HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 08/01/2015dimlesco
Project & Construction Services
M.,
doniversity
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
DRAKE ROAD TURN LANE
DOCUMENTS CONTAINED WITHIN
UTILITY SUBMITTAL NARRATIVE
DITESCO PAVEMENT DESIGN
TURN LANE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
CSU SOUTH CAMPUS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
August 2015
d n
itesco
Project & Construction Services
July 30, 2015
Jason Holland
Current Planning
Development Review Center
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: CSU Research Boulevard Parking Lot:
Drake Turn Lane Project
Dear Jason,
1315 Oakridge Drive, Suite 120
Fort Collins, CO 80525
ditescoservices.com
In order to address both current and future traffic impacts near the new Colorado State University (CSU)
Research Parking Lot Project, CSU has agreed to improve the intersection of Drake Road and Research
Boulevard through the addition of a right-hand turn lane from westbound Drake Road onto northbound
Research Boulevard. This improvement was first requested by the City of Fort Collins (COFC)
Engineering Department in response to a traffic impact study produced by Kimley Horn for the CSU
South Campus. The report states the intersection is currently in need of the designated right hand turn
lane based on background traffic alone. Further, the traffic study noted that a turn lane would be
required based on future traffic forecasts. The Kimley Horn traffic study is enclosed herein. It is CSU's
understanding that CSU will fund the design and construction of all elements of the turn lane excluding
relocation of a City of Fort Collins' traffic pole at the northeast corner of the intersection. This
relocation, as well as associated design, mast arm replacement (if needed); electrical and control wiring;
conduit installation/relocation will be funded and performed by the City.
The expanded turn lane area less than one-half acre in size and is contained within the Drake Road right
of way. The project spans from Research Boulevard east to the Larimer #2 Ditch Crossing of Drake Road.
Work includes milling and overlay of the existing bike lane, excavation of the current shoulder,
placement of base course and asphalt paving, as well as a new concrete pavement, curb, gutter and
sidewalk. Work also includes installation of directional ramps, roadway striping, and traffic pole
relocation. Drainage routing will maintain its historical pattern with outlet to the Larimer #2 ditch.
Storm water drainage currently runs from west to east through the intersection and will be maintained
in its current general path along the new edge of roadway.
During preliminary design of the turn lane, there were several considerations and constraints that we
wish to outline in this narrative.
Page 1 of 3
Roadway GeometN
The lane bay taper and overall length conform to LCUASS standard 40 mph design speeds, which specify
a 160 foot taper bay and overall 315 foot turn lane length at full stop condition. We feel this design
meets both the design needs of the roadway as well as serves the expected traffic demand.. The bike .
lane will be 5-feet wide to match the bike lane width both to the east and west of the project area.
Horizontal and vertical design related to the Larimer #2 Canal Crossing (bridge replacement) at Drake
Road will need to be coordinated with this design. We feel the design presented with the Site Plan
Administrative Review (SPAR) package provides flexibility to the City to connect to the turn lane in a
convenient location with approximate grades to the existing roadway.
Pavement Design
CSU commissioned a preliminary geotechnical report from Terracon Consultants for the project which
included a recommended pavement design based on Larimer. County Urban Area Street Standard
minimum pavement thicknesses for an arterial roadway. The recommendation was for a thru-lane and
not based data presented from the Kimley Horn traffic study. As such, we developed an alternate
pavement design recommendation based on the forecast traffic volumes with a very conservative
growth rate. This information is attached to this transmittal and shown in the construction plans.
Landscaping
Currently there are eight crab apple trees within the Drake Road right of way which would be removed
as part of the turn lane widening. They are shown replaced with COFC standard street trees in order to
maintain a more uniform appearance with this section of roadway in comparison to other area City
streets. We have selected an Oak species for these replacement trees. However, we look forward to
the City Forester's recommendation on the most appropriate tree installation for this location.
Drainage
We have calculated the additional impervious drainage tributary area using the Urban Area Drainage
Criteria Manual (Fort Collins Amended) and found that the increase in stormwater runoff due to new
pavement installation is an approximate 10% increase from the existing condition in the tributary basin.
Currently the tributary area is approximately 0.9 acres with a flow of 9 CPS during a 100 year storm
event with a 5 minute return interval. The addition of the turn lane adds 0.090 acres with a
corresponding flow of 0.9 CPS at 100 year storm event for a total of 9.9 CPS. The 5 year storm event
flows for existing and proposed conditions are 3.3 CPS and 3.6 CPS respectively. The 2 year storm event
flows are 2.6 CPS and 2.9 CPS, respectively. Due to the small magnitude of this increase and the
historical drainage directly into an open channel ditch system, we do not intend to provide a formal
drainage report for this project.
While this project does not fall under the strict Character, Location and Extent requirements of State
Statute as it is a public right of way improvement, Colorado State University feels it honors the
agreement made to install this turn lane improvement with the Research Parking Lot project. Through
this SPAR submittal, CSU is demonstrating its commitment to continue its ongoing partnership with the
City and will ensure it meets applicable City standards.
Page 2 of 3
If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please do not hesitate to contact me by email at
keith.mever@ditescoservices.com or by phone at 970-988-8605. Thank you for your attention and
assistance in this matter.
Since el ,
Keith eye , PE
Ditesco
Enc.
Cc: Laura Bentley, CSU Project Manager
Gene Ellis, CSU Utilities Services Manager
Fred Haberecht, CSU Facilities Management
Page 3 of 3
JT:)94tA57- 7r,(IofA)
ZXWr �A
k
)
�
;
2
>
m
.
q
2
lu
k
k
k
§
18KIP_Drake Turn Lane
COMPUTATION SHEET FOR 18 KIP EDLA'S FOR CITY STREETS
i
t
Subdivision/PUD Name: None
Street Name: Drake From:
Turn Lane To:
at Research westbound
Class: Arterial
For: CSLI Facilities
Date: 7/8/2015
Traffic Growth Rate:
0.1
Year ADT
% Trucks:
4.00
2015 244
% Trucks in Design Lane:
100.00
2035 1,642
No. of Heavy Trucks = (Current ADT)'(% Trucks)'(% Trucks in Design Lane) =
9.76
Average Gross Weight = 25,000 lbs.
Single Axle Load Limit = 20,000 lbs.
Initial Traffic Number (ITN) - from nomograph =
4.5
Design Period = 20 years
Growth Rate = (Future ADT/Current ADT) =
6.73
18 kip EDLA = (ITN)'(Growth Rate) =
30.27
(/
EDLA Recommended to Consultant:
35
ESALs:
255,500
Comments:
Engineer:
FILED
Page 1
-- MizA.,
0
C
r
�l
tti•er-
A B
C E
EXAMPLE I t !
A B
1a:oc1
6.000
1.000 p
7.000 IS
7.000
7
G I.oao
�edo
m 6rJ]
16E
—
p li
0
S
0
3 1 7 y
G 7 60 j
� I
7
I
ITN value mar require correction ..here the JOT of automobiles
and light truth it relanveiv h;qh. See Figure III.7
Additional copier of thin nomograph are available or the
neareu Ataholt lnnrtute allies.
Figure Ili-l—Traffic analysis cliart
14
7-7
... - . -. --.
..ter _ �`•f..�- �� b.�7
• -- I.�.t�..I� 1Ii
'r-f0m L G U A 55
Chapter 10 - PAVEMENT DESIGN AND REPORT
Section 10.2 Final Pavement Design - Soil Investigation Requirements
final elevation, generally within 6 inches or final subgrade elevation. Any required fill
C material shall be placed to the subgrade elevation prior to sampling.
. Table 10-1
Flexible Pavement Design Criteria
'
�Mlnlmum �
Default .
FuII�Deptli
20-Year Deslg`ti
Asphalt
lot
Agregate
Bide :Pavement
Asphalt
Traffic
IsdNIceadllity ;
,Rena_=
Composite
Course
Thickness
1lnformation�
__index _
bn
_Section :
'Section.i
_inches':
RDAD
_
,�.,
� t
, ip
_ _ 1
Layer;
_Layer,.:
layer,
iMlfi:.
i
indhes _
_Inchesw
inches
Strict.:
.CLASSIFICATION
EDLA'_
�ESAL_
Iriit.
jF(nall
.,'sill
_;' 96
:No.4 _I
_ liMA�:
_ABC_
__ M1n:. -.
LOCAL
Resld. two lane
5
38,500
4.5
2.0
2.5
75
4.0
6.0
6.0
2.45
Resid. Cut-deeac
10
73,000
4.5
2.0
2.5
80
5.4
6.0
6.5
2.82
and single lane°
IndusUcommercial
50
365,000
4.5
2.3
2.2
75
5.5
11.0
8.5
3.60
COLLECTOR
Minor
25
182,500
4.5
2.3
2.2
75
5.5
7.0
7.6
3.20
Major
50
365.000
4.5
2.3
2.2
85
6.5
9.0
8.5
3.82
IndusUcommerclal
100
730.000
4.5
2.3
2.2
85
7.0
11.0
10.0
4.30
ARTERIAL
Two lane
100
730,000
AS
2.5
2.0
90
7.5
11.5
NA
4.51
Four lane ¢-
200
1,460,000
4.5
2.5
2.0
90
8.0
15.0
NA
4.90
Six lane
300
2.190,000
4.5
2.5
2.0
90
8.5
17.0
NA
525
NOTES:
�adng surface course shall be Grading S or SX for residential roadway classification and Grading S for cofiectors, arterials, and all
hrdustriallcommer ial roadways.
' Full depth pavement may be used only on Local f Residential Class roads with written approval of the Local Entity Engineer.
EDLA shall be cakxdated based on projected traffic uses. Minimum EDLA values are as given for the design lane. The Engineer may
require greater EDLA values If warranted, City of Fort Collins will provide all EDLA numbers for City of Fort Collins projects. The EDLA
for a roundabout shall Include the cumulative EDLA for each entry leg. EDLA for arterial/cofiector Intersections shag be two-way traffic.
Minimum structural numbers are based on subgrade R.value = 5 and CDOT calculations: MR a 3,025 and Sid. Deviation = 0.44 CDOT
Design methods shag be used for resilient modulus calculations for all roads
° Single lane refers to a paved surface less than 20 feet wide, Including residential a".
° Mlnfmax fill thicknesses: Grade SX -1 1272120, Grade S-273.5', Grade SG • 3'15' (2' Minimum surface wearing course) in
Loveland, Grade SG may only be used with a variance approval
The minimum HMA section for Composite pavement s shag be 4-Inches for Local, 54nches for Collectors, and 0-Inches for Artedals.
10.2.2 Frequency of Testing
A minimum of one boring shall be obtained for any roadway segment. A second boring
shall be required in the trench of any installed utilities. The distance between borings .
shall not exceed 500 feet, two borings per location where utility trenches exist (one
Cboring in the trench and one in compacted subgrade). Multiple samples shall be taken
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards - Repealed and Reenacted April 1, 2007 Page 10-3
Adopted by Larimer County, City of Loveland, City of fort Collins
Geotechnical Engineering Report 1%rr�c®�
South Campus Parking Lot Right Turn Lane a Fort Collins, Colorado
June 23, 2015 o Terracon Project No. 20145073
After completion of the application and compaction, the treated subgrade should be allowed to
cure for a minimum of 48 hours prior to continuing construction. A longer cure time may be
necessary depending on adverse weather conditions and protection measures implemented by
the contractor. During this cure time, the surface of the treated subgrade should be kept moist
by periodically sprinkling with water.
Strength gains of the treated subgrade will be slower during cooler weather periods, particularly
if the temperature drops below 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Construction traffic on the treated
subgrade prior to pavement construction should be eliminated and the subgrade should be
protected from freezing or drying at all times until pavement construction. Covering the subgrade
or other protective measures may be required.
Once trimming and the final subgrade elevation has been reached, the treated subgrade should
be proof -rolled with a rubber tire vehicle with at least 18 kips per axle. Areas of the treated
subgrade that are soft, excessively wet, or unstable should be repaired by drying and/or removal
and replacement. Chemically treated soils can be re -used as backfill for repaired areas.
4.3.2 Pavements — Design Recommendations
Design of pavements for the project have been based on the procedures outlined in the 1993
Guideline for Design of Pavement Structures prepared by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Ladmer County Urban Area Street
Standards (LCUASS). /
A sample of the fill materials selected for swell -consolidation testing exhibited no movement when
wetted under an applied pressure of 150 psf. Therefore, swell -mitigation of the subgrade materials
prior to pavement operations is not required.
Anticipated traffic loading conditions were determined from the flexible Pavement Design Criteria
presented in Table10-1 of LCUASS for pavement thickness design for this project. We utilized an
j 18-kip Equivalent Daily Load Application (EDLA) of 200 for our analysis.
For flexible pavement design, a terminal serviceabiLdy fides of, 2.0; was utilized along with an inherent
reliability Of_" t and a design life of 20Years. Using the correlated design R-value of 4,
appropriate ESAL, environmental criteria and other factors, the structural numbers (SN) of the
pavement sections were determined on the basis of the 1993 AASHTO design equation.
In addition to the flexible pavement design analyses, a rigid pavement design analysis was
completed based upon AASHTO design procedures. Rigid pavement design is based on an
evaluation of the Modulus of Subgrade Reaction of the soils (k-value), the Modulus of Rupture of
the concrete, and other factors previously outlined. The design k-value of 72 for the subgrade
soil was determined by correlation to the laboratory test results. A modulus of rupture of 600 psi
(working stress 450 psi) was used for pavement concrete. The rigid pavement thickness for each
traffic category was determined on the basis of the AASHTO design equation.
Responsive n Resourceful o Reliable 8
Geotechnical Engineering Report �������®�
South Campus Parking Lot Right Turn Lane a Fort Collins, Colorado
June 23, 2015 a Terracon Project No. 20145073
Chemical treatment of the subgrade soils below the proposed right turn lane will improve stability,
enhance performance, and extend the life of the pavement system. In addition, the chemical
treatment will reduce the thickness of the pavement section. The recommended pavement
thickness alternatives for the proposed right turn lane is presented in the following table.
Pavement Thickness Recommendations
Fly ash
Aggregate
Hot mix
Concrete
Total
Traffic area
treatment
base course
asphalt (HMA)
(inches)
(inches)
(inches)
(inches)
(inches)
-
15
8
-
23
West Drake
121
10
7
-
29
Road Right
122
8
6
-
26
Turn Lane
-
-
-
9
9
1. Recommended pavement tM mess N a fly ash -sod mixture design and field testing coneiations ARE NOT performed.
2. Recommended pavement tMdmess If By asfrso l mixture design and field testing corretaWro ARE performed.
Aggregate base course (if used on the site) should consist of a blend of sand and gravel which
meets strict specifications for quality and gradation. Use of materials meeting Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT) Class 5 or 6 specifications is recommended for aggregate
base course. Aggregate base course should be placed in lifts not exceeding 6 inches and
compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry unit weight as determined by ASTM .
D698.
Asphaltic concrete should be composed of a mixture of aggregate, filler and additives (if required)
and approved bituminous material. The asphalt concrete should conform to approved mix
designs stating the Superpave properties, optimum asphalt content, job mix formula and
recommended mixing and placing temperatures. Aggregate used in asphalt concrete should
meet particular gradations. Material meeting CDOT Grading S specifications or equivalent is
recommended for asphalt concrete. Mix designs should be submitted prior to construction to
verify their adequacy. Asphalt material should be placed in maximum 3-inch lifts and compacted
within a range of 92 to 96 percent of the theoretical maximum (Rice) density (ASTM D2041).
Where rigid pavements are used, the concrete should be obtained from an approved mix design
with the following minimum properties (Class "P", refer to LCUASS Chapter 22 and 23) produced
from an approved mix design with the following minimum properties:
Properties
Value
Compressive strength
4,000 psi
Cement type
Type I or II portland cement
Entrained air content (°/.)
5 to 8
Concrete aggregate
ASTM C33 and CDOT Section 703
Responsive o Resourceful o Reliable 9
fro , �ra� .c Anc1,$,5
2o25 Batgrour)� -+ Pro-ec � AM[PM1
(--- 183(451)
100((22791
555(215) _� I
92(105)�, g
n o
N
E^-39(150)
e-70(238)
132(128)T I
218(136)�.
41(155)--.} n
n ci
i
l r,-27(72)
W ]I ICE 13(36)
6(1 t) -- 4 I I
4(9) fe
mP
N 1�p
(�15(41)
4(28) --;1 I 1
28(109) =
m
n
E-658(15627
L,-48(91)
97(54) —�
1184(1071)� ) T
25(24) -y ,q
\ f ^ 8
CSU SOUTH CAMPUS PARKING LOT
2025 BACKGROUND
PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
NOF=tTH
NTS =336002
01 S_
iG 8(L148(53)
4-671(1064)
r377(290)
167(60)
1066(1143) �
137(60) gg
226(53)
i-936(1742)
124(28)�7
1181(1402)�
LEGEND
Study Area Key Intersection
XXX(XXX) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Weekday AM(PM)
xx,x00 Estimated Daily Traffic Volume
FIGURE 8
Kim a>>7
�I FT r
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Background + Project PM.syn
4: Meadowlark Avenue/Research Boulevard & Drake Road 202015
Lane Configurations
+i
i'
Volume (veh1h)
54
1071
24
91
1562
153
23
43
56
253
150
92
Number
7
4
14
3
8
18
5
2
12
1
6
16
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A-pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Sat Flow vehfilln
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
190.0
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
Cap,vehlh
171
2122
52
311
1975
197
164
483
410
365
300
155
Arrive On Green
0.04
0.59
0.59
0.04
0.59
0.59
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0,26
Sat Flow.veh1h
1774
3621
89
1T74
3334
333
1052
1863
1583
1263
1159
598
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
93
626
621
117
937
933
36
57
66
278
0
323
Grp Sat Flow(s),veWn
1774
1863
1B47
1774
1853
18N
1052
1863
1583
1263
0
1757
Q Serve(g_s), s
2.3
22.6
22.7
2.8
44.6
47.1
3.5
2.5
3.5
23.3
0.0
18.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
2.3
22.6
22.7
2.8
44.6
47.1
21.5
2.5
3.5
25.8
0.0
18.0
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.05
1.00
0.18
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.34
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
171
1092
1082
311
1104
1069
164
483
410
365
0
455
V/C Ratio(X)
0.54
0.57
0.57
0.38
0.85
0.87
0.22
0.12
0.16
0.76
0.00
0.71
Avail Cap(c_a),vehlh
203
1092
1082
382
1104
1069
164
483
410
365
0
455
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
23.2
13.9
13.9
11.1
18.1
18.6
46.1
30.6
30.9
40.4
0.0
36.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
2.7
2.2
2.2
0.8
8.2
9.8
3.1
0.5
0.8
14.0
0.0
9.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile Back of Q (50%), vahAn
2.6
10.1
10.0
1.1
21.3
22.1
1.1
1.3
1.5
8.9
0.0
9.2
Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh
25.9
16.1
16.2
11.8
26.2
28.4
49.1
31.1
31.8
54.5
0.0
45.3
Lane Grp LOS
C
B
B
B
C
C
D
C
C
D
D
Approach Vol, veh1h
1340
1987
159
601
Approach Delay, s/vah
16.8
26.4
35.4
49.6
Approach LOS
8
C
D
D
Assigned Phs
7
4
3
8
2
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
8.0
67.3
8.7
68.0
32.0
32.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
6.0
61.0
9.0
64.0
28.0
28.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll), s
4.3
24.7
4.8
49.1
23.5
27.8
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.0
30.5
0.1
13.7
1.6
0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctri Delay
27.0
HCM 2010 LOS
C
Notes
2025 Background + Project PM 1/2612015 Synchro 8 Report
Page i
roM
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Background + Project AM.syn
4: Meadowlark Avenue/Research Boulevard & Drake Road 2/2/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBq
Lane Configurations
i
t'
Volume (veh1h)
97
1184
25
48
658
244
48
131
103
56
23
22
Number
7
4
14
3
6
18
5
2
12
1
6
16
Initial Q (Ob), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A-pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Sat Flow veWn
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
190.0
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
Cap,veh/h
349
2232
93
257
1540
635
312
419
356
210
175
208
Arivs On Green
0.05
0.63
0.63
0.03
0.61
0.81
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
023
Sat Flow,veh1h
1774
3552
147
1T74
2509
1034
1312
1863
1583
1020
776
923
Grp Volume(v), vehm
145
756
748
81
626
567
66
185
172
84
0
81
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hMn
1774
1863
1837
1774
1863
1680
1312
1863
1583
1020
0
1700
Q Serve(g_s), s
3.1
27.1
27.2
1.8
20.8
21.0
4.6
9.1
10.1
8.2
0.0
4.1
Cycle 0 Ctear(g_c), s
3.1
27.1
27.2
1.8
20.8
21.0
8.7
9.1
10.1
17.3
0.0
4.1
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.08
1.00
0.62
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.54
Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh
349
1170
1154
257
1143
1031
312
419
356
210
0
383
V/C Rabo(X)
0.42
0.65
0.65
0.31
0.55
0.55
0.21
0.44
0.48
0.40
0.00
0.21
Avail Cap(c a), veh1h
462
1170
1154
313
1143
1031
312
419
356
210
0
383
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
9.5
12.4
12.4
11.0
12.0
12.0
37.2
35.5
35.9
43.0
0.0
33.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
0.8
2.8
2.8
0.7
1.9
2.1
1.5
3.3
4.6
5.6
0.0
1.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile Back of Q (50%), veh1ln
1.2
11.8
11.7
0.7
9.1
8.3
1.7
4.7
4.4
2.5
0.0
1.9
Lane Grp Delay (d), slveh
10.3
15.2
15.3
11.7
13.9
14.1
38.7
38.9
40.5
48.6
0.0
34.9
Lane Grp LOS
B
B
B
B
B
B
D
D
D
D
C
Approach Vol, vehm
1649
1274
423
185
Approach Delay, slveh
14.8
138
39.5
41.9
Approach LOS
B
B
D
D
Assigned Phs
7
4
3
8
2
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
92
71.0
7.6
69.5
28.0
28.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax) s
12.0
67.0
7.0
62.0
24.0
24.0
Max Q Clear Time (g c+l1), s
5.1
292
3.8
23.0
12.1
19.3
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
02
27.1
0.0
27.7
2.1
1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
18.7
HCM 2010 LOS
B
Was
2025 Background + Project AM 1/2612015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
�eotechnical Engineerinrl Report
South Campus Parking Lot Right Turn Lane
Northeast of West Drake Road and Research Boulevard
9
Fort Collins, Colorado
June 23, 2015
Terracon Project No. 20145073
Prepared for:
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado
0reoared bv:
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Fort Collins, Colorado
11�
June 23, 2015
Colorado State University
Facilities Management
6030 Campus Delivery
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-6030
Attn: Mr. Tony Flores
Project Manager
P: (970) 491-7110
E: steven.flores@colostate.edu
Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report
South Campus Parking Lot Right Turn Lane
Northeast of West Drake Road and Research Boulevard
Fort Collins, Colorado
Terracon Project No. 20145073
Dear Mr. Flores:
Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has completed the geotechnical engineering services for
the project referenced above. These services were performed in general accordance with our
supplemental Proposal No. P20140246 and dated December 29, 2014 and Consultant
Agreement (CSU Project No. 14-031). This geotechnical engineering report presents the results
of the subsurface exploration and provides geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork
and the design and construction of city -maintained pavements for the proposed right turn lane
providing access to the project.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions
concerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
i ,
Bry a C. Reeves, E.I. Eric D. Bernh,,
Geotechnical Engineer Geotechnical
Enclosures
Copies to: Addressee (via e-mail)
City of Fort Collins (rrichter@fcgov.com)
5 'p5
0?`4 Terracon Consultants, Inc. 1901 Sharp Point Drive, Suite C Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
P (9701484 0359 F (9701 484 0454 terracon.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................ i
1.0
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1
2.0
PROJECT INFORMATION............................................................................................ 2
2.1 Project Description.............................................................................................. 2
2.2 Site Location and Description............................................................................. 2
3.0
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS....................................................................................... 2
3.1 Typical Subsurface Profile.................................................................................. 2
3.2 Laboratory Testing ........... :.................................................................................. 3
3.3 Water -Soluble Sulfates....................................................................................... 3
3.4 Groundwater....................................................... ....?................... ........................ 3
4.0
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
..................................... 4
4.1 Geotechnical Considerations............................................................................... 4
4.1.1 Existing Fill..............................................................................................
4
4.1.2 Expansive Soils.......................................................................................
4
4.1.3 Potentially Unstable Subgrade Conditions ...............................................
4
4.2 Earthwork...........................................................................................................
5
4.2.1 Site Preparation........................................................................................
5
4.2.2 Subgrade Preparation..............................................................................
5
4.2.3 Fill Materials and Placement.....................................................................
5
4.2.4 Compaction Requirements.......................................................................
6
4.2.5 Grading and Drainage...............................................................................
7
4.3 Pavements..........................................................................................................7
4.3.1 Chemically Treated Subgrade.................................................................
7
4.3.2 Pavements — Design Recommendations.................................................
8
4.3.3 Pavements — Maintenance.....................................................................10
5.0
GENERAL COMMENTS.....................:.............:...........................................................10
Appendix A — FIELD EXPLORATION
Exhibit A-1 Site Location Map
Exhibit A-2 Exploration Plan
Exhibit A-3 Field Exploration Description
Exhibits A-4 and A-5 Boring Logs
Appendix B — LABORATORY TESTING
Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing Description
Exhibit B-2 Atterberg Limits Test Results
Exhibit B-3 Swell -consolidation Test Results
Exhibit B-4 R-value Test Results
Exhibit B-5 Water -Soluble Sulfate Test Results
Appendix C — SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Exhibit C-1 General Notes
Exhibit C-2 Unified Soil Classification System
Exhibit C-3 Laboratory Test Significance and Purpose
Exhibits C-4 and C-5 Report Terminology
Geotechnical Engineering Report lrerr�con
South Campus Parking Lot o Fort Collins, Colorado
June 23, 2015 o Terracon Project No. 20145073
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A geotechnical investigation has been performed for the proposed right turn lane planned to provide
access to the proposed South Campus Parking Lot to be constructed northeast of West Drake
Road and Research Boulevard in Fort Collins, Colorado. Two (2) borings, presented as Exhibits
A-4 and A-5 and designated as Boring No. 6 and Boring No. 7, were performed to depths of
approximately 5 to 10 feet below existing site grades. This report specifically addresses the
recommendations for the proposed right turn lane east of Research Boulevard. Borings performed
in these areas are for informational purposes and will be utilized by others.
Based on the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, the site can be developed for
the proposed project. However, the following geotechnical considerations were identified and will
need to be considered:
❑ Existing, fill was encountered in the borings performed on this site to depths ranging from
about 3 to 5 feet below existing site grades. We believe the fill was likely placed during over -
excavation and recompaction below the existing roadway. However, fill materials in existing
landscape areas should be removed and recompacted prior to pavement construction.
❑ Subgrade stabilization will be required for the proposed right turn lane. We recommend
stabilizing the subgrade soils below the proposed right turn lane by chemically treating the
subgrade soils with fly ash to a minimum depth of 12 inches below the aggregate base
course. Recommended subgrade stabilization alternatives are presented in this report.
❑ New pavements can be constructed on properly prepared, on -site soils or newly placed
engineered fill. Recommended pavement thicknesses for alternative pavement sections
are presented in the report.
❑ Close monitoring of the construction operations discussed herein will be critical in achieving
the design subgrade support. We therefore recommend that Terracon be retained to
monitor this portion of the work.
This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It should
be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must
be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The section
titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an understanding of the report limitations.
Responsive ❑ Resourceful ❑ Reliable
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
South Campus Parking Lot Right Turn Lane
Northeast of West Drake Road and Research Boulevard
Fort Collins, Colorado
Terracon Project No. 20145073
June 23, 2015
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services performed for the
proposed right turn lane planned on west bound West Drake Road to provide access to the
proposed South Campus Parking Lot to be located northeast of West Drake Road and Research
Boulevard in, Fort Collins, Colorado. The purpose of these services is to provide information and
geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:
❑ subsurface soil conditions ❑ pavement construction
❑ groundwater conditions ❑ earthwork
❑ grading and drainage
Our geotechnical engineering scope of work for this project included the initial site visit, the
advancement of two borings test borings to depths ranging from approximately 5 to 10 feet below
existing site grades, laboratory testing for soil engineering properties and engineering analyses
to provide pavement design and construction recommendations.
Logs of the borings along with an Exploration Plan (Exhibit A-2) are included in Appendix A. The
results of the laboratory testing performed on soil samples obtained from the site during the field
exploration are included in Appendix B.
Previously, Terracon performed a geotechnical study for the parking lot planned north of the
proposed turn lane, as presented in Report No. 20145073 dated January 30, 2015. Information
from the previous study was used in the evaluation of the current project.
Responsive ❑ Resourceful ❑ Reliable
Geotechnical Engineering Report
South Campus Parking Lot Right Turn Lane o Fort Collins, Colorado
June 23, 2015 o Terracon Project No. 20145073
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Project Description
l rerracon
Item
Description
Site layout
Refer to the Exploration Plan (Exhibit A-2 in Appendix A)
We understand a right turn lane is planned for this project. We
anticipate asphalt will be used for paving of the right turn lane. We
Proposed construction
have collaborated with City of Fort Collins personnel to address
subgrade stabilization, traffic loading, and pavement section
alternatives.
We anticipate minor grading will be required to provide a level
Grading
surface to receive aggregate base course and asphalt pavements.
The design team is anticipating fly ash stabilization of the subgrade
materials.
2.2 Site Location and Description
Item
Description
The right turn lane is located at the northeast comer of the
Location
intersection of West Drake Road and Research Boulevard in Fort
Collins, Colorado.
We understand the proposed right turn lane will be constructed
Existing improvements
along the westbound lane of West Drake Road, east of Research
Boulevard.
The ground is covered with asphalt pavements, a gravel shoulder,
Current ground cover
landscaped grass, and mature trees.
Existing topography
The site is relatively flat.
3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.1 Typical Subsurface Profile
Specific conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs
included in Appendix A. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate
location of changes in soil types; in -situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Based
on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as
follows:
Responsive ❑ Resourceful ❑ Reliable 1 2
Geotechnical Engineering Report 1 r�rr�c®n
South Campus Parking Lot Right Turn Lane o Fort Collins, Colorado
June 23, 2015 o Terracon Project No. 20145073
Material Description
Approximate Depth to Bottom of
Consistency/Density/Hardness
Stratum (feet)
Asphalt pavement
About 10 inches thick in boring No. 7
only.
Landscaped grass
About 5 inches thick in Boring No. 6
_
only.
Fill materials consisting of lean
About 3 to 5 feet below existing site
_
clay and sand
grades.
Lean clay
To the maximum depth of exploration
Medium stiff to stiff
of about 10 feet in Boring No. 6 only.
3.2 Laboratory Testing
A representative soil sample was selected for swell -consolidation testing and exhibited no
movement when wetted. Samples of site soils selected for plasticity testing exhibited medium
plasticity with liquid limits ranging from 48 to 49 and plasticity indices ranging from 24 to 25.
Laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B.
3.3 Water -Soluble Sulfates
Results of water-soluble sulfate testing indicate that ASTM Type I or II portland cement should be
specified for all project concrete on and below grade. Foundation concrete should be designed
for low sulfate exposure in accordance with the provisions of the ACI Design Manual, Section
318, Chapter 4.
3.4 Groundwater
Groundwater was not observed in the test borings at the time of field exploration.
The boreholes were observed while drilling and after completion for the presence and level of
groundwater. Groundwater was not observed in the borings while drilling, or for the short duration
that the borings were allowed to remain open.
Groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff
and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Therefore, groundwater
levels during construction or at other times in the life of the pavements may be higher or lower
than the levels indicated on the boring logs. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations
should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project.
Responsive o Resourceful o Reliable 3
Geotechnical Engineering Report lr�if�
South Campus Parking Lot Right Turn Lane o Fort Collins, Colorado
con
June 23, 2015 ❑ Terracon Project No. 20145073
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
4.1 Geotechnical Considerations
Based on subsurface conditions encountered in the borings, the site appears suitable for the
proposed construction from a geotechnical point of view provided certain precautions and design
and construction recommendations described in this report are followed. We have identified
geotechnical conditions that could impact design and construction of the proposed pavements,
and other site improvements.
4.1.1 Existing Fill
As previously noted, existing fill was encountered to depths up to about 5 feet in the borings drilled
at the site. We do not possess any information regarding whether the fill was placed under the
observation of a geotechnical engineer. We believe the fill was likely placed during over -excavation
and recompaction below the existing roadway. However, fill materials in existing landscape areas
should be removed and recompacted prior to pavement construction.
Support of pavements on or above existing fill soils is discussed in this report. There is an inherent
risk for the owner that compressible fill or unsuitable material within or buried by the fill will not be
discovered.
4.1.2 Expansive Soils
Laboratory testing indicates the on -site clay soils exhibited no movement at the samples in -situ
moisture content: However, it is our opinion these ,materials will exhibit a higher expansive
potential if the clays undergo a significant loss of moisture.
This report provides recommendations to help mitigate the effects of soil shrinkage and
expansion. However, even if these procedures are followed, some movement and cracking in
the pavements should be anticipated. The severity of cracking and other damage will probably
increase if any modification of the site results in excessive wetting or drying of the expansive
clays. Eliminating the risk of movement and distress is generally. not feasible, but it may be
possible to further reduce the risk of movement if significantly more expensive measures are used
during construction. It is imperative the recommendations described in section 4.2.5 Grading
and Drainage of this report be followed to reduce movement.
4.1.3 _Potentially Unstable Subgrade Conditions
Subgrade stabilization will be required before any new pavements or aggregate base course is
placed at this site. We recommend stabilizing the subgrade soils below the proposed right turn
lane by chemically treating the subgrade soils with fly ash to a minimum depth of 12 inches below
the aggregate base course. Recommended subgrade stabilization alternatives are presented in
this report.
Responsive 13 Resourceful ❑ Reliable 4
Geotechnical Engineering Report lrerracon
South Campus Parking Lot Right Turn Lane ❑ Fort Collins, Colorado
June 23, 2015 ❑ Terracon Project No. 20145073
4.2 Earthwork
The following presents recommendations for site preparation, excavation, subgrade preparation
and placement of engineered fills on the project. All earthwork on the project should be observed
and evaluated by Terracon on a full-time basis. The evaluation of earthwork should include
observation of over -excavation operations, testing of engineered fills, subgrade preparation,
subgrade stabilization, and other geotechnical conditions exposed during the construction of the
project.
4.2.1 Site Preparation
Prior to placing any fill, strip and remove existing pavements (if any), vegetation, and any other
deleterious materials from the proposed construction area.
Stripped organic materials (if any) should be wasted from the site or used to re -vegetate landscaped
areas after completion of grading operations. Prior to the placement of fills, the site should be
graded to create a relatively level surface to receive fill.
4.2.2 Subgrade Preparation
After the deleterious materials have been removed from the construction areas, the top 8 inches
of the exposed ground surface.should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted to at
least 95 percent of the maximum dry unit weight as determined by ASTM D698 before any new
fill or pavement is placed.
The stability of the subgrade may be affected by precipitation, repetitive construction traffic or
other factors. If unstable conditions develop, workability may be improved by scarifying and
drying. Alternatively, over -excavation of wet zones and replacement with granular materials may
be used. Lightweight excavation equipment and minimizing rubber -tire construction equipment
traffic may also be used to reduce subgrade pumping.
4.2.3 Fill Materials and Placement
The on -site soils or approved granular and low plasticity cohesive imported materials may be used
as fill material. The soil removed from this site that is free of organic or objectionable materials,
as defined by a field technician who is qualified in soil material identification and compaction
procedures, can be re -used as fill for the pavement subgrade. It should be noted that on -site soils
will require reworking to adjust the moisture content to meet the compaction criteria.
Imported soils (if required) should meet the following material property requirements:
Responsive ❑ Resourceful ❑ Reliable 5
Geotechnical Engineering Report 1 r�rr�c®n
South Campus Parking Lot Right Turn Lane o Fort Collins, Colorado
June 23, 2015 o Terracon Project No. 20145073
Gradation
Percent finer by weight (ASTM C136)
4"
100
3"
70-100
No. 4 Sieve
30-100
No. 200 Sieve
10-50
Soil Properties
Value
Liquid Limit
30 (max.)
Plastic Limit
15 (max.)
R-value
20 (min.)
Maximum Expansive Potential (%)
Non -expansive'
1. Measured on a sample compacted to approximately 95 percent of the maximum dry unit weight as
determined by ASTM D698 at optimum moisture content. The sample is confined under a 100 psf
surcharge and submerged.
4.2.4 Compaction Requirements
Engineered fill should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts, using equipment and
procedures that will produce recommended moisture contents and densities throughout the lift.
Item
Description
9 inches or less in loose thickness when heavy, self -
propelled compaction equipment is used
Fill lift thickness
4 to 6 inches in loose thickness when hand -guided
equipment (i.e. jumping jack or plate compactor) is used
Minimum compaction requirements
95 percent of the maximum dry unit weight as
determined by ASTM D698
Moisture content cohesive soil (clay)
-1 to +3 % of the optimum moisture content
Moisture content cohesionless soil
-3 to +2 % of the optimum moisture content
(sand)
1. We recommend engineered fill be tested for moisture content and compaction during placement.
Should the results of the in -place density tests indicate the specified moisture or compaction limits
have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked and retested as required
until the specified moisture and compaction requirements are achieved.
2. Specifically, moisture levels should be maintained low enough to allow for satisfactory compaction
to be achieved without the fill material pumping when proofrolled.
3. Moisture conditioned clay materials should not be allowed to dry out. A loss of moisture within these
materials could result in an increase in the material's expansive potential. Subsequent wetting of
these materials could result in undesirable movement.
Responsive o Resourceful ❑ Reliable 6
Geotechnical Engineering Report 1%rrac®n
South Campus Parking Lot Right Turn Lane o Fort Collins, Colorado
June 23, 2015 o Terracon Project No. 20145073
4.2.5 Grading and Drainage
All grades must be adjusted to provide effective drainage away from the proposed pavements
during construction and maintained throughout the life of the proposed project. Infiltration of water
into excavations must be prevented during construction. Water permitted to pond near or
adjacent to the perimeter of the pavements (either during or post -construction) can result in
significantly higher soil movements than those discussed in this report.
Backfill against curbs and gutters should be properly compacted and free of all construction debris
to reduce the possibility of moisture infiltration. After construction of the proposed pavements and
prior to project completion, we recommend verification of final grading be performed to document
positive drainage, as described above, has been achieved.
The following presents recommendations for site preparation, excavation, subgrade preparation
and placement of engineered fills on the project. All earthwork on the project should be observed
and evaluated by Terracon on a full-time basis. The evaluation of earthwork should include
observation of over -excavation operations, testing of engineered fills, subgrade preparation,
subgrade stabilization, and other geotechnical conditions exposed during the construction of the
project.
4.3 Pavements
4.3.1 Chemically Treated Subgrade
In order to utilize full credit for the strength coefficient of the fly ash treated subgrade, a fly ash -
soil mixture design should be performed to determine the appropriate percentage of fly ash to mix
with the subgrade soils to achieve a compressive strength of 150 psi (as required by the Larimer
County Urban Area Street Standards LCUASS). Additionally, LCUASS indicates field testing of
the fly ash -soil mixture, consisting of compressive strength specimens, should also be completed
in order to utilize full credit for the strength coefficient. As an alternative, the strength coefficient
can be reduced by 50 percent if field test correlations are not performed. We have provided
recommended pavement thickness alternatives for each scenario. If full credit is desired by the
project team, Terracon is available to complete the fly ash -soil mixture design for an additional
fee, upon your request.
If a fly ash -soil mixture design is not performed, we recommend approximately 12 percent fly ash
should be mixed uniformly into the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils. Fly ash should meet the
requirements specified in ASTM C618 for Class C fly ash. The fly ash -soil mixture should be
moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least
95 percent of the mixture's maximum dry unit weight as determined by ASTM D698. Compaction
of the mixture should be completed within 2 hours of the addition,of water to the fly ash -soil
mixture. The subgrade should be compacted and sealed with a pneumatic -tire roller that is
sufficiently light in weight so as to not cause hairline cracking of the treated subgrade. The
chemically treated subgrade should extend laterally at least 1 foot outside the proposed roadway
alignment including curb, gutter, and/or attached sidewalk.
Responsive o Resourceful o Reliable 7
Geotechnical Engineering Report 1rGir�]C
South Campus Parking Lot Right Turn Lane o Fort Collins, Colorado
on
June 23, 2015 o Terracon Project No. 20145073
After completion of the application and compaction, the treated subgrade should be allowed to
cure for a minimum of 48 hours prior to continuing construction. A longer cure time may be
necessary depending on adverse weather conditions and protection measures implemented by
the contractor. During this cure time, the surface of the treated subgrade should be kept moist
by periodically sprinkling with water.
Strength gains of the treated subgrade will be slower during cooler.weather periods, particularly
if the temperature drops below 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Construction traffic on the treated
subgrade prior to pavement construction should be eliminated and the subgrade should be
protected from freezing or drying at all times until pavement construction. Covering the subgrade
or other protective measures may be required.
Once trimming and the final subgrade elevation has been reached, the treated subgrade should
be proof -rolled with a rubber tire vehicle with at least 18 kips per axle. Areas of the treated
subgrade that are soft, excessively wet, or unstable should be repaired by drying and/or removal
and replacement. Chemically treated soils can be re -used as backfill for repaired areas.
4.3.2 Pavements — Design Recommendations
Design of pavements for the project have been based on the procedures outlined in the 1993
Guideline for Design of Pavement Structures prepared by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards (LCUASS).
A sample of the fill materials selected for swell -consolidation testing exhibited no movement when
wetted under an applied pressure of 150 psf. Therefore, swell -mitigation of the subgrade materials
prior to pavement operations is not required.
Anticipated traffic loading conditions were determined from the flexible Pavement Design Criteria
presented in Table 10-1 of LCUASS for pavement thickness design for this project. We utilized an
18-kip Equivalent Daily Load Application (EDLA) of 200 for our analysis.
For flexible pavement design, a terminal serviceability index of 2.0 was utilized along with an inherent
reliability of 90 percent and a design life of 20 years. Using the correlated design R-value of 4,
appropriate ESAL, environmental criteria and other factors, the structural numbers (SN) of the
pavement sections were determined on the basis of the 1993 AASHTO design equation.
In addition to the flexible pavement design analyses, a rigid pavement design analysis was
completed based upon AASHTO design procedures. Rigid pavement design is based on an
evaluation of the Modulus of Subgrade Reaction of the soils (k-value), the Modulus of Rupture of
the concrete, and other factors previously outlined. The design k-value of 72 for the subgrade
soil was determined by correlation to the laboratory test results. A modulus of rupture of 600 psi
(working stress 450 psi) was used for pavement concrete. The rigid pavement thickness for each
traffic category was determined on the basis of the AASHTO design equation.
Responsive ❑ Resourceful ❑ Reliable 8
Geotechnical Engineering Report 1 ��rr�con
South Campus Parking Lot Right Turn Lane o Fort Collins, Colorado
June 23, 2015 o Terracon Project No. 20145073
Chemical treatment of the subgrade soils below the proposed right turn lane will improve stability,
enhance performance, and extend the life of the pavement system. In addition, the chemical
treatment will reduce the thickness of the pavement section. The recommended pavement
thickness alternatives for the proposed right turn lane is presented in the following table.
Pavement Thickness Recommendations
Fly ash
Aggregate
Hot mix
Concrete
Total
Traffic area
treatment
base course
asphalt (HMA)
(inches)
(inches)
(inches)
(inches)
(inches)
-
15
8
-
23
West Drake
121
10
7
-
29
Road Right
Turn Lane
122
8
6
-
26
-
-
-
9
9
1. Recommended pavement thickness if a fly ash -soil mixture design and field testing correlations ARE NOT performed.
2. Recommended pavement thickness tf fly ash -soil mixture design and field testing correlations ARE performed.
Aggregate base course (if used on the site) should consist of a blend of sand and gravel which
meets strict specifications for quality and gradation. Use of materials meeting Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT) Class 5 or 6 specifications is recommended for aggregate
base course. Aggregate base course should be placed in lifts not exceeding 6 inches and
compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry unit weight as determined by ASTM
D698.
Asphaltic concrete should be composed of a mixture of aggregate, filler and additives (if required)
and approved bituminous material. The asphalt concrete should conform to approved mix
designs stating the Superpave properties, optimum asphalt content, job mix formula and
recommended mixing and placing .temperatures. Aggregate used in asphalt concrete should
meet particular gradations. Material meeting CDOT Grading S specifications or equivalent is
recommended for asphalt concrete. Mix designs should be submitted prior to construction to
verify their adequacy. Asphalt material should be placed in maximum 3-inch lifts and compacted
within a range of 92 to 96 percent of the theoretical maximum (Rice) density (ASTM D2041).
Where rigid pavements are used, the concrete should be obtained from an approved mix design
with the following minimum properties (Class °P", refer to LCUASS Chapter 22 and 23) produced
from an approved mix design with the following minimum properties:
Properties
Value
Compressive strength
4,000 psi
Cement type
Type I or II portland cement
Entrained air content (%)
5 to 8
Concrete aggregate
ASTM C33 and CDOT Section 703
Responsive ❑ Resourceful ❑ Reliable 9
Geotechnical Engineering Report 1%rr�con
South Campus Parking Lot Right Turn Lane o Fort Collins, Colorado
June 23, 2015 o Terracon Project No. 20145073
Concrete should be deposited by truck mixers or agitators and placed a maximum of 90 minutes
from the time the water is added to the mix. Longitudinal and transverse joints should be provided
as needed in concrete pavements for expansion/contraction and isolation per ACI 325. The
location and extent of joints should be based upon the final pavement geometry. Joints should
be sealed to prevent entry of foreign material and doweled where necessary for load transfer.
Although not required for structural support, a minimum 4-inch thick aggregate base course layer
is recommended for the PCC pavements to help reduce the potential for slab curl, shrinkage
cracking, and subgrade "pumping" through joints. Proper joint spacing will also be required for
PCC pavements to prevent excessive slab curling and shrinkage cracking.
Pavement performance is affected by its surroundings. In addition to providing preventive
maintenance, the civil engineer should consider the following recommendations in the design and
layout of pavements:
❑ Site grades should slope a minimum of 2 percent away from the pavements;
❑ The subgrade and the pavement surface have a minimum 2 percent slope to promote proper
surface drainage;
❑ Consider appropriate edge drainage and pavement under drain systems;
❑ Install pavement drainage surrounding areas anticipated for frequent wetting;
❑ Install joint sealant and seal cracks immediately;
❑ Seal all landscaped areas in, or adjacent to pavements to reduce moisture migration to
subgrade soils; and
❑ Placing compacted, low permeability backfill against the exterior side of curb and gutter.
4.3.3 Pavements — Maintenance
Preventative maintenance should be planned and provided for an ongoing pavement
management program in order to enhance future pavement performance. Preventive
maintenance consists of both localized maintenance (e.g. crack and joint sealing and patching)
and global maintenance (e.g. surface sealing). Preventative maintenance is usually the first
priority when implementing a planned pavement maintenance program and provides the highest
return on investment for pavements.
5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS
Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can
be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in
the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and testing
services during grading, excavation, pavement construction and other earth -related construction
phases of the project.
The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained
from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this.
Responsive ❑ Resourceful ❑ Reliable 10
Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rr�con
South Campus Parking Lot Right Turn Lane o Fort Collins, Colorado
June 23, 2015 o Terracon Project No. 20145073
report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the site, or
due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such variations
may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be
immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be
provided.
The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any
environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, and bacteria) assessment of the site or identification
or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about
the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the
project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical
engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site
safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the
event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as described in this report are
planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered
valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this
report in writing.
Responsive a Resourceful o Reliable 11
=1►1111:I_1
FIELD EXPLORATION
Ira IT+
-4 .......
W M h
In .4tiz
loss
7
r
a
Y;
IL Wi I 028 1i it $11 T L
9�
T.
24
. 5
ft
7-
r3
pnAfl
DOW
Rxky 161,iuntain, it
High Sch
27
f
HOR
t
Sets
new
M ROAD
A
J
0 R cr
An
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGE COURTESY OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
QUADRANGLES INCLUDE: FORT COLLINS, CO (1/1/1984).
Project Manager: Project No. SITE LOCATION MAP Exhibit
EDB 20145073
Drawn by: BCR Scall8-=24,000 SF
Checked by: File Name: South Campus Parking Lot Right Turn Lane
EDB 1901 Sharp Point Dr Suite C NE corner of W. Drake Rd. & Research Blvd. A-1
Approved by: FDA Date: 613115 Ft. Collins, CO 80525 Fort Collins, CO
r ^M
N
li
Legend
i
Approximate Boring Location
Approximate Temporary
Benchmark Location (Rim of
®manhole cover, Assumed
Elevation 300.0')
101 &do
� a a
R i n
DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED I
NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS
Project Manager. Project No. ,— — EDB 20145073 EXPLORATION PLAN Exhibit
�jJ'i �� ., _
Drawn bY: BCR Sa
le:
I�Ur �� y.
Checked by: File Name: South Campus Parking Lot Right Turn Lane A-2
EDB 1901 Sharp Point or suite C NE corner of W. Drake Rd. & Research Blvd.
Approved by: EDB Date: 613115 Ft Collins, CO 80525 FOR Collins, CO
Geotechnical Engineering Report 1 r�rr�c®n
South Campus Parking Lot Right Turn Lane ❑ Fort Collins, Colorado
June 23, 2015 o Terracon Project No. 20145073
Field Exploration Description
The locations of borings were based upon the proposed development. The borings were located
in the field by measuring from existing site features. The ground surface elevation was surveyed
at each boring location referencing the temporary benchmark shown on Exhibit A-2 using an
engineer's level.
The borings were drilled with a CME-45 truck -mounted rotary drill rig with solid -stem augers.
During the drilling operations, lithologic logs of the borings were recorded by the Feld engineer.
Disturbed samples were obtained at selected intervals utilizing a 3-inch outside diameter ring -
barrel sampler. Disturbed bulk samples were obtained from auger cuttings. Penetration
resistance values were recorded in a manner similar to the standard penetration test (SPT). This
test consists of driving the sampler into the ground with a 140-pound hammer free -falling through
a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the ring -barrel sampler 12
inches or the interval indicated, is recorded. The blow count values are indicated on the boring
logs at the respective sample depths. Ring -barrel sample blow counts are not considered N-
values.
A CME automatic SPT hammer was used to advance the samplers in the borings performed on this
site. A greater efficiency is typically achieved with the automatic hammer compared to the
conventional safety hammer operated with a cathead and rope. Published correlations between the
SPT values and soil properties are based on the lower efficiency cathead and rope method. This
higher efficiency affects the standard penetration resistance blow count value by increasing the
penetration per hammer blow over what would be obtained using the cathead and rope method. The
effect of the automatic hammer's efficiency has been considered in the interpretation and analysis of
the subsurface information for this report.
The standard penetration test provides a reasonable indication of the in -place density of sandy
type materials, but only provides an indication of the relative stiffness of cohesive materials since
the blow count in these soils may be affected by the moisture content of the soil. In addition,
considerable care should be exercised in interpreting the N-values in gravelly soils, particularly
where the size of the gravel particle exceeds the inside diameter of the sampler.
Groundwater measurements were obtained in the borings at the time of site exploration. After
completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled with auger cuttings or non -shrink grout. Some
settlement of the backfill and/or patch may occur and should be repaired as soon as possible.
Responsive ❑ Resourceful ❑ Reliable Exhibit A-3
BORING LOG NO.6
Page 1 of 1
PROJECT: South Campus Parking Lot Right Turn Lane
CLIENT: Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado
SITE: NE Comer of W. Drake Rd and Research Blvd.
Fort Collins, Colorado
O
LOCATION See Exhibit A-2
�Ju Z
wa
F
ATT MITS
W
¢
z
LL
v
Latitude: 40.55276° Longitude:-105.Ot15438°
J
QQ
w
W W
CL
w N
;
3 i
it
LL-PL-PI
W
Surface Elev.: 299.2 (Ft.)
0
3 Co
LL
m
U
Liu
o f
DEPTHELEVATION Ft.
a
—'•'•
0.4 LANDSCAPE GEM - 5 Inches 299
FILL - LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CLI. brown, stiff
6-7
o No
20
96
49-24-25
80
3.0 296
LEAN CLAY light brown to reddish -brown, medium stiff to
stiff
/
x
3-4
24
95
i
i
5
r
x
5-7
18
106
10.0 289
Boring TennInated at 10 Feet
Stratification lines are approximate. In -situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic
Advancement Method:
See Exhibit A-3 for description of field
Notes:
6 inch solid -stem augers
procedures.
See Appendix B for description of laboratory
procedures and additional data (if any).
See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and
Abandonment Method: _
Borings bacIdilled with soil cuttings upon completion.
abbreviations.
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
IrerraLL0
Boring Started: 512a12015
Boring Completed: 528/2015
No free water observed
Drill Rig: CME-45
Driller. Unlimited Access Drilling
1901 Sharp Point Drive, Suite C
Fort Collins, Colorado
Project No.: 20145073
Exhibit: A4
BORING LOG NO.7
Page 1 of 1
PROJECT: South Campus Parking Lot Right Turn Lane
CLIENT: Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado
SITE: NE Comer of W. Drake Rd and Research Blvd.
Fort Collins, Colorado
LOCATION See Exhbit A-2
Z
a
ERG
LIMITS
ui0
w0
Latitude: 40.552712° Longitude:-105.085438°
W
Ii
J
FZ
Z=A77E
7
LL
444
K
a
o w
3 i
>W 29
LL-PL-PI
Surface Elev.: 299.0 (Ft.)
0
3 03
¢
Lu
LL
H
0
0 3
cwi
DEPTH ELEVATIONFt.
0
N
a
ASPHALT PAVEMENT -10Inches
0.8 298
FILL - LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, gray and dark gray,
medium stiff to stiff
x
7-7
22
99
4-5
25
93
s.o 2sa
5Ix
Boring Terminated at 5 Feet
Stratification lines are approximate. In -situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic
Advancement Method:
See Endubit A-3 for description of field
Notes:
6 inch solid -stem augers
procedures.
See Appendix B for description of laboratory
procedures and additional data (if any).,
See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and
Abandonment Method:
Boring balled with non-shimk grout.
abbreviations.
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
Irerracon
Boring Started: 5/28/2015
Boring Completed: 5/28/2015
No free water observed
Drill Rig: CME-45
Driller. Unlimited Access Drilling
1901 Sharp Point Drive, Suite C
Fort Collins, Colorado
Project No.: 20145073
Exhibit: A-5
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Geotechnical Engineering Report 1 r�rrac®n
South Campus Parking Lot Right Turn Lane o Fort Collins, Colorado
June 23, 2015 o Terracon Project No. 20145073
Laboratory Testing Description
The soil samples retrieved during the field exploration were returned to the laboratory for
observation by the project geotechnical engineer. At that time, the field descriptions were
reviewed and an applicable laboratory testing program was formulated to determine engineering
properties of the subsurface materials.
Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples. The results of these tests are
presented on the boring logs and in this appendix. The test results were used for the geotechnical
engineering analyses, and the development of pavement and earthwork recommendations. The
laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with applicable locally accepted
standards. Soil samples were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification
System described in Appendix C. Procedural standards noted in this report are for reference to
methodology in general. In some cases variations to methods are applied as a result of local
practice or professional judgment.
❑ Water content ❑ Plasticity index
❑ Grain -size distribution ❑ Dry density
❑ Consolidation/swell ❑ R-value
❑ Water-soluble sulfate content
Responsive o Resourceful ❑ Reliable
Exhibit B-1
ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS
ASTM D4318
l01
3
P
L
A
S 4C
T
I
C
T 3C
Y
I
p 2C
E
X
1C
—Zz
O�
OOF
0
G�
Off'
t
G�
MH
or OH
r OL
CL-ML OOFML
i
_
00
1U 4U bu tsu l UU
LIQUID LIMIT
Depth I LL I PL PI Fines USCS Description
2-31 49 1 24 1 25 180 1 CL I LEAN CLAY with SAND
i
L
U
[5U
l
L
J
1
PROJECT: South Campus Parking Lot Right
Turn Lane
SITE: NE Comer of W. Drake Rd and
Research Blvd.
Fort Collins, Colorado
S
1rerracon
1901 Sharp Point Drive, Suite C
Fort Collins, Colorado
PROJECT NUMBER: 20145073
CLIENT: Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado
EXHIBIT: B-2
SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST
ASTM D4546
z
a
-1
PRESSURE, psf
Specimen Identification
Classification
T" paf I
WC, %
6 2 - 3 ft
1 LEAN CLAY with SAND CL
94
22
NOTES: Sample exhibited no movement upon wetting under an applied pressure of 150 psf.
SITE: NE Comer of W. Drake Rd and
Research Blvd.
Fort Collins, Colorado
S
1rerracoln
1901 Sharp Point Drive, Suite C
Fort Collins, Colorado
PROJECT NUMBER: 20145073
CLIENT: Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado
EXHIBIT: B-3
Irerracon 1901 Sharp Point Drive, Suite C
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
(970) 484-0359 FAX (970) 484-0454
RESISTANCE R-VALUE & EXPANSION
PRESSURE OF COMPACTED SOIL
AASHTO T190
CLIENT: Colorado State University DATE OF TEST: 03-Jun-15
PROJECT: South Campus Parking Lot Right Turn Lane
LOCATION: Boring No. 6 from 0-4 feet.
TERRACON NO. 20145073 CLASSIFICATION: Lean clay with sand (CL)
SAMPLE DATA TEST RESULTS
TEST SPECIMEN NO. 1 2 3
COMPACTION PRESSURE (PSI) 10 20 50
DENSITY (PCF) 84.5 87.4 95.2
MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 35.0 31.2 27.1
EXPANSION PRESSURE (PSI) -0.06 0.16 0.28
HORIZONTAL PRESSURE Co-) 160 PSI 150 148 149
SAMPLE HEIGHT (INCHES) 2.68 2.78 3.08
EXUDATION PRESSURE (PSI) 272.8 345.8 419.9
CORRECTED R-VALUE 3.7 4.9 5.0
UNCORRECTED R-VALUE 3.5 4.4 4.1
R-VALUE @ 300 PSI EXUDATION PRESSURE _
100
90
80
70
w 60
W
j 50
>
G� 40
30
20
10
0 100
200
300 400 500
600
700 800
EXUDATION PRESSURE
- PSI
Exhibit B-4
I Colorado
� Rndyticd
LABORATORIES, INC.
Report To: Bryce C. Reeves
Company: Terracon, Inc. - Fort Collins
1901 Sharp Point Drive
Suite C
Fort Collins CO 80525
Analytical Results
TASK NO: 150603022
Bill To: Accounts Payable
Company: Terracon, Inc. - Lenexa
13910 W. 96th Terrace
Lenexa KS 66215
Task No.: 150603022 Date Received: 6/3115
Client PO: Date Reported: 6/9/15
Client Project: South Campus Parking Lot 20145073 Matrix: Soil - Geotech
1 Borehole #6 @ 4-5 Ft
Lab Number: 150603022-01
[rest Result Method
Sulfate - Water Soluble 0.005 % AASFrrO T290-91/ ASTM D4327
Abbreviations/References.
AASHTO - American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 1
ASTM - American Society for Testing and Materials.
ASA - American Society of Agronomy.
`IPRA -Ductile Iran Pipe Research Association Handbook of Ductile Iron Pipe.
� VV
DATA APPROVED FOR RELEASE BY
240 South Main Street / Brighton, CO 80601-0507 / 303-659-2313 150603022
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 507 / Brighton, CO 80601-0507 / Fax: 303-659-2315 1/1
Exhibit B-5
APPENDIX C
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
GENERAL NOTES
DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Water Initially
N Standard Penetration Test
Encountered
Resistance (Blows/Ft.)
Medified
RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE -GRAINED SOILS
CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS
(50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.)
(More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.)
Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field
Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance
visual -manual procedures or standard penetration resistance
to
Descriptive Term
Standard Penetration or
Ring Sampler
Descriptive Term
Unconfined Compressive
Standard Penetration or
Ring Sampler
�
(Density)
N-Value
Blows/Ft.
(Consistency)
Strength Qu, (tsf)
N-Value
Blows7Ft.
Q'
BlowslFt
Blows/Ft.
W
�'
Very Loose
0-3
0-6
Very Soft
less than 0.25
0-1
< 3
2
I.-
(3
Loose
4-9
7 -18
Soft
0.25 to 0.50
2-4
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests"
Soil Classification
Group
Symbol
Group Names
Coarse Grained Soils:
Gravels:
More than 50% of
coarse fraction retained
on No. 4 sieve
Clean Gravels:
Less than 5% fines c
Cu >_ 4 and 1 < Cc < 3 E
GW
Well -graded gravel F
Cu < 4 and/or 1 > Cc > 3 E
GP
Poorly graded gravel
Gravels with Fines:
More than 12% fines c
Fines classify as ML or MH
GM
Silty gravel F'c'"
Fines classify as CL or CH
GC
Clayey gravel FAH
More than 50% retained
on No. 200 sieve
Sands:
50% or more of coarse
fraction passes No. 4
sieve
Clean Sands:
Less than 5% fines °
Cu >_ 6 and 1 < Cc s 3 E
SW
Well -graded sand
Cu < 6 and/or 1 > Cc > 3 E
SP
Poorly graded sand'
Sands with Fines:
More than 12% fines °
Fines classify as ML or MH
SM
Silty sand G'"''
Fines classify as CL or CH
SC
Clayey sand
Fine -Grained Soils:
Silts and Clays:
Liquid limit less than 50
Inorganic:
PI > 7 and plots on or above "A" line'
CL
Lean day KL,M
PI < 4 or plots below °A" line
ML
KL,M
Silt
Organic:
Liquid limit - oven dried
< 0.75
OL
Organic day KL'M,N
Liquid limit - not dried
Organic silt KL.M.o
50% or more passes the
No. 200 sieve
Silts and Clays:
Liquid limit 50 or more
Inorganic:
PI plots on or above °A" line
CH
Fat clay I(L-M
PI plots below "A" line
MH
Elastic SiItK'-M
Organic:
Liquid limit - oven dried
< 0.75
OH
ay KL P
Organic dM,
Liquid limit - not dried
KL.M,Q
Organic silt
Highly organic soils:
Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor
PT
Peat
" Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve
s If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "With cobbles
or boulders, or both" to group name.
c Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well -graded
gravel with silt, GW-GC well -graded gravel with clay, GP -GM poorly
graded gravel with silt, GP -GC poorly graded gravel with clay.
° Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well -graded
sand with silt, SW -SC well -graded sand with day, SP-SM poorly graded
sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with day
E Cu _ Dw0 ° Cc _ (Cw )
Des x 13.0
F If soil contains >_ 15% sand, add 'with sand" to group name.
c If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC -GM, or SC-SM.
60
Tel
W 40
0
Z
>- 30
H
U
g20
a.
" If fines are organic, add 'with organic fines" to group name.
If soil contains >_ 15% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name.
' If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.
K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or "with gravel;
whichever is predominant.
L If soil contains >_ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add "sandy' to
group name.
M If soil contains z 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add
"gravelly' to group name.
" PI >_ 4 and plots on or above "A" line.
c PI < 4 or plots below °A" line.
P PI plots on or above °A" line.
c PI plots below 'A" line.
For classification of fine-grained
soils and fine-grained fraction
��I
of coarse -grained soils
•oe.,'
e
Equati/'ineline I Horizo4 to LL=25.5.then
'
L-20)
—
Equatiline ,'Vertica
to PI=7, ,'then
-8) , '
, ,
o
or
,'"
MH
OH
_ CL ML
ML or OIL
10
7
0-----r�L�l
0 10 16 20 30 40
50 60 70
LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
60 90 100 110
Irerracon
Exhibit C-2
LABORATORY TEST
SIGNIFICANCE AND PURPOSE
Test
Significance
Purpose
Used to evaluate the potential strength of subgrade soil,
California Bearing
subbase, and base course material, including recycled
Pavement Thickness
Ratio
materials for use in road and airfield pavements.
Design
Used to develop an estimate of both the rate and amount of
Consolidation
both differential and total settlement of a structure.
Foundation Design
Used to determine the consolidated drained shear strength
Bearing Capacity,
Direct Shear
of soil or rock.
Foundation Design,
and Slope Stability
Used to determine the in -place density of natural, inorganic,
Index Property Soil
Dry Density
fine-grained soils.
Behavior
Used to measure the expansive potential of fine-grained soil
Foundation and Slab
Expansion
and to provide a basis for swell potential classification.
Design
Used for the quantitative determination of the distribution of
Gradation
particle sizes in soil.
Soil Classification
Used as an integral part of engineering classification
Liquid & Plastic Limit,
systems to characterize the fine-grained fraction of soils, and
Soil Classification
Plasticity Index
to specify the fine-grained fraction of construction materials.
Used to determine the capacity of soil or rock to conduct a
Groundwater Flow
Permeability
liquid or gas.
Analysis
pH
Used to determine the degree of acidity or alkalinity of a soil.
Corrosion Potential
Used to indicate the relative ability of a soil medium to carry
Resistivity
electrical currents.
Corrosion Potential
Used to evaluate the potential strength of subgrade soil,
R-Value
subbase, and base course material, including recycled
Pavement Thickness
materials for use in road and airfield pavements.
Design
Used to determine the quantitative amount of soluble
Soluble Sulfate
sulfates within a soil mass.
Corrosion Potential
To obtain the approximate compressive strength of soils that
Bearing Capacity
Unconfined
Compression
possess sufficient cohesion to permit testing in the
Analysis for
unconfined state.
Foundations
Used to determine the quantitative amount of water in a soil
Index Property Soil
Water Content
mass.
Behavior
Exhibit C-3
REPORT TERMINOLOGY
(Based on ASTM D653)
Allowable Soil The recommended maximum contact stress developed at the interface of the foundation
Bearing Capacity element and the supporting material.
Soil, the constituents of which have been transported in suspension by flowing water and
Alluvium subsequently deposited by sedimentation.
Aggregate Base A layer of specified material placed on a subgrade or subbase usually beneath slabs or
Course pavements.
Backfill A specified material placed and compacted in a confined area.
A natural aggregate of mineral grains connected by strong and permanent cohesive forces.
Bedrock Usually requires drilling, wedging, blasting or other methods of extraordinary force for
excavation.
Bench A horizontal surface in a sloped deposit.
Caisson (Drilled A concrete foundation element cast in a circular excavation which may have an enlarged base.
Pier or Shaft) Sometimes referred to as a cast -in -place pier or drilled shaft.
Coefficient of A constant proportionality factor relating normal stress and the corresponding shear stress at
Friction which sliding starts between the two surfaces.
Soil, the constituents of which have been deposited chiefly by gravity such as at the foot of a
Colluvium slope or cliff.
Compaction The densification of a soil by means of mechanical manipulation
Concrete Slab -on- A concrete surface layer cast directly upon a base, subbase or subgrade, and typically used
Grade as a floor system.
Differential Unequal settlement or heave between, or within foundation elements of structure.
Movement
Earth Pressure The pressure exerted by soil on any boundary such as a foundation wall
ESAL Equivalent Single Axle Load, a criteria used to convert traffic to a uniform standard, (18,000
pound axle loads).
Specified material placed and compacted to specified density and/or moisture conditions
Engineered Fill under observations.of a representative of a geotechnical engineer.
A hypothetical fluid having a unit weight such that it will produce a pressure against a lateral
support presumed to be equivalent to that produced by the actual soil. This simplified
Equivalent Fluid approach is valid only when deformation conditions are such that the pressure increases
linearly with depth and the wall friction is neglected.
Existing Fill (or Materials deposited throughout the action of man prior to exploration of the site.
Man -Made Fill)
Existing Grade The ground surface at the time of field exploration.
Exhibit C-4
REPORT TERMINOLOGY
(Based on ASTM D653)
Expansive Potential The potential of a soil to expand (increase in volume) due to absorption of moisture.
Finished Grade The final grade created as a part of the project.
Footing A portion of the foundation of a structure that transmits loads directly to the soil.
Foundation The lower part of a structure that transmits the loads to the soil or bedrock.
Frost Depth The depth at which the ground becomes frozen during the winter season.
A foundation element or wall, typically constructed of reinforced concrete, used to span between
Grade Beam other foundation elements such as drilled piers.
Groundwater Subsurface water found in the zone of saturation of soils or within fractures in bedrock.
Heave Upward movement.
Lithologic The characteristics which describe the composition and texture of soil and rock by observation.
Native Grade The naturally occurring ground surface.
Native Soil Naturally occurring on -site soil, sometimes referred to as natural soil.
Optimum Moisture The water content at which a soil can be compacted to a maximum dry unit weight by a given
Content compactive effort.
Groundwater, usually of limited area maintained above a normal water elevation by the
Perched Water presence of an intervening relatively impervious continuous stratum.
Scarify To mechanically loosen soil or break down existing soil structure.
Settlement Downward movement.
Skin Friction (Side The frictional resistance developed between soil and an element of the structure such as a
Shear) drilled pier.
Sediments or other unconsolidated accumulations of solid particles produced by the physical
Soil (Earth) and chemical disintegration of rocks, and which may or may not contain organic matter.
Strain The change in length per unit of length in a given direction.
Stress The force per unit area acting within a soil mass.
Strip To remove from present location.
Subbase A layer of specified material in a pavement system between the subgrade and base course.
Subgrade The soil prepared and compacted to support a structure, slab or pavement system.
Exhibit C-5
Traffic Impact Study
Colorado State University
South Campus Parking Lot
Fort Collins, Colorado
Prepared for:
Colorado State University
Kimley)))Horn
T R A F F I C I M P A C T S T U D Y
Colorado State University
South Campus Parking Lot
Fort Collins, Colorado
Prepared for
Colorado State University
251 Edison Drive
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
Prepared by
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
990 South Broadway
Suite 200
Denver, Colorado 80209
(303) 228-2300
36355
�o�oz/io/is �
February 2015
��ss�ONAL ��G\�
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of
service, is intended only for the speck purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of
and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-
Hom and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................... i
APPENDICES.................................................................................................................. i
LISTOF TABLES.............................................................................................................ii
LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................1
2.0 EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS..................................................................4
2.1 Study Area and Roadway Network....................................................................................4
2.2 Existing Roadway and Intersection Configuration..............................................................4
2.3 Existing Traffic Volumes....................................................................................................7
2.4 Unspecified Development Traffic Growth...........................................................................7
3.0 PARKING LOT REDISTRIBUTED TRAFFIC..........................................................10
3.1 South Campus Parking Lot Trip Redistribution................................................................10
3.2 Trip Redistribution...........................................................................................................11
3.3 Traffic Assignment...........................................................................................................11
3.4 Total Traffic Volumes.......................................................................................................11
4.0 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS ................... :..................................................
16
4.1 Analysis Methodology......................................................................................................16
4.2 Key Intersection Operational Analysis.............................................................................17
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................
27
APPENDICES
Appendix A — Intersection Count Sheets
Appendix B — Intersection Analysis Worksheets
Appendix C — Conceptual Site Plan
Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc.
096336002 — Colorado State University South Campus Parking Lot Page i
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 — CSU South Campus Parking Lot Trip Generation......................................................10
Table 2 — Level of Service Definitions.......................................................................................16
Table 3 — 2015 Existing Intersection Delay and Level of Service...............................................17
Table 4 — 2025 Expected Background Intersection Delay and Level of Service ........................18
Table 5 — 2015 Expected Background Plus Project Intersection Delay and Level of Service ..... 19
Table 6 — 2025 Expected Background Plus Project Intersection Delay and Level of Service ..... 20
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1 — Vicinity Map................................................................................................................3
Figure 2 — Existing Lanes and Control........................................................................................6
Figure 3 — Existing Traffic Volumes.............................................................................................8
Figure 4 — 2025 Background Traffic Volumes..............................................................................9
Figure 5 — Project Trip Distribution............................................................................................12
Figure 6 — Project Traffic Assignment.......................................................................................13
Figure 7 — 2015 Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes........................................................14
Figure 8 — 2025 Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes........................................................15
Figure 9 — 2015 Existing Level of Service .................................................................................23
Figure 10 — 2025 Background Expected Level of Service.........................................................24
Figure 11 — 2015 Level of Service with Recommended Improvements.....................................25
Figure 12 — 2025 Level of Service with Recommended Improvements.....................................26
1 imley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
096336002 — Colorado State University South Campus Parking Lot Page ii
fi91l l: � i:1011let flelk1
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Hom) has prepared this report to document the
results of a Traffic Impact.Study of future traffic conditions associated with the surface parking
lot project to be located at Colorado State University (CSU) South Campus on the southeast
comer of the Centre Avenue and Research Boulevard intersection on the CSU campus in Fort
Collins, Colorado. A vicinity map showing the location of the project site is shown in Figure 1.
Kimley-Horn previously prepared the Parking and Transportation Master Plan (April 2014) which
studied the future traffic conditions associated with the CSU 2020 Transit Plan prepared by
CSU's parking and transportation management team. The CSU 2020 Transit Plan includes
construction of seven (7) new parking structures on campus which would allow for a net
increase of 5,896 parking spaces available for use by faculty, staff, and students of CSU. CSU
is now proposing to construct an additional on -campus surface parking lot not previously
included in the 2020 Transit Plan at the site of the existing CSU tennis courts. The additional
parking lot is needed based on the projected increase in student admissions and thus
increasing demand for parking on campus as described in the CSU 2020 Transit Plan.
The project is anticipated to develop with a surface parking lot containing up to 1,077 parking
spaces located adjacent to the existing CSU tennis courts. The surface parking lot will have two
access drives off of Research Boulevard, one access off of Centre Avenue, and one access off
of Gilette Drive. It is expected that project construction will be completed within 2015. Analysis
was therefore completed for the 2015 short-term horizon, as well as the 2025 long-term horizon.
A conceptual site plan illustrating the proposed surface parking lot and access locations is
provided in Appendix C.
The purpose of this study is to identify project traffic generation characteristics, to identify
potential project traffic related impacts on the local street system, and to develop mitigation
measures required for identified impacts. The following intersections were incorporated into this
traffic study in accordance with Colorado State University and the City of Fort Collins standards
and requirements:
• Prospect Road and Center Avenue
• Centre Avenue and Shields Street
• Centre Avenue and Research Boulevard
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Page 1
096336002 — Colorado State University South Campus Parking Lot
• Drake Road and Research Boulevard
• Drake Road and Gilette Drive South Campus Access
In addition, the proposed access drives along Centre Avenue, Research Boulevard, and Gilette
Drive were included for evaluation.
Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Page 2
096336002 — Colorado State University South Campus Parking Lot
No Text
2.0 EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS
The following section outlines existing and future conditions in the vicinity of the CSU South
Campus parking lot.
2.1 Study Area and Roadway Network
The study area is located around the existing CSU tennis courts bound between Centre
Avenue, Research Boulevard, Drake Road, and Gilette Drive. Developed areas of the CSU
South Campus surround the study area and the proposed parking lot. Transportation modes
used by commuters traveling to and from campus include driving, biking, walking, carpooling,
and taking the bus. This study focuses on the driving (automobile) commuters.
2.2 Existing Roadway and Intersection Configuration
The roadways providing access to the CSU South Campus parking lot project are described
below.
Prospect Road
Prospect Road is an arterial roadway at the southern edge of the CSU Main Campus. It
provides two through lanes in each direction, eastbound and westbound, with a posted speed
limit of 35 miles per hour east of Shields Street through the study area. The intersection of
Prospect Road and Center Avenue is signalized with separate left turn lanes on all approaches
along with designated right turn lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches. Two-
way left-tum lanes occur along Prospect Road and on the northbound approach along Centre
Avenue.
Centre Avenue
Centre Avenue provides access between the CSU Main Campus and CSU South Campus. It
provides a single northbound and southbound through lane with a posted speed limit of 35 miles
per hour on the northern portion and 30 miles per hour on the southern portion. The Centre
Avenue intersections with Prospect Road and Shields Street are signalized. A two-way left-tum
lane occurs along Centre Avenue.
Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Page 4
096336002 — Colorado State University South Campus Parking Lot
Shields Street
The western boundary of the Colorado State University Main Campus is Shields Street. It
provides two through lanes in each direction (northbound and southbound) with a posted speed
limit of 40 miles per hour.
Research Boulevard
Research Boulevard is a two lane roadway with a posted speed limit of 30 miles perhour. It
provides access to the CSU tennis courts and other South Campus buildings. The Drake
Road/Research Boulevard intersection is signalized with designated left turn lanes on all
approaches. The Centre Avenue/Research Boulevard intersection is unsignalized with stop
control on the northbound approach.
Drake Road
Drake Road is a four lane roadway that has a two-way left -turn lane along almost the entire
length of the roadway from Ziegler Road to Taft Hill Road with a speed limit of 40 miles per
hour. The Drake Road/Gilette Drive Access intersection is unsignalized with stop control on the
southbound approach.
Gilette Drive
Gilette Drive is a north -south roadway providing access through the CSU South Campus.
Gilette Drive is a two lane roadway with a speed limit of 35 mile per hour. A dedicated bike lane
also exists along the entire length of the roadway, from Drake Road to Phemister Road, in both
the north and southbound direction.
The intersection lane configurations and control for the study area are shown in Figure 2.
l imley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Page 5
096336002 — Colorado State University South Campus Parking Lot
M
CTWLn
I
o /
0
0
—150'
�150'
150' f
150� O
0 0
J 1 �TWLTL
75'
0 0
•
'
>iH
NORTH
NTS 09e338002
P!
P!
rmrc=
nUP'
POE,RIT
j
LO«- WN
O
O_
f—T125'
WLTL
175'
o 0
O ///A
TWL9
1 �
LEGEND
Study Area Key Intersection
Signalized Intersection
STD
Stop Controlled Approach
®
Roadway Speed Limit
�100'
Turn Lane Length (feet)
CSU SOUTH CAMPUS PARKING LOT FIGURE 2
EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS Kimlev*Horn
2.3 Existing Traffic Volumes
Existing peak hour turning movement counts were conducted at the existing study intersections
on Tuesday, January 20, 2015 during the morning and afternoon peak hours. The weekday
counts were conducted in 15-minute intervals during the AM and PM peak hours of adjacent
street traffic from 7:30 AM to 9:30 AM and 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM. These time intervals are
anticipated to coincide with morning and afternoon peaks of CSU traffic. Existing turning
movement counts are shown in Figure 3 with intersection count sheets provided in Appendix
A.
2.4 Unspecified Development Traffic Growth
According to the CSU 2020 Transit Plan, the CSU student population may grow by
approximately 8,000 students, from 27,000 to 35,000 students, which equates to a.29.6 percent
increase between the years of 2013 and 2025. This equates to an annual growth rate of
approximately 2.4 percent per year. Based on this growth factor, the projected automobile 2025
background values for the study's key intersections have been calculated and are provided in
Figure 4.
i imley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Page 7
096336002 — Colorado State University South Campus Parking Lot
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
7: 30 to 8: 30 AM (3: 15 to 4: 15 F`:'
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
7:30 to 8:30 AM (4:00 to 5:00 PM)
NORTH
NTS 096336002
Tuesday, January
30 to 8:30 AM (3:
Q'
R m
m
20, 2015
30 to 4:30 PM)
�31(80)
<-31(118)
48(169)
+---137(337)
65(205)
424(155)
44(54)� N n
m O D
1 �
132(47)
857(902)
94(32)�
117(42)
<--529(839)
j�.-276(207)
a rn F
N
N N
104(101)7
172(107)
-
�sa
32(122)
_.
a m n
n
PROSPECT urn
m
m
A N
—J` —NA—
WII
T
PNEMISIER R
Tuesday, January
20, 2015
?:45 to 8:45 AM
(4:00 to 5:00 PM)
�
TENNIS
ouRTs Tuesday,
January 20, 2015
7:30 to 8:30 AM (4:00 to 5:00 PM)
h N
LROJ CT
OCATION
O
IL W
20O
pis
167(30)
C
<— 715(1350)
3(7)
t2
98(22)
920(1074)�
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
7:30 to 8:30 AM (4:00 to 5:00 PM)
3(22)� T
v� m
22(86) --.S m
n io
N
169(96)
O N N
�519(1232)
38(72)
62(28) -
T
934(845)�
Q�
07 N Q
20(19)—
m
m
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
30 to 8:30 AM (3:45 to 4:45
24, 700
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
7:30 to 8:30 AM (3: 30 to 4:30 PM)
LEGEND
Study Area Key Intersection
XXX(XXX) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Weekday AM(PM)
xx,xo0 Estimated Daily Traffic Volumc
CSU SOUTH CAMPUS PARKING LOT FIGURE 3
2015 EXISITNG TRAFFIC VOLUMES Kim ev>>>Horn
'-- 39(101)
v n
n " <---39(150)
ILl AIL /�l Z-61(214)
132(128)
218(136)
41(155) — N
n e
�n m
i
m N
m
rn m
N IN
W
4(28) --71 T
28(109)� N
m �n
N
m
I iN
NORTH
N75 09033aCO2
N N
n o
148(53)
<--174(427)
82(260)
N a N
) I �
<-- 671(1064)
350(262)
(�-
` T
167(60) ----1
R&�,-
` T r
537(196)
1086(1143)
F g
56(68)
n
m rn
119(41) —
m
fO m rn
N N
00
P
�� TENNIS
OURTS
PROJEC
�906(1717)
O
0 124(28)
Pis C 1166(1361) —>•
,J yy
w DRAKE Rout 31,300
r�214(122)
<--658(1562)
1�f,48(91)
79(35) T
1184(107R Ea
I
25(24) — m
a my o
LEGEND
Study Area Key Intersectior
XXX(XXX) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Weekday AM(PM)
XX,XOo Estimated Daily Traffic Volume
CSU SOUTH CAMPUS PARKING LOT FIGURE 4
2025 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Kimlev*Horn
3.0 PARKING LOT DISTRIBUTED TRAFFIC
3.1 South Campus Parking Lot Trip Distribution
The CSU Parking and Transportation Master Plan used traffic count data from existing CSU
parking lots as well as the number of total existing parking spaces on -campus to calculate
average rates of traffic generated per parking space. It was determined that the existing
average morning and afternoon total trips per parking space on the CSU campus are 0.192 and
0.306 trips per parking space, respectively.
Based on the anticipated CSU population increase of 29.6 percent from 2012 to 2025, it is
expected that the average trips per parking space will also increase over the same time frame.
Future parking structure/lot trip generation rates were determined by multiplying the percent
population increase by the existing averages for trips per parking space. As shown in Table 1,
the total peak hour trips per parking space for the morning and afternoon were calculated to be
0.249 and 0.396 trips per parking space respectively. In other words, 25 percent of the parking
spaces generate a vehicle trip during the morning peak hour and 40 percent of the parking
spaces generate a vehicle trip during the afternoon peak hour.
Based on these calculated trip generation rates, the predicted trip generation for the proposed
CSU South Campus parking lot maybe calculated based on the increase of 1,077 parking
spaces to the campus with this project. This increase in parking spaces was used in the trip
generation calculation. Table 1 provides the anticipated increase of vehicle trips entering and
exiting the south campus parking lot during the morning and afternoon peak hours.
Table 1 — CSU South Campus Parking Lot Trip Generation
Increase in AM Peak Hour
Increase in PM Peak Hour
Number
Trips
Trips
Parking
of
Lot
Parking
Enter
Exit
Total
Enter
Exit
Total
Spaces
0.166 '
0.083
0:249
'0 172
0.224
6.396
trips/ .
trips/
trips/ •.
trips/
trips/
trips/ ,
space
space '
space'
space
space, .
space -
South
Campus
Parking Lot
1,077T
179
89
268
185
241
426
Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Page 10
096336002 — Colorado State University South Campus Parking Lot
3.2 Trip Distribution
The distribution of the traffic generated by the proposed CSU South Campus parking lot onto
the existing street network was based on the area street network characteristics, the existing
traffic patterns and volumes, and the proposed accesses for the CSU South Campus parking
lot. The directional distribution of traffic is a means to quantify the percentage of traffic that
approaches the CSU South Campus parking lot from a given direction and departs the South
Campus parking lot in the original source direction. Figure 5 illustrates the expected trip
redistribution with the proposed CSU South Campus parking lot.
3.3 Traffic Assignment
The 2015 and 2025 proposed CSU South Campus parking lot traffic assignment volumes were
obtained by applying the trip distributions shown in Figure 5 to the projected parking lot trip
generation calculated in Table 1. The resultant 2015 and 2025 parking lot traffic assignment
volumes are provided in Figure 6 for each of the study's key intersections and the four
proposed CSU South Campus parking lot accesses.
3.4 Total Traffic Volumes
The 2015 and 2025 proposed CSU South Campus parking lot traffic assignment volumes were
then added to the 2015 and 2025 background volumes to find the projected 2015 and 2025 total
traffic volumes. Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the projected total traffic volumes for the 2015 and
2025 horizon years.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Page 11
096336002 — Colorado State University South Campus Parking Lot
<-- [10%]
�10%
10%
TO O
20%N O
1 I N1 [209/6]
g I r�— [309/6]
J I c1�
0—[15%]
Tr
0
0
0
tIf) l
0—15%
Tr �'�Tr
T.
o� 10%�
a�
15%
W DRAKE
10%
H
Lr)
L r�
Tr
a o
P,
sn9ero!►N�.
NORTH
NTS 096336002
r
<-- 17%
k
V
[17%]
25%
�-17%
W y �
LEGEND
Study Area Key Intersection
XX%[XX%] Entering[ Exiting] Trip Distribution Percentage
CSU SOUTH CAMPUS PARKING LOT FIGURE 5
TRIP REDISTRIBUTION
Kimlev �)) Horn
<— 9(24)
L� 18(19)
18(19)�
36(37) m
a
�•27(72)
13(36)
o
m �
N
N
F--30(31)
W y
18(19)�I T
m
CSU SOUTH CAMPUS PARKING LOT
PROJECT TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT
m m 18(48)
_m io
—9(24)
NO
700
Not i �
NORTH
N75 09"002
II L�- 27(28)
18(19) N mm a �
7(19) I a`
15(41) --->
�14(15)
<-30(31)
LEGEND
Study Area Key Intersection
{XX(XXX) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Weekday AM(PM)
XX,X00 Estimated Daily Traffic Volume
FIGURE 6
Kim ev»>Horn
<--- 146(361)
442(174)--)1 I
n
80(91) —
Q m
m
' e
N o N
�49(128)
E-31(118)
/— 57(193)
104(101)
172(107) —
32(122) --,
N
e m
m N
r--27(72)
n m a
m `m
�I L� 13(36)
3(9) I
� N
m
N
� N
N h
W
L� 15(41)
3(22)
T r
22(86)
m
N
W. DRAKE RD
A
nm
D7
r�-199(127)
E— 519(1232)
�, 38(72)
80(47) __o
934(845)
20(19) --. m ;�
� o m
�1
b
CSU SOUTH CAMPUS PARKING LOT
2015 BACKGROUND
PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
TI
01 m
A
11I
25,400
NORTH
N1S 096338002
117(42)
E— 529(839)
L�303(235)
132(47)--7
857(902)—
N
112(51) _ g
O N
m N
N Q
N
T
N m
7(19) n
n
r--181(45)
E-745(1381)
98(22) —
935(1115) —>
LEGEND
Study Area Key Intersection
xxx(xxx) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Weekday AM(PM)
xx,x0o Estimated Daily Traffic Volume
FIGURE 7
Kimlev>»Horn
<---183(451)
kf.-100(279)
555(215) —4
92(105) �j
m
in
m
m
0
N
N t7 i�[l
r�57(149)
n O1 E— 39(150)
{Ll yl L— 70(238)
132028) [JJJIII
218(136)� N
41(155) ---N N
n m
m �
i
F-27(72)
N
IN I�
13(36)
4(11)� ` T
N
N
m m
m m
15(41)
4(28)
` T
28(109)
m N l7
N
N
W DRAKE RD
_ o
m
r---244(153)
N C
p
<-658(1562)
�,--48(91)
97(54) ---?1
a
1184(1071)� 9
25(24) m d m
a m 0
ml tM
�
NOoRTH
n
18(48)NrS
Z-9(24))
TI
so m
n
m m
n
n\ �i 148,53)
C O O
<-671(1064)
e_-377(290)
167(60) __,;1 T
1086(1143)�
N
137(60)�
n N �
m_
_ N �
7(19) 0
CSU SOUTH CAMPUS PARKING LOT
2025 BACKGROUND
PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
32, 000
m m F--226(53)
<-936(1742)
124(28)
1181(1402) —i
LEGEND
Study Area Key Intersection
,'XX(XXX) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Weekday AM(PM)
xx,xoo Estimated Daily Traffic Volume
FIGURE 8
Kim ev»)Horn
4.0 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
An analysis of traffic operations in the site vicinity was conducted to determine potential capacity
deficiencies in the 2015 and 2025 development horizons at the identified key intersections. The
acknowledged source for determining overall capacity is the current edition of the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM)'.
4.1 Analysis Methodology
Capacity analysis results are listed in terms of Level of Service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative term
describing operating conditions a driver will experience while traveling on a particular street or
highway during a specific time interval. It ranges from A (very little delay) to F (long delays and
congestion). For intersections and roadways in this study area, LOS D is recommended as the
minimum threshold for acceptable operation. Table 2 shows the definition of LOS for signalized
and unsignalized intersections.
Table 2 — Level of Service Definitions
Level of
Service
Signalized Intersection
Average Total Delay
seciveh
Unsignalized Intersection
Average Total Delay
seciveh
A
5 10
5 10
B
> 10 and 5 20
> 10 and:5 15
C
> 20 and 5 35
> 15 and 5 25
D
> 35 and 5 55
> 25 and 5 35
E
> 55 and 5 80
> 35 and 5 50
F
> 80
> 50
Definitions provided from the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 2010.
The study's key intersections were analyzed based on average total delay analysis for
signalized and unsignalized intersections. Under the unsignalized analysis, the LOS for a two-
way stop controlled intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay and
is defined for each minor movement. LOS for a two-way stop -controlled intersection is not
defined for the intersection as a whole. LOS for a signalized and four-way stop controlled
intersection is defined for each approach and for the intersection.
' Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Washington DC, 2010.
i imley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Page 16
096336002 — Colorado State University South Campus Parking Lot
4.2 Key Intersection Operational Analysis
Calculations for the level of service at the key intersections for the study area are provided in
Appendix B. The existing 2015 analysis is based on the lane geometry and intersection control
shown in Figure 2. All signalized intersection analyses utilize the existing observed 110-second
cycle lengths and existing signal phasing of the intersection provided by the City of Fort Collins.
LOS for the intersections was calculated using Synchro analysis software reporting the HCM
results. A summary of the existing intersection delay and LOS is provided in Table 3 and
summarized graphically in Figure 9. A summary of the background intersection delay and LOS
in 2025 is provided in Table 4 and summarized graphically in Figure 10. A summary of the
expected intersection delay and LOS in 2015 and 2025 with the proposed project is provided in
Tables 5 and 6 and summarized graphically in Figures 11 and 12.
Table 3 — Existina Intersection Delav and Level of Service
Intersection
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Delay
sec/veh
LOS
Delay
sec/veh
LOS
Prospect/Center
24.9
C
23.4
C
Shields/Centre
21.7
C
25.8
C
Centre/Research
Westbound Left
9.1
A
8.3
A
Northbound Approach
17.0
C
12.5
B
Drake/Research
14.9
B
19.1
B
Drake/Gilette Access
Eastbound Left
6.1
A
2.3
A
Southbound Approach
17.0
C
67.6
F
Research North Access
Eastbound Approach
10.0
B
11.2
B
Northbound Left
7.5
A
7.9
A
Research South Access
Eastbound Approach
10.0
B
12.6
B
Northbound Left
7.5
A
8.0
A
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Page 17
096336002 — Colorado State University South Campus Parking Lot
Table 4 — 2025 Expected Background Intersection Delay and Level of Service
Intersection
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Delay
sec/veh
LOS
Delay
sec/veh
LOS
Prospect/Center
50.0
D
33.0
C
Shields/Centre
36.9
D
40.7
D
Centre/Research
Westbound Left
9.9
A
8.8
A
Northbound Approach
29.4
D
15.4
C
Drake/Research
16.5
B
23.5
C
Drake/Gilette Drive Access
Eastbound Left
11.4
B
4.8
A
Sorthbound Approach
24.0
C
360.1
F
Research North Access
Eastbound Approach
10.7
B
12.3
B
Northbound Approach
7.6
A
8.1
A
Research South Access
Eastbound Approach
11.0
B
15.5
C
Northbound Left
7.6
A
8.3
A
Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Page 18
096336002 — Colorado State University South Campus Parking Lot
Table
i - 2015 Expected Background Plus Project Intersection Delay and Level of ;
Intersection
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Delay
sec/veh
LOS
Delay
sec/veh
LOS
Prospect/Center
28.7
C
25.6
C
Shields/Centre
23.3
C
27.7
C
Centre/Research
Westbound Left
9.5
A
8.7
A
Northbound Approach
19.1
C
16.6
C
Drake/Research
15.9
B
21.5
C
Drake/Gilette Drive Access
Eastbound Left
6.5
A
2.4
A
Southbound Approach
19.3
C
122.4
F
Drake/Gilette Drive Access #
Eastbound Left
6.5
A
2.4
A
Southbound Left
26.6
C
70.1
F
Southbound Right
13.9
B
21.7
C
Research North Access
Eastbound Approach
11.5
B
14.1
B
Westbound Approach
11.3
B
12.6
B
Northbound Left
7.5
A
7.9
A
Southbound Left
7.9
A
7.8
A
Research South Access
Eastbound Left
12.2
B
14.5
B
Eastbound Right
8.7
A
10.7
B
Westbound Approach
19.7
C
28.6
D
Northbound Left
7.6
A
8.1
A
Centre Access
Westbound Approach
15.4
C
15.0
C
Southbound Left
9.1
A
8.1
A
Gilette Access
Eastbound Approach
8.8
A
8.7
A
Westbound Approach
9.6
A
9.4
A
Northbound Left
7.5
A
7.4
A
Southbound Left
7.4
A
7.4
A
# Southbound designated left turn and right turn lanes
iervice
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Page 19
096336002 - Colorado State University South Campus Parking Lot
Table 6 - 2025 Expected Background Plus Project Intersection Delay and Level of Service
Intersection
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Delay
sec/veh
LOS
Delay
sec/veh
LOS
Prospect/Center
57.2
E
39.2
D
Prospect/Center *
58.9
E
48.3
D
Shields/Centre
44.6
D
45.8
D
Centre/Research
Westbound Left
10.5
A
9.3
A
Northbound Approach
37.2
E
25.0
C
Drake/Research
18.7
B
27.0
C
Drake/Gilette Drive Access
Eastbound Left
12.4
B
5.2
A
Southbound Approach
28.3
D
522.6
F
Drake/Gilette Drive Access #
Eastbound Left
12.4
B
5.2
A
Southbound Left
33.0
D
306.3
F
Southbound Right
23.5
C
40.7
E
Research North Access
Eastbound Approach
12.5
B
16.2
C
Westbound Approach
12.3
B
14.2
B
Northbound Left
7.8
A
8.1
A
Southbound Left
8.1
A
7.9
A
Research South Access
Eastbound Left
14.3
B
18.0
C
Eastbound Right
a
A
11.6
B
Westbound Approach
26.3
D
51.4
F
Northbound Left
7.7
A
8.4
A
Centre Access
Westbound Approach
19.0
C
18.6
C
Southbound Left
9.7
A
8.3
A
Gilette Access
Eastbound Approach
9.0
A
8.8
A
Westbound Approach
9.9
A
9.6
A
Northbound Left
7.5
A
7.4
A
Southbound Left
7.5
A
7.4
A
* Northbound and southbound dual left turn lanes
# Southbound designated left turn and right turn lanes
1 imley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Page 20
096336002 - Colorado State University South Campus Parking Lot
The intersections with LOS values of E or below were analyzed in further .detail. These
analyses provide recommendations for what improvements may be needed at the intersections
to improve the LOS, allowing them to better handle the anticipated 2015 and 2025 traffic
volumes. The following provides a description of the recommended intersection improvements
for consideration by CSU and the City of Fort Collins:
Drake Road and Gilette Drive Access
The only capacity deficiency found during the existing condition is the southbound approach of
Gillette Drive to Drake Road during the afternoon peak hour. To improve the Drake Road/Gilette
Drive unsignalized intersection, the southbound Gilette Drive Access approach would benefit
from a separate left turn and right turn lanes. Currently there is one shared left tum/right turn
lane with a width of roughly 20 feet. With separate left turn and right turn lanes, long delays on
the southbound could still occur. If delays are too excessive for drivers it is expected that traffic
will reroute on the street network. Otherwise, a traffic signal could be considered at this
intersection. `It is located approximately halfway (approximately 800 feet) between the Drake
Road/Research Boulevard and Drake Road/Redwing Road signalized intersections.
Research Boulevard South Access
With the completion of the CSU South Campus parking lot, the existing Research Boulevard
south driveway that provides access to the tennis courts will be modified to provide access to
the parking lot. It is recommended that the approach be constructed with a sufficient width to
include separate shared left turn/through and right turn lanes. It is anticipated that the
eastbound approach from the credit union will also function with two approach lanes as well
since it has an adequate driveway width. In addition, it is recommended that the southbound
Research Boulevard approach be restriped to include a left turn lane to shadow the northbound
left turn lane. It is believed that a left turn lane length of 75 feet would be sufficient. With this
configuration, acceptable level of service is anticipated for all movements with the addition of
the parking lot traffic in the near term 2015 horizon. In the 2025 horizon, the westbound left turn
movement may operate at a 51 second LOS F during the afternoon peak hour. It is believed
that during times of heavy adjacent street traffic, drivers will reroute on the street network. This
will occur either by vehicles turning right at this access or by traffic suing alternate driveways
from the parking lot.
Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Page 21
096336002 — Colorado State University South Campus Parking Lot
Prospect Road and Center Avenue
By 2025, the existing signalized intersection of Prospect Road and Center Avenue may operate
at LOS E. This intersection was also identified as operating with poor LOS in the Parking and
Transportation Master Plan (April 2014), prepared by Kimley-Hom, which studied the future
traffic conditions associated with the CSU 2020 Transit Plan prepared by CSU's parking and
transportation management team. Within the previous study it was recommended that the
northbound and southbound approaches include dual left turn lanes.
The above mentioned improvements at the Drake Road/Gilette Drive Access, Research
Boulevard/South Access, and Prospect Road/Center Avenue intersections were incorporated
into the operational analysis. The expected intersection delay and LOS in 2015 and 2025 with
the project and the recommended intersection improvements for each of the study's key
intersections is provided in Tables 5 and 6 previously and summarized graphically in Figures
11 and 12.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Page 22
096336002 — Colorado State University South Campus Parking Lot
0
-T -1C(Br /
B(C)
D(D) y
B(B)�
A(A)
B(B) 4
a
D(D)
J
B(e)
-
a
0
NORTH
N-5 oee��soos
E
D
DI(D)
1i
1 ` - A(B)
�
B(B) ::�- I � f r
ArNK Study Area Key Intersection
Signalized Intersection
O
Stop Controlled Approach
A(A)
AM(PM) Level of Service
CSU SOUTH CAMPUS PARKING LOT FIGURE 9
2015 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE
Kim ev>>>Horn
E(E)
f-A(A)
CIj(D)
D(E)
A(A)
B(C) 4
a
\ ® a
D(D)
J j �- C(B)
D(B)
� � r
F(F)
w.
tH
NORTH
,
xTs ooUxooz
H
m
DI(D)
1 B(C)
B(B) -� f r
T D(D)
CSU SOUTH CAMPUS PARKING LOT
2025 BACKGROUND
EXPECTED LEVEL OF SERVICE
•
LEGEND
Study Area Key Intersection
Signalized Intersection
®
Stop Controlled Approach
A(A)
AM(PM) Level of Service
FIGURE 10
Kimlev>>)Horn
)I
�I
C
C(D) \
B(o C)
(�-150'
C-1
)(D) 150=�— f
\ 150'� o
0
/A(A) O \
B(B)
B(B) t
\ ® A(A/
/aI ®\
C(D)
B(C)
�(D)
s
B(B)
�Ii ,zs
�TN T
CSU SOUTH CAMPUS PARKING LOT
2015 LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
K-1
NORTH
N73 09077e0M
C(C)
D(D)
J��, f—TW7R
&q '� 1
5�0 0
A(A)
A(A) 4
A(A)
TWL�TL
A(A)
•
LEGEND
Study Area Key Intersection
Signalized Intersection
®
Stop Controlled Approach
A(A)
AM(PM) Level of Service
f' 100'
Turn Lane Length (feet)
FIGURE 11
Kimlev ))Horn
m
D(D) \
D(D)
o
�-150'
�150'
=(E)150J f
\ 150'' o0
D(F)
A(A)
NORTH
N1S 0963.7e002
TL A(A
TVkOO
TVkO
E(D)
o(F) 0
s 0_
E(C) ® D(C
(—TWLTSL
(E ;5
°(D)
A(A)
y �y A(A)
B(C)
D(D)
I.I
o
o_
LJ
3(C)
125'
f-TWLTL
175'
f r
—�
v2 n
CSU SOUTH CAMPUS PARKING LOT
2025 LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
LEGEND
• Study Area Key Intersection
Signalized Intersection
® Stop Controlled Approach
A(A) AM(PM) Level of Service
100' Turn Lone Length (feet)
FIGURE 12
Kimlev)>>Horn
�I
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the analysis presented in this report, Kimley-Hom believes the proposed CSU South
Campus parking lot project will be successfully incorporated into the roadway network. The
proposed South Campus Parking Lot project development and expected traffic volumes resulted
in the following recommendations:
• The access proposed for the surface parking lot project is recommended to include four
full movement access driveways; two access drives off of Research Boulevard, one
access off of Centre Avenue, and one access off of Gilette Drive.
• At the proposed Centre Avenue access, the westbound approach exiting the parking lot
is recommended to have a combined left tum/right turn lane. It is recommended that this
approach operate with stop control with the installation of a R1-1 "STOP" sign.
• At the proposed access along Gilette Drive, the eastbound approach exiting the
development is recommended to have a combined left turn/through/right turn lane. It is
believed that a new access to the parking lot on the east side of Gilette Drive will be
constructed to align with this access. It is recommended that the parking lot approaches
operate with stop control with the installation of R1-1 "STOP" signs.
• With the completion of the South Campus Parking Lot, an access will be located to align
with the existing Centre Tech development. This Research Boulevard North Access will
include a stop controlled westbound approach and is recommended to have a combined
left turn/through/right turn lane. It is recommended that this approach operate with stop
control with the installation of a R1-1 "STOP" sign.
• The existing access to the tennis courts along Research Boulevard will be reconstructed
with the parking lot project. It is recommended that the westbound approach exiting the
parking lot include shared left turn/through lane and a separate right turn lane. It is
recommended that this approach operate with stop control with the installation of a R1-1
"STOP" sign. It is further recommended that southbound Research Boulevard include
IGmley--Hom and Associates, Inc. Page 27
096336002 — Colorado State University South Campus Parking Lot
restriping a 75-foot left turn lane at the access to shadow the existing northbound left
turn lane.
• To improve the Drake Road/Gilette Drive Access unsignalized intersection, the
southbound Gilette Drive Access approach would benefit from designating separate left
turn and right turn lanes. Currently there is one shared approach lane with a width of
approximately 20 feet which could be striped to provide two 10-foot turn lanes.
• To improve LOS conditions in the 2025 horizon at the intersection of Prospect
Road/Center Avenue and remain consistent with the Parking and Transportation Master
Plan (April 2014), prepared by Kimley-Hom, it is recommended that the northbound and
southbound approaches be constructed with dual left turn lanes.
• All on -site and off -site signing and striping improvements should be incorporated into the
project civil drawings, and conform to City of Fort Collins standards as well as the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices — 2009 Edition (MUTCD).
Kimley--Hom and Associates, Inc. Page 28
096336002 — Colorado State University South Campus Parking Lot
APPENDICES
1 imley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
096336002 — Colorado State University South Campus Parking Lot
APPENDIX A
Intersection Count Sheets
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
096336002 — Colorado State University South Campus Parking Lot
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Centre Ave and Research Blvd
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
rrrninc Printc"- I Inchiftcrl
File Name : Centre ResearchAM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 1
Centre Ave
Eastbound
Centre Ave
Westbound
Research Blvd
Northbound
Start Time
I Thru I
Right I App.
Total
Left
Thru I A
. Total
Left
I Right I App.
Total
Int. Total
07:30 AM
07:45 AM
133
136
10
2
143
138
15
17
28
38
43
55
8
10
36
58
44
68
230
261
Total
269
12
281
32
66
98
18
94
112
491
08:00 AM
79
21
100
17
32
49
7
36
43
192
08:15 AM
76
11
87
16
39
55
3
27
30
172
08:30 AM
111
11
122
16
34
50
13
31
44
216
08:45 AM
96
14
110
20
36
56
20
30
50
216
Total
362
57
419
69
141
210
43
124
167
796
09:00 AM
51
7
58
18
42
60
4
30
34
152
09:15 AM
57
6
63
10
21
31
7
27
34
128
Grand Total
739
82
821
129
270
399
72
275
347
1567
Apprch %
90
10
32.3
67.7
20.7
79.3
Total %
47.2
5.2
52.4
8.2
17.2
25.5
4.6
17.5
22.1
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Centre Ave and Research Blvd
File Name : Centre ResearchAM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1/20/2015
Page No : 2
m�
T
m
North o
m e io n IE F-2 0
1/20/2015 07:30 AM m
m E 1/20/2015 09:15 AM m
*j Unshifted -4
F+
Leff Ri ht
72 275
211 347
out In Total
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Centre Ave and Research Blvd
File Name : Centre ResearchAM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 3
Centre Ave
Eastbound
Centre Ave
Westbound
Research Blvd
Northbound
Start Time
Thru Right I App. Total
Left I Thru I App. Total
Left I RightF App. Total
Int. Total
veaK dour Analysis i-rom u7:au AM -10 ua:Ta Ann - reaK 1 oT 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 133 10
143
15
28
43
8
36
44
230
07:45 AM 136 2
138
17
38
55
10
58
68
261
08:00 AM 79 21
100
17
32
49
7
36
43
192
08:15 AM 76 11
87
16
39
55
3
27
30
172
Total Volume
424 44
468
65
137
202
28
157
185
855
% App. Total
90.6 9.4
32.2
67.8
15.1
84.9
PHF
1 .779 .524
.818
.956
.878
.918
.700
.677
.680
.819
om
F
v�
mEa
On
Peak Hour Data
Nth
Peak Flour Begins at 07:30 AAA
Unshfied
F4
Left Ri ht
28 157
109 185
Out In Total
Rxnarrh Rlvri
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Centre Ave and Research Blvd
UITA
R,dgemue Data
ColleMan
Morrison, CO 60465
Image 1
File Name : CentreResearchAM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1/20/2015
Page No : 4
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PM Peak
Centre Ave and Research Blvd
Ridgeview Dora
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
r mi inc PrintM- I Inchifteri
File Name : Centre Research PM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 1
Centre Ave
Centre Ave
Research Blvd
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Start Time
I Thru I
Right I App.
Total
Left
Thru I App.
Total
Left
Right I App.
Total
Int. Total
03:00 PM
54
17
71
41
54
95
11
19
30
196
03:15 PM
41
17
58
36
71
107
17
28
45
210
03:30 PM
53
17
70
40
77
117
11
31
42
229
03:45 PM
53
23
76
43
66
109
11
12
23
208
Total
201
74
275
160
268
428
50
90
140
843
04:00 PM
34
20
54
42
72
114
14
34
48
216
04:15 PM
33
13
46
52
85
137
13
28
41
224
04:30 PM
45
12
57
57
81
138
8
26
34
229
04:45 PM
43
9
52
54
99
153
11
35
46
251
Total)
155
54
209
205
337
542
46
123
169
920
Grand Total
356
128
484
365
605
970
96
213
309
1763
Apprch %
73.6
26.4
37.6
62.4
31.1
68.9
Total %
20.2
7.3
27.5
20.7
34.3
55
5.4
12.1
17.5
Ridgeml Deter
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PM Peak
Centre Ave and Research Blvd
File Name : Centre Research PM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 2
I �o
r� m5
North O
�2N
1/20/2015 03:00 PM m
N >= 1/20/2015 04:45 PM c c m 1 �zN m
g n UrsWed i
Oo
�m
m—
Left RI M
96 213
® 309 802
Out In Total
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PM Peak
Centre Ave and Research Blvd
File Name : Centre Research PM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 3
Centre Ave
Eastbound
Centre Ave
Westbound
Research Blvd
Northbound
Start Time
Thru Right I App. Total
Left Thru I App. Total
Left Right App. Total
Int. Total
roan nuui M141ybis num vo:uv rm to v4:4v rm - reaK I or I
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM
04:00 PM 34 40
54
42
72
114
14
34
48
216
04:15 PM 33 13
46
52
85
137
13
28
41
224
04:30 PM 45 12
57
57
81
138
8
26
34
229
04:45 PM 43 9
52
54
99
153
11
35
46
251
Total Volume
155 54
209
205
337
542
46
123
169
920
% App. Total
74.2 25.8
37.8
62.2
27.2
72.8
PHF
.861 .675
.917
.899
.851
.886
.821
.879
.880
.916
Peak Hour Data
To
th
�-
m a ~� Peak Hour Begins a[ 04:00 PM '-2 8
m � Q y Uretdfted �� N N 0
O N N
O —
4, F+
Left 11i ht
46 123
® 169 428
Out In Total
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PIVI Peak
Centre Ave and Research Blvd
Image 1
11 t
A
4. t
or
. fa
File Name :Centre Research PIVI
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1/20/2015
Page No : 4
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Centre Ave and Shields St
. m
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
r;rniim Printers- I Inshifted
File Name : CentreShieldsAM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 1
Centre Ave
Centre Ave
Shields St
Shields St
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Start Time
Left
Thru Right
%P-�
Left
Thru
Right
Total
Left
Thru
Right
To a'
Left
Thru
Right
al
Total
07:30 AM
45
45 8
98
12
1 12
25
9
263 82
354
26
204 6
236
713
07:45 AM
23
69 4
96
10
7 7
24
9
278 81
368
36
176 15
227
715
Total
68
114 12
194
22
8 19
49
18
541 163
722
62
380 21
463
1428
08:00 AM
18
30
13
61
12
9
4
25
14
188
50
252
21
163
21
205
543
08:15 AM
18
28
7
53
14
14
8
36
9
184
60
253
20
184
16
220
562
08:30 AM
26
23
5
54
19
9
13
41
22
234
81
337
23
198
13
234
666
08:45 AM
19
27
9
55
16
18
17
51
20
203
69
292
33
209
23
265
663
Total
81
108
34
223
61
50
42
153
65
809
260
1134
97
754
73
924
2434
09:00 AM
12
15
12
39
22
14
7
43
26
222
48
296
16
137
15
168
546
09:15 AM
21
21
21
63
9
12
13
34
26
176
41
243
9
150
27
186
526
Grand Total
182
258
79
519
114
84
81
279
135
1748
512
2395
184
1421
136
1741
4934
Approh %
35.1
49.7
15.2
40.9
30.1
29
5.6
73
21.4
10.6
81.6
7.8
.
Total %
3.7
5.2
1.6
10.5
2.3
1.7
1.6
5.7
2.7
35.4
10.4
48.5
3.7
28.8
2.8
35.3
Ridgerriew Oats
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO File Name : CentreShieldsAM
CSU South Parking Lot Site Code : IPO 72
AM Peak Start Date : 1/20/2015
Centre Ave and Shields St Page No : 2
Shields
out In Total
2011 F-17-4-11 1 3752
136 1421 184
Right Thru Left
�J 1 '-►
m
T
m
~ N�� rioth tom s
> m m
�2
a--► 1/20/2015 07:30 AM
1/20/2015 09:15 AM
m m
.5 n Urshifted
MiThnl R
1748 512
=p!
out In Total
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Centre Ave and Shields St
Eastbound
Start Time
Left
Thru
I Right
07:30 AM
07:45 AM
45
23
45
69
8
4
Total
68
114
12
Ridgevia oats
Colle=an
Morrison, CO 80465
File Name : CentreShieldsAM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 1
LOtaleft
Thru
Right
T to al
Left
Thru
Right
Total
Left
Thru
Right
Total
98
12
1
12
25
9
263
82
354
26
204
6
236
713
96
10
7
7
24
9
278
81
368
36
176
15
227
715
194
22
8
19
49
18
541
163
722
62
380
21
463
1428
08:00 AM
18
30
13
61
12
9
4
25
14
188
50
252
21
163
21
205
543
08:15 AM
18
28
7
53
14
14
8
36
9
184
60
253
20
184
16
220
562
08:30 AM
26
23
5
54
19
9
13
41
22
234
81
337
23
198
13
234
666
08:45 AM
19
27
9
55
16
18
17
51
20
203
69
292
33
209
23
265
663
Total
81
108
34
223
61
50
42
153
65
809
260
1134
97
754
73
924
2434
09:00 AM
12
15
12
39
22
14
7
43
26
222
48
296
16
137
15
168
546
09:15 AM
21
21
21
63
9
12
13
34
26
176
41
243
9
150
27
186
526
Grand Total
182
258
79
519
114
84
81
279
135
1748
512
2395
184
1421
136
1741
4934
Apprch %
35.1
49.7
15.2
40.9
30.1
29
5.6
73
21.4
10.6
81.6
7.8
Total %
3.7
52
1.6
10.5
2.3
1.7
1.6
5.7
2.7
35.4
10.4
48.5
3.7
28.8
2.8
35.3
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO File Name : CentreShieldsAM
CSU South Parking Lot Site Code : IPO 72
AM Peak Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Centre Ave and Shields St Page No : 3
Centre Ave
Centre Ave
Shields St
Shields St
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
App
App-
App'
App.
Int.
Start Time
Left
Thru
Right
Left
I Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:30 AM to 09:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM
45
45
8
98
12
1
12
25
9
263
84
354
26
204
6
236
713
07:45 AM
23
69
4
96
10
7
7
24
9
278
81
368
36
176
15
227
715
08:00 AM
18
30
73
61
12
9
4
25
14
188
50
252
21
163
21
205
543
08:15 AM
18
28
7
53
14
14
8
36
9
184
60
253
20
184
16
220
562
Total
104
172
32
308
48
31
31
110
41
913
273
1227
103
727
58
888
2533
Volume
% App-
33.8
55.8
10.4
43.6
28.2
28.2
3.3
74.4
22.2
11.6
81.9
6.5
Total
PHF
1 .578
.623
.615
.786
.857
.554
.646
.764
.732
.821
.832
.834
.715
.891
.690
.941
.886
Out In Total
1 0-4-81 888 1 1936
58 727 103
RIOM Thru Left
1
Peak Hour Data
W�gJs=
Nora,
C lO, n
F—� Peak FbUr Begins al 07:30 AM 4-2
0
O L Unsluitad r
0�
4,
1
F:
Lei'
Thru
Ri M
41
913
273
607
1227
(.0
In
Tntni
RDC
i;° Y � 4 � _ t � `.}-� �'�. !R � ♦ i, .< a i __. '�, � iLr ,+;'�r i! .ihn-; F ,f � 4 ... -
�' � � � � ' .� � ; �.L � k . ter' • -
fo� spec, Ra,�
.., •'h I S E Prospect-R4
Sheet, A dntaon r
II u
fhr♦� n - U �'� �T l�
t -
II�
` r
_ + Snarl SI
r
h ♦, a rg:r 3,
k D ••
jr
�g t`
. oar �` - d �:� '� `h ■. sir:
{ y r
fir', � I °ri.�A • l i
•
! ,4
CentfB`AVe'&Resea7cfh' Blvd
_ tl jejtteiNorthlSouth ��[q�
.40
l
entir�eflR tree •& Shields . Re_ ear�h^N6rth Access ,�{V� ;
Gefi re .Y�ti :% .. t r -
Research, out10
h cress m
�+p So.uth Carm�pus Ac ess 8*DrDrake''&Research
D K•el-
x
ra
r r., 1 Alt
4 , M .i• TM"Y T .-, r �. 1°' ...' !� !3 •h It r�� 7 � R p -
�. a -i�PowUerh o•n-pr.-a:-.vsWsxlmd e, DatE�S 19/?(Y14 Ou-4-3 33 �4 N 105°CL I'I1 �S' LV elev tUS$�ft� i tad t t f.-
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PM Peak
Centre Ave and Shields St
. m
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
r;rniinc Printar6 I Inchiftari
File Name : CentreShieldsPM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 1
Centre Ave
Centre Ave
Shields St
Shields St
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Start Time
Left
Thru
RighAPPt
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
To a�
Left
Thru
Right
To al
Int
Total
Total
03:06 PM
28
17 34
79
39
18 27
84
13
250 36
299
15
233 22
270
732
03:15 PM
28
19 32
79
44
18 17
79
11
237 26
274
16
268 19
.303
735
03:30 PM
35
63 42
140
51
34 18
103
15
185 39
239
22
245 27
294
776
03:45 PM
19
19 35
73
34
21 20
75
23
240 40
303
34
300 38
372
823
Total
110
118 143
371
168
91 82
341
62
912 141
1115
87
1046 106
1239
3066
04:00 PM
20 13 22
04:15 PM
27
12
23
04:30 PM
21
16
9
04:45 PM
26
8
20
Total
94
49
74
55
47
35
17
99
19
236
15
270
17
258
27
302
726
62
37
28
25
90
14
241
13
268
16
291
20
327
747
46
49
30
31
110
16
222
21
259
9
245
21
275
690
54
50
36
28
114
14
226
24
264
14
300
31
345
777
2171 183 129 101 4131 63 925 73 10611 56 1094 99 12491 2940
Grand Total 204 167 217 588 351 220 183 754 125 1837 214 2176 143 2140 205 2488 6006
Apprch % 34.7 28.4 36.9 46.6 29.2 24.3 5.7 84.4 9.8 5.7 86 8.2
Total % 3.4 2.8 3.6 9.8 5.8 3.7 3 12.6 2.1 30.6 3.6 36.2 2.4 35.6 3.4 41.4
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO File Name : CentreShieldsPM
CSU South Parking Lot Site Code : IPO 72
PM Peak Start Date : 1/20/2015
Centre Ave and Shields St Page No : 2
Shields St
Out In Total
2224 2488 1 4712
205 2140 143
Right Thru Left .
�f 1 �►
o� aa 11 O
~� Or� r D� N.I.
m a J NOi01 A
> m n
Li
m
1/20/2015 03:00 PM
d 1202015 04:45 PM o p
n m
O'N N Unshifted
♦ V b'i
*, T F+
Left Thru Ri ht
125 1837 214
2708 2176
Out In Total
Ridgmiew Deter
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO File Name : CentreShieldsPM
CSU South Parking Lot Site Code : IPO 72
PM Peak Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Centre Ave and Shields St Page No : 3
Centre Ave
Centre Ave
Shields St
Shields St
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
App'
App-
App-
App.
Int.
Start Time
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
,
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 03:00 PM to 04:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 03:30 PM
03:30 PM
35
63
42
140
51
34
18
103
15
185
39
239
22
245
27
294
776
03:45 PM
19
19
35
73
34
21
20
75
Y3
240
40
303
34
300
38
372
823
04:00 PM
20
13
22
55
47
39
17
99
19
236
15
270
17
258
27
302
726
04:15 PM
27
12
23
62
37
28
25
90
14
247
13
268
16
291
20
327
747
Total
101
107
122
330
169
118
80
367
71
902
107
1080
89
1094
112
1295
3072
Volume
% App.
30.6
32.4
37
46
32.2
21.8
6.6
83.5
9.9
6.9
84.5
8.6
Total
PHF
.721
.425
.726
.589
:828
.843
.800
.891
1 .772
.936
.669
.891
.654
.912
.737
.870
.933
Out In Total
1 0-8-31 1295 1 2378
112 1094 89
Right Thru Left
fJ 1 4
Peak Hour Data
s� wo
F ?. oS
North o, w
mF
en n
Peak Four Begins at 03:30 PM 4— w g
�m v
iy E Urshiited
V pl
O —
Left Thru Ri ht
711 9021 107
1385 1080 2465
r1R In Tnfal
t Pffiros • sCeniter
Shee , A tliitioo �� ,, a , l
_ s
kcr-s`
} ta.
. r- Ili
i�.sIre-
=tir t _fir g.�i
�ert,e Ave & ,Rey arch B vd ... � ,•.,a-�' :,
. �l tlfi�"1r
Centr2 1rtlreev&`�Shie.O105 R° Ret earch,Norfh
r r� �• 1' # ■ 1i y t
Y^ ►, f _•p •Ci. eve � ! �, ■.'.■ y
Rio jResearc n Soui!'i Access,
p .� E "%
if
ot
s 'K,SrSouth Carnp,us Rccess &Drake on,ce�°,. ^r
Drake''&'Researcfl - ~'
y \ ( �+jam - F - C ",. -y kc_ t, �'``•�(' `,Pp�i,`r
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Drake Rd and Research Blvd
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
rrnirnQ Printed- I Inehifterl
File Name : DrakeResearchAM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 1
Drake Rd
Eastbound
Drake Rd
Westbound
Research Blvd
Northbound
Research Blvd
Southbound
Start Time
Left
Thru
Right
ota'
Left
Thru
Right
Total
Left
Thru
Right
App Total
Left
Thru
Right
To al
Total
07:30 AM
07:45 AM
9
23
285 2
242 0
296
265
5
13
113 39
166 60
157
239
6
6
34 15
31 21
55
58
9
7
4 1
3 1
14
11
522
573
Total
32
527 2
561
18
279 99
396
12
65 36
113
16
7 2
25
1095
08:00 AM
17
195
6
218
4
108
44
156
13
18
11
42
4
6
5
15
431
08:15 AM
13
212
12
237
16
132
26
174
13
13
34
60
12
2
3
17
488
08:30 AM
9
231
3
243
7
151
29
187
10
24
18
52
11
6
2
19
501
08:45 AM
20
263
5
288
5
166
35
206
4
24
11
39
28
4
1
33
566
Total
59
901
26
986
32
557
134
723
40
79
74
193
55
18
11
84
1986
09:00 AM
11
191
4
206
10
121
17
148
3
14
15
32
15
5
8
28
414
09:15 AM
3
187
8
198
6
124
33
163
1
12
7
20
19
3
7
29
410
Grand Total
105
1806
40
1951
66
1081
283
1430
56
170
132
358
105
33
28
166
3905
Apprch %
5.4
92.6
2.1
4.6
75.6
19.8
15.6
47.5
36.9
63.3
19.9
16.9
Total %
2.7
46.2
1
50
1.7
27.7
7.2
36.6
1.4
4.4
3.4
9.2
2.7
0.8
0.7
4.3
. m
Ridgeview Oats
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Drake Rd and Research Blvd
File Name : DrakeResearchAM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 2
Research Blvd
Out In Total
® 166 724
28 33 105
Right Thru Left
0
North S
s
n o�
—11, 1/20/201507:30 AM �o3m
1/20/2015 09:15 AM m o
0
e Unsttlfted io
O� r- rim AC
4, T F+
Leif TIw Ri M
56 170 132
139 358 497
Out In Total
. m
Ridgewew Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Drake Rd and Research Blvd
File Name : DrakeResearchAM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No :3
Drake Rd
Drake Rd
Research Blvd
Research Blvd
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Start Time
Left
Thru
Right
App.
Left
Thru
Right
App.
Left
Thru
Right
App.
Left
Thru
Right
App.
Int.
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:30 AM to 09:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM
9
285
2
296
5
113
39
157
6
S4
15
55
9
4
1
14
522
07:45 AM
23
242
0
265
13
166
60
239
6
31
21
58
7
3
1
11
573
08:00 AM
17
195
6
218
4
108
44
156
13
18
11
42
4
6
5
15
431
08:15 AM
13
212
12
237
16
132
26
174
13
13
34
60
12
2
3
17
488
Total
62
934
20
1016
38
519
169
726
38
96
81
215
32
15
10
57
2014
Volume
% App.
6.1
91.9
2
5.2
71.5
23.3
17.7
44.7
37.7
56.1
26.3
17.5
Total
PHF
.674
.819
.417
.858
.594
.782
.704
.759
.731
.706
.596
.896
1 .667
.625
.500
.838
.879
Out In Total
0 57
10 15 32
RIgM Thru Left
�J 1 `-►
Peak Hour Data
NT
Peak Flour Begins at 07:30 AM
unshifted
#i. T F+
Left Thru Ri ht
38 96 81
I� 215 I
nn In Tntal
Ridgevie,w Dam
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Drake Rd and Research Blvd
Image 1
i�
File Name : DrakeResearchAM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1/20/2015
Page No : 4
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PM Peak
Drake Rd and Research Blvd
Ridgevlew Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
(_rnuni. DA.fml_ 11—Wff-A
File Name : DrakeResearchPM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 1
Drake Rd
Drake Rd
Research Blvd
Research Blvd
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Start Time
Left
Thru Right
To a-
Left
Thru
Right
APF
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
AppiTotal
Total
Total
TotaIntl
03:00 PM
4
209 18
231
21
260 21
302
10
5 13
28
43
24 14
81
642
03:15 PM
7
217 6
230
7
255 40
302
9
8 22
39
44
15 9
68
639
03:30 PM
8
229 8
245
14
277 26
317
5
8 10
23
34
19 7
60
645
03:45 PM
5
240 6
251
13
335 24
372
4
3 13
20
36
20 16
72
715
Total
24
895 38
957
55
1127 111
1293
28
24 58
110
157
78 46
281
2641
04:00 PM
12 200
04:15 PM
4
221
04:30 PM
7
184
04:45 PM
5
206
Total 1 28 811
3 215
22
285
24
331
5
9
9
6 231
14
326
27
367
2
6
12
4 195
23
286
21
330
7
9
10
10 221
21
356
21
398
4
7
10
23 8621 80 1253 93 14261 18 31 41
Grand Total 52 1706 61 1819 135 23110 204 2719 46 55 99
Apprch % . 2.9 93.8 3.4 5 87.5 7.5 23 27.5 49.5
Total % 1 31.9 1.1 34 2.5 44.5 3.8 50.8 0.9 1 1.8
23
45
32
12
20
40
26
16
26
46
39
10
901
164
118
51
200
321
196
97
52.3
31.9
15.8
3.7
6
3.7
1.8
89 658
82 700
95 646
67 707
3331 2711
614 5352
11.5
3
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 60465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PM Peak
Drake Rd and Research Blvd
File Name : DrakeResearchPM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 2
Research
Ou[ In Total
3-1 11 614 1 925
97 196 321
Right Tlvu Len
� N
11 N
J Nortn J O m
^ A
N
c m _10 1/20/201503:00 PMIE
m
1O 1/20/201504:45 PMOr
�o
o N unsnined N 01
T r
Left Tntu Ri ht
46 55 99
® 200 592
out In Total
. M
Ridgemew Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PM Peak
Drake Rd and Research Blvd
File Name : DrakeResearchPM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page.No :3
Drake Rd
Drake Rd
Research Blvd
Research Blvd
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
App
'pp
'pp'
App.
Int.
Start Time
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 03:00 PM to 04:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 03:45 PM
03:45 PM
5
240
6
251
13
335
24
372
4
3
13
20
36
20
16
72
715
04:00 PM
12
200
3
215
22
285
24
331
5
9
9
23
45
32
12
89
658
04:15 PM
4
221
6
231
14
326
27
367
2
6
12
20
40
26
16
82
700
04:30 PM
7
184
4
195
23
286
21
330
7
9
10
26
46
39
10
95
646
Total
28
845
19
892
72
1232
96
1400
18
27
44
89
167
117
54
338
2719
Volume
% App.
3.1
94.7
2.1
5.1
88
6.9
20.2
30.3
49.4
49.4
34.6
16
Total
PHF
.583
.880
.792
.888
.783
.919
.889
.941
.643
.750
.846
.856
.908
.750
.844
.889
.951
out In Total
151 338 1 489
541 1171 167
FU ht Thru Left
r 1 ~
Peak Hour Data
T �D OONi O
J NOfth S D
.w p,
N
Peak Four Begins at 03:45 PM 4-9w o 5
N O
M L Unshtfted r
O�xro
+, T F+
Left inn' Ri ht
18 27 44
208 89 297
nrt In Tnfal
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PM Peak
Drake Rd and Research Blvd
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Image 1
File Name : DrakeResearchPM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 4
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Drake Rd and South Campus Access
Ridgemew Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
rrni inc lorinfarl- I InehiHerl
File Name : DrakeSouthCampusAM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 1
Drake Rd
Eastbound
Drake Rd
Westbound
South Campus Access
Southbound
Start Time
Left
Thru I App.
Total
Thru
Right I App.
Total
Left Right I App. Total
Int. Total
07:30 AM
07:45 AM
26
35
280
226
306
261
158
228
40
55
198
283
3 4 7
3 10 13
511
557
Total
61
506
567
386
95
481
6 14 20
1068
08:00 AM
19
186
205
200
43
243
3
1
4
452
08:15 AM
18
228
246
129
29
158
5
3
8
412
08:30 AM
9
260
269
179
14
193
0
4
4
466
08:45 AM
4
298
302
204
25
229
3
5
8
539
Total
50
972
1022
712
111
823
11
13
24
1869
09:00 AM
10
207
217
152
19
171
0
2
2
390
09:15 AM
9
204
213
155
18
173
4
5
9
395
Grand Total
130
1889
2019
1405
243
1648
21
34
55
3722
Apprch %
6.4
93.6
85.3
14.7
38.2
61.8
Total %
3.5
50.8
54.2
37.7
6.5
44.3
0.6
0.9
1.5
Ridgeview Darr
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Drake Rd and South Campus Access
File Name : DrakeSouthCampusAM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 2
South ampus Aocess
Out In Total
3731 F-551 1 428
34 21
Right Left
W� T
NorthCr
0
pN
1/2a2015 07:30 AM
1° 2 1/20/2015 09:15 AM-2 g
m �^
� Unshifted
oW c
�m
RidgwAaw Dare
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Drake Rd and South Campus Access
File Name : DrakeSouthCampusAM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 3
Drake Rd
Eastbound
Drake Rd
Westbound
South Campus Access
Southbound
Start Time
Left Thru I App. Total
Thru Right I App. Total
Left Right App. Total
Int. Total
reaK nour Mnalysls rrom U1:JU HM 10 MI: 1 o MM - reaK r or r
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 26 280
306
158
40
198
3
4
7
511
07:45 AM 35 226
261
228
55
283
3
10
13
557
08:00 AM 19 186
205
200
43
243
3
1
4
452
08:15 AM 18 228
246
129
29
158
5
3
8
412
Total Volume
98 920
1018
715
167
882
14
18
32
1932
% App. Total
9.6 90.4
81.1
18.9
43.8
56.2
PHF
.700 .821
.832
.784
.759
.779
.700
.450
.615
.867
South Campus Access
out In Total
2651 F-3-21 1 297
16 14 '
RT Left
Peak Hour Data
r
F� th A
ap Nor
m ar m� 7i
m c Peak Flour Begins at 07:30 AM W S m
Unshitted ~2 u ro
O� �^
m
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Drake Rd and South Campus Access
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
9
Image 1
e Name : DrakeSouthCampusAM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 4
Ff u ,
A•a`� 2
a1
f.
a
Z4,06i
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PM Peak
Drake Rd and South Campus Access
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
(]rnunc Prin}o.i_ 1 InchiRnri
File Name : DrakeSouthCampusPM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 1
Drake Rd
Drake Rd
South Campus Access
Eastbound
Westbound
Southbound
Start Time
Left I
Thru I App.
Total
Thru
Right I App.
Total
Left Right I App.
Total
Int. Total
03:00 PM
5
262
267
307
6
313
19 5
24
604
03:15 PM
6
282
288
294
6
300
7 7
14
602
03:30 PM
3
270
273
304
6
310
14 7
21
604
03:45 PM
4
291
295
371
7
378
10 4
14
687
Total
18
1105
1123
1276
25
1301
50 23
73
2497
04:00 PM
8
251
259
311
12
323
20
29
49
631
04:15 PM
7
262
269
364
5
369
16
24
40
678
04:30 PM
5
241
246
287
14
301
24
23
47
594
04:45 PM
5
248
253
386
9
395
25
21
46
694
Total)
25
1002
1027
1348
40
1388
85
97
182
2597
Grand Total
1 43
2107
21501
2624
65
2689
135
120
255
5094
Apprch %
2
98
97.6
2.4
52.9
47.1
Total %
0.8
41.4
42.2
51.5
1.3
52.8
2.7
2.4
5
Ridgeview Data
Colleodon
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PM Peak
Drake Rd and South Campus Access
File Name : DrakeSouthCampusPM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 2
South empus Access
Out In Total
108 255 1 363
120 135
RIgM Left
a
F°d T Na
North
m & 1/20/201503:00 PM
16 N 2 1/20/2015 04:45 PM -c
A
Unsmffed i
ON
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PM Peak
Drake Rd and South Campus Access
File Name : DrakeSouthCampusPM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 3
Drake Rd
Eastbound
Drake Rd
Westbound
South Campus Access
Southbound
Start Time
Left ThruI App. Total
Thru Right I App. Total
Left Right App. Total
Int. Total
reaK nour mnarysls rrom ua:uu rm to u t:4o rm - reaK i or t
-
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 03:30 PM
03:30 PM 3 270
273
304
6
310
14
7
21
604
03:45 PM 4 291
295
371
7
378
10
4
14
687
04:00 PM 8 251
259
311
12
323
20
29
49
631
04:15 PM 7 262
269
364
.5
369
16
24
40
678
Total Volume
22 1074
1096
1350
30
1380
60
64
124
2600
% App. Total
2 98
97.8
2.2
48.4
51:6
PHF
.688 .923
.929
.910
.625
.913
.750
.552
.633
.946
South Campus Access
Out In Total
F-5-21 124 1 176
64 60
Right Left
Peak Hour Data
�s r
mN go
th
N Z�
v Peak Flour Begins at 03:30 PM m m
s o
e—� Unshifted
`0 ad
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PM Peak
Drake Rd and South Campus Access
Image 1
,. w'IN
of
or
` itJ
File Name
: DrakeSouthCampusPM
Site Code
: IPO 72
Start Date
: 1 /20/2015
Page No
: 4
I it It
w s1
Rldgevlew Dare
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Gilette Dr North/Southbound only
File Name : GiletteAM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 1
urou s rrimea- unsninea
Gilette or
Northbound
Gilette Dr
Southbound
Start Time
Thru7 App. Total
Thru App. Total
Int. Total
07:30 AM
07:45 AM
24 24
13 13
27 27
44 44
51
57
Total
37 37
71 71
108
08:00 AM
29
29
14
14
43
08:15 AM
11
11
14
14
25
08:30 AM
11
11
8
8
19
08:45 AM
16
16
8
8
24
Total
67
67
44
44
111
09:00 AM
13
13
6
6
19
09:15 AM
10
10
6
6
16
Grand Total
127
127
127
127
254
Apprch %
100
100
Total %
50
50
50
50
Ridgeview Oats
Collection
Morrison. CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Gilette Dr North/Southbound only
File Name : GiletteAM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1/20/2015
Page No : 2
uilette Ur
Out In Total
127 712277 254
Thru
1
T
1/20/2015 07:30 AM
1/20/2015 09:15 AM
Unshifted
T
Thru
127
127 127 254
out In Total
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Gilette Dr North/Southbound only
File Name
: GiletteAM
Site Code
: IPO 72
Start Date
: 1 /20/2015
Page No
: 3
Gilette Dr
Northbound
Gilette Dr
Southbound
Start Time
Thru App. Total
Thru I App. Total
Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:30 AM to 09:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM 24
24
27
27
51
07:45 AM 13
13
44
44
57
08:00 AM P9
29
14
14
43
08:15 AM 11
11
14
14
25
Total Volume
77
77
99
99
176
% App. Total
100
100
PHF
.664
.664
.563
.563
.772
Gilette Dr
Out In Total
0 99 176
99
Thru
1
Peak Hour Data
NT
Peak Four Begins at 07:30 AM
Unshitted
T
Thru
77
ss n n6
out In Total
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO File Name : GiletteAM
CSU South Parking Lot Site Code : IPO 72
AM Peak Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Gilette Dr North/Southbound only Page No : 4
Image 1
tnt%'mv �147,- �O 41zt -
7 �
4 .
A!p'
� r
4c
- e
s
e,l kF
IL
II ti
s mow.
1 • �* I 1 �F~q��M•Wvii.t.
1
„� 'q/��• � Vim,-� t a
1 Y
�1 `��.;�[ µTa . if. 1. 11K � . �il�• Y �
5
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PM Peak
Gilette North/Southbound Only
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
r;rnjim Printpd- I Inshiftad
File Name : GilettePM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No :1
Gilette Dr
Gilette Dr
Northbound
Southbound
Start Time
Thru
App. Total
Thru
App. Total
Int. Total
03:00 PM
8
8
14
14
22
03:15 PM
6
6
6
6
12
03:30 PM
13
13
11
11
24
03:45 PM
8
8
7
7
15
Total
35
35
38
38
73
04:00 PM
11
11
24
24
35
04:15 PM
11
11
10
10
21
04:30 PM
15
15
14
14
29
04:45 PM
21
21
17
17
38
- --- I
Grand Total
--
93
Apprch %
100
To %
47.4
581
65
93
103
100
47.4
52.6
65
103
52.6
123
196
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 60465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PM Peak
Gilette North/Southbound Only
File Name : GilettePM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 2
Gilette Dr
Out In Total
® 1031 1 196
103
ThrU
1
T
1/20/2015 03:00 PM
1/20/2015 04:45 PM
Urshifted
Thru
93
103 93 196
Out In Total
Ridgemew Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PM Peak
Gilette North/Southbound Only
File Name : GilettePM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 3
Gilette Dr
Northbound
Gilette Dr
Southbound
Start Time
Thru I App. Total
Thru I App. Total
Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 03:00 PM to 04:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM
04:00 PM
11
11
24
24
35
04:15 PM
11
11
10
10
21
04:30 PM
15
15
14
14
29
04:45 PM
P1
41
17
17
38
% App. Total 1 100
100
Gilette Ur
Out In Total
® 123
Z65
Thru
1
Peak Hour Data
r
North
Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM
Unshifted
Thnl
5tl
® 58 123
Out In Total
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PM Peak
Gilette North/Southbound Only
Fidgeview Data
COIIecuon
Morrison, CO 80465
Image 1
File Name
: GilettePM
Site Code
: I PO 72
Start Date
: 1 /20/2015
Page No
: 4
M "T
41
fir:. •;
w�—I �d,�t tfe' �• ,
A�
� a1. �
�t an a
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Prospect Rd and Center Ave
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
rrrn ins Printed- I Inshifted
File Name : ProspectCenterAM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 1
Prospect Rd
Prospect Rd
Center Ave
Center Ave
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Start Time
Left
Thru
Right
ota-
Left
Thru
Right
App
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
App-
Int.
Total
Total
Total
Total
07:30 AM
43
203 26
272
61
157 36
254
11
58 70
139
4
5 3
12
677
07:45 AM
52
258 29
339
97
134 41
272
19
77 76
172
5
11 3
19
802
Total
95
461 55
611
1 158
291 77
526
30
135 146
311
9
16 6
31
1 1479
08:00 AM
23
201
23
247
54
129
20
203
15
46
40
101
2
8
8
18
569
08:15 AM
14
195
16
225
64
109
20
193
6
27
43
76
5
13
4
22
516
08:30 AM
43
209
25
277
49
146
26
221
11
60
61
132
2
12
5
19
649
08:45 AM
32
246
32
310
53
127
30
210
13
47
69
129
6
11
7
24
673
Total
112
851
96
1059
220
511
96
827
45
180
213
438
15
44
24
83
2407
09:00 AM
34
173
17
224
44
129
33
206
12
47
41
100
5
11
10
26
556
09:15 AM
23
131
5
159
33
137
14
184
17
44
34
95
12
23
22
57
495
Grand Total
264
1616
173
2053
455
1068
220
1743
104
406
434
944
41
94
62
197
4937
Apprch %
12.9
78.7
8.4
26.1
61.3
12.6
11
43
46
20.8
47.7
31.5
Total %
5.3
32.7
3.5
41.6
9.2
21.6
4.5
35.3
2.1
8.2
8.8
19.1
0.8
1.9
1.3
4
Ridgeview Date
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Prospect Rd and Center Ave
File Name : ProspectCenterAM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 2
uenter Ave
Out In Total
890 197 1 1087
62 94 41
Right Tfw Left
�f 1 '-►
n
6N No
r m r� I N W
N J North S N
^ O
Cp O� x
1l20/2015 07:30 AM 4—S-1 O � 3�
$ 1/20/2015 09:15 AM st
O N Unshiited
�m
4� T r+
Lef[ Thru Ri ht
104 406 434
722 944 F 1 166
Out . In Total
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Prospect Rd and Center Ave
File Name : ProspectCenterAM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 3
Prospect Rd
Prospect Rd
Center Ave
Center Ave
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Souhbound
Start Time
Left
Thru
Right
APp*
Left
Thru.
Right
App.
Left
Thru
Right
App.
Left
Thru
Right
App'
Int.
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:30 AM to 09:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM
43
203
26
272
61
157
36
254
11
58
70
139
4
5
3
12
677
07:45 AM
52
258
29
339
97
134
41.
272
19
77
76
172
5
11
3
19
802
08:00 AM
23
201
23
247
54
129
20
203
15
46
40
101
2
8
8
18
569
08:15 AM
14
195
16
225
64
109
20
193
6
27
43
76
5
13
4
22
516
Total
132
857
94
1083
276
529
117
922
51
208
229
488
16
37
18
71
2564
Volume
% A l
12.2
79.1
8.7
29.9
57.4
12.7
10.5
42.6
46.9
22.5
52.1
25.4
Totatal
PHF
.635
.830
.810
.799
.711
.842
.713
.847
.671
.675
.753
.709
.800
.712
.563
.807
.799
out In Total
® 711 528
18 37 16
Right Thru Left
T 1 l
Peak H1our Data
North
N O
S �
V
Peak Flour Begins at 07:30 AM
N
fD
N S
N
Urlshifted
r
1
N N
A —
4, T F+
Left Thru Ri ht
51 208 229
407 488 8"
Ad In Tnhl
RIDIC
-� gi
(i
t� ^j r �•
►M:': ° W:
Prospect
7 �
t
_-6*-V, Z .
Pa,I-k Fr S
p Jr�
� ft�
emiste •ftd ;'Y�+'y c
N•�,� .. a "' YImbi ,a y A
tteth/SOuth'
ly _ �2C15 Gcoy e,L o ..
�{ O ,
�ir,agery Date 6�19/2014 R40E33"33.33 N n5°01
eye eR
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PM Peak
Prospect Rd and Center Ave
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
r:mnnc Prinfori_ I Inehiftorl
File Name : ProspectCenterPM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 1
Prospect Rd
Prospect Rd
Center Ave
Center Ave
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Start Time
Left
Thru Right
ota-
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
App.
Int
Total
Total
Total
Total
03:00 PM
9
198 13
220
42
188 7
237
16
24 80
120
25
37 20
82
659
03:15 PM
14
248 12
274
51
218 12
281
21
13 60
94
25
38 35
98
747
03:30 PM
12
215 8
235
60
192 10
262
17
30 83
130
20
38 29
87
714
03:45 PM
17
241 9
267
43
228 14
285
10
24 68
102
14
30 17
61
715
Total
52
902 42
996
196
826 43
1065
64
91 291
446
84
143 101
328
2835
04:00 PM
4 198 3
04:15 PM
5
200 8
04:30 PM
11
195 9
04:45 PM
9
233 14
205
53
201
6
213
69
259
8
215
40
214
4
256
63
252
12
260
21
12
78
336
22
10
53
258
19
19
74
nn,
4A
111
17
48
41
85
13
36
21
112
12
45
14
no
�c
•n
nn
Total
29
826
34
8891
225
926
30
11811
76
56
274
4061
58
178
106
Grand Total
81
1728
76
1885
421
1752
73
2246
140
147
565
852
142
321
207
Apprch %
4.3
91.7
4
18.7
78
3.3
16.4
17.3
66.3
21.2
47.9
30.9
Total %
1.4
30.6
1.3
33.3
7.4
31
1.3
39.7
2.5
2.6
10
15.1
2.5
5.7
3.7
106 682
70 704
71 656
95 776
3421 2818
670 5653
11.9
. m
Ridgeview Dais
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PM Peak
Prospect Rd and Center Ave
File Name : ProspectCenterPM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 2
Center Ave
Out In Total
301 Er 1 971
207 321 142
Ri ht Tfw Left
s _ * wo
H m m mJ N
J North � W
g` m—► uzazol s 03:00 PM t N A
1/20t2015 04:45 ?M N
51
EL
o R unsniked �a
W�
4� I r+
Lek Thru RI M
140 147 565
—81-81 852 1670
Out In Total
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PM Peak
Prospect Rd and Center Ave
File Name : ProspectCenterPM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 3
Prospect Rd
Prospect Rd
Center Ave
Center Ave
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Start Time
Left
Thru
Right
App'
Left
Thru
Right
App.
Left
Thru
Right
APp'
Left
Thru
Right
gyp'
Int.
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 03:00 PM to 04:45 PM - Peak 1 of i
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 03:15 PM
03:15 PM
14
248
12
474
51
218
12
281
Y1
13
60
94
45
38
35
98
747
03:30 PM
12
215
8
235
80
192
10
262
17
30
83
130
20
38
29
87
714
03:45 PM
17
241
9
267
43
228
14
285
10
24
68
102
14
30
17
61
715
04:00 PM
4
198
3
205
53
201
6
260
21
12
78
111
17
48
41
106
682
Total
47
902
32
981
207
839
42
1088
69
79
289
437
76
154
122
352
2858
Volume
% APp-
4.8
91.9
3.3
19
77.1
3.9
15.8
18.1
66.1
21.6
43.8
34.7
Total
PHF
.691
.909
.667
.895
.863
.920
.750
.954
.821
.658
.870
.840
.760
.802
.744
.830
.956
out In Total
166 352 1 520
1221 154 76
Ri ht Thru Left
1
Peak Hour Data
m�
T
J North T p
N
OD N
Peak Flour Begins at 03:15 PM o' 3
�m m
Unshlfted
p�
V7 m
N —
4, T F+
Len Thru Ri ht
69 79 289
393 437
rid In Trost
R D'C
rse
Pyros • l nter
�.SneC cn+.
Nt�iv
� d
G MK.a4v-��- -
_
Re j.5
k
1 i
�e e re Ave &Resarch 61vd. lV
K
3r,tr
�Centi/,R �t eShfields ��\j yes
', ? 4 ' a� ❑ ,e=Research"$ou h Access
�•::
,�' `, � f - S6uth Campus'Access
SP- _ -- �..
Drake'& -Research
L&r /� .,_ ♦ _ n aL _ tit Y '�.. � �'� {y � a
'11,43y.
L4C,33'33.33' N a305�05
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Research Blvd Northern Access
nidgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
r mi inc PrintM-I Inchiftari
File Name : Research NorthAccessAM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 1
Northern Access
Eastbound
Research Blvd
Northbound
Research Blvd
Southbound
Start Time
Left Right I App.
Total
Left
Thru I App.
Total
Thru
Right I App.
Total
Int. Total
07:30 AM
07:45 AM
0 0
2 2
0
4
1
5
53
63
54
68
15
22
3
4
18
26
72
98
Total
2 2
4
6
116
122
37
7
44
170
08:00 AM
1
0
1
3
38
41
22
1
23
65
08:15 AM
0
0
0
1
31
32
21
8
29
61
08:30 AM
0
1
1
1
49
50
23
4
27
78
08:45 AM
1
0
1
6
52
58
31
2
33
92
Total)
2
1
3
11
170
181
97
15
112
296
09:00 AM
0
0
0
2
30
32
21
3
24
56
09:15 AM
0
1
1
1
34
35
12
3
15
51
Grand Total
4
4
8
20
350
370
167
28
195
573
Apprch %
50
50
5.4
94.6
85.6
14.4
Total %
0.7
0.7
1.4
3.5
61.1
64.6
29.1
4.9
34
Ridgeview Darr
Collection
Morrison, CO 60465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Research Blvd Northern Access
File Name : ResearchNorthAccessAM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No 2
Research
Out In Total
® 185
28 167
Right Thru
W�
r
North
m m�
J
1rz0t2015 07:30 AM
d 1/20/2015 09:15 AM
0
g v UnsNRed
0
41
Lett Thru
zo 3so
171 370 541
out In Total
Ridgevie Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Research Blvd Northern Access
File Name : Research NorthAccessAM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No :3
Northern Access
Eastbound
Research Blvd
Northbound
Research Blvd
Southbound
Start Time
Left Right I . App. Total
Left I Thru I App. Total
Thru I Right App. Total
Int. Total
reaK pour ranaiysls rrom ui:au mrA to uta:lo rtm - reaK 1 or t
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM
07:45 AM 2 2
4
5
63
68
22
4
26
98
08:00 AM 1 0
1
3
38
41
22
1
23
65
08:15 AM 0 0
0
1
31
32
21
8
29
61
08:30 AM 0 1
1
1
49
50
23
4
27
78
Total Volume
3 3
6
10
181
191
88
17
105
302
% App. Total
50 50
5.2
94.8
83.8
16.2
PHF
1 .375 .375
.375
.500
.718
.702
.957
.531
.905
.770
Kesean 8Fvd--
out In Total
184 1 1 F 289
17 88
Right Thru
�J 1
Peak Hour Data
T
Peak Flour Begins at 07:45 AM
Unshitted
4 T
Left 1 u
10 ,81
91 191
Out In Total
Research Blvd
Ridgeview Dena
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Research Blvd Northern Access
Image 1
AL
{`�, • ` 111���""'' eft
re y a a 'b < <9
f fff... �1,11, w •Q.
qu
File Name : Research NorthAccessAM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 4
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PM Peak
Research Blvd Northern Access
Ridgevie Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
rmans Printad- I Inshiftad
File Name : Research NorthAccess PM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 1
Northern Access
Research Blvd
Research Blvd
Eastbound
Northbound
Southbound
Start Time
Left Right I App.
Total
Left
Thru I App.
Total
Thru
Right I App.
Total
Int. Total
03:00 PM
4 2
6
0
24
24
58
2
60
90
03:15 PM
1 1
2
0
43
43
50
3
53
98
03:30 PM
2 1
3
0
41
41
53
1
54
98
03:45 PM
2 3
5
0
24
24
61
4
65
94
Total)
9 7
16
0
132
132
222
10
232
380
04:00 PM
3
2
5
1
38
39
63
2
65
109
04:15 PM
4
1
5
1
37
38
64
2
66
109
04:30 PM
1
1
2
1
29
30
73
1
74
106
04:45 PM
1
3
4
1
46
47
61
2
63
114
Total
9
7
16
4
150
154
261
7
268
438
Grand Total
18
14
32
4
282
286
483
17
500
8111
Apprch %
56.2
43.8
1.4
98.6
96.6
3.4
Total %
2.2
1.7
3.9
0.5
34.5
35
59
2.1
61.1
Ridgeview Oats
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PM Peak
Research Blvd Northern Access
File Name : Research NorthAccess P M
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 2
Research
Out In Total
®500 1 800
17 483
Right Thlru
,p f North
N 0J
C m J
` 1/20/2015 03:00 PM
m v >= 1/20/2015 04:45 PM
c to Unshifted
O
T
Left Thru
4 282
497 286 783
Out In Total
Resea
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PM Peak
Research Blvd Northern Access
File Name : Research NorthAccessPM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 3
Northern Access
Eastbound
Research Blvd
Northbound
Research Blvd
Southbound
Start Time
Left Right I App. Total
Left Thru I App. Total
Thru Right App. Total
Int. Total
reaK nOUr Analysis r-rom U3:UU rm TO u4:40 rm - veaK 1 Dr 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM
04:00 PM 3 2
5
1
38
39
63
2
65
109
04:15 PM 4 1
5
1
37
38
64
2
66
109
04:30 PM 1 1
2
1
29
30
73
1
74
106
04:45 PM 1 3
4
1
46
47
61
2
63
114
Total Volume
9 7
16
4
150
154
261
7
268
438
% App. Total
56.2 43.8
2.6
97.4
97.4
2.6
PHF
.563 .583
.800
1.00
.815
.819
.894
.875
.905
.961
Research
Out In Total
1591 F-2-681 1 427
7 261
RI ht TF U
�J 1
Peak Hour Data
I
mm } North
C
c — Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM
m ^�
e ¢ Z Unshitted
O�
T
Lefl Thru
4 150
® 154 422
Out In Total
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PM Peak
Research Blvd Northern Access
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Image 1
File Name : Research NorthAccess PM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1/20/2015
Page No : 4
ti N
L f
tNL��444V�42;& .
Va mft
A
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Research Blvd Southern AccesslTennis
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
r:rru ine PrintM- I Inehiftarl
File Name : ResearchSouthAccessAM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 1
Southern Access
Tennis Courts
Research Blvd
Research Blvd
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Start Time
Left
Thru Right
Tote-
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
App'Total
Left
Thru
Right
Total
Total
Total
07:30 AM
0 0 5
5
0
0 0
0
12
69 0
81
0
10 4
14
100
07:45 AM
1 0 3
4
0
0 0
0
25
92 0
117
0
12 6
18
139
Total
1 0 8
9
0
0 0
0
37
161 0
198
0
22 10
32
239
08:00 AM
0
0
6
6
0
0
0 0
17
61
0
78
0
8
6
14
98
08:15 AM
2
0
8
10
0
0
0 0
19
34
0
53
0
12
7
19
82
08:30 AM
6
0
7
13
0
0
0 0
20
43
0
63
0
13
9
22
98
08:45 AM
3
0
7
10
0
0
0 0
21
52
0
73
0
24
4
28
111
Total
11
0
28
39
0
0
0 0
77
190
0
267
0
57
26
83
389
09:00 AM
2
0
13
15
0
0
0 0
13
33
0
46
0
11
4
15
76
09:15 AM
4
0
22
26
0
0
0 0
16
31
0
47
0
11
0
11
84
Grand Total
18
0
71
89
0
0
0 0
143
415
0
558
0
101
40
141
788
Apprch %
20.2
0
79.8
0
0
0
25.6
74.4
0
0
71.6
28.4
Total %
2.3
0
9
11.3
0
0
0 0
18.1
52.7
0
70.8
0
12.8
5.1
17.9
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Research Blvd Southern AccesslTennis
File Name : ResearchSouthAccessAM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 2
Research
cut In Total
® F-1-4-11 1 574
40 101 0
Right Thru Left
� 1 -►
N
North o �c
c— Lei o , 1/20/201507:30 AM
a`rF 1/20/2015 09:15 AM o o
U) g ro £ Unshifted i
0 tL 1 0 0
m
o—
Leff h Ri M
143 415 0
172 558 730
cut In Total
Ridgeview Dew
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Research Blvd Southern Access/Tennis
File Name : ResearchSouthAccessAM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 3
Southern Access
Tennis Courts
Research Blvd
Research Blvd
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
APP-
APP
App.
ApP'
Int.
Start Time
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:30 AM to 09:15 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM
07:30 AM
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
12
69
0
81
0
10
4
14
100
07:45 AM
1
0
3
4
0
0
0
0
25
92
0
117
0
12
6
18
139
08:00 AM
0
0
6
6
0
0
0
0
17
61
0
78
0
8
6
14
98
08:15 AM
2
0
8
10
0
0
0
0
19
34
0
53
0
12
7
19
82
Total
3
0
22
25
0
0
0
0
73
256
0
329
0
42
23
65
419
Volume
% APP-
12
0
88
0
0
0
22.2
77.8
0
0
64.6
35.4
Total
PHF
1 .375
.000
.688
.625
.000
.000
.000
.000
.730
.696
.000
.703
.000
.875
.821
.855
.754
Out In Total
® 65 1 324
23 42 0
Ri In Thru Left~ 1 L.
Peak Hour Data
II
North
Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM
UnsNfted
+i T F+
Left Thru Ri ht
73 256 0
® 329 393
rin In Tnfal
Ridgeview Cato
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
AM Peak
Research Blvd Southern Access/Tennis
Image 1
a te, daj . Wr. Ilea �. •. ` Z i
7x
r ay}.c
File Name
: ResearchSouthAccessAM
Site Code
: IPO 72
Start Date
: 1 /20/2015
Page No
: 4
M
41
` r
M
K.
-
yt y'.
F
5 ,Q`C
&
5 t;
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PM Peak
Research Blvd Southern Access/Tennis
. m
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
rmi inc Printwl- I Inchiffad
File Name : ResearchSouthAccessPM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 1
Southern Access
Tennis Courts
Research Blvd
Research Blvd
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
Start Time
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
To
Total
Total
al
Total
03:00 PM
4
0 22
26
0
0
0
0
11
18 0
29
0
59 3
62
117
03:15 PM
7
0 18
25
0
0
0
0
14
39 0
53
0
45 2
47
125
03:30 PM
2
0 17
19
0
0
0
0
9
34 0
43
0
46 0
46
108
03:45 PM
2
0 25
27
0.
0
0
0
9
25 0
34
0
50 4
54
115
Total
15
0 82
97
0
0
0
0
43
116 0
159
0
200 9
209
465
04:00 PM
2
0
21
23
0
0
0
0
12
33
0
45
0
64
6
70
138
04:15 PM
6
0
24
30
0
0
0
0
10
27
0
37
0
59
3
62
129
04:30 PM
3
0
22
25
0
0
0
0
9
27
0
36
0
73
2
75
136
04:45 PM
11
0
19
30
0
0
0
0
4
31
0
35
0
57
3
60
125
Total
22
0
86
108
0
0
0
0
35
118
0
153
0
253
14
267
528
Grand Total
37
0
168
205
0
0
0
0
78
234
0
312
0
453
23
476
993
Apprch %
18
0
82
0
0
0
25
75
0
0
95.2
4.8
Total0%
3.7
0
16.9
20.6
0
0
0
0
7.9
23.6
0
31.4
0
45.6
2.3
47.9
Ridgeview Data
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PM Peak
Research Blvd Southern AccesslTennis
File Name : ResearchSouthAccessPM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 2
Research v
out In Total
271 476 1 747
23 453 0
Right Thru Left
�f 1 `►
T 0 North `?o oOm
c o 2 —10 1/20/2015 03:00 PM
a`r 1/20/201504:45 PM o o c
0.5 "v Unshifted x
OM o
m
o—
T r
Left Thru RI ht
78 234 0
621 312
out In Total
. M
Ridg&Aew Dais
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PM Peak
Research Blvd Southern Access/Tennis
File Name : ResearchSouthAccessPM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 3
Southern Access
Tennis Courts
Research Blvd
Research Blvd
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
App.
App
App.
App.
Int.
Start Time
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
reaK pour Analysis rrom ua:uu rm to ug:ao rm - reaK 1 01 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM
04:00 PM
2
0
21
23
0
0
0.
0
12
33
0
45
0
64
6
70
138
04:15 PM
6
0
24
30
0
0
0
0
10
27
0
37
0
59
3
62
129
04:30 PM
3
0
22
25
0
0
0
0
9
27
0
36
0
73
2
75
136
04:45 PM
11
0
19
30
0
0
0
0
4
31
0
35
0
57
3
60
125
Total
22
0
86_
108
0
0
0
0
35
118
0
153
0
253
14
267
528
Volume
% App.
20.4
0
79.6
0
0
0
22.9
77.1
0
0
94.8
5.2
Total
PHF
I .500
.000
.896
.900
.000
.000
.000
.000
.729
.894
.000
.850
.000
.866
.583
.890
.957
Out In Total
140 267 1 407
14 253 0
Ri ht Thru Left
T 1
Peak Hour Data
m� }
O N ��
C
N J North
O
W
O O
^� Peak Flour Begins at 04:00 PM 4 3
�o 0
Unshitted
0'V
4, 1 r*
Left Thru Ri ht
35 118 0
® 153 492
rid In Tnfal
Fort Collins, CO
CSU South Parking Lot
PM Peak
Research Blvd Southern Access/Tennis
re Ave rR h
i• e"'V -
?pis
. m
Rldgevlew tiers
Collection
Morrison, CO 80465
Image 1
At Cz aIL
F jai
File Name : Research SouthAccessPM
Site Code : IPO 72
Start Date : 1 /20/2015
Page No : 4
9
APPENDIX B
Intersection Analysis Worksheets
Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc.
096336002 — Colorado State University South Campus Parking Lot
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2015 Existing AM.syn
1: Centre Avenue & Prospect Road 2/2/2015
s � � Ir *- t 4\ t
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
tT+
tl�
t
r
t
r
Volume (veh/h)
132
857
94
276
529
117
51
208
229
16
37
18
Number
7
4
14
3
8
18
5
2
12
1
6
16
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cap,vehlh
508
1759
197
430
1645
430
349
441
375
138
441
375
Arrive On Green
0.07
0.53
0.53
0.12
0.58
0.58
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
Sat Flow, veh/h
1774
3291
369
1774
2849
745
1308
1863
1583
807
1863
1583
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
206
584
565
389
412
383
76
306
305
20
52
32
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hlln
1774
1863
1798
1774
1863
1731
1308
1863
1583
807
1863
1583
Q Serve(g_s), s
5.5
22.5
22.5
9.1
12.7
12.7
5.1
15.9
19.2
2.5
2.3
1.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
5.5
22.5
22.5
9.1
12.7
12.7
7.4
15.9
19.2
18.3
2.3
1.7
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.21
1.00
0.43
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
508
995
961
430
1075
999
349
441
375
138
441
375
V/C Ratio(X)
0.41
0.59
0.59
0.91
0.38
0.38
0.22
0.69
0.81
0.14
0.12
0.09
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
580
995
961
695
1075
999
349
441
375
138
441
375
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
9.7
16.7
16.7
18.3
12.1
12.1
34.6
36.8
38.1
45.2
31.7
31.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
0.5
2.5
2.6
10.1
1.0
1.1
1.4
8.7
17.4
2.2
0.5
0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile Back of Q (50%), veh/In
2.1
10.3
10.0
7.0
5.6
5.2
1.8
8.4
9.3
0.6
1.1
0.7
Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh
10.2
19.2
19.3
28.4
13.2
13.2
36.0
45.6
55.6
47.4
32.2
31.9
Lane Grp LOS
B
B
B
C
B
B
D
D
E
D
C
C
Approach Vol, vehlh
1355
1184
687
104
Approach Delay, s/veh
17.9
18.2
48.9
35.0
Approach LOS
B
B
D
D
Timer
Assigned Phs
7
4
3
8
2
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
11.7
60.5
16.2
65.0
29.0
29.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
12.0
45.0
28.0
61.0
25.0
25.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s
7.5
24.5
11.1
14.7
21.2
20.3
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.2
12.8
1.1
19.7
1.4
1.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 24.9
HCM 2010 LOS C
Notes
2015 Existing AM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2015 Existing PM.syn
1: Centre Avenue & Prospect Road 2/2/2015
_-*
-►
--*
'
'-
4_
-,
T
/,,�
`►
1
41
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NET
NBR
SBL
SET
S'IBIt
Lane Configurations
tTi
0
►j
t
r
Vi
T
r
Volume (veh/h)
47
902
32
207
839
42
69
79
289
76
154
122
Number
7
4
14
3
8
18
5
2
12
1
6
16
Initial 0 (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cap, veh/h
396
2021
98
411
2126
131
229
459
390
248
459
390
Arrive On Green
0.03
0.57
0.57
0.07
0.61
0.61
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
Sat Flow, veh/h
1774
3525
171
1774
3474
213
1020
1863
1583
935
1863
1583
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
68
524
515
241
489
479
84
120
332
100
192
165
Grp Sat F1ow(s),veh/h/In
1774
1863
1833
1774
1863
1825
1020
1863
1583
935
1863
1583
Q Serve(g_s), s
1.7
18.3
18.3
5.2
15.1
15.1
8.3
5.7
21.9
10.6
9.5
9.6
Cycle 0 Clear(g_c), s
1.7
18.3
18.3
5.2
15.1
15.1
17.7
5.7
21.9
16.2
9.5
9.6
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.09
1.00
0.12
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
396
1068
1051
411
1140
1117
229
459
390
248
459
390
V/C Ratio(X)
0.17
0.49
0.49
0.59
0.43
0.43
0.37
0.26
0.85
0.40
0.42
0.42
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h
405
1068
1051
626
1140
1117
229
459
390
248
459
390
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
9.5
13.9
13.9
10.6
11.2
11.2
42.1
33.2
39.3
39.8
34.6
34.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
0.2
1.6
1.6
1.3
1.2
1.2
4.5
1.4
20.2
4.8
2.8
3.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile Back of Q (50%), veh/In
0.7
8.0
7.9
2.0
6.6
6.5
2.4
2.8
10.7
2.8
4.7
4.1
Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh
9.7
15.5
15.5
12.0
12.4
12.4
46.6
34.6
59.5
44.6
37.4
38.0
Lane Grp LOS
A
B
B
B
B
B
D
C
E
D
D
D
Approach Vol, veh/h
1107
1209
536
457
Approach Delay, s/veh
15.1
12.3
51.9
39.2
Approach LOS
B
B
D
D
Timer
Assigned Phs
7
4
3
8
2
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
7.5
66.8
11.7
71.0
31.0
31.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
4.0
50.0
21.0
67.0
27.0
27.0
Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+It), s
3.7
20.3
7.2
17.1
23.9
18.2
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.0
16.5
0.6
20.8
1.4
2.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Chi Delay 23.4
HCM 2010 LOS C
2015 Existing PM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2015 Background + Project AM.syn
1: Centre Avenue & Prospect Road 2/9/2015
-# --I. --* 1-4--- t4% t/,N. ti 1
Lane Configurations
?.T
t14
I
T
F
I
T
F
Volume (veh/h)
132
857
112
303
529
117
60
212
242
16
46
18
Number
7
4
14
3
8
18
5
2
12
1
6
16
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cap, veh/h
513
1596
213
467
1637
428
337
439
373
132
439
373
Arrive On Green
0.08
0.50
0.50
0.16
0.57
0.57
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
Sat Flow, veh/h
1774
3220
430
1774
2949
745
1293
1863
1583
789
1863
1583
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
206
597
574
427
412
383
90
312
323
20
65
32
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1774
1863
1787
1774
1863
1731
1293
1863
1583
789
1863
1583
Q Serve(g_s), s
&0
25.3
25.3
13.4
12.8
12.8
6.3
16.3
20.8
2.5
2.9
1.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
6.0
25.3
25.3
13.4
12.8
12.8
9.2
16.3
20.8
18.9
2.9
1.7
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.24
1.00
0.43
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
513
923
886
467
1070
995
337
439
373
132
439
373
V/C Ratio(X)
0.40
0.65
0.65
0.91
0.38
0.39
0.27
0.71
0.87
0.15
0.15
0.09
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h
577
923
886
675
1070
995
337
439
373
132
439
373
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
11.1
19.9
19.9
24.7
12.3
12.3
35.8
37.3
39.0
45.9
32.1
31.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
0.5
3.5
3.7
13.1
1.0
1.1
1.9
9.4
22.7
2.4
0.7
0.5 /1
Initial Q Delay(0),slveh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile Back of Q (50%), veh/In
2.4
11.8
11.4
8.1
5.7
5.3
2.2
8.7
10.4
0.6
1.4
0.7
Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh
11.6
23.4
23.5
37.8
13.4
13.5
37.7
46.7
61.7
48.3
32.9
32.1
Lane Grp LOS
B
C
C
D
B
B
D
D
E
D
C
C
Approach Vol, veh/h
1377
1222
725
117
Approach Delay, s/veh
21.7
21.9
52.2
35.3
Approach LOS
C
C
D
D
Assigned Phs
7
4
3
8
2
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
12.1
56.6
20.5
65.0
29.0
29.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
12.0
44.0
29.0
61.0
25.0
25.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll), s
8.0
27.3
15.4
14.8
22.8
20.9
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.2
11.3
1.1
20.1
0.9
1.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctd Delay 28.7
HCM 2010 LOS C
2015 Background + Project AM 1/2612015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2015 Background + Project PM.syn
1: Centre Avenue & Prospect Road 2/g/2015
� -► 'i ! � t 4\ 1 �'
Lane Configurations
'j
?A
aj
TF.
?
r
Volume (veh/h)
47
902
51 235
839
42 93
91
325
Number
7
4
14 3
8
18 5
2
12
T r
76 163 122
1 6 16
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pod -Bike Adj(A-pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cap, veh/h
387
1884
144
402
2082
128
235
481
409
242
481
409
Amive On Green
0.03
0.55
0.55
0.08
0.60
0.60
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
Sat Flow, veh/h
1774
3417
262
1774
3474
213
1009
1863
1583
885
1863
1583
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
68
540
527
273
489
479
113
138
374
100
204
165
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1774
1863
1817
1774
1863
1825
1009
1863
1583
885
1863
1583
Q Serve(g_s), s
1.8
19.9
19.9
6.0
15.5
15.5
11.4
6.4
24.9
11.1
9.9
9.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
1.8
19.9
19.9
6.0
15.5
15.5
21.3
6.4
24.9
17.5
9.9
9.4
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.14
1.00
0.12
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
387
1027
1002
402
1116
1094
235
481
409
242
481
409
V/C Ratio(X)
0.18
0.53
0.53
0.68
0.44
0.44
0.48
0.29
0.92
0.41
0.42
0.40
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
412
1027
1002
653
1116
1094
235
481
409
242
481
409
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1,00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
10.3
15.4
15.4
12.9
11.8
11.8
42.4
32.2
39.1
39.3
33.5
33.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
0.2
1.9
2.0
2.0
1.3
1.3
6.9
1.5
27.6
5.1
2.7
3.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile Back of Q (50%), veh/In
0.7
9.0
8.7
3.2
6.8
6.6
3.3
3.2
12.8
2.8
4.9
4.0
Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh
10.5
17.3
17.3
14.9
13.1
13.1
49.3
33.7
66.7
44.4
36.3
36.3
Lane Grp LOS
B
B
B
B
B
B
D
C
E
D
D
D
Approach Vol, veh/h
1135
1241
625
469
Approach Delay, s/veh
16.9
13.5
56.3
38.0
Approach LOS
B
B
E
D
Assigned Phs
7
4
3
8
2
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
7.5
63.8
12.7
69.0
32.0
32.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
5.0
46.0
24.0
65.0
28.0
28.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll ), s
3.8
21.9
8.0
17.5
26.9
19.5
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.0
14.8
0.7
21.0
0.6
3.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctd Delay
25.6
HCM 2010 LOS
C
2015 Background + Project PM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Background AM.syn
1: Centre Avenue & Prospect Road 2/2/2015
Movement
EBL
EST
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
513T
5BR
Lane Configurations
tT.
tT#
4
r
?
r
Volume(veh/h)
167
1086
119
350
671
148
65
264
290
20
47
23
Number
7
4
14
3
8
18
5
2
12
1
6
16
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1,00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1,00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cap,veh1h
472
1408
158
517
1624
423
309
407
346
74
407
346
Arrive On Green
0.10
0.43
0.43
0.24
0.57
0.57
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
Sat Flow, veh/h
1774
3292
368
1774
2852
742
1281
1863
1583
693
1863
1583
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
261
737
718
493
522
485
97
388
387
25
66
41
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1774
1863
1798
1774
1863
1732
1281
1863
1583
693
1863
1583
Q Serve(g_s), s
8.9
41.2
41.8
24.8
18.4
18.4
7.3
22.6
24.0
1.4
3.2
2.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
8.9
41.2
41.8
24.8
18.4
18.4
10.4
22.6
24.0
24.0
3.2
2.3
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.20
1.00
0.43
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
472
797
769
517
1060
986
309
407
346
74
407
346
V/C Ratio(X)
0.55
0.93
0.93
0.95
0.49
0.49
0.31
0.95
1.12
0.34
0.16
0.12
Avail Cap(c_a),veh1h
580
797
769
519
1060
986
309
407
346
74
407
346
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1,00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
14.3
29.8
29.9
35.5
14.2
14.2
39.0
42.4
42.9
54.7
34.8
34.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
1.0
18.2
19.8
28.2
1.6
1.8
2.6
34.4
84.5
11.8
0.9
0.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
We Back of Q (50%), veh/In
3.7
22.2
22.0
17.7
8.3
7.8
2.6
14.3
17.5
0.9
1.5
1.0
Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh
15.3
47.9
49.7
63.7
15.8
15.9
41.7
76.7
127.5
66.5
35.6
35.1
Lane Grp LOS
B
D
D
E
B
B
D
E
F
E
D
0
Approach Vol, veh/h
1716
1500
872
132
Approach Delay, s/veh
43.7
31.6
95.4
41.3
Approach LOS
D
C
F
D
Assigned Phs
7
4
3
8
2
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
15.3
51.0
30.9
66.6
28.0
28.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
18.0
47.0
27.0
56.0
24.0
24.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s
10.9
43.8
26.8
20.4
26.0
26.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
0.4
3.0
0.0
24.2
0.0
0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
50.0
HCM 2010 LOS
D
2015 Background AM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Background PM.syn
1: Centre Avenue & Prospect Road 2/2/2015
--*
--"
-'*
4r-
'-
',-
4\
t/0-
ti
1
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
tl
tl+
T
i"
t
r
Volume(veh1h)
60
1143
41
262
1064
53
87
100
366
96
195
155
Number
7
4
14
3
8
18
5
2
12
1
6
16
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cap, veh/h
320
1985
96
350
2125
130
185
449
381
212
449
381
Arrive On Green
0.04
0.56
0.56
0.08
0.61
0.61
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
Sat Flow,veh/h
1774
3524
171
1774
3475
213
934
1863
1583
836
1863
1583
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
87
663
654
305
620
608
106
152
421
126
244
209
Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In
1774
1863
1833
1774
1863
1825
934
1863
1583
836
1863
1583
Q Serve(g_s), s
2.2
26.1
26.1
6.4
20.9
21.0
12.1
7.3
26.0
15.8
12.4
12.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
2.2
26.1
26.1
6.4
20.9
21.0
24.4
7.3
26.0
23.1
12.4
12.5
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.09
1.00
0.12
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
320
1049
1032
350
1139
1116
185
449
381
212
449
381
V/C Ratio(X)
0.27
0.63
0.63
0.87
0.54
0.54
0.57
0.34
1.10
0.60
0.54
0.55
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h
354
1049
1032
562
1139
1116
185
449
381
212
449
381
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
10.5
16.0
16.0
19.2
12.2
12.2
46.5
33.9
41.0
43.4
35.8
35.8
Incr Delay (d2), slveh
0.5
2.9
3.0
8.6
1.9
1.9
12.3
2.0
77.1
11.7
4.7
5.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile Back of Q (50%), veh/In
0.9
11.9
11.7
5.8
9.0
8.9
3.5
3.6
18.3
4.0
6.3
5.5
Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh
11.0
18.9
19.0
27.7
14.1
14.1
58.8
35.9
118.1
55.2
40.5
41.4
Lane Grp LOS
B
B
B
C
B
B
E
D
F
E
D
D
Approach Vol, veh/h
1404
1533
679
579
Approach Delay, s/veh
18.4
16.8
90.4
44.0
Approach LOS
B
B
F
D
Assigned Phs
7
4
3
8
2
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
7.9
64.8
13.1
70.0
30.0
30.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
6.0
50.0
22.0
66.0
26.0
26.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l l ), s
4.2
28.1
8.4
23.0
28.0
25.1
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.0
17.1
0.7
28.1
0.0
0.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctd Delay
33.0
HCM 2010 LOS
C
Notes
2025 Background PM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Background + Project AM.syn
1: Centre Avenue & Prospect Road 2/312015
Mnvamant ESL
EST
EBR
WBL
W13T
WBR
NEIL
NST
NBR
SBL
SST
SBR
Lane Configurations
*i
TT+
fl�
Vi
T
r
?
F
Volume (veh/h)
167
1086
137
377
671
148
74
268
303
20
56
23
Number
7
4
14
3
8
18
5
2
12
1
6
16
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
1B6.3
186.3
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cap, veh/h
473
1353
174
524
1622
422
298
406
345
71
406
345
Arrive On Green
0.10
0.42
0.42
0.25
0.57
0.57
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
Sat Flow, veh/h
1774
3237
416
1774
2852
742
1266
1863
1583
678
1863
1583
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
261
749
728
531
522
485
110
394
404
25
79
41
Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In
1774
1863
1789
1774
1863
1732
1266
1863
1583
678
1863
1583
Q Serve(g_s), s
9.1
43.1
43.9
28.0
18.5
18.5
8.5
23.1
24.0
0.9
3.8
2.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
9.1
43.1
43.9
28.0
18.5
18.5
12.4
23.1
24.0
24.0
3.8
2.3
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.23
1.00
0.43
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
473
779
748
524
1059
985
298
406
345
71
406
345
V/C Ratio(X)
0.55
0.96
0.97
1.01
0.49
0.49
0.37
0.97
1.17
0.35
0.19
0.12
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
563
779
748
524
1059
985
298
406
345
71
406
345
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
14.8
31.2
31.4
36.6
14.2
14.2
40.1
42.6
43.0
54.9
35.1
34.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
1.0
24.2
26.8
42.7
1.6
1.8
3.5
37.6
102.9
13.1
1.1
0.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile Back of Q (50%), vehfln
3.8
24.6
24.6
20.8
8.3
7.8
3.0
15.0
19.3
1.0
1.9
1.0
Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh
15.8
55.4
58.2
79.4
15.9
16.0
43.6
80.3
145.9
68.0
36.2
35.2
Lane Grp LOS
B
E
E
F
B
B
D
F
F
E
D
0
Approach Vol, veh/h
1738
1538
908
145
Approach Delay, slveh
50.6
37.8
105.0
41.4
Approach LOS
D
D
F
D
Assigned Phs
7
4
3
8
2
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
15.4
50.0
32.0
66.6
28.0
28.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
17.0
46.0
28.0
57.0
24.0
24.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s
11.1
45.9
30.0
20.5
26.0
26.0
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.4
0.1
0.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
Iratemdion Summery
HCM 2010 Ctd Delay
57.2
HCM 2010 LOS
E
Notes
2025 Background + Project AM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
O
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Background + Project PM.syn
1: Centre Avenue & Prospect Road 2/3/2015
t--* 7 4�- 4- t4\ t `- 1 -'
Lane Configurations
tT+
►j
tT.
►j
T
r
►j
f
e
Volume(veh/h)
60
1143
60
290
1064
53
111
112
402
96
204
155
Number
7
4
14
3
8
18
5
2
12
1
6
16
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cap,veh/h
316
1796
128
373
2089
128
187
465
395
205
465
395
Arrive On Green
0.04
0.52
0.52
0.12
0.60
0.60
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
Sat Flow, veh/h
1774
3436
246
1774
3475
213
925
1863
1583
792
1863
1583
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
87
680
666
337
620
608
135
170
462
126
255
209
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1774
1863
1819
1774
1863
1825
925
1863
1583
792
1863
1583
Q Serve(g_s), s
2.4
29.7
29.8
9.9
21.5
21.6
14.1
8.1
27.0
16.9
12.9
12.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
2.4
29.7
29.8
9.9
21.5
21.6
27.0
8.1
27.0
25.1
12.9
12.3
Prop In Lane
1.00
0,14
1.00
0.12
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
316
973
951
373
1120
1097
187
465
395
205
465
395
V/C Ratio(X)
0.28
0.70
0.70
0.90
0.55
0.55
0.72
0.37
1.17
0.62
0.55
0.53
Avail Cap(c_a),vehlh
347
973
951
527
1120
1097
187
465
395
205
465
395
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1,00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
11.9
19.4
19.4
26.1
12.9
12.9
47.7
33.5
40.6
43.8
35.3
35.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
0.5
4.2
4.3
14.5
2.0
2.0
21.2
2.2
99.9
13.1
4.6
5.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Ye Back of Q (50%), veh/In
1.0
13.8
13.5
6.9
9.6
9.4
4.8
4.1
21.5
4.1
6.5
5.3
Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh
12.4
23.6
23.7
40.6
14.9
14.9
68.9
35.7
140.5
57.0
39.9
40.1
Lane Grp LOS
B
C
C
0
B
B
E
D
F
E
D
D
Approach Vol, veh/h
1433
1565
767
590
Approach Delay, s/veh
23.0
20A
104.7
43.6
Approach LOS
C
C
F
D
Assigned Phs
7
4
3
8
2
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
8.1
60.5
16.6
69.0
31.0
31.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
6.0
49.0
22.0
65.0
27.0
27.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s
4.4
31.8
11.9
23.6
29.0
27.1
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.0
14.2
0.7
27.9
0.0
0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctd Delay
39.2
HCM 2010 LOS
D
2025 Background + Project PM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Background + Project AM Imp.syn
1: Centre Avenue & Prospect Road 2/9/2015
Lane Configurations tT+ '5 ti+ 'i'i t
Volume (veh/h) 167 1086 137 377 671 148 74 268
IHR SBL SBT SBR
i 14
303 20 56 23
Number
7
4
14
3
8
18
5
2
12
1
6
16
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
190.0
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
2
1
1
2
1
0
Cap, veh/h
473
1353
174
524
1622
422
125
406
345
142
168
87
Arrive On Green
0.10
0.42
0.42
0.25
0.57
0.57
0.04
0.22
0.22
0.15
0.15
0.15
Sat Flow,veh/h
1774
3237
416
1774
2852
742
3442
1863
1583
1316
1157
600
Grp Volume(v),veh/h
261
749
728
531
522
485
110
394
404
25
0
120
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hlln
1774
1863
1789
1774
1863
1732
1721
1863
1583
658
0
1757
Q Serve(g_s), s
9.1
43.1
43.9
28.0
18.5
18.5
3.5
23.1
24.0
0.9
0.0
6.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
9.1
43.1
43.9
28.0
18.5
18.5
3.5
23.1
24.0
16.0
0.0
6.9
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.23
1.00
0.43
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.34
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
473
779
748
524
1059
985
125
406
345
142
0
256
V/C Ratio(X)
0.55
0.96
0.97
1.01
0.49
0.49
0.88
0.97
1.17
0.18
0.00
0.47
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
563
779
748
524
1059
985
125
406
345
142
0
256
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), slveh
14.8
31.2
31.4
36.6
14.2
14.2
52.8
42.6
43.0
54.8
0.0
43.1
Incr Delay (d2), slveh
1.0
24.2
26.8
42.7
1.6
1.8
45.9
37.6
102.9
2.7
0.0
6.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile Back of Q (50%), vehlln
3.8
24.6
24.6
20.8
8.3
7.8
2.3
15.0
19.3
0.4
0.0
3.5
Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh
15.8
55.4
58.2
79.4
15.9
16.0
98.7
80.3
145.9
57.5
0.0
49.2
Lane Grp LOS
B
E
E
F
B
B
F
F
F
E
D
Approach Vol, veh/h
1738
1538
908
145
Approach Delay, s/veh
50.6
37.8
111.7
50.6
Approach LOS
D
D
F
D
Timer
Assigned Phs
7
4
3
8
5
2
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
15.4
50.0
32.0
66.6
8.0
28.0
20.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
17.0
46.0
28.0
57.0
4.0
24.0
16.0
Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+l1), s
11.1
45.9
30.0
20.5
5.5
26.0
18.0
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.4
0.1
0.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
58.9
HCM 2010 LOS
E
2025 Background + Project AM Imp 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Background + Project PM Imp.syn
1: Centre Avenue & Prospect Road 2/9/2015
EBl
Lane Configurations
Vi
tl
tT1
►j►j
T
r
1+
Volume (veh/h)
60
1143
60
290
1064
53
111
112
402
96
204
155
Number
7
4
14
3
8
18
5
2
12
1
6
16
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
190.0
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
2
1
1
2
1
0
Cap,veh/h
263
1351
97
364
1764
108
157
630
536
525
243
199
Arrive On Green
0.04
0.39
0.39
0.16
0.51
0.51
0.05
0.34
0.34
0.26
0.26
0.26
Sat Flow, veh/h
1774
3436
246
1774
3475
213
3442
1863
1583
1536
948
777
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
87
680
666
337
620
608
135
170
462
126
0
464
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hlln
1774
1863
1819
1774
1863
1825
1721
1863
1583
768
0
1726
Q Serve(g_s), s
3.2
38.1
38.3
15.3
26.8
26.9
4.3
7.3
29.8
7.3
0.0
28.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
3.2
38.1
38.3
15.3
26.8
26.9
4.3
7.3
29.8
7.3
0.0
28.0
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.14
1.00
0.12
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.45
Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh
263
733
715
364
946
927
157
630
536
525
0
442
V/C Ratio(X)
0.33
0.93
0.93
0.92
0.66
0.66
0.86
0.27
0.86
0.24
0.00
1.05
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
298
733
715
375
946
927
157
630
536
525
0
442
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(])
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), slveh
19.4
31.7
31.8
34.6
19.9
19.9
51.8
26.3
33.8
33.0
0.0
40.7
Incr Delay (d2), slveh
0.7
19.7
20.5
27.9
3.5
3.6
34.7
1.1
16.6
1.1
0.0
56.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile Back of 0 (50%), vehlln
1.4
21.2
20.9
12.2
12.5
12.3
2.6
3.5
13.9
1.5
0.0
19.0
Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh
20.1
51.4
52.2
62.5
23.4
23.5
86.6
27.4
50.4
34.0
0.0
97.2
Lane Grp LOS
C
D
D
E
C
C
F
C
D
C
F
Approach Vol, veh/h
1433
1565
767
590
Approach Delay, slveh
49.9
31.9
51.7
83.7
Approach LOS
D
C
D
F
Timer
Assigned Phs
7
4
3
8
5
2
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
8.8
47.0
21.3
59.5
9.0
41.0
32.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
TO
43.0
18.0
54.0
5.0
37.0
28.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll), s
5.2
40.3
17.3
28.9
6.3
31.8
30.0
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.0
2.5
0.1
19.3
0.0
2.8
0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctd Delay
48.3
HCM 2010 LOS
D
2025 Background + Project PM Imp 1126/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2015 Existing AM.syn
2: Shields Street & Raintree Drive/Centre Avenue 2/2/2015
_-*
__1,
•
•
~
'1_
-%
t
/11-
`►
1
Movement EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
t
r
T
r
t'G
TT+
Volume (veh/h)
104
172
32
48
31
31
41
913
273
103
727
58
Number
7
4
14
3
8
18
5
2
12
1
6
16
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
190.0
Lanes
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
2
0
Cap, veh/h
356
328
279
170
217
185
414
1609
470
268
1996
205
Arrive On Green
0.10
0.18
0.18
0.04
0.12
0.12
0.03
0.58
0.58
0.05
0.60
0.60
Sat Flow, veh/h
1774
1863
1583
1774
1863
1583
1774
2773
810
1774
3324
342
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
179
277
52
56
56
48
56
743
699
145
458
443
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1774
1863
1583
1774
1863
1583
1774
1863
1720
1774
1863
1802
Q Serve(g_s), s
8.2
14.9
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.9
1.3
28.8
29.6
3.2
13.4
13.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
8.2
14.9
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.9
1.3
28.8
29.6
3.2
13.4
13.4
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.47
1.00
0.19
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
356
328
279
170
217
185
414
1081
998
268
1119
1082
V/C Ratio(X)
0.50
0.84
0.19
0.33
0.26
0.26
0.14
0.69
0.70
0.54
0.41
0.41
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h
356
433
368
172
325
276
428
1081
998
367
1119
1082
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
29.4
41.2
36.2
38.5
41.5
41.5
8.7
15.1
15.3
14.9
10.9
10.9
Incr Delay (d2), slveh
1.1
11.2
0.3
1.1
0.6
0.7
0.1
3.6
4.1
1.7
1.1
1.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile Back of Q (50%), veh/In
3.7
8.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.2
0.5
13.0
12.4
1.6
5.8
5.6
Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh
30.5
52.4
36.6
39.6
42.1
42.3
8.9
18.7
19.4
16.6
12.0
12.1
Lane Grp LOS
C
D
D
D
D
D
A
B
B
B
B
B
Approach Vol, veh/h
508
160
1498
1046
Approach Delay, s/veh
43.1
41.3
18.7
12.7
Approach LOS
D
D
B
B
Assigned Phs
7
4
3
8
5
2
1
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
14.0
22.2
7.9
16.1
7.2
63.9
9.3
66.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
10.0
24.0
4.0
18.0
4.0
55.0
11.0
62.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s
10.2
16.9
4.8
4.9
3.3
31.6
5.2
15.4
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.0
1.3
0.0
1.9
0.0
16.7
0.2
25.9
Intewc5on Summary
HCM 2010 Ctri Delay
21.7
HCM 2010 LOS
C
Notes
2015 Existing AM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2015 Existing PM.syn
2: Shields Street & Raintree Drive/Centre Avenue 2/2/2015
Movement
--*
EBL
-10.
EBT
---*
EBR
"r
WBL
WBT
WBR
-,
NBL
t
NBT
/0�
NBR
ti
SBL
1
SBT
-'
SBR
Lane Configurations
t
r
Vi
T
r
►j
tl�
►j
fiU
Volume (veh/h)
101
107
122
169
118
80
71
902
107
89
1094
112
Number
7
4
14
3
8
18
5
2
12
1
6
16
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(AybT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
190.0
Lanes
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
2
0
Cap, veh/h
350
317
269
296
403
342
242
1591
265
316
1704
213
Arrive On Green
0.06
0.17
0.17
0.11
0.22
0.22
0.04
0.51
0.51
0.06
0.52
0.52
Sat Flow,veh/h
1774
1863
1583
1774
1863
1583
1774
3115
519
1774
3247
407
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
140
255
167
204
140
100
92
574
546
137
688
665
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1774
1863
1583
1774
1863
1583
1774
1863
1771
1774
1863
1791
Q Serve(g_s), s
6.0
13.3
9.9
8.6
6.4
5.3
2.5
22.0
22.0
3.6
28.1
28.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
6.0
13.3
9.9
8.6
6.4
5.3
2.5
22.0
22.0
3.6
28.1
28.4
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.29
1.00
0.23
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
350
317
269
296
403
342
242
951
904
316
977
940
V/C Ratio(X)
0.40
0.81
0.62
0.69
0.35
0.29
0.38
0.60
0.60
0.43
0.70
0.71
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h
350
406
345
319
516
439
292
951
904
428
977
940
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
32.8
40.3
38.9
27.2
33.5
33.1
15.4
17.5
17.5
13.4
18.1
18.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
0.7
8.9
2.3
5.7
0.5
0.5
1.0
2.8
3.0
0.9
4.2
4.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
°/wile Back of Q (50%), veh/In
3.1
7.1
4.2
4.6
3.1
2.2
1.0
10.2
9.7
1.4
13.2
12.8
Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh
33.5
49.3
41.2
32.9
34.1
33.6
16.3
20.3
20.5
14.3
22.3
22.6
Lane Grp LOS
C
D
D
C
C
C
B
C
C
B
C
C
Approach Vol, veh/h
562
444
1212
1490
Approach Delay, s/veh
42.9
33.4
20.1
21.7
Approach LOS
D
C
C
C
Assigned Phs
7
4
3
8
5
2
1
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
10.0
21.2
14.7
25.9
8.2
55.6
9.6
57.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
6.0
22.0
12.0
28.0
7.0
48.0
12.0
53.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
8.0
15.3
10.6
8.4
4.5
24.0
5.6
30.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s
0.0
1.9
0.1
3.1
0.0
17.6
0.2
16.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
25.8
HCM 2010 LOS
C
2015 Existing PM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2015 Background + Project AM.syn
2: Shields Street & Raintree Drive/Centre Avenue 2/2/2015
Movement
EBL
EST
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NEIL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
Vi
t
if
t
i
tT.
Vi
tT4
Volume (veh1h)
104
172
32
57
31
49
41
913
291
139
727
58
Number
7
4
14
3
8
18
5
2
12
1
6
16
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A-pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Sat Flow vehlh/In
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
190.0
Lanes
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
2
0
Cap,veh1h
348
323
274
166
217
184
417
1571
489
277
2016
207
Arrive On Green
0.09
0.17
0.17
0.04
0.12
0.12
0.03
0.58
0.58
0.06
0.61
0.61
Sat Flow,vehlh
1774
1863
1583
1774
1863
1583
1774
2728
848
1774
3324
342
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
179
277
52
66
56
75
56
755
709
196
458
443
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1774
1863
1583
1774
1863
1583
1774
1863
1713
1774
1863
1802
Q Serve(g_s), s
8.4
15.2
3.0
3.4
2.9
4.6
1.4
30.5
31.6
4.2
13.5
13.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
8.4
15.2
3.0
3.4
2.9
4.6
1.4
30.5
31.6
4.2
13.5
13.5
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.19
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
348
323
274
166
217
184
417
1073
987
277
1130
1093
V/C Ratio(X)
0.51
0.86
0.19
0.40
0.26
0.41
0.13
0.70
0.72
0.71
0.41
0.41
Avail Cap(c_a),vehlh
348
388
330
166
283
240
430
1073
987
387
1130
1093
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), slveh
30.5
42.4
37.3
39.6
42.5
43.2
9.0
15.9
16.2
18.8
10.8
10.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
1.3
15.1
0.3
1.5
0.6
1.4
0.1
3.9
4.5
3.5
1.1
1.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile Back of Q (50%), veh/In
3.9
8.7
1.2
1.6
1.4
1.9
0.5
13.7
13.2
5.4
5.8
5.6
Lane Grp Delay (d), shah
31.8
57.4
37.6
41.2
43.1
44.7
9.1
19.8
20.7
22.3
11.9
11.9
Lane Grp LOS
C
E
D
D
D
D
A
B
C
C
B
B
Approach Vol, veh/h
508
197
1520
1097
Approach Delay, s/veh
46.4
43.1
19.8
13.8
Approach LOS
D
D
B
B
Assigned Phs
7
4
3
8
5
2
1
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
14.0
22.3
8.0
16.3
7.2
64.8
10.5
68.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
10.0
22.0
4.0
16.0
4.0
55.0
13.0
64.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll), s
10.4
17.2
5.4
6.6
3.4
33.6
6.2
15.5
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
15.8
0.3
26.9
tntermdan Summery
HCM 2010 Ctd Delay
23.3
HCM 2010 LOS
C
Notes
I 1
2015 Background + Project AM 1/2612015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2015 Background + Project PM.syn
2: Shields Street & Raintree Drive/Centre Avenue 202015
EBR
Lane Configurations
f
r
f
j+
Tii
ti.
Volume (veh/h)
101
107
122
193
118
128
71
902
126
126
1094
112
Number
7
4
14
3
8
18
5
2
12
1
6
16
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
190.0
Lanes
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
2
0
Cap, veh/h
360
315
268
317
407
346
237
1462
286
317
1664
208
Arrive On Green
0.07
0.17
0.17
0.12
0.22
0.22
0.04
0.48
0.48
0.07
0.51
0.51
Sat Flow, veh/h
1774
1863
1583
1774
1863
1583
1774
3029
592
1774
3247
407
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
140
255
167
233
140
160
92
590
558
194
688
665
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1774
1863
1583
1774
1863
1583
1774
1863
1758
1774
1863
1791
0 Serve(g_s), s
6.6
13.4
9.9
9.9
6.4
8.9
2.6
24.3
24.4
5.1
29.0
29.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
6.6
13.4
9.9
9.9
6.4
8.9
2.6
24.3
24.4
5.1
29.0
29.2
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.34
1.00
0.23
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
360
315
268
317
407
346
237
899
849
317
955
918
V/C Ratio(X)
0.39
0.81
0.62
0.74
0.34
0.46
0.39
0.66
0.66
0.61
0.72
0.72
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
360
385
328
351
514
437
283
899
849
451
955
918
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(])
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
32.0
40.6
39.2
26.8
33.5
34.5
16.5
19.9
19.9
16.0
19.1
19.2
Incr Delay (d2), slveh
0.7
10.2
2.5
7.1
0.5
1.0
1.0
3.7
4.0
1.9
4.7
5.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile Back of Q (50%), veh/In
3.0
T3
4.2
6.6
3.1
3.7
1.1
11.4
10.9
2.1
13.7
13.3
Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh
32.7
50.8
41.7
33.8
34.0
35.5
17.5
23.6
23.8
17.9
23.8
24.2
Lane Grp LOS
C
D
D
C
C
D
B
C
C
B
C
C
Approach Vol, veh/h
562
533
1240
1547
Approach Delay, s/veh
43.6
34.4
23.3
23.2
Approach LOS
D
C
C
C
Assigned Phs
7
4
3
8
5
2
1
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
11.0
21.1
16.0
26.2
8.3
53.0
11.3
56.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
7.0
21.0
14.0
28.0
7.0
44.0
15.0
52.0
Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+11), s
8.6
15.4
11.9
10.9
4.6
26.4
7.1
31.2
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.0
1.8
0.1
3.2
0.0
14.0
0.3
16.0
intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
27.7
HCM 2010 LOS
C
Niles.
2015 Background + Project PM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Background AM.syn
2: Shields Street & Raintree Drive/Centre Avenue 2/2/2015
-' -• 7 - *\ t r0� `► 1
Lane Configurations
t
r
t
r
tT
TA
Volume (veh/h)
132
218
41
61
39
39
52
1157
346
131
922
74
Number
7
4
14
3
8
18
5
2
12
1
6
16
Initial 0 (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A-pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
190.0
Lanes
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
2
0
Cap, veh/h
346
356
302
147
288
245
324
1548
440
210
1977
204
Arrive On Green
0.07
0.19
0.19
0.04
0.15
0.15
0.03
0.55
0.55
0.07
0.60
0.60
Sat Flow, veh/h
1774
1863
1583
1774
1863
1583
1774
2792
793
1774
3322
343
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
228
352
67
71
71
60
71
922
906
185
581
562
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1774
1863
1583
1774
1863
1583
1774
1863
1723
1774
1863
1802
Q Serve(g_s), s
8.0
20.7
3.9
3.7
3.7
3.7
1.9
48.1
54.3
6.3
20.2
20.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
8.0
20.7
3.9
3.7
3.7
3.7
1.9
48.1
54.3
6.3
20.2
20.2
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.46
1.00
0.19
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
346
356
302
147
288
245
324
1033
955
210
1108
1072
V/C Ratio(X)
0.66
0.99
0.22
0.48
0.25
0.25
0.22
0.89
0.95
0.88
0.52
0.52
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
346
356
302
147
288
245
348
1033
955
210
1108
1072
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1,00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), slveh
35.9
44.4
37.6
38.6
40.9
40.9
11.1
21.6
23.0
33.4
13.1
13.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
4.5
44.9
0.4
2.4
0.4
0.5
0.3
11.7
19.0
32.3
1.8
1.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile Back of Q (50%), veh/In
2.6
14.3
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.5
0.8
23.6
26.2
7.0
8.9
8.7
Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh
40.5
89.3
38.0
41.0
41.3
41.4
11.4
33.3
42.0
65.7
14.9
14.9
Lane Grp LOS
0
F
D
D
D
D
B
C
D
E
B
B
Approach Vol, veh/h
647
202
1899
1328
Approach Delay, slveh
66.8
41.2
36.6
22.0
Approach LOS
E
D
D
C
Assigned Phs
7
4
3
8
5
2
1
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
12.0
25.0
8.0
21.0
7.5
65.0
12.0
69.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
8.0
21.0
4.0
17.0
5.0
61.0
8.0
64.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s
10.0
22.7
5.7
5.7
3.9
56.3
8.3
22.2
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
4.5
0.0
33.1
Irtenwdon Summary
HCM 2010 Ctd Delay
36.9
HCM 2010 LOS
D
2015 Background AM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report •
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Background PM.syn
2: Shields Street & Raintree Drive/Centre Avenue 2/212015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
t
r
t
r
t1+
tT+
Volume(veh/h)
128
136
155
214
150
101
90
1143
136
113
1387
142
Number
7
4
14
3
8
18
5
2
12
1
6
16
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Sat Flow vehlh/In
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
190.0
Lanes
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
2
0
Cap, veh/h
344
339
288
267
389
331
169
1556
258
246
1684
209
Arrive On Green
0.08
0.18
0.18
0.11
0.21
0.21
0.05
0.50
0.50
0.06
0.52
0.52
Sat Flow,veh/h
1774
1863
1583
1774
1863
1583
1774
3117
517
1774
3250
404
Grp Volume(v), vehlh
178
324
212
258
179
126
117
724
695
174
865
851
Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlhlln
1774
1863
1583
1774
1863
1583
1774
1863
1771
1774
1863
1791
Q Serve(g_s), s
9.0
19.0
13.9
12.0
9.2
7.5
3.5
35.0
35.6
5.0
46.0
48.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
9.0
19.0
13.9
12.0
9.2
7.5
3.5
35.0
35.6
5.0
46.0
48.0
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.29
1.00
0.23
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
344
339
288
267
389
331
169
930
884
246
965
928
V/C Ratio(X)
0.52
0.96
0.74
0.97
0.46
0.38
0.69
0.78
0.79
0.71
0.90
0.92
Avail Cap(c_a), vehlh
344
339
288
267
389
331
169
930
884
309
965
928
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter([)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
33.4
44.6
42.5
32.5
38.1
37.4
25.0
22.6
22.7
21.7
23.8
24.3
Incr Delay (d2), slveh
1.3
37.4
9.5
45.4
0.8
0.7
11.3
6.4
7.0
5.4
12.7
15.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile Back of Q (50%), veh/In
4.1
12.5
6.4
8.9
4.5
3.1
3.8
16.9
16.6
5.2
23.1
23.5
Lane Grp Delay (d), slveh
34.7
82.0
52.0
77.9
38.9
38.1
36.3
29.0
29.7
27.1
36.5
39.5
Lane Grp LOS
C
F
D
E
D
D
D
C
C
C
D
D
Approach Vol, veh/h
714
563
1536
1890
Approach Delay, s/veh
61.3
56.6
29.9
37.0
Approach LOS
E
E
C
D
Assigned Phs
7
4
3
8
5
2
1
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
13.0
24.0
16.0
27.0
9.0
58.9
11.1
61.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
9.0
20.0
12.0
23.0
5.0
51.0
11.0
57.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll ), s
11.0
21.0
14.0
11.2
5.5
37.6
7.0
50.0
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.4
0.0
12.4
0.2
6.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctd Delay
40.7
HCM 2010 LOS
D
2025 Background PM 1/2612015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Background + Project AM.syn
2: Shields Street & Raintree Drive/Centre Avenue 2/2/2015
Movement
EBL
-•
EBT
---*
EBR
WBL
~
WBT
4-
WBR
-*\
NBL
t
NBT
1010-
NOR
`►
SBL
1
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
t
r
vi
t
r
tT+
TA
Volume(veh/h)
132
218
41
70
39
57
52
1157
364
167
922
74
Number
7
4
14
3
8
18
5
2
12
1
6
16
Initial Q (Ob), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
190.0
Lanes
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
2
0
Cap, veh/h
342
356
302
147
288
245
324
1455
433
243
1976
204
Arrive On Green
0.07
0.19
0.19
0.04
0.15
0.15
0.03
0.53
0.53
0.10
0.59
0,59
Sat Flow,veh/h
1774
1863
1583
1774
1863
1583
1774
2759
822
1774
3322
343
Grp Volume(v),veh/h
228
352
67
81
71
88
71
932
918
235
581
562
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1774
1863
1583
1774
1863
1583
1774
1863
1718
1774
1863
1802
Q Serve(g_s), s
8.0
20.7
3.9
4.0
3.7
5.5
2.0
52.1
58.0
10.4
20.2
20.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
8.0
20.7
3.9
4.0
3.7
5.5
2.0
52.1
58.0
10.4
20.2
20.2
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.00
1,00
1.00
1.00
0.4B
1.00
0.19
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
342
356
302
147
288
245
324
982
906
243
1108
1072
V/C Ratio(X)
0.67
0.99
0.22
0.55
0.25
0.36
0.22
0.95
1.01
0.97
0.52
0.52
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h
342
356
302
147
288
245
348
982
906
243
1108
1072
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
36.0
44.4
37.6
39.7
40.9
41.6
12.0
24.6
26.0
39.0
13.1
13.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
4.8
44.9
0.4
4.3
0.4
0.9
0.3
18.8
33.2
48.5
1.8
1.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile Back of Q (50%), veh/In
2.6
14.3
1.6
2.1
1.8
2.3
0.8
27.4
31.0
9.8
8.9
8.7
Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh
40.8
89.3
38.0
43.9
41.3
42.5
12.3
43.4
59.2
87.5
14.9
15.0
Lane Grp LOS
D
F
D
D
D
D
B
D
F
F
B
B
Approach Vol, veh/h
647
240
1921
1378
Approach Delay, s/veh
66.9
42.6
49.8
27.3
Approach LOS
E
D
D
C
Assigned Phs
7
4
3
8
5
2
1
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
12.0
25.0
8.0
21.0
7.6
62.0
15.0
69.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
8.0
21.0
4.0
17.0
5.0
58.0
11.0
64.0
Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+l l ), s
10.0
22.7
6.0
7.5
4.0
60.0
12.4
22.2
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctd Delay 44.6
HCM 2010 LOS D
2025 Background + Project AM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Background + Project PM.syn
2: Shields Street & Raintree Drive/Centre Avenue 2/2/2015
-'
-•
-,*
4,-
4---
4--
*,
t
r
`►
1
r
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
t
r
t
r
►j
f T+
TT+
Volume(veh/h)
128
136
155
238
150
149
90
1143
155
150
1387
142
Number
7
4
14
3
8
18
5
2
12
1
6
16
Initial Q (Ob), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
190.0
Lanes
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
2
0
Cap, veh/h
347
339
288
283
406
345
164
1425
269
260
1655
206
Arrive On Green
0.08
0.18
0.18
0.12
0.22
0.22
0.05
0.47
0.47
0.09
0.51
0.51
Sat Flow, veh/h
1774
1863
1583
1774
1863
1583
1774
3049
575
1774
3250
404
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
178
324
212
287
179
186
117
739
708
231
865
851
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1774
1863
1583
1774
1863
1583
1774
1863
1761
1774
1863
1791
Q Serve(g_s), s
9.0
19.0
13.9
13.0
9.1
11.4
3.8
38.5
39.4
7.5
46.8
48.9
Cycle 0 Clear(g_c), s
9.0
19.0
13.9
13.0
9.1
11.4
3.8
38.5
39.4
7.5
46.8
48.9
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.33
1.00
0.23
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
347
339
288
283
406
345
164
870
823
260
948
912
V/C Ratio(X)
0.51
0.96
0.74
1.01
0.44
0.54
0.71
0,85
0.86
0.89
0.91
0.93
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h
347
339
288
283
406
345
164
870
823
283
948
912
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
33.3
44.6
42.5
30.9
37.2
38.1
25.4
25.9
26.1
27.1
24.7
25.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
1.3
37.4
9.5
56.8
0.8
1.7
13.4
10.1
11.4
25.7
14.4
17.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile Back of Q (50%), veh/In
4.1
12.5
6.4
10.3
4.4
4.8
3.9
19.3
18.9
5.0
24.0
24.5
Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh
34.6
82.0
52.0
87.7
37.9
39.8
38.8
36.0
37.5
52.8
39.2
42.7
Lane Grp LOS
C
F
D
F
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Approach Vol, veh/h
714
652
1564
1947
Approach Delay, s/veh
61.3
60.4
36.9
42.3
Approach LOS
E
E
D
D
Assigned Phs
7
4
3
8
5
2
1
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
13.0
24.0
17.0
28.0
9.0
55.4
13.6
60.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
9.0
20.0
13.0
24.0
5.0
50.0
11.0
56.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+it), s
11.0
21.0
15.0
13.4
5.8
41.4
9.5
50.9
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.4
0.0
8.2
0.1
5.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctd Delay
45.8
HCM 2010 LOS
D
2025 Background + Project PM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2015 Existing AM.syn
3: Research Boulevard & Centre Avenue 2/3/2015
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM rapacity (veh/h)
--I,. 7 41� .e— 4\ /10,
EST EBR WBL WBT NEL NBR
F+
Vi
t
Vi
424 44
65
137
28
Free
Free
Stop
0%
0%
0%
0.78 0.52
0.96
0.88
0.70
544 85
68
156
40
TWLTL
2
157
0.68
231
4
TWLTL
2
628
877
586
291
628
877
4.1
6.4
5.4
2.2
3.5
93
92
954
493
586
6.2
3.3
55
510
Direction Lane #
ES 1
WE 1
W13 2
NB 1
Volume Total
628
68
156
271
Volume Left
0
68
0
40
Volume Right
85
0
0
231
cSH
1700
954
1700
599
Volume to Capacity
0.37
0.07
0.09
0.45
Queue Length 95th (ft)
0
6
0
59
Control Delay (s)
0.0
9.1
0.0
17.0
Lane LOS
A
C
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
2.7
17.0
Approach LOS
C
Irrterseotion Summery
Average Delay
4.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization
41.9%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
2015 Existing AM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2015 Existing PM.syn
3: Research Boulevard & Centre Avenue 2/3/2015
Movement
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
NBL
NBR
Lane Configurations
j-
Volume (veh/h)
155
54
205
337
46
123
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.86
0.68
0.90
0.85
0.82
0.88
Houdy flow rate (vph)
180
79
228
396
56
140
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
4
Median type
TWLTL
TWLTL
Median storage veh)
2
2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
260
1072
220
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
220
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
852
vCu, unblocked vol
260
1072
220
tC, single (s)
4.1
6.4
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
5.4
IF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
83
83
83
cM capacity (vehlh)
1305
331
820
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
WB-2
NIB 1
Volume Total
260
228
396
196
Volume Left
0
228
0
56
Volume Right
79
0
0
140
cSH
1700
1305
1700
1149
Volume to Capacity
0.15
0.17
0.23
0.17
Queue Length 95th (ft)
0
16
0
15
Control Delay (s)
0.0
8.3
0.0
12.5
Lane LOS
A
B
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
3.0
12.5
Approach LOS
B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
4.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
36.1%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
2015 Existing PM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2015 Background + Project AM.syn
3: Research Boulevard & Centre Avenue 2/312015
Movement
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
NBL
NBR
Lane Configurations
i+
t
il
Volume (vehlh)
442
80
83
146
46
166
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.78
Hourly flow rate (vph) 567
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (f /s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (vehlh)
0.52 0.96 0.88 0.70 0.68
154 86 166 66 244
TWLTL
2
721
982
644
339
721
982
4.1
6.4
5.4
2.2
3.5
90
85
881
453
i:!
644
6.2
3.3
48
473
Direction. Lane #
EB 1
WS 1
WS 2
NB 1
Volume Total
721
86
166
310
Volume Left
0
86
0
66
Volume Right
154
0
0
244
cSH
1700
881
1700
600
Volume to Capacity
0.42
0.10
0.10
0.52
Queue Length 95th (ft)
0
8
0
74
Control Delay (s)
0.0
9.5
0.0
19.1
Lane LOS
A
C
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
3.3
19.1
Approach LOS
C
Intersection Summer
Average Delay
5.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
46.1%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
2015 Background + Project AM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2015 Background + Project PM.syn
3: Research Boulevard & Centre Avenue 2/3/2015
Lane Configurations
T4
vj
T
r
Volume (veh/h)
174
91 224
361
94
147
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.86
0.68 0.90
0.85
0.82
0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph)
202
134 249
425
115
167
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
4
Median type
TWLTL
TWLTL
Median storage veh)
2
2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
336
1192
269
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
269
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
922
vCu, unblocked vol
336
1192
269
tC, single (s)
4.1
6.4
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
5.4
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
80
61
78
cM capacity (veh/h)
1223
295
769
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WS 1
WB 2
NB 1
Volume Total
336
249
425
282
Volume Left
0
249
0
115
Volume Right
134
0
0
167
cSH
1700
1223
1700
725
Volume to Capacity
0.20
0.20
0.25
0.39
Queue Length 95th (ft)
0
19
0
46
Control Delay (s)
0.0
8.7
0.0
16.6
Lane LOS
A
C
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
3.2
16.6
Approach LOS
C
ktaraechon Summary
Average Delay
5.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
42.3%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
2015 Background + Project PM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 Background AM.syn
3: Research Boulevard & Centre Avenue 2/3/2015
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
IC, single (s)
IC, 2 stage (s)
IF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
�► Z 4�- ~ 4\ /01
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
NBL
T
Vi
537
56
82
174
35
Free
Free
Stop
0%
0%
0%
0.78
0.52
0.96
0.88
0.70
688
108
85
198
50
TWLTL
2
199
0.68
293
4
TWLTL
2
796
1111
742
369
796
1111
4.1
6.4
5.4
2.2
3.5
90
88
826
409
742
742
6.2
3.3
30
415
Direction Lane #
EB 1
WE 1'
WB 2
NB 1
Volume Total
796
85
198
343
Volume Left
0
85
0
50
Volume Right
108
0
0
293
cSH
1700
826
1700
486
Volume to Capacity
0.47
0.10
0.12
0.70
Queue Length 95th (ft)
0
9
0
137
Control Delay (s)
0.0
9.9
0.0
29.4
Lane LOS
A
D
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
3.0
29.4
Approach LOS
D
Intaserifon Summary
Average Delay
7.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization
50.6%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
2015 Background AM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
•
D
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 Background PM.syn
3: Research Boulevard & Centre Avenue 2/3/2015
Movement
--I�
EBT
7
EBR
or,
WBL
~
WBT
I*\
NBL
/101
NBR
Lane Configurations
to
vj
T
vj
r
Volume (veh/h)
196
68
260
427
58
156
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.86
0.68
0.90
0.85
0.82
0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph)
228
100
289
502
71
177
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
4
Median type
TWLTL
TWLTL
Median storage veh)
2
2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
328
1358
278
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
278
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
1080
vCu, unblocked vol
328
1358
278
tC, single (s)
4.1
6.4
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
5.4
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
77
71
77
cM capacity (veh/h)
1232
240
761
Direction, Lane:#
EB 1
WB 1
WB 2
NS 1
Volume Total
328
289
502
248
Volume Left
0
289
0
71
Volume Right
100
0
0
177
cSH
1700
1232
1700
841
Volume to Capacity
0.19
0.23
0.30
0.29
Queue Length 95th (ft)
0
23
0
31
Control Delay (s)
0.0
8.8
0.0
15.4
Lane LOS
A
C
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
3.2
15.4
Approach LOS
C
Intenmction Summary
Average Delay
4.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization
42.2%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
2025 Background PM 112612015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 Background + Project AM.syn
3: Research Boulevard & Centre Avenue 2/3/2015
Movement
EBT
7
EBR
41�
WBL
~
WBT
14\
NBL
/01
NBR
Lane Configurations
I.
t
r
Volume (veh/h)
555
92
100
183
53
208
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.78
0.52
0.96
0.88
0.70
0.68
Hourly flow rate (vpN
712
177
104
208
76
306
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ftls)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
4
Median type
TWLTL
TWLTL
Median storage veh)
2
2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
888
1216
800
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
800
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
416
vCu, unblocked vol
888
1216
800
tC, single (s)
4.1
6.4
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
5.4
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
86
80
21
cM capacity (veh/h)
762
376
385
Direction .Lane #
EB 1
WE 1
WB 2
NB 1
Volume Total
888
104
208
382
Volume Left
0
104
0
76
Volume Right
177
0
0
306
cSH
1700
762
1700
480
Volume to Capacity
0.52
0.14
0.12
0.79
Queue Length 95th (ft)
0
12
0
182
Control Delay (s)
0.0
10.5
0.0
37.2
Lane LOS
B
E
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
3.5
37.2
Approach LOS
E
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
9.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization
54.3%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
2025 Background + Project AM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
•
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 Background + Project PM.syn
3: Research Boulevard & Centre Avenue 2/3/2015
Movement
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
NBL
NBR
Lane Configurations
'
vj
t
r
Volume (veh/h)
215
105
279
451
106
180
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.86
0.68
0.90
0.85
0.82
0.88
Hourly flow rate (vph)
250
154
310
531
129
205
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (f 1s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
4
Median type
TWLTL
TWLTL
Median storage veh)
2
2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
404
1478
327
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
327
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
1151
vCu, unblocked vol
404
1478
327
tC, single (s)
4.1
6.4
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
5.4
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
73
39
71
cM capacity (veh/h)
1154
212
714
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
WB 2
INS 1
Volume Total
404
310
531
334
Volume Left
0
310
0
129
Volume Right
154
0
0
205
cSH
1700
1154
1700
547
Volume to Capacity
0.24
0.27
0.31
0.61
Queue Length 95th (ft)
0
27
0
102
Control Delay (s)
0.0
9.3
0.0
25.0
Lane LOS
A
C
Approach Delay (s)
0.0
3.4
25.0
Approach LOS
C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
7.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization
49.0%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
2025 Background + Project PM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2015 Existing AM.syn
4: Meadowlark Avenue/Research Boulevard & Drake Road 2/2/2015
'A 1 s' t-*\ 1 P �► j d
•
Lane Configurations
Vi
0
Vi
ti
t
r
T+
Volume (veh/h)
62
934
20
38
519
169
38
96
81
32
15
10
Number
7
4
14
3
8
18
5
2
12
1
6
16
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A-pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
1900.
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
Cap,veh/h
451
2302
97
351
1685
611
320
385
327
228
194
162
Arrive On Green
0.04
0.65
0.65
0.03
0.65
0.65
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
Sat Flow,veh/h
1774
3550
150
1774
2612
946
1357
1863
1583
1105
941
784
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
93
598
589
64
474
432
52
135
135
48
0
44
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1774
1863
1836
1774
1863
1696
1357
1863
1583
1105
0
1724
Q Serve(g_s), s
1.9
17.7
17.7
1.3
12.9
12.9
3.5
6.6
7.9
4.1
0.0
2.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
1.9
17.7
17.7
1.3
12.9
12.9
5.7
6.6
7.9
10.7
0.0
2.2
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.08
1.00
0.56
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.45
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
451
1208
1191
351
1202
1094
320
385
327
228
0
357
V/C Ratio(X)
0.21
0.49
0.49
0.18
0.39
0.39
0.16
0.35
0.41
0.21
0.00
0.12
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h
539
1208
1191
411
1202
1094
320
385
327
228
0
357
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
6.6
9.7
9.7
7.4
9.0
9.0
36.7
36.1
36.6
40.7
0.0
34.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
0.2
1.4
1.5
0.2
1.0
1.1
1.1
2.5
3.8
2.1
0.0
0.7
•
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile Back of Q (50%), veh/In
0.7
7.5
7.4
0.5
5.3
4.9
1.3
3.4
3.4
1.3
0.0
1.0
Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh
6.8
11.1
11.2
7.6
10.0
10.1
37.7
38.6
40.4
42.8
0.0
35.1
Lane Grp LOS
A
B
8
A
A
B
D
D
D
D
D
Approach Vol, veh/h
1280
970
322
92
Approach Delay, s/veh
10.8
9.8
39.2
39.1
Approach LOS
B
A
D
D
Assigned Phs
7
4
3
8
2
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
7.7
73.0
7.4
72.7
26.0
26.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
9.0
69.0
7.0
67.0
22.0
22.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll), s
3.9
19.7
3.3
14.9
9.9
12.7
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.1
21.6
0.0
22.0
1.4
1.2
Intersection Sumi
HCM 2010 Ctd Delay 14.9
HCM 2010 LOS B
2015 Existing AM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2015 Existing PM.syn
4: Meadowlark Avenue/Research Boulevard & Drake Road 2/2/2015
--*
--►
-�*
4�-
4-
*\
t
/P�
`►
1
q/
Movement EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Number
Initial Q (Qb), veh
Pod -Bike Adj(A-pbT)
Parking Bus Adj
Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In
28
1.00
1.00
186.3
845 19 72 1232
4 14 3 8
0 0 0 0
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
186.3 190.0
186.3
1.00
T r
96 18 27 44 167
18 5 2 12 1
0 0
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
186.3 190.0 186.3
0 0
0
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
1.00
186.3 186.3
186.3
T+
117 54
6 16
0 0
1.00
1.00 1.00
186.3 190.0
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
Cap, veh/h
242
2148
54
385
2047
165
245
483
410
385
326
134
Arrive On Green
0.03
0.59
0.59
0.04
0.60
0.60
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
Sat Flow,veh/h
1774
3619
90
1774
3404
274
1156
1863
1583
1304
1256
515
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
48
494
490
92
731
716
28
36
52
184
0
220
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1774
1863
1847
1774
1863
1814
1156
1863
1583
1304
0
1772
Q Serve(g_s), s
1.1
15.9
15.9
2.1
27.8
28.1
2.3
1.6
2.7
13.4
0.0
11.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
1.1
15.9
15.9
2.1
27.8
28.1
13.6
1.6
2.7
15.0
0.0
11.3
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.05
1.00
0.15
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.29
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
242
1106
1096
385
1121
1092
245
483
410
385
0
459
V/C Ratio(X)
0.20
0.45
0.45
0.24
0.65
0.66
0.11
0.07
0.13
0.48
0.00
0.48
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h
274
1106
1096
420
1121
1092
245
483
410
385
0
459
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
11.9
12.1
12.1
9.0
14.1
14.2
39.6
30.2
30.7
35.9
0.0
33.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
0.4
1.3
1.3
0.3
3.0
3A
0.9
0.3
0.6
4.2
0.0
3.6
Initial Q Delay(0),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile Back of Q (50%), veh/In
0.4
6.9
6.8
0.8
12.5
12.3
0.7
0.8
1.1
4.9
0.0
5.6
Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh
12.3
13.4
13.5
9.3
17.1
17.3
40.6
30.5
31.3
40.1
0.0
37.4
Lane Grp LOS
8
B
B
A
B
B
D
C
C
D
D
Approach Vol, veh/h
1032
1539
116
404
Approach Delay, s/veh
13.4
16.7
33.3
38.6
Approach LOS
B
B
C
D
Assigned Phs
7
4
3
8
2
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
7.1
68.1
7.9
69.0
32.0
32.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
5.0
64.0
6.0
65.0
28.0
28.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s
3.1
17.9
4.1
30.1
15.6
17.0
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.0
26.7
0.0
22.6
1.9
1.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctd Delay 19.1
HCM 2010 LOS B
2015 Existing PM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2015 Background + Project AM.syn
4: Meadowlark Avenue/Research Boulevard & Drake Road 2/2/2015
•
Lane Configurations
Vi
fl.
t?+
t
r
Vi
F+
Volume (veh/h)
80
934
20
38
519
199
38
105
81
47
19
19
Number
7
4
14
3
8
18
5
2
12
1
6
16
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pod -Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
190.0
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
Cap,vehlh
432
2269
96
345
1560
666
310
403
342
230
165
202
Arrive On Green
0.04
0.64
0.64
0.03
0.63
0.63
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
Sat Flow, veh/h
1774
3550
150
1774
2480
1059
1326
1863
1583
1092
763
935
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
119
598
589
64
500
449
52
148
135
70
0
69
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1774
1863
1836
1774
1863
1676
1326
1863
1583
1092
0
1698
Q Serve(g_s), s
2.4
18.1
18.2
1.3
14.5
14.5
3.5
7.2
7.8
6.2
0.0
3.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
2.4
18.1
18.2
1.3
14.5
14.5
7.1
7.2
7.8
13A
0.0
3.5
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.08
1.00
0.63
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.55
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
432
1191
1174
345
1172
1054
310
403
342
230
0
367
V/C Ratio(X)
0.28
0.50
0.50
0.19
0.43
0.43
0.17
0.37
0.39
0.30
0.00
0.19
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h
575
1191
1174
405
1172
1054
310
403
342
230
0
367
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
7.2
10.2
10.2
7.9
10.0
10.0
37.0
35.5
35.7
41.2
0.0
34.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
0.3
1.5
1.5
0.3
1.1
1.3
1.2
2.6
3.4
3.4
0.0
1.1
Initial 0 Delay(d3),slveh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile Back of Q (50%), veh/In
0.9
7.8
7.7
0.5
6.2
5.6
1.3
3.7
3.3
1.9
0.0
1.6
Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh
7.6
11.7
11.7
8.2
11.1
11.3
38.1
38.1
39.1
44.6
0.0
35.2
Lane Grp LOS
A
B
B
A
B
B
D
0
D
D
D
Approach Vol, veh/h
1306
1013
335
139
Approach Delay, s/veh
11.3
11.0
38.5
39.9
Approach LOS
B
B
D
D
Assigned Phs
7
4
3
8
2
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
8.5
72.0
7.4
70.9
27.0
27.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
13.0
68.0
7.0
62.0
23.0
23.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s
4.4
20.2
3.3
16.5
9.8
15.4
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.2
22.1
0.0
21.6
1.8
1.3
Intersedbe Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
15.9
HCM 2010 LOS
B
2015 Background + Project AM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2015 Background + Project PM.syn
4: Meadowlark Avenue/Research Boulevard & Drake Road 2/2/2015
Lane Configurations
tT+
Vi
TT+
?
r
►j
T.
Volume (veh/h)
47
845
19
72
1232
127
18
36
44
208
129
78
Number
7
4
14
3
8
18
5
2
12
1
6
16
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A-pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
190.0
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
Cap,veh1h
230
2077
52
372
1910
203
232
517
440
400
316
171
Arrive On Green
0.03
0.57
0.57
0.04
0.58
0.58
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
Sat Flow, veh/h
1774
3619
90
1774
3312
352
1110
1863
1583
1290
1139
616
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
81
494
490
92
750
732
28
48
52
229
0
265
Grp Sat Row(s),veh/h/In
1774
1863
1847
1774
1863
1801
1110
1863
1583
1290
0
1754
Q Serve(g_s), s
2.0
16.6
16.6
2.3
30.8
31.3
2.4
2.1
2.6
17.3
0.0
13.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
2.0
16.6
16.6
2.3
30.8
31.3
16.3
2.1
2.6
19.4
0.0
13.9
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.05
1.00
0.20
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.35
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
230
1069
1060
372
1074
1039
232
517
440
400
0
487
V/C Ratio(X)
0.35
0.46
0.46
0.25
0.70
0.70
0.12
0.09
0.12
0.57
0.00
0.54
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h
316
1069
1060
404
1074
1039
232
517
440
400
0
487
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
14.4
13.3
13.3
10.1
16.2
16.3
40.1
28.9
29.1
36.1
0.0
33.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
0.9
1.4
1.5
0.3
3.8
4.0
1.1
0.4
0.5
5.8
0.0
4.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile Back of Q (50%), veh/In
0.8
7.4
7.4
0.9
13.8
13.8
0.7
1.0
1.1
6.3
0.0
6.8
Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh
15.4
14.8
14.8
104
20.0
20.3
41.2
29.3
29.7
41.9
0.0
37.5
Lane Grp LOS
B
B
B
B
B
C
D
C
C
D
D
Approach Vol, veh/h
1065
1574
128
494
Approach Delay, s/veh
14.8
19.6
32.1
39.6
Approach LOS
B
B
C
D
Assigned Phs
7
4
3
8
2
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
7.7
66.0
8.0
66.3
34.0
34.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
9.0
62.0
6.0
59.0
30.0
30.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s
4.0
18.6
4.3
33.3
18.3
21.4
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0A
26.4
0.0
18.6
2.3
2.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctd Delay
21.5
HCM 2010 LOS
C
Notes
2015 Background + Project PM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Background AM.syn
4: Meadowlark Avenue/Research Boulevard & Drake Road 2/2/2015
Lane Configurations
t1+
of
TT+
oft
r
T+
Volume (veh/h)
79
1184
25
48
658
214
48
122
103
41
19
13
Number
7
4
14
3
8
18
5
2
12
1
6
16
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(AybT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
190.0
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
Cap, veh/h
380
2365
98
279
1725
624
282
349
297
176
176
147
Arrive On Green
0.04
0.67
0.67
0.03
0.66
0.66
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
Sat Flow, veh/h
1774
3552
147
1774
2613
945
1341
1863
1583
1032
938
786
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
118
756
748
81
601
549
66
172
172
61
0
57
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hlln
1774
1863
1837
1774
1863
1696
1341
1863
1583
1032
0
1724
Q Serve(g_s), s
2.2
24.3
24.5
1.6
17.3
17.3
4.6
8.8
10.6
6.0
0.0
3.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
2.2
24.3
24.5
1.6
17.3
17.3
7.6
8.8
10.6
14.8
0.0
3.0
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.08
1.00
0.56
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.46
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
380
1240
1223
279
1230
1120
282
349
297
176
0
323
V/C Ratio(X)
0.31
0.61
0.61
0.29
0.49
0.49
0.23
0.49
0.58
0.35
0.00
0.18
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
493
1240
1223
335
1230
1120
282
349
297
176
0
323
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
6.9
10.0
10.0
8.7
9.1
9.1
39.6
38.8
39.5
45.4
0.0
36.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
0.5
2.2
2.3
0.6
1.4
1.5
1.9
4.9
8.0
5.3
0.0
1.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
°/,ile Back of Q (50%), veh/In
0.8
10.2
10.1
0.6
7.3
6.7
1.7
4.7
4.8
1.9
0.0
1.4
Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh
7.4
12.3
12.3
9.3
10.5
10.6
41.5
43.7
47.5
50.7
0.0
37.6
Lane Grp LOS
A
B
B
A
B
B
D
D
D
D
D
Approach Vol, veh/h
1622
1231
410
118
Approach Delay,slveh
11.9
10.5
44.9
44.4
Approach LOS
B
B
D
D
Assigned Phs
7
4
3
8
2
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
8.2
75.0
7.6
74.4
24.0
24.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
11.0
71.0
7.0
67.0
20.0
20.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s
4.2
26.5
3.6
19.3
12.6
16.8
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.1
29.7
0.0
31.1
1.5
0.8
Intersection Summery
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
16.5
HCM 2010 LOS
B
2015 Background AM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Background PM.syn
4: Meadowlark Avenue/Research Boulevard & Drake Road 2/2/2015
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Number
� � 7
r1i
TT.
35
1071
24 91
1562 122
7
4
14 3
8 18
I
t
r
T.
23
34
56
212
148
68
5
2
12
1
6
16
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Packing Bus Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
190.0
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
Cap, veh/h
175
2176
54
318
2087
167
183
460
391
357
310
127
Arrive On Green
0.03
0.60
0.60
0.04
0.61
0.61
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
Sat Flow, veh/h
1774
3621
89
1774
3406
272
1097
1863
1583
1277
1255
516
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
60
626
621
117
920
915
36
45
66
233
0
278
Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In
1774
1863
1847
1774
1863
1815
1097
1863
1583
1277
0
1772
Q Serve(g_s), s
1.4
22.1
22.1
2.7
41.3
43.1
3.3
2.0
3.6
18.8
0.0
15.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
1.4
22.1
22.1
2.7
41.3
43.1
18.6
2.0
3.6
20.9
0.0
15.3
Prop In lane
1.00
0.05
1.00
0.15
1.00
1.00
1,00
0.29
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
175
1120
1110
318
1141
1112
183
460
391
357
0
437
V/C Ratio(X)
0.34
0.56
0.56
0.37
0.81
0.82
0.20
0.10
0.17
0.65
0.00
0.64
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
186
1120
1110
389
1141
1112
183
460
391
357
0
437
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Fifter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
18.2
13.1
13.1
10.4
16.2
16.5
45.1
31.8
32.4
39.8
0.0
36A
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
1.1
2.0
2.0
0.7
6.1
6.9
2.4
0.4
0.9
8.9
0.0
6.9
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile Back of Q (50%), veh/In
0.8
9.7
9.6
1.0
19.1
19.4
1.1
1.0
1.5
7.0
0.0
7.8
Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh
19.3
15.1
15.1
11.1
22.3
23.5
47.5
32.2
33.3
48.8
0.0
43.7
Lane Grp LOS
B
B
B
B
C
C
D
C
C
D
D
Approach Vol, veh/h
1307
1952
147
511
Approach Delay, s/veh
15.3
22.2
36.4
46.0
Approach LOS
B
C
D
D
Assigned Phs
7
4
3
8
2
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
7.4
69.7
8.6
71.0
31.0
31.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
4.0
62.0
9.0
67.0
27.0
27.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l l ), s
3.4
24.1
4.7
45.1
20.6
22.9
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.0
31.2
0.1
19.4
1.7
1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay
23.5
HCM 2010 LOS
C
2025 Background PM 1/2612015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Background + Project AM.syn
4: Meadowlark Avenue/Research Boulevard & Drake Road 2/2/2015
-"'
-•
--*
'r
-,
t
/
�►
1
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
f T�
TTa
T
r
1�
T+
Volume (veh/h)
97
1184
25
48
658
244
48
131
103
56
23
22
Number
7
4
14
3
8
18
5
2
12
1
6
16
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A-pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
190.0
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
Cap, veh/h
349
2232
93
257
1540
635
312
419
356
210
175
208
Arrive On Green
0.05
0.63
0.63
0.03
0.61
0.61
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
Sat Flow, veh/h
1774
3552
147
1774
2509
1034
1312
1863
1583
1020
776
923
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
145
756
748
81
626
567
66
185
172
84
0
81
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hlln
1774
1863
1837
1774
1863
1680
1312
1863
1583
1020
0
1700
Q Serve(g_s), s
3.1
27.1
27.2
1.8
20.8
21.0
4.6
9.1
10.1
8.2
0.0
4.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
3.1
27.1
27.2
1.8
20.8
21.0
B.7
9.1
10.1
17.3
0.0
4.1
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.08
1.00
0.62
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.54
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
349
1170
1154
257
1143
1031
312
419
356
210
0
383
VIC Ratio(X)
0.42
0.65
0.65
0.31
0.55
0.55
0.21
0.44
0.48
0.40
0.00
0.21
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h
462
1170
1154
313
1143
1031
312
419
356
210
0
383
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter([)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
9.5
12.4
12.4
11.0
12.0
12.0
37.2
35.5
35.9
43.0
0.0
33.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
0.8
2.8
2.8
0.7
1.9
2.1
1.5
3.3
4.6
5.6
0.0
1.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%i[e Back of Q (50%), veh/ln
1.2
11.8
11.7
0.7
9.1
8.3
1.7
4.7
4.4
2.5
0.0
1.9
Lane Grp Delay (d), slveh
10.3
15.2
15.3
11.7
13.9
14.1
38.7
38.9
40.5
48.6
0.0
34.9
Lane Grp LOS
B
B
B
B
B
B
D
D
D
D
C
Approach Vol, veh/h
1649
1274
423
165
Approach Delay, s/veh
14.8
13.8
39.5
41.9
Approach LOS
B
B
D
D
Assigned Phs
7
4
3
8
2
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
9.2
71.0
7.6
69.5
28.0
28.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
12.0
67.0
7.0
62.0
24.0
24.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+It), s
5.1
29.2
3.8
23.0
12.1
19.3
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.2
27.1
0.0
27.7
2.1
1.2
Intersection Sumer
HCM 2010 Ctd Delay
18.7
HCM 2010 LOS
B
2025 Background + Project AM 1/2612015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2025 Background + Project PM.syn
4: Meadowlark Avenue/Research Boulevard & Drake Road 2/212015
Movement
EBL
EBT
EB'R
WBL
WST
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
►j
ti.
tT.
T
r
►j
T.
Volume(veh/h)
54
1071
24
91
1562
153
23
43
56
253
160
92
Number
7
4
14
3
8
18
5
2
12
1
6
16
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Adj Sat Flow veh/h/In
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
190.0
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
186.3
190.0
Lanes
1
2
0
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
Cap,veh/h
171
2122
52
311
1975
197
164
483
410
365
300
155
Arrive On Green
0.04
0.59
0.59
0.04
0.59
0.59
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
Sat Flow, veh/h
1774
3621
89
1774
3334
333
1052
1863
1583
1263
1159
598
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
93
626
621
117
937
933
36
57
66
278
0
323
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hlln
1774
1863
1847
1774
1863
1804
1052
1863
1583
1263
0
1757
Q Serve(g_s), s
2.3
22.6
22.7
2.8
44.6
47.1
3.5
2.5
3.5
23.3
0.0
18.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
2.3
22.6
22.7
2.8
44.6
47.1
21.5
2.5
3.5
25.8
0.0
18.0
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.05
1.00
0.18
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.34
Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h
171
1092
1082
311
1104
1069
164
483
410
365
0
455
VIC Ratio(X)
0.54
0.57
0.57
0.38
0.85
0.87
0.22
0.12
0.16
0.76
0.00
0.71
Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h
203
1092
1082
382
1104
1069
164
483
410
365
0
455
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Upstream Filter(I)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), slveh
23.2
13.9
13.9
11.1
18.1
18.6
46.1
30.6
30.9
40.4
0.0
36.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
2.7
2.2
2.2
0.8
8.2
9.8
3.1
0.5
0.8
14.0
0.0
9.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile Back of Q (50%), veh/In
2.6
10.1
10.0
1.1
21.3
22.1
1.1
1.3
1.5
8.9
0.0
9.2
Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh
25.9
16.1
16.2
11.8
26.2
28.4
49.1
31.1
31.8
54.5
0.0
45.3
Lane Grp LOS
C
B
B
B
C
C
D
C
C
D
D
Approach Vol, veh/h
1340
1987
159
601
Approach Delay, slveh
16.8
26.4
35.4
49.6
Approach LOS
B
C
D
D
Assigned Firs
7
4
3
8
2
6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
8.0
67.3
8.7
68.0
32.0
32.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s
6.0
61.0
9.0
64.0
28.0
28.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
4.3
24.7
4.8
49.1
23.5
27.8
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.0
30.5
0.1
13.7
1.6
0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 2010 CM Delay
27.0
HCM 2010 LOS
C
Notes
2025 Background + Project PM
1/26/2015
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2015 Existing AM.syn
5: Drake Road & Gilette Drive Access 213/2015
1 � 4— t \10� 4/
Movement
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
Lane Configurations
•TT
T1+
Y
Volume (veh/h)
98
920
715
167
14
18
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.70
0.82
0.78
0.76
0.70
0.45
Hourly flow rate (vph)
140
1122
917
220
20
40
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
TWLTL
TWLTL
Median storage veh)
2
2
Upstream signal (ft)
823
pX, platoon unblocked
0.82
vC, conflicting volume
1136
1868
568
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
1027
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
841
vCu, unblocked vol
1136
1624
568
tC, single (s)
4.1
6.8
6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
5.8
IF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
77
92
91
cM capacity (veh/h)
611
247
466
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
EB 2
WB 1
WS 2
SB 1
Volume Total
514
748
611
525
60
Volume Left
140
0
0
0
20
Volume Right
0
0
0
220
40
cSH
611
1700
1700
1700
359
Volume to Capacity
0.23
0.44
0.36
0.31
0.17
Queue Length 95th (ft)
22
0
0
0
15
Control Delay (s)
6.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.0
Lane LOS
A
C
Approach Delay (s)
2.5
0.0
17.0
Approach LOS
C
btarsectim Summary
Average Delay
1.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization
66.7%
ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)
15
2015 Existing AM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
•
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2015 Existing PM.syn
5: Drake Road & Gilette Drive Access 2/3/2015
4,-
ti
r
-�*
-.
Movement
EBL
EBT
WBT
WEIR
SBL
SBR
Lane Configurations
4t
tT+
Y
Volume (veh/h)
22
1074
1350
30
60
64
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.69
0.92
0.91
0.62
0.75
0.55
Hourly flow rate (vph)
32
1167
1484
48
80
116
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
TWLTL
TWLTL
Median storage veh)
2
2
Upstream signal (ft)
823
pX, platoon unblocked
0.84
vC, conflicting volume
1532
2155
766
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
1508
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
647
vCu, unblocked vol
1532
1998
766
tC, single (s)
4.1
6.8
6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
5.8
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
93
50
66
cM capacity (veh/h)
430
161
345
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
EB 2
WB 1
WB 2
SB 1
Volume Total
421
778
989
543
196
Volume Left
32
0
0
0
80
Volume Right
0
0
0
48
116
cSH
430
1700
1700
1700
235
Volume to Capacity
0.07
0.46
0.58
0.32
0.83
Queue Length 95th (ft)
6
0
0
0
162
Control Delay (s)
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
67.6
Lane LOS
A
F
Approach Delay (s)
0.8
0.0
67.6
Approach LOS
F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
4.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization
59.3%
ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)
15
2015 Existing PM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2015 Background + Project AM Imp.syn
5: Drake Road & Gilette Drive Access 21312015
-,#
--.I.
--
4,
\.
r
Movement
EBL
EBT
W13T
WBR
SBL
SBR
Lane Configurations
+TT
?T+
r
Volume (veh/h)
98
935
745
181
21
18
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.70
0.82
0.78
0.76
0.70
0.45
Hourly flow rate (vph)
140
1140
955
238
30
40
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
1193
1193
4.1
2.2
76
581
TWLTL TWLTL
2 2
823
0.82
1924 597
1074
850
1685 597
6.8 6.9
5.8
3.5 3.3
87 91
235 446
Dlre&m, ;Lane #
EB ti
EB 2
WB A
Wb 2
SB 1
S92
Volume Total
520
760
637
557
30
40
Volume Left
140
0
0
0
30
0
Volume Right
0
0
0
238
0
40
cSH
581
1700
1700
1700
235
446
Volume to Capacity
0.24
0.45
0.37
0.33
0.13
0.09
Queue Length 95th (ft)
23
0
0
0
11
7
Control Delay (s)
6.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.6
13.9
Lane LOS
A
C
B
Approach Delay (s)
2.7
0.0
17.6
Approach LOS
C
Intersecdnn Summary
Average Delay
1.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization
68.4%
ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)
15
2015 Background + Project AM Imp 1126/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
•
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2015 Background + Project PM Imp.syn
5: Drake Road & Gilette Drive Access
2/3/2015
-#
~
t
\11.
r
--,,
Movement
EBL
EBT
WBT
WEIR
881-
SBR
Lane Configurations
+jt
tl+
r
Volume (veh/h)
22
1115
1381
45
79
64
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.69
0.92
0.91
0.62
0.75
0.55
Hourly flow rate (vph)
32
1212
1518
73
105
116
Pedeshians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
TWLTL
TWLTL
Median storage veh)
2
2
Upstream signal (ft)
823
pX, platoon unblocked
0.84
vC, conflicting volume
1590
2224
795
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
1554
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
670
vCu, unblocked vol
1590
2071
795
1C, single (s)
4.1
6.8
6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
5.8
IF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
92
31
65
cM capacity (vehlh)
409
152
330
Direction, Lane-#
EB 1
EB 2
WB 1
WB 2
SB 1
5B 2
Volume Total
436
808
1012
578
105
116
Volume Left
32
0
0
0
105
0
Volume Right
0
0
0
73
0
116
cSH
409
1700
1700
1700
152
330
Volume to Capacity
0.08
0.48
0.60
0.34
0.69
0.35
Queue Length 95th (ft)
6
0
0
0
101
39
Control Delay (s)
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
70.1
21.7
Lane LOS
A
F
C
Approach Delay (s)
0.9
0.0
44.7
Approach LOS
E
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
3.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization
57.5%
ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)
15
2015 Background + Project PM Imp 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2015 Background + Project AM.syn
5: Drake Road & Gilette Drive Access 2/3/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
Lane Configurations
+Tt
tt+
Y
Volume (veh/h)
98
935
745
181
21
18
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.70
0.82
0.78
0.76
0.70
0.45
Hourly flow rate (vph)
140
1140
955
238
30
40
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
TWLTL
TWLTL
Median storage veh)
2
2
Upstream signal (ft)
823
pX, platoon unblocked
0.82
vC, conflicting volume
1193
1924
597
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
1074
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
850
vCu, unblocked vol
1193
1685
597
tC, single (s)
4.1
6.8
6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
5.8
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
76
87
91
cM capacity (veh/h)
581
235
446
Diredon Lane #
fB 1
EB 2
WB 1
WB 2
SB 1'
Volume Total
520
760
637
557
70
Volume Left
140
0
0
0
30
Volume Right
0
0
0
238
40
cSH
581
1700
1700
1700
322
Volume to Capacity
0.24
0.45
0.37
0.33
0.22
Queue Length 95th (ft)
23
0
0
0
20
Control Delay (s)
6.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.3
Lane LOS
A
C
Approach Delay (s)
2.7
0.0
19.3
Approach LOS
C
IrTtarsecow sw nary
Average Delay
1.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization
68.4%
ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)
15
2015 Background + Project AM 1/2612015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
•
•
•
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2015 Background + Project PM.syn
5: Drake Road & Gilette Drive Access 213/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
Lane Configurations
+jt
t 14
Y
Volume (veh/h)
22
1115
1381
45
79
64
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.69
0.92
0.91
0.62
0.75
0.55
Hourly flow rate (vph)
32
1212
1518
73
105
116
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (f /s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
TWLTL
TWLTL
Median storage veh)
2
2
Upstream signal (ft)
823
pX, platoon unblocked
0.84
vC, conflicting volume
1590
2224
795
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
1554
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
670
vCu, unblocked vol
1590
2071
795
tC, single (s)
4.1
6.8
6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
5.8
tF (a)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
92
31
65
cM rapacity (veh/h)
409
152
330
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
EB 2
WB 1
WB 2
SB 1
Volume Total
436
808
1012
578
222
Volume Left
32
0
0
0
105
Volume Right
0
0
0
73
116
cSH
409
1700
1700
1700
212
Volume to Capacity
0.08
0.48
0.60
0.34
1.05
Queue Length 95th (ft)
6
0
0
0
244
Control Delay (s)
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
122.4
Lane LOS
A
F
Approach Delay (s)
0.9
0.0
122.4
Approach LOS
F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
9.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization
61.5%
ICU
Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)
15
2015 Background + Project PM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 Background AM.syn
5: Drake Road & Gilette Drive Access 2/3/2015
t --jj. 4--- 4, ti d
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
IF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
124 1166
906
212 18
Free
Free
Stop
0%
0%
0%
0.70 0.82
0.78
0.76 0.70
177 1422
1162
279 26
1440
1440
4.1
2.2
62
467
TWLTL TWLTL
2 2
823
23
0.45
51
0.74
2366 720
1301
1065
2146 720
6.8 6.9
5.8
3.5 3.3
85 86
169 370
Direction Lane:#
EB 1
E82
WB 1
WB-2
SB 1
Volume Total
651
948
774
666
77
Volume Left
177
0
0
0
26
Volume Right
0
0
0
279
51
cSH
467
1700
1700
1700
265
Volume to Capacity
0.38
0.56
0.46
0.39
0.29
Queue Length 95th (ft)
44
0
0
0
29
Control Delay (s)
11.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.0
Lane LOS
B
C
Approach Delay (s)
4.6
0.0
24.0
Approach LOS
C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
3.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
81.0%
ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)
15
2015 Background AM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
D
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 Background PM.syn
5: Drake Road & Gilette Drive Access 2/312015
Lane Configurations
+TT
TT+
Y
Volume (vehlh)
28
1361
1711
38 76
81
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.69
0.92
0.91
0.62 0.75
0.55
Hourly flow rate (vph)
41
1479
1880
61 101
147
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
TWLTL
TWLTL
Median storage veh)
2
2
Upstream signal (ft)
823
pX, platoon unblocked
0.76
vC, conflicting volume
1942
2732
971
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
1911
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
821
vCu, unblocked vol
1942
2647
971
tC, single (s)
4.1
6.8
6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
5.8
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
86
0
42
cM capacity (veh/h)
298
98
253
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
EB 2
WB 1
WB 2
SB 1
Volume Total
534
986
1253
688
249
Volume Left
41
0
0
0
101
Volume Right
0
0
0
61
147
cSH
298
1700
1700
1700
153
Volume to Capacity
0.14
0.58
0.74
0.40
1.62
Queue Length 95th (ft)
12
0
0
0
433
Control Delay (s)
4.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
360.1
Lane LOS
A
F
Approach Delay (s)
1.7
0.0
360.1
Approach LOS
F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
24.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization
73.4%
ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)
15
2025 Background PM 1/2612015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 Background + Project AM Imp.syn
5: Drake Road & Gilette Drive Access
213/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
Lane Configurations
.jT
?14
vj
iN
Volume (vehlh)
124
1181
936
226
25
23
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.70
0.82
0.78
0.76
0.70
0.45
Hourly flow rate (vph)
177
1440
1200
297
36
51
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ftls)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
TWLTL
TWLTL
Median storage veh)
2
2
Upstream signal (ft)
823
pX, platoon unblocked
0.71
vC, conflicting volume
1497
2423
749
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
1349
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
1074
vCu, unblocked vol
1497
2193
749
tC, single (s)
4.1
6.8
6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
5.8
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
60
78
86
cM capacity (veh/h)
444
164
355
J
QUedbn, Lam, #
ES 1
EB 2
WB 1
WB 2
S81
SB2
Volume Total
657
960
800
697
36
51
Volume Left
177
0
0
0
36
0
Volume Right
0
0
0
297
0
51
cSH
444
1700
1700
1700
164
355
Volume to Capacity
0.40
0.56
0.47
0.41
0.22
0.14
Queue Length 95th (ft)
47
0
0
0
20
12
Control Delay (s)
12.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.0
16.9
Lane LOS
B
D
C
Approach Delay (s)
5.1
0.0
23.5
Approach LOS
C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
3.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization
82.7%
ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min)
15
2025 Background + Project AM Imp 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 Background + Project PM Imp.syn
5: Drake Road & Gilette Drive Access 2/3/2015
Movement
EBL
EBT
WBT
Wit
SBL
SEIR
Lane Configurations
a }
} j+,
Vi
r
Volume (veh/h)
28
1402
1742
53
95
81
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.69
0.92
0.91
0.62
0.75
0.55
Hourly flow rate (vph)
41
1524
1914
85
127
147
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (f /s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
TWLTL
TWLTL
Median storage veh)
2
2
Upstream signal (ft)
823
pX, platoon unblocked
0.76
vC, conflicting volume
2000
2800
1000
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
1957
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
843
vCu, unblocked vol
2000
2735
1000
tC, single (s)
4.1
6.8
6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
5.8
IF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
86
0
39
cM capacity (veh/h)
283
92
242
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
EB 2
WB 1
W8 2
SIB 1
SB 2
Volume Total
549
1016
1276
724
127
147
Volume Left
41
0
0
0
127
0
Volume Right
0
0
0
85
0
147
cSH
283
1700
1700
1700
92
242
Volume to Capacity
0.14
0.60
0.75
0.43
1.38
0.61
Queue Length 95th (ft)
12
0
0
0
235
90
Control Delay (s)
5.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
306.3
40.7
Lane LOS
A
F
E
Approach Delay (s)
1.8
0.0
163.5
Approach LOS
F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
12.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization
70.6%
ICU
Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)
15
2025 Background + Project PM Imp 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 Background + Project AM.syn
5: Drake Road & Gilette Drive Access 2/3/2015
A,
ti
r
Moment
IBL
EBT
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
Lane Configurations
«Tt
T ,
Y
Volume (veh/h)
124
1181
936
226
25
23
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.70
0.82
0.78
0.76
0.70
0.45
Hourly flow rate (vph)
177
1440
1200
297
36
51
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
1497
1497
4.1
2.2
60
444
TWLTL TWLTL
2 2
823
0.71
2423 749
1349
1074
2193 749
6.8 6.9
5.8
3.5 3.3
78 86
164 355
Diredfon Lane #
ES 1'
F9 2
W81
WB 2
S81
Volume Total
657
960
800
697
87
Volume Left
177
0
0
0
36
Volume Right
0
0
0
297
51
cSH
444
1700
1700
1700
240
Volume to Capacity
0.40
0.56
0.47
0.41
0.36
Queue Length 95th (ft)
47
0
0
0
39
Control Delay (s)
12.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.3
Lane LOS
B
D
Approach Delay (s)
5.1
0.0
28.3
Approach LOS
D
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
3.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
82.7%
ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min)
15
2025 Background + Project AM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2025 Background + Project PM.syn
5: Drake Road & Gilette Drive Access 2/3/2015
, � ~ t \,, r
Movement
EBL
EST
WBT
WBR
SBL
SBR
Lane Configurations
+Tt
tl�
Y
Volume (veh/h)
28
1402
1742
53
95
81
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.69
0.92
0.91
0.62
0.75
0.55
Hourly flow rate (vph)
41
1524
1914
85
127
147
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ftls)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
TWLTL
TWLTL
Median storage veh)
2
2
Upstream signal (ft)
823
pX, platoon unblocked
0.76
vC, conflicting volume
2000
2800
1000
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
1957
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
843
vCu, unblocked vol
2000
2735
1000
tC, single (s)
4.1
6.8
6.9
tC, 2 stage (s)
5.8
tF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
86
0
39
cM capacity (veh/h)
283
92
242
01rrectiom, Lame #
EB 1
EB 2
WS 1
WB 2
S81
Volume Total
549
1016
1276
724
274
Volume Left
41
0
0
0
127
Volume Right
0
0
0
85
147
cSH
283
1700
1700
1700
138
Volume to Capacity
0.14
0.60
0.75
0.43
1.99
Queue Length 95th (ft)
12
0
0
0
543
Control Delay (s)
5.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
522.6
Lane LOS
A
F
Approach Delay (s)
1.8
0.0
522.6
Approach LOS
F
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
38.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
75.6%
ICU
Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)
15
2025 Background + Project PM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC 2015 Existing AM.syn
6: Research Boulevard & North Access 2/2/2015
Intersection Delay, slveh 0.8
Movement
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
Vol, vehlh
3
3
10
181
88
17
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
-
None
None
None
Storage Length
0
-
Veh in Median Storage, #
0
0
0
Grade, %
0
-
0
0
-
Peak Hour Factor
38
38
50
72
96
53
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
8
8
20
251
92
32
Major/Minor
Minot
WWI
Ma►o2
Conflicting Flow All
399
108
124
0
0
Stage 1
108
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
291
-
-
Follow-up Headway
3.518
3.318
2.218
-
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver
607
946
1463
-
Stage 1
916
-
-
-
Stage 2
759
-
-
-
Time blocked -Platoon, %
_
Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver
597
946
1463
-
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
597
-
-
Stage 1
916
Stage 2
747
Approach
EB
N8
SIB
HCM Control Delay, s
10
0.6
0
HCM LOS
B
Minor Lane / Major Mvrnt
NBL
NBT
EBLn1
SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)
1463
-
732
- -
HCM Lane VIC Ratio
0.014
-
0.022
- -
HCM Control Delay (s)
7.495
0
10
- -
HCM Lane LOS
A
A
B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
0.042
-
0.066
- -
— : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined
2015 Existing AM 1/2612015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TVVSC 2015 Existing PM.syn
6: Research Boulevard & North Access 212/2015
Intersection Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
Vol, veh/h
9
7
4
150
261
7
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
-
None
None
None
Storage Length
0
-
Veh in Median Storage, #
0
0
0
Grade, %
0
-
0
0
-
Peak Hour Factor
56
58
100
81
89
88
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
16
12
4
185
293
8
Major/Minor
Minot
Maiorl
Maior2
Conflicting Flow All
490
297
301
0
0
Stage 1
297
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
193
-
-
Follow-up Headway
3.518
3.318
2.218
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver
537
742
1260
Stage 1
754
-
-
Stage 2
840
Time blocked -Platoon, %
Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver
535
742
1260
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
535
-
-
Stage 1
754
Stage 2
837
Approach
EB
NB SIB
HCM Control Delay, s
11.2
0.2 0
HCM LOS
B
Minor Lane / Major Mvmt
NBL
NST
Elli SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)
1260
-
608 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0,003
-
0.046 - -
HCM Control Delay (s)
7.866
0
11.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS
A
A
B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
0.01
•
0.145 - -
- : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined
2015 Existing PM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC 2015 Background + Project AM.syn
6: Research Boulevard & North Access 2/2/2015
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 2.4
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Vol, veh/h
3
0
3
13
0
27
10
181
27
54
88
17
Conflicting Peds, #Ihr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
-
None
None
None
None
Storage Length
-
-
Veh in Median Storage, #
-
0
0
0
0
Grade, %
-
0
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
Peak Hour Factor
38
92
38
92
92
92
50
72
92
92
96
53
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
8
0
8
14
0
29
20
251
29
59
92
32
Malor/Minor
Minot
Minort
Maiort
Maior2
Conflicting Flow All
546
546
108
535
547
266
124
0
0
281
0
0
Stage 1
225
225
-
306
306
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
321
321
-
229
241
-
-
-
-
Follow-up Headway
3.518
4.018
3.318
3.518
4.018
3.318
2.218
-
2.218
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver
448
445
946
456
445
773
1463
-
1282
Stage 1
778
718
-
704
662
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
691
652
-
774
706
-
-
-
-
Time blocked -Platoon, %
-
Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver
410
416
946
430
416
773
1463
-
1282
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
410
416
-
430
416
-
-
-
-
Stage 1
766
682
693
651
Stage 2
654
642
729
671
Approach
EB
WB
9NB
SB
HCM Control Delay, s
11.5
11.3
0.5
2.6
HCM LOS
B
B
Minor Lam /MajorMvnR
NBL
NBT
NBR
EBLn1
WBLn1
SBL
SBT
SBR
Capacity (veh/h)
1463
-
572
614
1282
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.014
-
-
0.028
0.071
0,046
-
HCM Control Delay (s)
7.495
0
-
11.5
11.3
7.943
0
HCM Lane LOS
A
A
B
B
A
A
HCM 95th %tile O(veh)
0.042
-
0.085
0.228
0.144
- : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined
2015 Background + Project AM 1126/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
•
HCM 2010 TWSC 2015 Background + Project PM.syn
6: Research Boulevard & North Access 212/2015
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh
3.3
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WEIR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Vol, veh/h
9
0
7
36
0
72
4
150
28
56
261
7
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
None
None
None
None
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
0
0
0
0
Grade, %
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
Peak Hour Factor
56
92
58
92
92
92
100
81
92
92
89
88
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
16
0
12
39
0
78
4
185
30
61
293
8
MajorAftor
Mini
Mimi
Malorl
Maior2
Conflicting Flow All
667
643
297
633
631
200
301
0
0 216 0 0
Stage 1
419
419
-
208
208
-
-
-
- - - -
Stage 2
248
224
-
425
423
-
-
-
- -
Follow-up Headway
3.518
4.018
3.318
3.518
4.018
3.318
2.218
-
- 2.218
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver
372
392
742
392
398
B41
1260
-
- 1354
Stage 1
612
590
-
794
730
-
-
- -
Stage 2
756
718
-
607
588
-
-
-
Time blocked -Platoon, %
Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver
322
369
742
369
375
841
1260
1354
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
322
369
-
369
375
-
-
-
Stage 1
610
558
-
791
727
Stage 2
683
715
-
565
556
Approach
EB
WB
NB
SB
HCM Control Delay, s
14.1
12.6
0.1
1.3
HCM LOS
B
B
Mirror Lane/ Major Mvmt
MBL
NBT
NSR
EBLn1
WBLn1
SBL
SBT
SBR
Capacity (veh/h)
1260
-
425
590
1354
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.003
-
-
0.066
0.199
0.045
-
HCM Control Delay (s)
7.866
0
-
14.1
12.6
7.784
0
HCM Lane LOS
A
A
B
B
A
A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
0.01
-
0.212
0.736
0.141
Notes
- Volume Exceeds Capacity, $ Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds, Error : Computation Not Defined
2015 Background + Project PM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC 2025 Background AM.syn
6: Research Boulevard & North Access 212/2015
Intersection
Intersection Delay, slveh 0.8
Movement
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SIBR
Vol, veh/h
4
4
13
229
112
22
Conflicting Peds, #Ihr
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
-
None
None
None
Storage Length
0
-
Veh in Median Storage, #
0
0
0
Grade, %
0
-
0
0
-
Peak Hour Factor
38
38
50
72
96
53
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
11
11
26
318
117
42
MaiorlMlnor
1,4nor2
Maiort
Wort
Conflicting Flow All
507
137
158
0
0
Stage 1
137
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
370
-
-
Follow-up Headway
3.518
3.318
2.218
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver
525
911
1422
Stage 1
890
-
-
Stage 2
699
-
-
Time blocked -Platoon, %
Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver
513
911
1422
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
513
-
-
Stage 1
890
Stage 2
684
Appmy*
EB
N8
SB
HCM Control Delay, s
10.7
0.6
0
HCM LOS
B
Minor Lane I M*r Mvmt
NBL
NET
EBLn1
SBT SBR
Capacity (vehlh)
1422
-
656
- -
HCM Lane V1C Ratio
0.018
-
0.032
- -
HCM Control Delay (s)
7.579
0
10.7
- -
HCM Lane LOS
A
A
B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
0.056
-
0.099
- -
- : Volume Exceeds Capacity, $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds, Error: Computation Not Defined
2015 Background AM 1126/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC 2025 Background PM.syn
6: Research Boulevard & North Access 212/2015
Intersection
Intersection Delay, slveh 0.7
Movement
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
Vol, veh/h
11
9
5
190
331
9
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
-
None
None
None
Storage Length
0
-
Veh in Median Storage, #
0
0
0
Grade, %
0
-
0
0
-
Peak Hour Factor
56
58
100
81
89
88
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
20
16
5
235
372
10
Major/Minor
Minor2
Maiorl
Malor2
Conflicting Flow All
622
377
382
0
0
Stage 1
377
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
245
-
-
-
Follow-up Headway
3.518
3.318
2.218
-
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver
450
670
1176
-
Stage 1
694
-
-
-
Stage 2
796
-
-
-
Time blocked -Platoon, %
-
Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver
448
670
1176
-
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
448
-
-
Stage 1
694
Stage 2
792
Approach
EB
NB
SB
HCM Control Delay, s
12.3
0.2
0
HCM LOS
B
Minor Lane / Major Mvmt
NBL
NBT
EBLn1
SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)
1176
-
525
- -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.004
-
0.067
- -
HCM Control Delay (s)
8.074
0
12.3
- -
HCM Lane LOS
A
A
B
HCM 95th %tile O(veh)
0.013
-
0.215
- -
Notes
- : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined
2025 Background PM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC 2025 Background + Project AM.syn
6: Research Boulevard & North Access 212/2015
Intersection
Intersection Delay, slveh 2.2
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WEIR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Vol, vehlh
4
0
4
13
0
27
13
229
27
54
112
22
Conflicting Pads, #Ihr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
-
None
None
None
None
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
-
0
0
0
0
Grade, %
-
0
-
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
Peak Hour Factor
38
92
38
92
92
92
50
72
92
92
96
53
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
11
0
11
14
0
29
26
318
29
59
117
42
Major/Minor
Minor
Wort
Majorl
M9or2
Conflicting Flow All
654
654
137
645
661
333
158
0
0
347
0
0
Stage 1
255
255
-
385
385
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
399
399
-
260
276
-
-
-
-
-
Follow-up Headway
3.518
4.018
3.318
3.518
4.018
3.318
2.218
-
2.218
-
-
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver
380
386
911
385
383
709
1422
-
1212
-
-
Stage 1
749
696
-
638
611
-
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
627
602
-
745
682
Time blocked -Platoon, %
Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver
343
357
911
359
354
709
1422 1212
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
343
357
-
359
354
-
- -
Stage 1
732
658
-
623
597
Stage 2
587
588
-
697
645
A®nraarh
EB
W.B
NS SB
HCM Control Delay, s
12.5
12.3
0.5 2.2
HCM LOS
B
B
Minor Lane / Major Mvmt
NBL
NBT
:NBR
EB1m1
WBLn1
SEIL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)
1422
498
538
1212
HCM Lane VIC Ratio
0.018
-
-
0.042
0.081
0.048 -
HCM Control Delay (s)
7.579
0
-
12.5
12.3
8.121 0
HCM Lane LOS
A
A
B
B
A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
0.056
-
0.132
0.263
0.153
- : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds, Error: Computation Not Defined
2025 Background + Project AM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
E
D
HCM 2010 TWSC 2025 Background + Project PM.syn
6: Research Boulevard & North Access 2/2/2015
Intersection Delay, s/veh 3.2
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WET
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Vol, veh/h
11
0
9
36
0
72
5
190
28
56
331
9
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
-
None
None
None
None
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
-
0
0
0
0
Grade, %
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
Peak Hour Factor
56
92
58
92
92
92
100
81
92
92
89
88
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
20
0
16
39
0
78
5
235
30
61
372
10
Major/Minor
Minor2
Minorl
Majorl
Mador2
Conflicting Flow All
798
774
377
767
764
250
382
0
0
265
0
0
Stage 1
499
499
-
260
260
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
299
275
-
507
504
-
-
-
-
Follow-up Headway
3.518
4.018
3.318
3.518
4.018
3.318
2.218
-
.
2.218
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver
304
329
670
319
334
789
1176
-
-
1299
Stage 1
554
544
-
745
693
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
710
683
-
548
541
-
-
-
-
Time blocked -Platoon, %
_
Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver
260
308
670
296
312
789
1176
-
1299
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
260
308
296
312
-
-
-
Stage 1
551
511
-
741
690
Stage 2
636
680
-
503
509
Approach
EB
WB
NB
SB
HCM Control Delay, s
16.2
14.2
0.1
1.1
HCM LOS
C
B
Minor Lame/ Major MwM
NBL
NUT
Ni
EBlm1
W5Ln1
SBL
SST
SBR
Capacity (veh/h)
1176
356
507
1299
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.004
-
0.099
0.232
0.047
-
HCM Control Delay (s)
8.074
0
-
16.2
14.2
7.908
0
HCM Lane LOS
A
A
C
B
A
A
HCM 95th %tile O(veh)
0.013
-
0.326
0.888
0.147
- : Volume Exceeds Capacity, $ Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds, Error : Computation Not Defined
2025 Background + Project PM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC 2015 Existing AM.syn
7: Research Boulevard & South Access 2/2/2015
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 2
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Vol, veh/h
3
0
22
0
0
0
73
256
0
0
42
23
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
-
None
None
-
None
None
Storage Length
-
75
Veh in Median Storage, #
-
0
0
-
0
0
Grade, %
-
0
-
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
Peak Hour Factor
38
25
69
25
25
25
73
70
25
25
88
82
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
8
0
32
0
0
0
100
366
0
0
48
28
Major/Minor
Minor2
Minort
Malorl
Major2
Conflicting Flow All
628
628
62
644
642
366
76
0
0
366
0
0
Stage 1
62
62
-
566
566
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
566
566
78
76
-
-
-
-
Follow-up Headway
3.518
4.018
3.318
3.518
4.018
3.318
2.218
-
2.218
-
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver
395
400
1003
386
392
679
1523
-
1193
-
Stage 1
949
843
-
509
507
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
509
507
-
931
832
-
-
-
-
Time blocked -Platoon, %
Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver
375
374
1003
355
366
679
1523
1193
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
375
374
-
355
366
-
-
-
Stage 1
887
843
-
476
474
Stage 2
476
474
-
901
832
Annmach
EB
WS
NB
SB
HCM Control Delay, s
10
0
1.6
0
HCM LOS
B
A
Mirror Lane / Major Mvmt
NBL
NBT
NBR
EBLn1
WOW
SBL
SBT
SBR
Capacity (veh/h)
1523
-
-
753
0
1193
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0,066
-
-
0.053
+
-
HCM Control Delay (s)
7.53
-
-
10
0
0
HCM Lane LOS
A
B
A
A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
0.211
-
-
0.167
+
0
- : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined
2015 Existing AM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TVVSC 2015 Existing PM.syn
7: Research Boulevard & South Access 212/2015
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh
3.4
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Vol, veh/h
22
0
86
0
0
0
35
118
0
0
253
14
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
-
None
None
-
None
None
Storage Length
-
75
Veh in Median Storage, #
-
0
0
-
0
0
Grade, %
-
0
-
-
0
-
0
-
-
0
-
Peak Hour Factor
50
25
90
25
25
25
73
89
25
25
87
58
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
44
0
96
0
0
0
48
133
0
0
291
24
Major/Minor
Minor2
Minorl
Mejor1
Maior2
Conflicting Flow All
531
531
303
579
543
133
315
0 0 133 0 0
Stage 1
303
303
-
228
228
-
-
- - - - -
Stage 2
228
228
-
351
315
-
-
- - - - -
Follow-up Headway
3,518
4.018
3.318
3.518
4.018
3.318
2.218
- - 2.218 - -
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver
459
454
737
426
447
916
1245
- - 1452 - -
Stage 1
706
664
-
775
715
-
-
- - -
Stage 2
775
715
666
656
-
-
- - -
Time blocked -Platoon, %
- -
Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver
445
436
737
360
430
916
1245
- - 1452
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
445
436
-
360
430
-
-
- - -
Stage 1
679
664
-
745
687
Stage 2
745
687
-
580
656
Aaoroach
EB
WB
NB
SB
HCM Control Delay, s
12.6
0
2.1
0
HCM LOS
B
A
Minor Lane / Major MMmt
NBL
NBT
NBR
EBLn1
WBLn1
SBL
SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)
1245
-
-
611
0
1452
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.039
-
-
0.228
+
-
HCM Control Delay (s)
8.007
-
-
12.6
0
0
HCM Lane LOS
A
B
A
A
HCM 95th %tile 0(veh)
0.12
-
-
0.875
+
0
Notes
- : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined
2015 Existing PM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC 2015 Background + Project AM.syn
7: Research Boulevard & South Access 2/912015
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh
2.9
Movement
EBL
EST
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
INK
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Vol, veh/h
3
0
22
15
0
0
73
283
30
0
55
23
Conflicting Peds, #mr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
-
None
-
None
-
None
None
Storage Length
-
0
-
-
75
-
100
Veh in Median Storage, #
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
0
Grade, %
-
0
-
-
0
-
0
-
-
0
-
Peak Hour Factor
38
25
69
25
25
25
73
70
25
25
88
82
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
8
0
32
60
0
0
100
404
120
0
62
28
Wor/Mmor
M nor2
Minorl
Maiorl
Maior2
Conflicting Flow All
741
801
77
741
755
464
91
0
0 524 0 0
Stage 1
77
77
-
664
664
-
-
-
- - - -
Stage 2
664
724
-
77
91
-
-
-
- - - -
Follow-up Headway
3.518
4.018
3.318
3.518
4.018
3.318
2.218
-
- 2.218 - -
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver
332
318
984
332
338
598
1504
-
- 1043 - -
Stage 1
932
831
-
450
458
-
-
-
- - - -
Stage 2
450
430
-
932
820
-
-
- - - -
Time blocked -Platoon, %
-
- - -�
Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver
315
297
984
305
316
598
1504
-
1043
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
315
297
-
305
316
-
-
-
-
Stage 1
870
831
-
420
428
Stage 2
420
401
-
902
820
-
Approach
EB
WB
INS
$B
HCM Control Delay, s
10.3
19.7
1.2
0
HCM LOS
B
C
Minor Lane / Major'Mvmt
NEL
NBT
NBR
EBW
EBLn2
WBLn1
SBL
SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)
1504
-
-
516
984
305
1043
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.066
-
-
0.036
0.022
0.197
-
HCM Control Delay (s)
7.564
-
-
12.2
8.7
19.7
0
HCM Lane LOS
A
B
A
C
A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
0.213
-
-
0.112
0.066
0.718
0
- : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined
2015 Background + Project AM 1126/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC 2015 Background + Project PM.syn
7: Research Boulevard & South Access 2/912015
Intersection Delay, s/veh 6.9
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Vol, veh/h
22
0
86
41
0
0
35
146
31
0
289
14
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
-
None
-
None
-
None
-
None
Storage Length
-
-
0
-
75
-
100
Veh in Median Storage, #
-
0
-
-
0
-
0
-
-
0
Grade, %
-
0
-
-
0
0
-
-
0
Peak Hour Factor
50
25
90
25
25
25
73
89
25
25
87
58
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
44
0
96
164
0
0
48
164
124
0
332
24
MajorUnor
Mhmr2
Minorl
Majorl
Majow2
Conflicting Flow All
666
728
344
666
678
226
356
0
0
288
0
0
Stage 1
344
344
-
322
322
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
322
384
-
344
356
Follow-up Headway
3.518
4.018
3.318
3.518
4.018
3.318
2.218
-
2.218
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver
373
350
699
373
374
813
1203
-
1274
Stage 1
671
637
-
690
651
-
-
-
Stage 2
690
611
-
671
629
Time blocked -Platoon, %
Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver
362
336
699 312
359
813
1203
1274
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
362
336
- 312
359
-
-
-
Stage 1
644
637
- 662
625
Stage 2
662
587
- 579
629
APproadl
EB
WB
NB
SIB
HCM Control Delay, s
12.8
28.6
1.2
0
HCM LOS
B
D
Minor Lane / Major Mvrtit
NBL
NBT NOR
EBLn1
EBLn2
WBLn1
SBL
SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)
1203
- -
454
699
312
1274
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.04
- -
0.167
0.091
0.526
-
HCM Control Delay (s)
8.117
- -
14.5
10.7
28.6
0
HCM Lane LOS
A
B
B
D
A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
0.124
- .
0.594
0.3
2.877
0
Notes
- : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined
2015 Background + Project PM 1/2612015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC 2025 Background AM.syn
7: Research Boulevard & South Access 2/212015
Intersection Delay, s/veh
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Vol, veh/h
4
0
28
0
0
0
93
325
0
0
53
29
Conflicting Peds, #lhr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
-
None
None
-
None
None
Storage Length
-
-
75
Veh in Median Storage, #
-
0
0
-
-
0
0
Grade, %
-
0
-
-
0
-
0
-
-
0
-
Peak Hour Factor
38
25
69
25
25
25
73
70
25
25
88
82
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
11
0
41
0
0
0
127
464
0
0
60
35
MajodMinor
Minor2
Minorl
elorl'
Major2
Conflicting Flow All
797
797
78
817
815
464
96
0
0
464
0
0
Stage 1
78
78
-
719
719
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
719
719
-
98
96
-
-
-
-
-
Follow-up Headway
3.518
4.018
3.318
3.518
4.018
3.318
2.218
-
2.218
-
-
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver
305
319
983
295
312
598
1498
-
1097
-
-
Stage 1
931
830
-
420
433
-
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
420
433
-
908
815
-
-
Time blocked -Platoon, %
Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver
285
292
983
264
286
598
1498
1097
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
285
292
-
264
286
-
-
-
Stage 1
852
830
-
384
396
Stage 2
384
396
-
871
815
Approach
EB
WB
NB
SB
HCM Control Delay, s
11
0
1.6
0
HCM LOS
B
A
Minor Lane / Major Mvmt
NBL
NBT
NBR
EBLn1
WBLnl
SBL
SBT
SBR
Capacity (veh/h)
1498
-
653
0
1097
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.085
-
0.078
+
-
HCM Control Delay (s)
7,626
-
11
0
0
HCM Lane LOS
A
B
A
A
HCM 95th %file Q(veh)
0.278
-
0.254
+
0
- : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined
2015 Background AM 1/2612015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC 2025 Background PM.syn
7: Research Boulevard & South Access 21212015
Intersection
Intersection Delay, slveh 4
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Vol, vehlh
28
0
109
0
0
0
44
150
0
0
321
18
Conflicting Peds, #1hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
-
None
None
-
None
None
Storage Length
-
75
Veh in Median Storage, #
-
0
0
-
0
0
Grade, %
-
0
-
0
-
-
0
-
0
-
Peak Hour Factor
50
25
90
25
25
25
73
89
25
25
87
58
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
56
0
121
0
0
0
60
169
0
0
369
31
Major/Minor
Minor2
Alinort
Malorl
Maior2
Conflicting Flow All
673
673
384
734
689
169
400
0
0
169
0
0
Stage 1
384
384
-
289
289
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
289
289
-
445
400
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Follow-up Headway
3.518
4.018
3.318
3.518
4.018
3.318
2.218
-
-
2.218
-
-
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver
369
377
664
336
369
875
1159
-
-
1409
-
-
Stage 1
639
611
-
719
673
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
719
673
-
592
602
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Time blocked -Platoon, %
-
-
-
Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver
354
357
664
264
350
875
1159
-
-
1409
-
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
354
357
-
264
350
-
-
-
-
-
Stage 1
606
611
-
682
638
Stage 2
682
638
-
484
602
Approach
EB
WB
NB
SB
HCM Control Delay, s
15.5
0
2.2
0
HCM LOS
C
A
Minor Lane IMajor 'Mvmt
NBL
NBT
NBR
EBLn1
WBLnl
SBL
SOT
SBR
Capacity (veh/h)
1159
-
-
520
0
1409
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0,052
-
-
0.341
+
-
HCM Control Delay (s)
8.276
-
-
15.5
0
0
HCM Lane LOS
A
C
A
A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
0.164
-
-
1.497
+
0
Notes
- : Volume Exceeds Capacity, $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds, Error: Computation Not Defined
2025 Background PM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TVVSC 2025 Background + Project AM.syn
7: Research Boulevard & South Access 2/9/2015
Intersection Delay, s/veh 3.2
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WEIR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Vol, veh/h
4
0
28
15
0
0
93
352
30
0
66
29
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
None
-
None
-
None
-
None
Storage Length
0
-
-
75
-
100
Veh in Median Storage, #
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
Grade, %
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
Peak Hour Factor
38
25
69
25
25
25
73
70
25
25
88
82
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
11
0
41
60
0
0
127
503
120
0
75
35
MajodMinor
Miroor2
Minorl
WOO
MaJor2
Conflicting Flow All
911
971
93
911
928
563
110
0
0
623
0
0
Stage 1
93
93
-
818
818
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
818
878
-
93
110
-
-
-
-
-
-
Follow-up Headway
3.518
4.018
3.318
3.518
4.018
3.318
2.218
-
-
2.218
-
-
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver
255
253
964
255
268
526
1480
-
-
958
-
-
Stage 1
914
818
-
370
390
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
370
366
914
804
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Time blocked -Platoon, %
-
-
-
-
Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver
238
231
964
228
245
526
1480
-
-
958
-
-
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
238
231
-
228
245
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stage 1
836
818
-
338
357
Stage 2
338
335
-
876
804
Approach
EB
WB
NB
SB
HCM Control Delay, s
11.4
263
1.3
0
HCM LOS
B
D
Minor Lane / Major Mvmt
NBL
NBT
NBR
EBLn1
EBLn2
WBLn1
SBL
SBT
SBR
Capacity (veh/h)
1480
-
413
964
228
958
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.086
-
0.058
0.028
0.263
-
HCM Control Delay (s)
7.661
-
14.3
8.8
26.3
0
HCM Lane LOS
A
B
A
D
A
HCM 95th %tile D(veh)
0.282
-
0.185
0.087
1.022
0
- : Volume Exceeds Capacity, $ Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds. Error: Computation Not Defined
2025 Background + Project AM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report •
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC 2025 Background + Project PM.syn
7: Research Boulevard & South Access 2/9/2015
Intersection
Intersection Delay, siveh
9.9
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Vol, veh/h
28
0
109
41
0
0
44
178
31
0
357
18
Conflicting Peds, #Ihr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
-
None
-
None
-
None
-
None
Storage Length
-
0
-
-
75
100
Veh in Median Storage, #
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
0
Grade, %
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
0
-
Peak Hour Factor
50
25
90
25
25
25
73
89
25
25
87
58
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
56
0
121
164
0
0
60
200
124
0
410
31
Major/Minor
Minor2
Minorl
Malorl
Ma1or2'
Conflicting Flow All
809
871
426
809
824
262
441
0 0 324 0 0
Stage 1
426
426
-
383
383
-
-
- - - - -
Stage 2
383
445
-
426
441
-
-
- - - - -
Follow-up Headway
3.518
4.018
3.318
3.518
4.018
3.318
2.218
- - 2.218 - -
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver
299
289
628
299
308
777
1119
- - 1236 - -
Stage 1
606
586
-
640
612
-
-
- - - - -
Stage 2
640
575
-
606
577
-
-
- - - - -
Time blacked -Platoon, %
- - - -
Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver
287
274
628
231
291
777
1119
- - 1236 - -
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
287
274
-
231
291
-
-
- - - - -
Stage 1
574
586
-
606
579
Stage 2
606
544
-
489
577
EB WB
HCM Control Delay, s 15.1 51.4 1.3
HCM LOS C F
Minor Lane / Major Mvmt
NBL
NBT NBR EBLn1
EBLn2
WBLn1
SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)
1119
372
628
231
1236
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.054
0.259
0.129
0.71
-
HCM Control Delay (s)
8.4
18
11.6
51.4
0
HCM Lane LOS
A
C
B
F
A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
0.171
1.019
0.44
4,703
0
—: Volume Exceeds Capacity, $ Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined
2025 Background + Project PM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC 2015 Background + Project AM.syn
8: Centre Avenue & Centre Access 212/2015
Intersection Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
Vol. vehlh
9
18
590
18
36
220
Conflicting Pees, Whr
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
-
None
None
-
None
Storage Length
0
100
Veh in Median Storage, #
0
0
-
0
Grade, %
0
0
-
-
0
Peak Hour Factor
92
92
92
92
92
92
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
10
20
641
20
39
239
Major/Minor
Minarl
Mal
11404
Conflicting Flow All
968
651
0
0
661
0
Stage 1
651
-
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
317
-
-
-
-
Follow-up Headway
3.518
3.318
-
2.218
-
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver
282
469
-
927
-
Stage 1
519
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
738
-
-
Time blocked -Platoon, %
-
Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver
270
469
927
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
270
-
-
Stage 1
519
Stage 2
707
Approach
WB
NB
SB
HCM Control Delay, s
154
HCM LOS
C
Minor Lane / Major Mvmt
NBT NBR
WBLn1
SBL
SBT
Capacity (vehlh)
- -
377
927
HCM Lane WC Ratio
- -
0.078
0.042
HCM Control Delay (s)
- -
15.4
9.055
HCM Lane LOS
C
A
HCM 95th %tile 0(veh)
- -
0.252
0.132
— : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds, Error : Computation Not Defined
2015 Background + Project AM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report •
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC 2015 Background + Project PM.syn
8: Centre Avenue & Centre Access 2/2/2015
Intersection Delay, s/veh 1.4
Movement
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
Vol, veh/h
24
48
302
19
37
561
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
-
None
None
-
None
Storage Length
0
-
100
-
Veh in Median Storage, #
0
0
-
-
0
Grade, %
0
-
0
-
-
0
Peak Hour Factor
92
92
92
92
92
92
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
26
52
328
21
40
610
MajorlMinor
Minorl
MOW
MajaQ
Conflicting Flow All
1029
339
0
0
349
0
Stage 1
339
-
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
690
-
-
-
-
Follow-up Headway
3.518
3.318
-
-
2.218
-
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver
259
703
-
-
1210
-
Stage 1
722
-
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
498
-
-
-
Time blocked -Platoon, %
-
-
Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver
250
703
-
1210
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
250
-
-
Stage 1
722
Stage 2
482
Approach
Ne
NB
SB
HCM Control Delay, s
15
0
0.5
HCM LOS
C
Minor Lane / Major Mwnt
NBT NBR
WBLn1
SBL
SBT
Capacity (veh/h)
- -
438
1210
-
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
- -
0.179
0.033
-
HCM Control Delay (s)
- -
15
8.077
-
HCM Lane LOS
C
A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
- -
0.643
0.103
-
- : Volume Exceeds Capacity, $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined
2015 Background + Project PM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC 2025 Background + Project AM.syn
8: Centre Avenue & Centre Access 2/2/2015
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh
0.8
Movement
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SST
Vol, veh/h
9
18
745
18
36
274
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
-
None
None
-
None
Storage Length
0
100
Veh in Median Storage, #
0
0
-
0
Grade, %
0
-
0
-
0
Peak Hour Factor
92
92
92
92
92
92
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
10
20
810
20
39
298
Maior/Minor
Minorl
Majorl
Meio2
Conflicting Flow All
1196
820
0
0 829 0
Stage 1
820
-
-
- - -
Stage 2
376
-
-
-
Follow-up Headway
3.518
3.318
-
- 2.218
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver
206
375
-
- 803
Stage 1
433
-
-
- -
Stage 2
694
-
-
Time blocked -Platoon, %
-
Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver
196
375
-
803
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
196
-
-
-
Stage 1
433
Stage 2
660
Approach
WB
N8
SB
HCM Control Delay, s
19
0
1.1
HCM LOS
C
Minor Lane / Major Mvmt
NST NBR
WSW
SBL
SST
Capacity (veh/h)
- -
287
803
-
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
- -
0.102
0.049
-
HCM Control Delay (s)
- -
19
9.713
-
HCM Lane LOS
C
A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
- -
0.338
0.153
-
- : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined
2025 Background + Project AM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC 2025 Background + Project PM.syn
8: Centre Avenue & Centre Access 2/212015
Intersection Delay, slveh 1.4
Movement
WBL
WBR
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
Vol, veh/h
24
48
376
19
37
706
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
-
None
None
-
None
Storage Length
0
-
100
-
Veh in Median Storage, #
0
0
-
-
0
Grade, %
0
-
0
-
-
0
Peak Hour Factor
92
92
92
92
92
92
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
26
52
409
21
40
767
Maion/Minor
Minorl
Maiorl
Maior2
Conflicting Flow All
1267
419
0
0
429
0
Stage 1
419
-
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
848
-
-
-
Follow-up Headway
3.518
3.318
-
2.218
-
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver
186
634
-
1130
-
Stage 1
664
-
-
-
Stage 2
420
-
-
-
Tme blocked -Platoon, %
Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver
179
634
1130
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
179
-
-
Stage 1
664
Stage 2
405
Approach
WB
NB
SB
HCM Control Delay, s
18.6
0
0.4
HCM LOS
C
Minor Lane / Major Mvmt
NBT NOR WBLm1
SBL
SBT
Capacity (veh/h)
-
343
1130
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
-
0.228
0.036
HCM Control Delay (s)
-
18.6
8.303
HCM Lane LOS
C
A
HCM 95th %tile C(veh)
0.864 0.111
- : Volume Exceeds Capacity, $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds, Error: Computation Not Defined
2025 Background + Project PM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC
2015 Background + Project AM.syn
9: Gilette Drive & Gilette
Access
2/2/2015
Intersection
Intersection Delay, slveh
1.8
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Vol, veh/h
0
0
7
10
0
10
14
77
10
10
99
0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
None
None
None
None
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
0
0
0
0
Grade, %
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
Peak Hour Factor
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
0
0
8
11
0
11
15
84
11
11
108
0
Major/Minor
Mtnor2
Minorl
Metm1
MaJor2
Conflicting Flow All
254
254
108
253
249
89
108
0
0
95
0
0
Stage 1
129
129
-
120
120
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
125
125
-
133
129
-
-
-
-
-
-
Follow-up Headway
3.518
4.018
3.318
3.518
4.018
3.318
2.218
-
2.218
-
-
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver
699
650
946
700
654
969
1483
-
1499
-
-
Stage 1
875
789
-
884
796
-
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
879
792
-
870
789
-
-
-
Time blocked -Platoon, %
Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver
681
638
946
684
642
969
1483
1499
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
681
638
-
694
642
-
-
-
Stage 1
865
783
-
874
787
Stage 2
860
783
-
856
783
Approach
EB
WE
tI
SB
HCM Control Delay, s
8.8
9.6
1
0.7
HCM LOS
A
A
Minor lane / Major Mwd
NBL
NBT
NBR
EBLn+I
11WB'Lei
SBL
SBT
SBR
Capacity (veh/h)
1483
-
946
802
1499
HCM Lane VIC Ratio
0.01
-
-
0.008
0.027
0.007
-
HCM Control Delay (s)
7.453
0
-
8.8
9.6
7.419
0
HCM Lane LOS
A
A
A
A
A
A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
0.031
-
0.024
0.084
0.022
Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined
2015 Background + Project AM 112612015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
•
J
HCM 2010 TWSC 2015 Background + Project PM.syn
9: Gilette Drive & Gilette Access 2/2/2015
Intersection
Intersection Delay, slveh 2.7
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WEIR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Vol, vehlh
0
0
19
10
0
10
15
58
10
10
65
0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
-
None
None
None
None
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
-
0
0
0
0
Grade, %
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
Peak Hour Factor
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
0
0
21
11
0
11
16
63
11
11
71
0
Major/Minor
Mind
Minorl
Maiorl
Major2
Conflicting Flow All
199
199
71
204
193
68
71
0
0
74
0
0
Stage 1
92
92
-
101
101
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
107
107
-
103
92
-
Follow-up Headway
3.518
4.018
3.318
3.518
4.018
3.318
2.218
-
2.218
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver
760
697
991
754
702
995
1529
-
1526
Stage 1
915
819
-
905
811
-
-
-
Stage 2
898
807
-
903
819
-
-
-
Time blocked -Platoon, %
Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver
741
684
991
728
689
995
1529
1526
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
741
684
-
728
689
-
-
-
Stage 1
905
812
-
895
802
Stage 2
878
798
-
877
812
Appmach
ES
WB
NB
SB
HCM Control Delay, s
8.7
9.4
1.3
1
HCM LOS
A
A
Minor Lane / Major Mvmt
NBL
NBT
NBR
EBLn1
WBLn1
SBL
SBT
SBR
Capacity (veh/h)
1529
-
991
841
1526
HCM Lane WC Ratio
0.011
-
-
0.021
0.026
0.007
-
HCM Control Delay (s)
7.38
0
-
8.7
9.4
7.376
0
HCM Lane LOS
A
A
A
A
A
A
HCM 95th %tile D(veh)
0.032
-
0.064
0.08
0.022
Notes
- : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error: Computation Not Defined
2015 Background + Project PM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC 2025 Background + Project AM.syn
9: Gilette Drive & Gilette Access 2/212015
Intersection
Intersection Delay. s/veh
1.5
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Vol, veh/h
0
0
7
10
0
10
14
100
10
10
129
0
Conflicting Peds, #Ihr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
-
None
None
None
None
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
-
0
0
0
0
Grade, %
-
0
-
-
0
-
0
-
-
0
-
Peak Hour Factor
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
0
0
8
11
0
11
15
109
11
11
140
0
Major/Minor
Miner2
Minorl
Majorl
Major2
Conflicting Flow All
312
312
140
311
307
114
140
0
0 120 0 0
Stage 1
162
162
145
145
-
-
-
- - - -
Stage 2
150
150
-
166
162
-
-
-
- - -
Follow-up Headway
3.518
4.018
3.318
3.518
4.018
3,318
2.218
-
- 2.218 -
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver
641
603
908
642
607
939
1443
-
- 1468 -
Stage 1
840
764
-
858
777
-
-
-
- - -
Stage 2
853
773
-
836
764
-
- -
Time blocked -Platoon, %
Mov Capacil Maneuver
624
592
908
627
596
939
1443
1468 •
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
624
592
-
627
596
-
-
Stage 1
831
758
-
849
768
Stage 2
834
764
-
822
758
Approach
EB
WB
NS
SB
HCM Control Delay, s
9
9.9
0.8
0.5
HCM LOS
A
A
Minor Lane / Major Mvmt
NBL
NBT
NBR
EBLn1
WBLn1
SBL
SBT
SBR
Capacity (veh/h)
1443
-
908
752
1468
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.011
-
-
0.008
0.029
0.007
-
HCM Control Delay (s)
7.521
0
9
9.9
7.471
0
HCM Lane LOS
A
A
A
A
A
A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
0.032
0.025
0.089
0.022
Notes
- : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds, Error: Computation Not Defined
2025 Background + Project AM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
HCM 2010 TWSC 2025 Background + Project PM.syn
9: Gilette Drive & Gilette Access 2/2/2015
Intersection Delay, slveh 2.3
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
Vol, veh/h
0
0
19
10
0
10
15
75
10
10
85
0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
None
None
None
None
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
0
0
0
0
Grade, %
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
Peak Hour Factor
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
0
0
21
11
0
11
16
82
11
11
92
0
MaiodMinor
Minot
Minorl
Malort
Makx2
Conflicting Flow All
239
239
92
244
234
87
92
0
0
92
0
C
Stage 1
114
114
-
120
120
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stage 2
125
125
-
124
114
Follow-up Headway
3.518
4.018
3.318
3.518
4,018
3.318
2.218
2.218
Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver
715
662
965
710
666
971
1503
1503
Stage 1
891
801
-
884
796
-
-
-
Stage 2
879
792
880
801
-
-
-
Time blocked -Platoon, %
Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver
697
649
965
685
653
971
1503
1503
Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver
697
649
-
685
653
-
-
-
Stage 1
881
795
874
787
Stage 2
860
783
854
795
Approach
EB
WWS
NB
SE
HCM Control Delay, s
8.8
9.6
1.1
0.8
HCM LOS
A
A
Minor Lane / Major Mvmt
NBL
NBT
NBR
EBLnl
WBLn1
SBL
SBT
SBR
Capacity (veh/h)
1503
-
965
803
1503
HCM Lane WC Ratio
0.011
-
-
0,021
0.027
0.007
-
HCM Control Delay (s)
7.421
0
-
8.8
9.6
7.413
0
HCM Lane LOS
A
A
A
A
A
A
HCM 95th %tile C(veh)
0.033
-
0.066
0.083
0.022
- : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds, Error: Computation Not Defined
2025 Background + Project PM 1/26/2015 Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
APPENDIX C
Conceptual Site Plan
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
096336002 — Colorado State University South Campus Parking Lot
C
...........
.. ............�....1..EXISTINSTIN ....• , _
�� G ••.• _ � _ - .
ig DETENTION �•.
DETENTION BASIN
' BASIN .....�.................
■
■
O ■ ■ u
,, ...._..I -0- - O
TENNIS COURTS
� ■T
■ 'U
0 0 0 cv
CoLLJ
• • ar p
Lu
■
�-
R ; 1
p BRIDGE
O
EXISTING
' PEDESTRIAN
M
BRIDGE
L - •• .. 14 .a;.ull -
1 i8/
low -
PROPOSE LIGHTING i
f 1 R
ii.', s,
€ sir
s
� W
I� Occ
C
_ DETENTION
c BASIN
n " Q :• SIPHON UNDER
w
N ,I+ �R. .,#y o w '•...... .......... ....% LARIMER #2 DITCH
Y yaaf a �l
a
—.-.. .. -ice -_.e_ 1_:��_Yv wu...,.. _-��.- _ •. _ _..
-= ,,1■ WEST DRAKE ROAD
SOUTH CAMPUS
SURFACE PARKING LOT CONCEPT
NOVEMBER 1, 2013
Appendix E-4
City of Fort Collins
Requirements for Utility Plans
Project Name:
Project Planner:
Design Engineering Firm:
Developer:
C�v I)FW 1_OA�� - I)VN r�E
I�tt�Cto S�}zYIc,CS
CDLOfA t�0o �IZ, oA I r,/%M %L.Jfl L5
All applications for final development plans must include final development plan documents ("Utility
Plans"). The standards for these Utility Plans are set forth in Division 3.3 of the City of Fort Collins
Land Use Code, these Standards, and as further noted in this appendix.
THIS LIST PROVIDES THE DESIGN ENGINEER INFORMATION TO HELP HIM/HER DETERMINE
WHAT THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS EXPECTS TO SEE ON DRAWINGS SUBMITTED FOR
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. THIS LIST IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ALL-INCLUSIVE AND SHALL
NOT, IN ANY WAY, OVERRIDE OR SUPERCEDE THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE AND/OR THE LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET
STANDARDS MANUAL. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE REQUIRED ON SPECIFIC PLAN
DESIGNS AND IS NOT INTENDED TO RELIEVE THE DESIGN ENGINEER OF THEIR OBLIGATION
TO UTILIZE GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICES.
The two "check list" columns to the left of the Utility Plan requirements below are provided for the convenience of both
City staff and the Developer's Engineer. The columns are organized as follows
(1) The first column, "Applicant Validation," is provided as a check list for the applicant to ensure that all
required items are addressed within the Utility Plans.
(2) Upon submittal, City staff will check off the items in the second column to ensure that all the required
items are included within the Utility Plans.
PLEASE NOTE: All items with an arrow (►) are items required prior to public hearing. All
items without an arrow will be required during final compliance.
Last edited. 3123107 Appendix E-a
N/A
Applicant Staff
Validation Check
Included
I. Cover
Sheet
"Utility
A. ►
Preamble title of Plans For..."
B. ►
Legal description below the project name
✓ C. ►
Vicinity map including project location, nearest two Arterial
Streets, existing street system, street names for collector
and Arterial Streets, City limit lines, north arrow and major
public facilities
✓ D. ►
Index to all sheets contained within the Utility Plan placed
on right side of sheet.
E.
The current date (month and year) under the legal
description
✓ F.
General Construction Notes, and if applicable, CDOT
General Construction Notes (see attached Appendix E-2)
placed on left side of sheet
G. ►
Project Bench Marks referencing the City of Fort Collins'
datum
v H.
Reference to the updated or current soils investigation
report
I.
Stamp and signature of a licensed Civil Engineer
registered in the State of Colorado (on approved final
development plan documents) in accordance with State
Statutes and Board Rules.
J.
The following statement is annotated on the Cover Sheet:
I hereby affirm that these final construction plans were
prepared under my direct supervision, in accordance with
all applicable City of Fort Collins and State of Colorado
standards and statutes, respectively, and that / am fully
responsible for the accuracy of all design, revisions, and
record conditions that I have noted on these plans.
K. ► Typical street section(s) provided for each street type
being proposed. Sections include appropriate horizontal
and vertical dimensions and cross slopes, type of curb and
gutter and any deviations from standards. See Figures 7-
1F thru 7-13F. (These sections may also be located on
the plan/profile sheets or a separate sheet within the utility
plan set.)
L. The names, addresses, phone numbers for the
Developer(s), Owner(s), and Consultant Engineer are
provided.
M. Indemnification Statement provided and annotated as
follows:
These plans have been reviewed by the Local Entity for
concept only. The review does not imply responsibility by
the reviewing department, the Local Entity Engineer, or
the Local Entity for accuracy and correctness of the
calculations. Furthermore. the review does not imply that
quantities of items on the plans are the final quantities
required. The review shall not be construed in any reason
as acceptance of financial responsibility by the Local
Entity for additional quantities of items shown that may be
required during the construction phase.
Last ea,r w . 3/23/07 2 Appendix E-
Applicant
Validation
N/A Included
L
y
V
v/
Staff
Check
II. Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan
A. ► Drainage report submitted
B. ► Existing and proposed contours provided at 2' (min.)
intervals and labeled.
C. ► Contours extended a minimum of 50' offsite and tie into
existing contours.
D. Finish grade elevations provided for streets, lot corners,
and finish floors/top of foundation of buildings for all lots.
E. This statement provided:
"The top of foundation elevations shown are the minimum
elevations required for protection from the 100-year storm.
F. ► Drainage arrows are provided and show positive drainage
to streets or to an approved drainage facility.
G. Phasing of development and construction of all public
improvements. All public improvements within each phase
stand alone. Phases separated by a thick, ghosted line
and identified by either numbers or letters.
H. Temporary and long term erosion control devices are
provided and labeled.
I. ► Revegetation methods and specific notes are provided.
J. ► If the project proposes any construction in a floodplain,
please pick up the separate "Preliminary Floodplain
Submittal Requirements" available at the Stormwater
Utility.
III. Overall Utility Plan Sheet(s)
A. Streets
1. ► R.O.W., property lines and easements with
dimensions and labels.
2. ► Cross -pans
3. ► Access ramps
4. ► Curb and gutter
5. No. Sidewalks
6. ► Driveway locations
7. ► Medians, including flowline and lip of gutter
8. General location of signs(speed, stop, monument, etc.)
B. Phasing lines of development and construction of all public
improvements. All public improvements within each phase
stand alone. Phases separated by a thick, ghosted line
and identified by either numbers or letters.
Last edited: 3/23/07 3 Appendix E-4
Applicant Staff
Validation Check
N/A Included
Ll
r/
Y
Last edited : 3,123107
C.
Water Facilities
1. ►
Mains with sizes
2. ►
Fire hydrant locations
3. ►
Valves
4.
Meter pits and curb stops
5. ►
Manhole locations
6. ►
Show service locations at preliminary, except for
single family uses.
7.
Waterline lowerings
B.
Dimensioning of manholes and cleanouts from the
centerline of the roadways.
D.
Sanitary Sewer Facilities
1. ►
Mains with sizes
2. ►
Manhole locations and numbering
3.
Length of segments between manholes
4.
Type of pipe
5.
Slopes
6.
Clean -outs
7. ►
Show services at preliminary, except for single
family uses.
E.
Storm Sewer Facilities
1. ►
General layout of stormsewers, channels and
swales.
2. ►
Manhole locations
3. ►
Junction structures
4. ►
Clean -outs
5. ►
Type of pipe
6. ►
Sizes
7. ►
Slopes
8. ►
Length of segments between manholes
9.
Subdrains (where applicable)
10. ►
Manhole numbering
F. ►
Existing features shown for a minimum of 150' beyond the
project limits
G. No.
Proposed
utility connections with existing utilities.
4 Appendix E-4
Applicant
Validation
N/A Included
Staff
Check
IV. Street Plan and Profile Sheets (Horizontal Alignment)
A. ► Largest possible curve radii used on Arterial and Major
Arterial roadways. Minimum curve radii used only where
necessary. See Table 7-3.
B. No. Minimum tangent lengths at intersections. See Table 7-3.
C. Ni Crossing streets intersect at 900 (minor street can vary
±100).
D. ► Angle of departure of streets at intersections do not
exceed 100 for the length of the required tangent.
E. ► Minimum tangent between reverse curves provided. See
Table 7-3.
F. ► Broken -back curves are separated by a length equal to 2
times the tangent length. See Table 7-3.
G. ► Compound curves: ratio value of <_1.5 (Larger radius
divided by the smaller radius).
I. ► Minimum centerline arcs for curves with deflection angles
10' or less. See Table 7-5.
J. Horizontal curves do not begin at the top of a crest curve
or the bottom of a sag curve.
K. ► Tapers and transitions: Refer to Chapter 8
L. ► Sight distance triangles and easements: Shown on all plan
& profile sheets. Sight distance easements dedicated on
the Plat.
M. ► Minimum Local Street widths provided per Table 7-1 and
are consistent with the TIS.
N. ► Access ramps and crosswalks provided. Crosswalk
lengths are a maximum of 56' in length. See Chapter 16,
Pedestrian Facilities Design and Technical Criteria.
O. ►
Minimum of one mid -block access ramps provided at all
"T" intersections.
P. ►
Complete horizontal alignment includes, but is not limited
to: centerline of roads, intersecting streets, driveway
locations, and storm drainage facilities.
/
v
Q. Ni
Existing and proposed Property and/or ROW lines,
easements and/or tracts provided, dimensioned, and
labeled clearly.
R.
Existing utilities and structures (shown as phantom line)
included:
1. No. Storm sewer and appurtenances
/
✓/
2. Fence lines and gates
✓/
3. ► Water lines and appurtenances
✓
4.
► Ditches and swales
Last edited: 3123107
5
Appendix E-4
Applicant
Staff
Validation
Check
N/A
Includ
5. ► Electric lines and appurtenances
/
✓
6. ► Curbs and gutters
7. ► Sanitary Sewer lines and appurtenances
-/
8. ► Pavement limits
✓/
9. ► Telephone lines and appurtenances
✓/
10. ► Bridges and/or culverts
V
11. ► CAN lines and appurtenances
/
✓
�
12. ► Guardrails
13. Signs
t/
14. ► Gas lines and appurtenances
S.
Station, critical elevation, and dimension of all existing and
proposed utility and/or drainage structures provided.
T.
Intersections show construction and lane details for new
and existing facilities for a minimum of 150' beyond the
limits of construction.
V. Street Plan and Profile Sheets (Vertical Alignment)
A. No.
Maximum grades for streets comply. See Table 7-3.
B. ►
Maximum grades of cul-de-sacs are 3.0%.
C.
Continuance of profile and ground lines for all Local and
Collector Streets that dead end (excluding cul-de-sacs)
shown for 500' beyond the proposed construction.
D.
Continuance of profile and ground lines for Arterial Streets
shown for 1000' beyond the proposed construction.
E. ►
Minimum crest and sag curve lengths for street
classifications. See Figures 7-17 and 7-18. Lengths
must meet or exceed these minimums.
F.
Crest curves: street centerline, curb and gutter designed
with vertical curves. See Table 7-3.
G.
Sag curves: street centerline and flowline designed with a
vertical curve (see exception below). See Figure 7-18
and Table 7-3.
H.
Sag Curves: For grade changes <1.0%: gutter flowlines at
low points are not designed with vertical curves, but must
meet the minimum .5% grade into the inlet.
/
I.
Sag Curves: For grade changes >1.0%: both street
centerline and curb and gutter are designed with vertical
curves, but a minimum flowine grade of .5% must still be
/
maintained.
✓/
J. ►
Single point grade breaks do not exceed 0.40%, except at
inlets where min .5% grade into the inlet is required.
Last edited: 323/07 6 Appendix E-4
Applicant Staff
Validation Check
N/A Included
K. ► Series of grade breaks meet the vertical alignment criteria
for the design speed of the roadways.
L. ► Minimum centerline and flowline grade for streets is
0.50%.
M.
Minimum flowline grade for cul-de-sacs is 1.0%.
N.
Minimum desirable grade around curb returns is 1.0%.
Minimum allowable grade around curb returns is 0.50%.
O.
Curb return profiles (except medians) are provided.
P. ►
Centerline profiles through intersections provided.
Q.
Flowline profiles provided on both sides of all streets (Final
compliance).
R. ►
Centerline profiles provided for all streets (Preliminary).
S. ►
Proposed (solid line type) and existing (dashed line type)
ground lines provided and labeled.
T. ►
All proposed and existing vertical curves and grade breaks
are dimensioned (Preliminary)/ stationed and labeled
clearly (Final compliance).
VI. Cross Slopes
A.
Minimum cross slope of new streets is 2.0%.
B.
Minimum cross slope of any reconstruction or overlay is
1.5 %.
C.
Maximum allowable cross slope on all new streets is
3.0%.
` D.
Maximum allowable cross slope on any reconstruction or
overlay of existing roadways is 4.0%.
E.
Street modifications (widening, turn -lane, etc): the
widened portion is within the stated limits and is not less
than the existing cross slope.
F.
When tying to existing cross slopes: Curb and gutter or
centerline shall be designed such that the when the
existing pavement is overlaid it results in a straight line
cross slope grade that meets standards.
G.
Cul-de-sacs: See Figure 7-19.
VII. Design Speed
A. ►
Roadways are designed according to their proper design
speed. See Table 7-3.
Vill. Curb Return Radii
A. Curb return radii used in accordance with Table 8-2.
B. Minimum desirable flowline grade around curb returns is 1%.
✓ C. Minimum allowable flowline grade around curb returns is
0.50%.
_ast edited: 3123107 7 Appendix E-4
Applicant Staff
Validation Check
N/A Included
i
v
v
J
Last edited: 3/23/07
IX. Medians
A. Provided as stated on Figures 7-1 F thru 7-13F.
B. ► Width of medians are no less than 4' wide.
C. ► Turn Lane and Access: Left -turn lanes (where warranted)
designed using criteria contained in Figures 8-2, 8-3 & 8-11.
D. ► Landscaped medians include drainage facilities to handle
sprinkler runoff and nuisance flows. Refer to Appendix C.
E. ► Median(s) are designed with keyed curb or curb with
outfall gutters (if gutters are not needed to handle
drainage), or medians are designed with curb with inflow
gutters (if gutters are needed to handle drainage).
F. ► Nose of median(s) located such that vehicle turning
movements comply with vehicle tracking templates.
G. ► Transition points of medians do not have "angle points". A
100' minimum radius with minimum arc length of 50' is
used at transition locations.
H. ► Permanent structures within medians are a minimum of 5'
from the closest travel lane.
I. ► Pedestrian refuge areas are provided in the noses of
medians. See Chapter 16, Pedestrian Facilities Design
and Technical Criteria.
J. Profiles shall be provided for all areas of inflow curb and
gutter. Profiles or adequate spot elevations, dimensions
and any other information necessary for review and
construction shall be provided for all medians.
X. Cul-de-sacs
A. ► Provided only on Local Streets. See Figures 7-19 & 7-21.
B. ► Maximum length of 660' (1320' max.) if fire sprinkler
systems are installed in structures.
C. ► Minimum radii used. See Figure 7-19.
XI. Eyebrows
A. ► Provided only on Local Streets. See Figure 7-23.
B. ► Spaced in conformance with the requirements in Chapter 9,
Access Requirements and Criteria.
XII. Dead-end Streets
A. ► Temporary dead-end streets provided only on streets that
do not have direct access from adjoining property.
B. ► Temporary turnarounds with a minimum radius of 50'
provided for permitted dead-end streets. See Figure 7-26.
C. Temporary access easements dedicated on the Plat.
8 Appendix E--'
Applicant Staff
Validation Check
N/A Included
XIII. Driveways
A.
Where curb cuts are provided, concentrated runoff from
adjoining properties does not discharge across the
sidewalk.
o B. ►
Spacing of curb cuts conform to spacing requirements.
See Figure 9-1 and Table 7-3
C.
Drive approaches slope toward the street.
D. ►
Driveways intersect streets at 900 ±10' for a minimum of
25' measured perpendicular to the street from the curb
edge or EOA.
E. ►
All access/driveway approaches are paved with Portland
cement from the street to the ROW.
1. SF Residential Approaches
a. No. Minimum width of driveway(s) is 12' and the
maximum width is 24'. See Standard
Drawings 706 and 707.
r
b. ► Sidewalks are continuous through driveways.
See Standard Drawing 1601.
C. When pedestrian accessible driveways are
required in lieu of mid -block access ramps, the
slope of the driveway is <_ 1:12 and spaced at
300' intervals on both sides of the street.
2. High Volume Driveway
a. ►* Driveways accessing Arterial Streets or meeting
criteria in Section 9.3.2.A shall conform with
Standard Drawing 707.
b. ►* Maximum width is 36'. If wider, a median
separates the inbound and outbound traffic.
3. ► Multi -Family Dwelling Unit Driveways
Minimum width of driveway(s) is 24'. Minimum of 28'
for driveways serving 12 units or more with
maximum width of 36'.
XIV. Grading In The ROW
A. Maximum slope for all areas within the ROW is 4:1.
_ B. Maximum slope outside of the ROW affecting public
improvements is 4:1.
C. Retaining walls provided where slopes exceed 4:1.
Retaining walls designed in accordance with Chapter 11,
i Structures.
✓/ D. Minimum slopes in non -roadway areas is 2.0%
Last edited: 3/23/07 9 Appendix E-4
Applicant Staff
Validation Check
N/A
Included
d
r
s
J
Last edited:
3123107
XV. Sub -drains
A. Engineered sub -drain systems meet criteria set forth in
Section 7.7.3
B. Hydrologic study submitted if criteria in Section 5.6.1. A. is
met or sub -drains are needed for basements.
XVI. Cross -pans
A. Cross -pans adjacent to Local Streets are a minimum of 6'
wide and %' deep.
B. Cross -pans adjacent to Collector Streets are a minimum of
8' wide and 1 %" deep.
C. Cross -pans adjacent to Arterial Streets are a minimum of
10' wide and 1'/z" deep.
D. Mid -block cross -pans are a minimum of 12' in width and
13/4" in depth.
E. Minimum grade of cross -pans are 0.50%.
F. Pavement transitions approaching cross -pans designed
using the design speeds in Table 7-3 and meet the
requirements of Figure 7-27 and Standard Drawing 710.
G. Spot elevations provided as shown on Figure 7-27.
XVII. Inlets
A. ► Inlets are not located within the curb returns.
XVIII. Bus Bays
A. ► Bus bays are 11' wide.
B. ► Bus bays are constructed with concrete in accordance
with Chapter 22, Construction Specifications.
C. ► Bus bays shall be designed in accordance with Section 7.9
and Standard Drawing 711.
XIX. Intersections
A. ► Travel lanes are aligned through intersection(s) (a 2' shift
is allowed in hardship cases only).
B. ► Intersections cross at 90' t100.
C. ► Horizontal alignment of streets thru intersections are
designed in accordance with Table 7-3-
D. ► Exclusive left -turn lanes provided where required.
See Section 8.2.5, Exclusive Left Turn Lanes.
E. ► Exclusive right -turn lanes provided where required.
See Section 8.2.6, Exclusive Right Turn Lanes.
F. ► Adequate turning radii used for each type of intersection.
See Section 8.2.8, Turning Radius.
G. ► ROW is dedicated as shown on Figure 8-12.
10 Appendix E--'
Applicant Staff
Validation Check
N/A Included
✓ H. No. Additional ROW dedicated for right and left turn lanes.
✓ I. ► Sight distances comply with Figure 7-16.
r
J. No. Street grades approaching intersections shall be between
0.50% (min.) and 4.0% (max) for a distance equal to the
tangent length of the street classification. See Table 7-3)
/ K. ► Profile grades within the intersection do not exceed 3%
XX. General Requirements
`/
A.
Phased improvements shown clearly.
✓
B.
Phases within the project limits stand alone and do not
leave necessary improvements to future projects.
C.
►
Design of State streets meet the requirements presented
in the State Highway Access Code Manual.
D.
►
North arrows and the appropriate bar/graphic scale(s) are
provided.
E.
►
Existing features adjacent to this development are shown
in a ghosted or alternate line weight.
F.
The City's signature block is provided in the lower right
corner of each sheet contained within the utility plan set.
Each signature block measures 3'/2" high by 4'/z" wide.
G.
►
Ditch company approval block is provided.
H.
►
Water and Sanitary District approval block is provided.
I.
County approval block is provided.
J.
CDOT approval block is provided.
✓
K.
►
Title block is provided on each sheet of the utility plan set
and includes the project name, sheet name, engineer's
name, address, telephone number and fax number, sheet
numbering, and revision block.
✓
L.
►
The utility plans correlate with the Site and Landscape
Plans
M.
Spot elevations at all intersections provided as shown on
Figures 7-27 and 7-28.
i
N.
►
Proposed construction within the Property boundary drawn
with solid lines and existing features shown with hidden or
dashed lines.
_ ✓
O.
Stations and elevations provided at all PC's, driveway
intersections and roadway intersections in both plan and
t/ profile views.
_ P. Flowline curve table provided on each plan and profile
sheet that includes radius, angle, arc length, and tangent
length.
Last edited. 323/07
11 Appendix E-4
Applicant Staff
Validation Check
N/A Included
Q. Centerline stationing is the standard and shall be used
except at cul-de-sacs, where flowline stationing is used
(Station equations provided-), unless approval to use
yflowline stationing is given.
R. ► Street names provided on all sheets.
T. ►
All easements shown in the plan views.
U. ►
Match -lines provided in both plan and profile. Page
number, station and elevation included.
V.
The scale of all sheets are as follows:
1. ► Horizontal - 1" = 20', 30', 40', or 50'
✓
2. ► Vertical - 1" = 5' or 10'
✓
3. ► Overall Plan - 1" = 100' C,5
W. ►
All private improvements, including but not limited to,
roadways, driveways, utilities, etc. are clearly shown and
labeled as such.
X. ►
A legend is provided on each sheet identifying the
symbols used on that particular sheet.
Y. ►
Key map is provided on the plan and profile sheets (for
utility plans having 3 or more plan and profile sheets).
/
XXI. ► Street Cross Sections (Preliminary = typical for each street)
A.
Cross sections for Arterial Streets and Collector Streets
are provided at 50' intervals. Cross also required where
special conditions warrant the need (i.e. widening of an
existing street). The interval may be adjusted where site
topography is unique.
/
1. Information Provided on each Cross Section
d/
a. ► Curb & gutter, existing(f) and proposed(')
b. ► Roadway surface, existing and proposed
c. No. Sidewalk, existing and proposed
✓
d. ► Cross slopes, existing(f) and proposed(')
e. ► ROW, existing and proposed
f. Side slopes, existing and proposed, 15' beyond
the proposed ROW
✓
g. Stations
_/
h. Proposed flowline and centerline elevations
L Utility crossings
_/
j. ► Dimensions
t/
k. Areas of overlay, milling, pavement removal
and/or reconstruction.
Last edited.
3123107
12
Appendix E-4
Applicant Staff
Validation Check
N/A Included
e
v
XXII. Plat
A. ► Maintenance Guarantee, Repair Guarantee, Notice of
Other Documents notes.
B. ► Planning & Zoning Board/Hearing Officer certification
statement (to be signed at final compliance).
C. ► Surveyor certification statement (to be signed at final
compliance)
D. ► Statement(s) of land ownership
E. ► Statement(s) of ownership and/or maintenance of all
tracts.
F. ► Statement(s) of the dedication of any easements, ROW,
tracts, and other public areas.
G. ► Vicinity Map: Project location, nearest 2 Arterial Streets,
street names, City limits, major public facilities.
H. Curve data complete for all curves.
I. ► 2 ties to aliquot corners.
J. ► All existing and proposed easements and ROW clearly
defined.
K. ► Adjoining properties labeled.
L. ► Scale, graphic scale, north arrow, date of preparation,
complete title w/ location.
M. ► Boundary legal description closes-
N. ► Lot lines.
O. ► Designation of areas subject to flooding, including
floodplain, floodway, and product corridors. (Elevation
Datum must be referenced to City of Fort Collins datum.)
Last edited: 3123107 13 Appendix E-4