 0.9 1 1 0.87 4:00 0 2 25 27 27 70 177 147 6 94 106 247 274 4:15 0 1 33 34 34 63 185 148 15 100 115 263 297 4:30 0 6 29 35 35 80 1159 239 6 126 132 371 406 4:45 0 1 23 24 24 88 1235 323 8 113 121 444 468 5:00 0 0 24 24 24 112 190 302 8 122 130 432 456 5:15 0 2 33 35 35 80 1551 235 8 145 153 388 423 5:30 0 3 18 21 21 77 105F 182 6 117 123 305 326 5:45 0 2 121 1 23 23 69 119 1 188 6 122 128 316 339 4:30.5:30 0 0 1 0 0 1 9 1 0 1109 1 118 1 118 1 0 1360 1739 1 1099 130 1506 1 0 1 536 1 1635 1 1753 PHF n1a 1 1 0.84 0.85 1 1 0.88 MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E. 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE LOVELAND, CO 80538 Phone: 970 669.2061 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Date: 4-10.03 Observer: Harry DAY: Thursday Jurisdiction: Fort Collins R = right turn Intersection: ProspecUNB 1.25 Ramp S = stralght L = left turn Time Begins 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 Northbound: NB Ramp . 8outhbound: Total northlsouth 132 137 166 169 116 129 122 109 Eastbound: Prospect Westbound: Prospect Total easHwast 63 81 107 93 82 73 78 82 Total All 195 218 273 262 198 202 200 171 L 130 136 162 160 111 8 0 0 0 0 0 R 2 1 4 9 5 Total 132 137 166 169 118 129 122 109 L 8 R Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 18 29 24 25 20 1 17 10 13 8 18 20 23 25 21 26 27 22 R Total 36 49 47 50 41 43 37 35 L 8 25 29 59 42 40 27 36 25 R 2 3 1 1- 1 3 5 2 Total 27 32 60 43 41 30 41 27 8:00 84.15 122 0 7 8:30 118 0 6 8:45 103 0 8 7:15.8:15 PHF 569 0 19 588 0.87 0 0 0 0 n/a 588 98 89 0 187 0.94 0 170 6 In363 0.T3 4:00 89 0 5 94 0 94 38 31 89 30 2 32 101 4:15 98 2 3 103 0 103 45 30 T5 25 4 29 104 4:30 101 0 8 109 0 109 34 37 71 40 2 .42 113 4:45 108 0 5 113 0 113. 42 48 90 32 1 33 123 129 5:00 104 2 14 120 0 120 44 48 92 33 4 37 154 5:15 108 0 5 111 0 111 54 53 117 41 6 47 107 5:30 120 1 11 132 0 132 35 36 71 30 6 36 98 5:45 113 0 8 121 0 121 32 35 8T 27 4 31 4:45•S:45 438 3 35 476 0 0 0 0 476 1T5 185 0 360 0 136 17 153 513 PHF 0.9 nla 0.84 0.81 195 207 222 239 219 APPENDIX B �- 2 S 4 — Attachments Attachment B Transportation Impact Study Pedestrian Analysis Worksheet DESTINATION Rec. -Res.( Inst: Ofc/Bus. Com., Ind. Other . (Specify) Recreation Residential a c =° Institution (school, church; civic) 0 g :OfficeBusiness .c °i Commercial 0 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 facilitylcorridor 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). O 12 Dwelling units or more. Page 4-36 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards — Repealed and Reenacted October 1, 2002 Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins 4 - Attachments Attachment A Transportation Impact Study . Base Assumptions Project Information Project Name Pios ec>< l Z 2.5 Project Location NEC Pi'os ecf =- ZS TIS Assumptions Type of Study Full: X Intermediate: Study Area Boundaries North: Merlk P. L • South: 12,-aspect East: �a�ria e West: .BLS Study Years Short Range: Zccg Long Range: - Future Traffic Growth Rate Z �o Study Intersections 1. All access drives 5. 2 c4arria e �ibs ee 6 3. T Z 5 /2ctr� 5 7. 4. s- 2 s Eosf fmoo 8• Time Period for Study M 7:00-9:00 M: 4:00-6:00 Sat Noon: A/a Trip Generation Rates 2TE Trip Adjustment Factors Passby: a7m Captive �O Flo I Market: Overall Trip Distribution SEE ATTACHED SKETCH Mode Split Assumptions Committed Roadway Improvements �uo,JG Other Traffic Studies Areas Requiring Special Study No, e r .-Y3eJ e� Date: Z3 0003 Traffic Engineer: Q Local Entity Engineer:/ - Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards — Repealed and Reenacted October 1, 2002 Page 4-35 Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of Fort Collins APPENDIX A