HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOSSIL CREEK ESTATES PUD PRELIMINARY - 50 92D - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 1 - TRAFFIC STUDY1
FOSSIL CREEK ESTATES
'
SITE ACCESS STUDY
'
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
'
OCTOBER 1993
1
'
Prepared for:
Fossil Creek Partners
363,West Drake Road, Suite 6
Fort Collins, CO 80526
'
Prepared by:
t
MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E.
3413 Banyan Avenue
Loveland, CO 80538
Phone: 303-669-2061
1
N
CD LO
C"r)
z C) CD
110/315
`'' 04
+— 90/360
HARMONY ROAD +
60/135
4955y65
75/50 —LO
M Ln LO
W
W
Q
co
G
J
W_
2
N
Ln
0
I-
LO �-- 35/15
CD r-CD
NOW
FOSSIL CREEK DRIVE
30/20 —� ) f r
NOM. �� Lo
5/5 —� � �0
LO
LO
AM / PM
Rounded to nearest
5 vehicles.
SHORT RANGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 4
Table 3
Short Range/Phase 1 and 2 (1995) Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
Intersection
AM
PM
Shields/Harmony (signal)
C
B
Shields/Fossil Creek
EB LT/T
D
D
EB RT
A
A
WB LT/T
D
D
WB RT
A
A
SB LT
A
A
NB LT
A
A
Table 4
Mid Range/Phase 3 (1997) Peak Hour operation
Level of Service (*)
Intersection AM PM
Shields/Harmony (signal)
Existing Geometry/Phasing D B
Improved Geometry/L-T Phases C C
Shields/Fossil Creek
EB LT/T E (C/D) E (C/D)
EB RT A A
WB LT/T D D
WB RT A A
SB LT A A
NB LT A A
(*) Level of service considering recent research pertaining to
vehicle delay.
I
' Given the short range peak hour traffic projections at the
Shields/Fossil Creek intersection, the following approach geometry
is recommended: 1) southbound Shields - one through/right-turn
' lane with a taper and 20-30 foot right -turn radius', and one left -
turn lane to the east leg of Fossil Creek Drive; 2) northbound
Shields - one right-turn/through lane and one left -turn
' deceleration/storage lane (375 feet including taper); 3) eastbound
Fossil Creek - one left-turn/through lane (minimum of 50 feet) and
one right -turn lane; and 4) westbound Fossil Creek - one left-
turn/through lane and one right -turn lane. Since the west leg of
Fossil Creek Drive will be built with Phase 1 of Fossil Creek
Estates as shown on the site plan, the two eastbound lanes can
extend from the stop bar to the first intersecting street (East
' Cornflower Circle) to the west of Shields Street.
As part of the development of this property, the City of Fort
' Collins will require that one half of the arterial cross section
be built along the frontage of this property. The full arterial
width is 70 feet. Therefore, this developer will be required to
' pave Shields Street to a width of 35 feet west of the centerline
and construct the curb and gutter along this property. This will
extend for the 725 feet that this property borders Shields Street.
It is recommended that the new wearing surface be extended to the
east edge of the pavement in order to have a uniform surface.
Figure 5 shows the recommended geometry from Fossil Creek Drive to
the south property line of Fossil Creek Estates. Figure 5 shows
' how the transition can be accomplished from the existing widening
on the east side of Shields Street to the Fossil Creek Estates
widening on the west side of Shields Street. This is done without
' the need to acquire other private property in the area.
Figure 6 shows the mid range peak hour traffic assignment,
which includes the background traffic on the area streets. This
' includes Phases 1, 2, and 3 of Fossil Creek Estates. Using these
traffic forecasts, a full -width turn lane will be required on the
west side of Shields Street with one through lane in each direction
on Shields Street. Signals
are not required at the
Shields/Fossil
'
Creek Drive intersection.
Table 4 shows the peak
hour operation
at the key intersections.
Calculation forms are provided in
Appendix E. Operation is
acceptable except for eastbound left -
'
'The southbound through and right -turn volumes
do not warrant
' a full width deceleration lane based upon criteria in "Intersection
Channelization Design Guide," NCHRPR 279, TRB,1985, Pg 63-65. A
20-30 foot radius will allow right -turning vehicles to slow to 10-
' 12 mph to make the turn to enter Fossil.Creek Drive. This taper
treatment will reduce the exposure time that the turning vehicle
is impacting the through traffic on Shields Street. However, if
' Shields Street is improved to the full arterial cross section (5
lanes) adjacent to the city open space, then the western most lane
should be striped as an exclusive right -turn lane.
1 4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4z
�i
�I
�I
I
I
I I
NO SCALE
I I
W
�
I
W
4�4 i
fl W t
V
I I
I J I
I
N
�i
co)
I p I
I LL
/ I
---------------=----
,W
Z
FOSSIL CREEK ESTATES IL
i
CONCEPTUAL STRIPING PLAN ON
SHIELDS STREET AT FOSSIL CREEK DRIVE
Figure 5
LO
10
o
115/33,5
95/380
HARMONY ROAD +
/-65/150
60/40 --/
) } r
525/280 --a
o Ln
85/55
o
4- o 0
rn to
1
LO
n
o �— 35/15
CV M NOM.
J + /-- 5/5
65/45 --#f ) I r
NOM. o o tn
10/5 —� � ��
tn
F
CREEK DRIVE
AM/PM
Rounded to nearest
6 vehicles.
N
MID RANGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
Figure 6
turn/through exits from Fossil Creek Drive. This is based upon the
1985 Highway Capacity Manual (1985 HCM) capacity technique for stop
sign controlled intersections. Recent research (Appendix F)
indicates that the 1985 HCM technique overstates the level of
service. The expected delay to these left turns/throughs will
range from 15-25 seconds per approach vehicle. This indicates that
these left-turn/through exits will operate in the level of service
C/D categories. This operation is acceptable. With the existing
geometry and phasing, the overall operation at the Shields/Harmony
intersection is at levels of service D and B in the respective peak
hours. However, analysis of the morning peak hour calculation form
indicates that the southbound left turns operate at level of
service F and the westbound left turns operate at level of service
E. Provision of an eastbound right -turn lane and left -turn phases
for all approaches results in level of service C operation during
both peak hours and acceptable operation for all approach
movements.
Figure 7 shows the long range peak hour traffic assignment,
which includes the background traffic on the area streets. By the
year 2010, it is assumed that Shields Street will be built to a
four lane arterial standard. Table 5 shows the peak hour operation
at the key intersections. Calculation forms are provided in
Appendix G. Operation is acceptable at the Shields/Fossil Creek
Drive and Shields/Harmony intersections.
Fossil Creek Drive is one mile south of the Harmony/Shields
signalized intersection. From the volume projections indicated in
this traffic study, a signal would not be warranted at the
Shields/Fossil Creek intersection. While the one mile spacing may
be an appropriate location, Fossil Creek Drive is near the bottom
of a north facing grade. From a vehicle braking perspective, this
location is not ideal. If signals are needed in this vicinity, it
is more appropriate that they be located 1000+ feet to the south
of Fossil Creek Drive. The location would be a function of future
development and the street system in the area.
IV. Conclusions
The following summarizes the significant findings as a result
of this study:
- Traffic from Fossil Creek Estates can be handled on the
area streets with various improvements. At full development,
approximately 1240 vehicle trip ends will be generated at Fossil
Creek Estates.
- Current traffic operation at the area intersections is
acceptable.
5
HARMONY ROAD
00
ono
���
o
--155/450
a) �
160/540
- 100/190
100/80
740/400
o o p
110/80
0 0
0
CO N
c0
co
G
J
W_
N
0
LO
^moo
o o 40/20
cv Ln NOM.
r + 10/10
60/40
) f r
NOM.
o 0 0
15/10—�
Leo
o �-
0
00
CREEK DRIVE
AM / PM
Rounded to nearest
6 vehicles.
LONG RANGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
Figure 7
Table 5
Long Range (2010) Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
Intersection AM PM
Shields/Harmony (signal) C C
Shields/Fossil Creek
EB
LT/T
D D
EB
RT
A A
WB
LT/T
C D
WB
RT
A A
SB
LT
A A
NB
LT
A A
' - Fossil Creek Estates will gain primary access to the street
system via Fossil Creek Drive, which will intersect with Shields
Street at a four leg intersection.
- With development of Phases 1 and 2 of Fossil Creek Estates
in the .short range future, the key intersections operate
' acceptably. Figure 5 shows the geometry on Shields Street that
will be necessary with the implementation of Fossil Creek Estates
in the next few years.
' In the mid range future (1997) with full development of
Fossil Creek Estates, the key intersections operate acceptably.
It is recommended that geometric and signal phasing improvements
' be implemented by this time at the Shields/Harmony intersection.
In the long. range future, the key intersections will
' operate acceptably. During peak hours, eastbound and westbound
left turns at the Shields/Fossil Creek intersection will experience
some modest delays. These delays are acceptable at stop sign
' controlled intersections at arterial streets.
- Traffic signals will not be warranted at the Shields/Fossil
Creek intersection. If signals become warranted due to future
' development in the area, signals should be considered further south
along Shields Street.
I
11
1 6
LI
d
APPENDIX A
' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Fossil Creek Estates is a proposed single family detached
' residential development. It is located west of Shields Street and
south of Harmony Road in Fort Collins. The following summarizes
the significant findings as a result of this study:
' - Traffic from Fossil Creek Estates can be handled on the
area streets with various improvements. At full development,
' approximately 1240 vehicle trip ends will be generated at Fossil
Creek Estates.
- Current traffic operation at the area intersections is
' acceptable.
- Fossil Creek Estates will gain primary access to the street
system via Fossil Creek Drive, which will intersect with Shields
Street at a four leg intersection.
' - With development of Phases 1 and 2 of Fossil Creek Estates
in the short range future, the key intersections operate
acceptably. Figure 5 shows the geometry on Shields Street that
will be necessary with the implementation of Fossil Creek Estates
' in the next few years.
In the mid range future (1997) with full development of
' Fossil Creek Estates, the key intersections operate acceptably.
It is recommended that geometric and signal phasing improvements
be implemented by this time at the Shields/Harmony intersection.
' - In the long range future, the key intersections will
operate acceptably. During peak hours, eastbound and westbound
left turns at the Shields/Fossil Creek intersection will experience
' some modest delays. These delays are acceptable at stop sign
controlled intersections at arterial streets.
' - Traffic signals will not be warranted at the Shields/Fossil
Creek intersection. If signals become warranted due to future
development in the area, signals should be considered further south
' along Shields Street.
MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E.
3413 BANYAN AVENUE
LOVELAND, CO 8O538
TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS
Observer Date / 3 Day l;u�saA T City F0 gT �OC, L ri() S R = Right turn
7Sr(1EL S �C l 7) Ft^iSS'r� C2(=G K t2 l VG S = Left Straight
r
INTERSECTION OF AND L =Lett turn
TIME
BEGINS
SN 1 [s L. D S 11
-aH /-E(- D S
TOTFos-see-e2�T,C
NAhL
South '
TEast OTAL
West
OTAL
TALL
I from NORTH 11
tram SOUTH
tram EAST
tram WEST
R
S
L I
Total
R
1
S I L I Total
I R I S I L I
Total II
R
S I
L I Total
-736
1
I$-7
1
r6$ II
/ 1
/371 1 1 3$ II
z?-G 1I
jo I I I
I 11 II
1
I
I 11
I Z37
7 4 s- II
1101
Z
103
1 Z.
1531 1 1 s5-I1
Z 58 11(41
I I
I l�
I
I
I II
I S' 11
Z 7 3
�soo
1
1$2
4- 1
S6
to
qs-1 19ss11181
11
41 1 1
1 s
II I
I
I i5 II
1g(o
II
i gl
3 1
84
1 1
to I 1 102-11
1 8Co 11
4-1 1 o
I
II 1
1
1
I II
1 `IO
II
I
I I II
I I I
I
II I
I
I
I
I
730-830 11
1351
!0
1361 11
4.
4$(ol 14 0101113
S
13Z1 13
13 S11
1
1
1
1 3 s
I g g (D
I
I
I
I
I I I
II
I I I
I
ii I
I
I
I
II
it
I
I II
I I I
II
I I I
I
II
I
i I
I
it
I
i
II
I
I
I II
I I I
I II
I I
i
II
I
i
ii
I
I
I Ii
I I
II
I I
I
II
I I
II
tl
II
I
I
I
I I
li
I I I
I
II
I
I I
II
I
3011
Il0'3
1 G
1 114
1 1
10f I I /0G11
ZZv
Z I 10
1
11
1
1 I
11 Z
11 zzz
4-45-1
1113
1 1ZIIZS110
951 1 '? 5-
11 'Z Z Cr
Z I I o
12
11
1
1 1
1 z
it zzz
500 11
11z(.o1
1 30
1 t
13g 1 1 1 3
11 2 (o9
1 3 1 I o
1 3
11
1
1 L
1 3
I Z-72-
S1s
i
1130
1136�I10
1its- l I11s112s-1
Isl 10
1 s
11
1
1 1
1 5
I Zslo
II
I
I
1
it
1 1
11
1 1 1
I
1
1
1 1
I
4.30-53dj
-,I
I4 7 �I
2%
I SO 6110
�4 5_31 14 !9"511
CAD
112 I 0
1
1
If 1 2-
I g 7 4
' Sin Ccce : 00000102
H-S Street: SHiEDS ST.
E-, Street: HAR404Y RD,
Heather : SDNNY/'WARM
C17 OF FORT C.-LENS TRAF:7C Eti0;NE:iTXC
Movements :y: Priiary
PAGE: 1
FILE: 1.02-102
DAiE: 1012012
PEAK ?E3iOD AN lYSIS
FCR THE ?ERECO:
1:30
A4 - 08:3O
AM
DIRECTION
S7ART
EAn PR
...........
VOLU'?ES
...........
P: CN S .......
1
F;C4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lcrth
PEAR HCUi
7:30 AN
FAOTCR
0.77
PBS
2
Ri?at
12
Thru
293
Left
2ci
Total
:?
?EDS
R4.11
2
Thru Left
Si ij
East
1:30 Al
'0 AM
0,71
O'S1
CI
1
33
127
13
IV
S1
2s
22.
r.
-
4
c.
35 23
Id
3
c3
'
Eailfe
ilter3...:A
AM
SCC.n
O.S1
1
'27
:43
2'
ae5i
9
1:3
7:
5
?
SHIELDS
ST. ;...;
N
I
1
�
— — — — — — — —
1•
— — — '
1
A—+—E
[PEDS ]— 2 ;
12 ;
293
I••
; 264 ;............;
530
...'
0 [PEDS ]
'
569
--
--
93
.............
120
'
... HARMONY RD.
223
79
'
50
51
I
453 571 HARMONY RD. ...
--- ' .. .
844 ..........
68 — --- 543 ---- ..................
[PEDS ] 3
............: 29 ; 387 ; 127 ; 1 [PEDS ]
412 ..
•I
I
SHIELDS ST.
'----------- ' .. I I
Cl iY OF :031 CCU INS -RAFFIC E50i it :'
Site Cole : C-0000102
N-S Street: S:ME'-DS S-.
E-W Street: 4AVCNY RD,
Weather : Sl NNYi'WARN
-----------------------
P.AG:: i
FI=: 102-1092
Roveaents by: ?rnary DATE: 15/29;'32
PEAn P:iICO ANALYSIS FCR THE PE3IvD: 04:30 IN 0::sJ PN
OIR:CTION START
P:-A.3 4R
...........
VO;
FROM PEAR nOOR
=.AC-C3
PEDS
3i.nt
Teri Le`:
-ata;
.-:'S R ;:,t '.,ra Le':
Nort" 4:20 PN
0,95
----------------------------------------
5
2i
42': 203
550
---;----3--
- 2
:25t 4:.0 PH
C. 3'
2
254
.•1 li5
7V'.i 4::J iN
J
'''
1'
39:
C[•
yl,
;vJ
Vt
- .
Enrre
:ntars:ct�.�
17
:as:
2
23 1
2
25
�e
0
44
2a3
3i7
1
i
I
I
SHIELDSST-
. ;...;
N
— — — — — — —
— — —
. . . , W—+—E
1
1
1 S
I
1
I
1
.
• 1
••
709
...
[PEDS ] 6 ;
27 ;
424
; 209 :............:
2 [PEDS ]
'
-------*
*---------------
1
I
— — —
660
----
-- 284
'
.....I.... 388
1
1 --------------
'
..: HARMONY RD.
726 327
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
33
'--------------
I 115
I
;
-----------------
----------------
239
316
HARMONY RD.
...
'
547
44
[PEDS ] 0
-- 525 ---- ..................
I I
*------------ ----
............ : 34 392 99 4 [PEDS ]
.. 583 ...;
I 1 1 1
t I I
I 1 I I
• • I 1 1 1
SHIELDS ST.
'----------- I
F
L
1
1
P
J
1
1
1
i APPENDIX B
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
LEVEL -OF -SERVICE
CRITERIA
SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTIONS
Level -of -service for signalized intersections
is defined
in
terms of delay.
'
Delay is a measure of driver
discomfort,
frustration,
fuel
consumptlon, and lost
travel time. Specifically, level -of -service criteria
are
stated In terms of the
average stopped delay per vehicle
for a
15-minul.e analysis
period.
Level -of -service A describes
operations
with very low
delay,
i.e., lees then 5.0
seconds per vehicle.
Level -of -service B describes
operations
with delay in
the
range of 5.1 to 15.0
seconds per vehicle.
Level -of -service C describes
operations
with delay in
the
range of 15.1 to 25.0
seconds per vehicle.
Level -of -service D describes
operations
with delay in
the
range of 25.1 to 40.0
seconds per vehicle.
1
1
1
Level -of -service E describes operations with delay in the range of 4U.1 to 60.0
seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.
Level -of -service F describes operations with delay in excess of 60.0 seconds per
vehicle. This is considered to be unaccelAuble to most drivers.
RESERVE CAPACITY
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
EXPECTED DELAY TO
MINOR 5111EET TRAFFIC
400 A Little or no delay
30U-399 B Short traffic delays
200-299 C Average traffic delays
100-199 D Long t.ruffic delays
0- 99 E Very lung traffic delays
* F
*When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lone, extreme delays will be
encountered with queuing which may cause severe congestion affoul:ing other
traffic movements in the intersection. This oondition usually wurrants
Improvement to the intersection.
H
1
1
i
1
1
[1
1
1
i APPENDIX C
1
L
11
1
C
1
i
1
1
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
j 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
SUMMARY REPORT
INTERSECTION..harmony/shields
AREA TYPE ..... OTHER
INTERSECTION.. harmony/shields
ANALYST....... mjd
AREA TYPE.....OTHER
DATE.......... 10/9/93
ANALYST....... mjd
TIME......... am pm 1992 1995 1997
DATE..........10/9 /_9�
1997
COMMENT....... 10
TIME ......... .am pm 1992 1995
------------------------------- -------------------------------------------
COMMENT ....... 201
VOLUMES GEOMETRY
EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUMES
GEOMETRY
LT 50 51 29 264 : L 12.0 L 12.0
L 12.0 L
12.0
E8 WB NB SB EB
WB
NB
SB
TH 453 79 387 293 : TR 12.0 T 12.0
T 12.0 T
12.0
LT 33 115 34 209 L 12.0 L
12.0
L
12.0 L
12.0
RT 68 93 127 12 : 12.0 R 12.0
R 12.0 R
12.0
TH 239 327 392 424 TR 12.0 T
12.0
T
12.0 T
12.0
RR 5 72 72 10 : 12.0 12.0
12.0
12.0
RT 44 284 99 27 12.0 R
12.0
R
12.0 R
12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0
12.0
RR 5 72 72 10 12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
-------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS
PED. BUT. ARR.
TYPE
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
(%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb
Y/N min T
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF
PEDS
PED.
BUT. ARR.
TYPE
EB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10
N 25.8
3
(%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb
Y/N
min T
WB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10
N 25.8
3
EB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90
10
N
25.8
3
NB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10
N 22.8
3
WB 0.00 1-00 N 0 0 0.90
10
N
25.8
3
SB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10
N 22.8
3
NB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90
10
N
22.8
3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90
10
N
22.8
3
SIGNAL SETTINGS
CYCLE LENGTH =
100.0
-------------------------------------------
----------------------
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3
PH-4
SIGNAL SETTINGS
CYCLE
LENGTH =
100.0
EB LT X NB LT
X
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
PH-1
PH-2
PH-3
PH-4
TH X TH
X
EB LT X NB
LT
X
RT X RT
X
TH X
TH
X
PD X PD
X
RT X
RT
X
WB LT X SB LT
X
PD X
PD
X
TH X TH
X
WB LT X SB
LT
X
RT X RT
X
TH X
TH
X
PD X PD
X
RT X
RT
X
.GREEN 37.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 53.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
PD X
PD
X
YELLOW 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW
5.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
GREEN 37.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 53.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
YELLOW 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW
5.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
LEVEL OF SERVICE
-------------------------------------------
------------------------------
LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS
APP. DELAY APP.
LOS
LEVEL OF SERVICE
EB L 0. 107 0.390 14.8 8
22.4
C
j LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY
LOS
APP. DELAY APP.
LOS
TR 0.836 0.390 23.1 C
EB L 0.262 0.390 16.0
C
15.0
B
WB L 0.358 0.390 17.0 C
14.1
B
TR 0.451 0.390 14.9
B
T 0.126 0.390 12.6 B
WB L 0.357 0.390 16.7
I
C
15.4
C
R 0.040 0.390 12.2 B
T 0.520 0.390 15.6
C
NB L 0.058 0.550 8.0 8
8.5
B
I R 0.399 0.390 14.4
B
T 0.437 0.550 8.8 B
j NB L 0.091 0.550 8.1
B
8.6
B
R 0.073 0.550 6.8 8
j T 0.442 0.550 8.8
8
SB L 0.705 0.550 16.2 C
11.9
B
I R 0.036 0.550 6.7
B
T 0.330 0.550 8.1 B
SB L 0.531 0.550 11.9
B
9.9
B
R 0.003 0.550 6.6 B
T 0.478 0.550 9.1
- B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
R 0.023 0.550 6.6
8
INTERSECTION: Delay = 14.6 (sec/veh) V/C =
0.759 LOS = B
--------------------------------------------------'
-----------------------y
-
INTERSECTION: Dela - 12.1 (sec/veh)
V/C _
0.527
LOS=--------
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1
Z ZZZtZZZZZZZ1ZtZZZZZZZZZILZZIZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZYZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1
AREA POPULATION ...................... 100000
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... fossil creek
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... shields
NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. mjd
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 10/9/93
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. am pm 1993 1995 1997
OTHER INFORMATION.... 2010
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH
CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
---------------------------------------------------------------------
EB WB NB SB
---- ---- ---- ----
LEFT -- 3 0 10
THRU -- 0 486 351
RIGHT -- 32 4 0
NUMBER OF LANES
---------------------------------------------------------------------
EB WB NB SB
-------- ------- -------
LANES -- 1 1 1
CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3
---------------------------------------------------------------------
POTEN- ACTUAL
FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS
p M SH R SH
------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ ---
MINOR STREET
WB LEFT 3 223 220 > 220 > 217 > C
> 485 > 447 >A
RIGHT 35 547 547 > 547 > 512 > A
MAJOR STREET
SB LEFT it 669 669 669 658 A
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... fossil creek
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... shields
DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 1019/93 ; am pm 1993 1995 1997
OTHER INFORMATION.... 2010
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1
X YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYxYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED. MAJOR STREET.. 45
PEAK HOUR FACTOR .....................
1
AREA POPULATION ......................
100000
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET.........
fossil creek
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.......
shields
NAME OF THE ANALYST ..................
mJd
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)......
10/9/93
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED.................
am (1993 1995 1997
OTHER INFORMATION.... 2010
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
----------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH
CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
EB WB NB SB
---- ---- ---- ----
LEFT -- 1 0 28
THRU -- 0 453 477
RIGHT -- 12 2 0
NUMBER OF LANES
--------------------------------------------------------------------
EB WB NB SB
-------------- -------
LANES -- 1 1 1
CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3
---------------------------------------------------------------------
POTEN- ACTUAL
FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS
p M SH R SH
------------------------------------ ------------ ---
MINOR STREET
WB LEFT 1 181 177 > 177 > 175 > 0
> 487 > 473 >A
RIGHT 13 570 570 > 570 > 557 > A
MAJOR STREET
SB LEFT 31 696 696 696 665 A
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------------------
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... fossil creek
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... shields
DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 10/9/93 ; am pm 1993 1995 1997
OTHER INFORMATION.... 2010
APPENDIX D
i
i
[1
i
1
I�
i
[1
1
LI'
I. Introduction
Fossil Creek Estates is proposed a single family detached
residential development, located one mile south of Harmony Road and
west of Shields Street in Fort Collins, Colorado. The site
location is shown in Figure 1.
Land to the west and north of Fossil Creek is in agricultural
use (grazing). To the south and to the east (across Shields
Street) are large lot residential dwelling units. These dwelling
units appear to have provision for animals (horses). It is
expected that the property to the north (extended to Taft Hill
Road) will be open space. This open space will be passive in
nature. The Clarendon Hill development is currently under
construction to the northeast of Fossil Creek Estates. The center
of Fort Collins lies to the north of Fossil Creek Estates.
Shields Street is classified as an arterial on the Fort
Collins Master Street Plan. It is a street of varying width south
of Harmony Road. The segment adjacent to Fossil Creek Estates has
a two lane rural cross section. North of Fossil Creek Drive,
Shields Street has a three lane cross section. It has curb and
gutter on the east side and a shoulder on the west side. It is
proposed to have a four lane urban cross section with turn lanes
at appropriate locations in the future. It is posted at 45 mph in
this area. There is a traffic signal at the Shields/Harmony
intersection approximately one mile to the north.
Fossil Creek Drive is a local street east of Shields Street.
1 It intersects Shields Street at a T intersection with stop sign
control. It serves a residential subdivision (Applewood Estates)
to the east.
1
II. Existing Conditions
1 The most recent daily traffic counts were obtained in 1991.
These counts indicate that the two way volume on Shields Street in
1 the vicinity of Fossil Creek Drive is about 7700 vehicles per day.
Peak hour intersection counts were obtained in September 1993 at
the Shields/Fossil Creek intersection. These peak hour counts are
1 shown in Figure 2. Raw data is shown in Appendix A. Peak hour
counts at the Shields/Harmony intersection were obtained in 1992
and are also shown in Figure 2.
With the existing stop sign control at the Shields/Fossil
Creek intersection, the peak hour operation is shown in Table 1.
Descriptions of level of service from the 1985 Highway Capacity
' Manual for signalized and unsignalized intersections are provided
in Appendix B. Calculation forms for the operation shown in Table
1 are provided in Appendix C. At the stop sign controlled
1 1
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
INTERSECTION..harmony/shields
AREA TYPE ..... OTHER
ANALYST....... mjd
DATE .......... 9/93
TIME......... am pm 1992 1995 1997
COMMENT....... 010
VOLUMES
GEOMETRY
EB
WB NB
SB
: EB
WB
NB
SB
LT 55
60 35
290
: L 12.0 L
12.0 L
12.0 L
12.0
TH 495
90 445
330
: TR 12.0 T
12.0 T
12.0 T
12.0
RT 75
110 145
15
: 12.0 R
12.0 R
12.0 R
12.0
RR 5
72 72
10
: 12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
GRADE
EB 0.00
WB 0.00
NB 0.00
SB 0.00
EB LT
TH
RT
PD
WB LT
TH
RT
PD
GREEN
YELLOW
LANE GRP
EB L
TR
WB L
T
R
NB L
T
R
SB L
T
R
-------------
INTERSECTION
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
(%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T
1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 25.8 3
1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 25.B 3
1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 22.8 3
1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 22.8 3
------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 100.0
PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
NB LT X
TH X
RT X
PD X
SB LT X
TH X
RT X
PD K
0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 53.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL OF SERVICE
V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
0.124 0.390 14.9 B 27.8 D
0.916 0.390 29.1 D
0.553 0.390 22.0 C 15.6 C
0.143 0.390 12.7 B
0.072 0.390 12.4 B
0.076 0.550 8.0 B 8.9 B
0.502 0.550 9.3 B
0.097 0.550 6.9 B
0.922 0.550 36.6 D 21.4 C
0.372 0.550 8.3 B
0.007 0.550 6.6 B
------------------------------------------------------------
Delay = 19.4 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.920 LOS = C
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
INTERSECTION.. harmony/shields
AREA TYPE ..... OTHER
ANALYST....... m,id
DATE ........ ..10/9/93
TIME.......... am ® 1992 1995 1997
COMMENT....... 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUMES
GEOMETRY
EB WB NB SB
EB
WB
NB
SB
LT 35 135 40 235 L
12.0 L
12.0 L
12.0 L
12.0
TH 265 360 445 490 TR
12.0 T
12.0 T
12.0 T
12.0
RT 50 315 115 30
12.0 R
12.0 R
12.0 R
12.0
RR 5 72 72 10
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
(%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb - Y/N min T
EB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 25.8 3
WB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 25.8 3
NB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 22.8 3
SB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 22.8 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 100.0
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
EB LT X NB LT X
TH X TH K
RT X RT X
PD X PD K
i W8 LT X SB LT K
TH X TH K
RT X RT K
PD X PD K
GREEN 37.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 53.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
YELLOW 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
------- --------------------------------
i LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.422 0.390 18.8 C 15.7 C
TR 0.504 0.390 15.4 C
WB L 0.455 0.390 17.9 C 16.1 C
I T 0.573 0.390 16.2 C
R 0.457 0.390 15.0 B
I NB L 0.125 0.550 8.3 B 9.0 B
T 0.502 0.550 9.3 B
R 0.057 0.550 6.8 B
SB L 0.695 0.550 16.2 C 11.8 B
i T 0.553 0.550 9.8 B
R 0.027 0.550 6.6 B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION: Delay = 13.1 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.644 LOS = B
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
---------------------------------------------------------------------
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET..
45
PEAK HOUR FACTOR .....................
1
AREA POPULATION ......................
100000
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET.........
fossil creek
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.......
shields
NAME OF THE ANALYST ..................
mid
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)......
10/9/93
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED .............:...
am pm 1993 1995 1997
OTHER INFORMATION.... 2010
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH
CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN
CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
EB WB NB SB
---- ---- ---- ----
LEFT 30 5 5 10
THRU 1 1 515 375
RIGHT 5 35 5 10
NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE
---------------------------------------------------------------------
EB WB NB SB
------- ------- ------- -------
LANES 2 2 1 1
LANF USAGE LT + -P LT + P
CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3
---------------------------------------------------------------------
POTEN- ACTUAL
FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS
p M SH R SH
-------------- --------- ------------ ------------ ---
MINOR STREET
EB LEFT 33 184 173 > 175 173 > 140 140 >D D
THROUGH 1 230 227 > 227 > 226 > C
RIGHT 6 625 625 625 620 A
MINOR STREET
WB LEFT 6 195 190 > 195 190 > 189 185 >D D
THROUGH 1 229 226 > 226 > 225 > C
RIGHT 39 526 526 526 488 A
MAJOR STREET
SB LEFT 11 646 646 646 635 A
NB LEFT 6 752 752 752 746 A
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... fossil creek
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... shields
DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 10/9/93 am Pm 1993 19095 1997
OTHER INFORMATION.... 2010
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1
XXXXXXXXX XIKXXXXXXXX'/.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXYXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
--------------------------------------------------- -----------------
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED. MAJOR STREET.. 45
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1
AREA POPULATION ...................... 100000
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... fossil creek
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... shields
NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. mJd
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 10/9/93
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. am & 1993 19095 1997
OTHER INFORMATION.... 2010
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH
CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN
CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
---------------------------------------------------------------------
EB WB NB SB
---- ---- ---- ----
LEFT 20 5 5 30
THRU 1 1 485 505
RIGHT 5 15 5 40
NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE
-----------------------------------------------
EB WB NB SB
--------------------- -----
LANES -2 2 1 1
LANE II$A(F LT + p LT + P
CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3
---------------------------------------------------------------------
POTEN- ACTUAL
FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS
p M SH R SH
MINOR STREET
EB LEFT
THROUGH
RIGHT
MINOR STREET
WB LEFT
THROUGH
RIGHT
MAJOR STREET
SB LEFT
NB LEFT
22
151
142
> 144 142
> 121 120
>D D
1
185
179
> 179
> 177
> D
6
521
521
521
516
A
6
149
143
> 147 143
> 140 137
>D D
1
180
174
> 174
> 173
> D
17
547
547
547
531
A
33
669
669
669
636
A
6
627
627
627
622
A
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... fossil creek
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... shields
DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 10/9/93 : a pm 1993 995 997
i
OTHER INFORMATION.... 2010
i
i
it j
1
1
i
11
1
1
1 APPENDIX E
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
INTERSECTION..harmony/shields
AREA TYPE ..... OTHER
ANALYST....... mid
DATE.......... 10/9/93
TIME......... am pm 1992 1995 1997
COMMENT...... 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUMES GEOMETRY
EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB
LT 60 65 40 310 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0
TH 525 95 490 355 : TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0
RT 85 115 160 15 : 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0
RR 5 72 72 10 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
(%) (%) Y/N Nm . Nb Y/N min T
EB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 25.8 3
WB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 25.8 3
NB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 22.8 3
SB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 22.8 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 100.0
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
EB LT X NB LT X
TH X TH X
RT X RT X
PD X PD X
WB LT X SB LT X
TH X TH K
RT X RT X
PD X PO K
GREEN 37.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 53.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
YELLOW 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.137 0.390 14.9 B 36.4 D
TR 0.982 0.390 38.5 D
WB L 0.793 0.390 44.4 E 22.8 C
T 0.151 0.390 12.8 B
R 0.081 0.390 12.4 B
NB L 0.091 0.550 8.1 B 9.3 B
T 0.553 0.550 9.8 B
R 0.117 0.550 7.0 B
SB L 1.155 0.550 124.8 F 62.3 F
T 0.400 0.550 8.5 B
R 0.007 0.550 6.6 B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION: Delay = 35.4 (sec/veh) V/C = 1.083 LOS = D
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
YSXXS####SXSZ#SYYXZ##SSSZZY###SSYX####SSXZ#SSSSSZY#XZ####SSSXSXYZ#X#ZS#222
INTERSECTION..harmony/shields
AREA TYPE ..... OTHER
ANALYST....... mid
DATE.......... 10/9/93
TIME.......... am1992 1995 1997
COMMENT....... 201
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUMES GEOMETRY
ES WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB
LT 40 150 40 250 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0
TH 280 380 480 545 : TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0
RT 55 335 125 35 : 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0
RR 5 72 72 10 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
(%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T
EB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 25.8 3
WB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 25.8 3
NB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 22.8 3
SB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 22.8 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 100.0
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
EB LT X NB LT X
TH X TH X
RT K RT X
PD X PD X
WB LT X S8 LT X
TH X TH X
RT X RT K
PD X PD K
GREEN 37.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 53.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
YELLOW 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.620 0.390 28.8 D 17.2 C
TR 0.537 0.390 15.8 C
WB L 0.533 0.390 19.2 C 16.7 C
T 0.604 0.390 16.6 C
R 0.495 0.390 15.4 C
j NB L 0.146 0.550 8.4 B 9.4 B
T 0.541 0.550 9.7 B
R 0.071 0.550 6.8 B
SB L 0.826 0.550 24.7 C 14.8 B
T 0.615 0.550 10.6 B
R 0.033 0.550 6.7 B
I--------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION: Delay = 14.5 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.741 LOS = B
I
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS .
SUMMARY REPORT
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XIKXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XIKXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
INTERSECTION..harmony/shields
AREA TYPE ..... OTHER
ANALYST....... m,id
DATE.......... 10/9/93
TIME ......... .am pm 1992 1995 99
COMMENT ...... . O10
VOLUMES GEOMETRY
EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB
LT 60 65 40 310 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0
TH 525 95 490 355 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0
RT 85 115 160 15 R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0
RR 36 72 72 10 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
(%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T
EB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 25.8 3
WB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 25.8 3
NB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 22.8 3
SB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 22.8 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 100.0
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
EB LT X X NB LT X X
TH X TH X
RT X RT X
PD X PD X
W8 LT X X SB LT X X
TH X TH X
RT X RT X
PD X PD X
GREEN 7.0 33.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 7.0 35.0 0.0 0.0
YELLOW 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.053 0.460 11.4 B 29.4 D
T 0.931 0.350 32.9 D
R 0.103 0.350 14.2 B
WB L. 0.053 0.460 11.4 B 13.4 B
T 0.168 0.350 14.5 B
R 0.090 0.350 14.1 B
NB L 0.053 0.480 10.5 B 21.1 C
T 0.822 0.370 23.3 C
R 0.175 0.370 13.7 B
SB L 0.149 0.480 11.1 B 14.4 B
T 0.595 0.370 17.3 C
R 0.010 0.370 12.9 B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION: Delay = 20.7 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.694 LOS = C
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
XYXXXXXXXXXX]KXXIKXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXtXXXXXMYXXX
INTERSECTION..harmony/shields
AREA TYPE..... OTHER
ANALYST....... mjd
DATE.......... 10/9/93
TIME.......... am Pm 1992 1995 1997
COMMENT....... 201
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLUMES GEOMETRY
EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB
LT 40 150 40 250 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0
TH 280 380 480 545 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0
RT 55 335 125 35 R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0
RR 36 72 72 10 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
(%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T
EB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 25.8 3
WB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 25.8 3
NB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 22.8 3
SB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 22.8 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 100.0
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
EB LT X X NB LT X X
TH X TH X
I RT X RT X
PD X PD X
I WB LT X X SB LT X X
TH X TH X
RT X RT X
PD X PD X
GREEN 7.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 7.0 38.0 0.0 0.0
YELLOW 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0
------ -------- ------- -------
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.053 0.430 12.6 B 17.9 C
T 0.543 0.320 18.8 C
R 0.044 0.320 15.1 C
WB L 0.053 0.430 12.6 B 19.7 C
T 0.737 0.320 22.5 C
R 0.603 0.320 19.8 C
NB L 0.053 0.510 9.4 B 17.7 C
T 0.744 0.400 19.1 C
R 0.097 0.400 12.1 B
SB L 0.053 0.510 9.4 B 18.5 C
T 0.845 0.400 23.1 C
R 0.046 0.400 11.8 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION: Delay = 18.6 (sac/veh) V/C = 0.623 LOS = C
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Page-1
CAPACITY AND
LEVEL -OF -SERVICE
Page-3
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
POTEN-
FLOW- TIAL
ACTUAL
MOVEMENT
SHARED
RESERVE
__________________________________________
RATE CAPACITY
CAPACITY
CAPACITY
CAPACITY
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET..
45
MOVEMENT
v(pcph) c (pcph)
c (pcph) c
(pcph)
c = c - v LOS
p
M
SH
R SH
PEAK HOUR FACTOR .....................
1
------- --------
---------------------
-----�7_ ---
- zS� c
AREA POPULATION ......................
100000
MINOR STREET
l�
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET.........
fossil creek
EB LEFT
72 164
154 >
154 154
> 82 82 >E E
THROUGH
1 208
205 >
205
> 204 > C
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.......
shields
RIGHT
11 603
603
603
592 A
STREET
CG-I(n0
NAME OF THE ANALYST ..................
mJd
MINOR
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)......
10/9/93
WB LEFT
6 168
164 >
169 164
> 162 158 >D D
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ....... .........
*0 pm 1993 1995
19 77
THROUGH
RIGHT
1 205
39 505
202 >
505
202
505
> 200 > C
467 A
OTHER INFORMATION.... 2010
MAJOR STREET
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
SB LEFT
11 623
623
623
612 A
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NB LEFT
6 723
723
723
717 A
INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH
IDENTIFYING
INFORMATION
CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... fossil creek
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... shields
DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 10/9/93 ; am Pm
1993 1995 1997
OTHER INFORMATION.... 2010
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
---------------------------------------------------------------------
�EB WB NB SB
---- ---- ---- ----
LEFT 65 5 5 10
THRU 1 1 545 395
RIGHT 10 35 5 25
!
NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE
-------- ------------------------------------------------------------
WB
SB
_--EB--------- ---NB--
LANES 2 2
-------
1 1
LANE USAGE LT + R LT + R
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1
XXXXX#XX#XX#X###XXX#X#XXXXX###X#X##XX####XXX#X#X##XYX######X#XX#XX###
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
---------------------------------------------------------------------
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45
PEAK HOUR FACTOR .....................
1
AREA POPULATION... ............... ...
100000
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET.........
fossil creek
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.......
shields
NAME OF THE ANALYST ..................
mjd
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)......
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED .................
10/9/93
am prt 1993 1995
997
OTHER INFORMATION.... 2010
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH
CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN
CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
---------------------------------------------------------------------
EB WB NB SB
---- ---- ---- ----
LEFT 45 5 10 30
THRU ;1 1 510 535
RIGHT 5 15 5 80
NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE
---------------------------------------------------------------------
EB WB NB
SB
------- ------- -------
LANES 2 2 1
-------
1
LANE USAGE LT + R LT + R
CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3
---------------------------------------------------------------------
POTEN- ACTUAL
FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS
p M SH R SH
------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ ---
MINOR STREET C1�-Z7� C'�
EB LEFT 50 132 124 > 125 124 > 74 75 >E E
THROUGH 1 164 157 > 157 > 156 > D
RIGHT 6 486 486 486 481 A
MINOR STREET
WS LEFT 6 126 120 > 124 120 > 117 114 >D D
THROUGH 1 154 148 > 148 > 147 > D
RIGHT 17 530 530 530 513 A
MAJOR STREET'
SB LEFT 33 650 650 650 617 A
NB LEFT 11 575 575 575 564 A
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... fossil creek
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... shields
DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 10/9/93 : am ® 1993 1995 1997
OTHER INFORMATION.... 2010
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 APPENDIX F
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
11V I USIUVIUUIN ItUIV JL,I� I IUIN
BOISE IDAHO JULY 15-18, 1990
Compendium of
Technical Papers
Institute Of Transportation Engineers
43rd Annual Meeting
Boise, Idaho
July 15-13, 1990
N
AAI� ak'4aJ%- - i (j ��,0.&f _' s II��. .. A' a a crawl Pn I
_ A.. FSC4" I�r A�Yd Ig��
T"! • AA 065 \ o Radiowna
\'�?I'' ° Tows +
�!0 't I—
,,r iis' I Theal v1j �r — '�
ll � a � 1.. � 20
__ f P •, �� / iA IMEP: Jg;
. O'Trdinlry
ekes
IA��y 1■' 1 BM6'as 6
�''�' /..l.l"I P' I ut..� e6
INI
M
:.Gray I �• 1 ;. i oro -
Uk
,. `91F!\. a.LDI °b I 5
r
Lake— I I� 31s )•
49
cc
Pit Mc Clellanda
HARM NY ROAD le monl
-=— p FOSSIL CREEK ESTATES a ,f ,I
Jim
i
-� <fl9J m I 1..3 1a6
I � a66
•� 7�l I 1
I561..—.ac_r
311t WN
I 1531 Redmond
Pit
\\/
Memorial Gardens
(cemetery)
I
d
I
as6=e�®®-,��_
1i _
blve.ln.....-.r.-_
Tnealer
sna.%SlomP. l•
36a 6 ,,
Is
CoLLIN�
LOVE
IN
\FORT
1\IRT�T.,,...Al
NO SCALE
SITE LOCATION Figure t
Intersection Delay At Unsignalized Intersections
Matthew J. Delich, P.E.
Private Consultant
Loveland, Colorado
ABSTRACT
The technique descnbed in the Highway
Capacity Manual. Special Report 209, Chapter
10, Unsignalized Intersections relates a calcu-
lated reserve capacity to level of service to a
very unspecific description of expected delay.
The signalized intersection technique in the
Highway Capacity Manual relates level of
service to a range of stopped delay per vehicle.
It would seem to be consistent to relate level
of service at an unsignalized intersection to ass
range of actual delay per approach vehicle—
_ This research provides some limited data on
intersection delay related to the calculated
reserve capacity at selected T-intersections. At
the time traffic volumes were collected, inter-
section delays were also obtained for selected
movements. The intersection delay technique
is described in the Manual of Traffic Engineer-
ing Studies. ITE, 1976, Chapter 8. By compar-
ing the calculated reserve capacity using the
counted traffic volumes to the observed aver-
age delay per approach vehicle, a table of
delays per approach vehicle could be deter-
mined. This, in turn, could be plotted to
determine a range of delay given a calculated
level of service.
INTRODUCTION
The means of evaluating the operation at an
unsignalized intersection is by determining the
level of service. The procedure in the 1985
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) is primarily
145
taken from a German document (reference 1),
which uses gaps in the major traffic stream
utilized by vehicles crossing or turning through
that stream.
In the HCM, the level of service is related to
vehicle delay. This is especially true in the
evaluation at a signalized intersection. Howev-
er, in the case of an unsignalized intersection,
level of service is related to a nebulous mea-
sure of delay that can mean different things to
different people.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
This research was undertaken to relate level of
service to a definitive range of vehicle delay
for the minor street traffic flow. The objec-
tives of the research were:
Compare the level of service (reserve
capacity) to a range of vehicle delay, in
seconds, for the stopped traffic on the
minor street.
Determine a curve which best de-
scribes that range of vehicle delay.
RESEARCH APPROACH AND LIMITA.
TIONS
Traffic counts were conducted at a number of
stop sign controlled intersections in Fort
Collins, Colorado and Cheyenne, Wyoming.
These volumes were used to determine reserve
capacity in passenger cars per hour (pcph)
Intersection Delay At Unsignalized Intersections
according to procedures documented in the
HCM. Highway capacity software developed
by the Federal Highway Administration, U.S.-
D.O.T. was used to perform these calculations.
Along with the traffic volumes, vehicle delay
was measured for each approach vehicle
according to procedures described in Chapter
8, "Intersection Delays," Manual of Traffic
Engineering Studies.
Due to changes in critical gap size due to
speed, number of lanes on the major street,
and number of legs at the intersection, only T-
intersections were evaluated. Further, in all
cases, the major street was five lanes (4
through lanes and one left -turn lane) and the
speed limit on the major street was 35 mph.
INTERSECTION DELAY STUDY
At the time traffic volumes were obtained at
each of the intersections, traffic delays were
also obtained for both right- and left -turning
vehicles from the minor street. The methodol-
ogy used was a procedure which involved
counting the number of vehicles occupying an
intersection approach (right- or left -turn lanes
constitute two approaches) at successive time
intervals for the observation period. The
successive time interval selected was every 15
seconds. Each successive count represented
an instantaneous density or number of vehicles
occupying the intersection approach per time
interval. These counts were accompanied by
total volume counts of each approach. The
average delay per vehicle in each approach can
be expressed by:
D=NVV
where:
D = Average delay per approach vehicle
N = Total density count, or the sum of vehi-
cles observed during the periodic density
counts each t seconds
t = Time intervals between density observa-
tions (15 seconds)
V = Total volume entering the ap-
proach during the study period.
A total of 61 fifteen minute observations were
conducted. The average delay per approach
vehicle for both right and left turns for each
observation was tabulated The calculated
delays were rounded to the nearest whole
second The calculated delay per approach.
vehicle for right turns ranged from 2 seconds
to 29 seconds. The mean was calculated at 9.9
seconds. The calculated delay per approach
vehicle for left turns ranged from 6 seconds to
105 seconds. The mean was calculated at 27.0
seconds.
LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION
Using the same 15 minute periods from the
intersection delay study portion of this re-
search, level of service calculations were per-
formed Since the level of service calculation
requires hourly traffic, the volumes for each 15
minute period was factored by four. This not
only gives an hourly volume, but also assumes
a peak hour factor of 1.0.
Reserve capacity in passenger cars per hour
(pcph) was tabulated for the right turns and
left turns for each observation. The calculated
reserve capacities ranged from 36 to 882 pcph
for the right turns. The mean was calculated
at 5655 pcph. Most of the calculated levels of
service were in the A category (> 400 pcph).
The calculated reserve capacities ranged from -
75 to 241 pcph for the left turns. The mean
was calculated at 66.9 pcph. Most of the
calculated levels of service were in the D
category (100-200 pcph), E category (0-100
pcph), and F category (< 0 pcph).
ANALYSIS
Using the output data for right turns and left
turns from the delay study and the capacity
study, each corresponding observation point
was plotted and least squares graphical analysis
was nerformed.
i M M M M M
M M M M M
F-A
Figure I shows the plot of calculated reserve
capacity versus calculated delay per approach
vehicle for the right turns. The results of the
graphical analysis are also plotted. By calculat-
ing confidence interval as a range of delay per
approach for each calculated reserve capacity,
a reasonable prediction of delay can be made.
For example, a calculated reserve capacity of
400 pcph would yield a delay per right -turn
approach vehicle of 10-15
seconds.
Figure 2 shows the plot of calculated reserve
capacity versus calculated delay per approach
vehicle for left turns. The results of the
graphical analysis are also plotted. Using the
confidence interval, a prediction of the range
of delay can be made. However, the data for
the left turns is all in the -100 to +200 range
of values. Therefore, the delay for left turns
is only valid for reserve capacities at the lower
end of the scale cuing the data considered in
this'study. For example, a calculated reserve
capacity of 100 pcph would yield a delay per
left -turn approach vehicle of 12-22 seconds.
The size of this range indicates that more data
is needed to reduce the prediction range.
CONCLUSIONS
Given the limited data obtained (61 observa-
tions), it appears as though the methodology
can give a reasonable indication of the range
of delay for vehicles entering a street at a stop
sign controlled T-intersection. However, more
data is needed to fill in gaps:
1. Data is needed at intersections where
the right turns operate at levels of
service B, C, D, E.
2. Data is needed at intersections where
the left turns operate at levels of ser-
vice A, B, C.
At a number of the analyzed intersections,
there were signals upstream from the analyzed
intersections. Some of these signals were as
147
close as 1/4 mile away. There was no signal
progression pattern on the major street.
However, it was noticed that both operation
and delay were influenced by vehicle queues
created by the signals on the main street. This
was not accounted for in any of the calcula-
tions or analyses. An effort should be made to
select intersections which are not affected by
main street signals.
The statistical analysis on this data and addi-
tional data should be much more rigorous than
that used in this analysis. The curves devel-
oped using all the data should be mathemati-
cally derived and adequately tested using
accepted statistical practices.
The data presented is only for a T-intersection
with a four -lane (plus left -turn lane) main
street with a posted speed of 35 mph. Data
should also be collected at a number of main
street posted speeds (45 mph and 55 mph).
Data should also he collected for a T-intersec-
tion on a two-lane street at various posted
speed limits.
If the additional data and analyses for a T-
intersection point toward the validity of this
approach, then similar data should
be collected and analyses performed at four -
leg intersections.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Box, Paul D. and Joseph C. Oppenlander;
PhD. Manual of Traffic Engineering Studies,
4th Edition. Arlington, Virginia: Institute of
Transportation Engineers, 1976, Pgs. 106.112
Roess, Roger P. et al. Highway Capacity
Manual Special Report 209. Washington,
D.C.: Transportation Research Board, 1985,
Chapter 10.
REFERENCE
1. 'Merkblatt for Lichtsignalanlagen an Land-
strassen Ausgabe 1972", Forschungsgesellschaft
Intersection Delay At Unsignalized Intersections
fur das Strassenwesen, Koln, Germany (1972).
RESERVE CAPACITY (peph)
COMPARISON OF RESERVE CAPACITY AND DELAY
FOR RIGFIT TURNS AT A T-INTERSECTION
District 6 1990 Annual Meeting
Figure 1
Intersection Delay At Unsignalized Intersections
RESERVE CAPACITY (peph)
COMPARISON OF RESERVE CAPACITY AND DELAY
FOR LEFT TURNS AT A T-INTERSECTION Figure 2
149
A MEI110DOIAGY FOR USING DELAY STUDY DATA
IO ESTIMATE THE EXISTING AND FUTURE LEVEL OF SERVICE
AT UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
By Marni Heffron (A)a and Georgy Bezkorovainy (H)b
INTRODUCTION
The level of service at unsignalized intersections is
often overstated by the 1985 111ghway Capacity
Manual (11CH) methodology. The IICM analysis for
unsignalized intersections may show a LOS E or LOS F
operation with lengthy delays and, presumably, long
queues. However, from field observation, the
intersection functions relatively well with short
queues and minor delays on the approaches controlled
by STOP signs and no delays to mainline traffic. Many
reviewing agencies require the use of the HCH
methodology to determine level of service. However,
IICM states that "because the methodologies Ifor
calculating unsignalized level of setvicel result in a
qualitative evaluation of delay, it is also
recommended, if possible, that some delay data be
collected. This will allow for a better
quantification and description of existing operating
conditions at the location under study." HCH does
not, however, include a methodology to relate delay
study results for an unsignalized intersection with a
level of service designation.
ITCH defines the level of service of an unsignalized
intersection using "reserve capacity", an
analytically -defined variable that is not easily
field -verified. The procedure is based on the German
method of capacity determination at rural
Intersections. This method has not been extensively
validated or calibrated for U.S. conditions, nor does
It estimate delay in quantitative terms.
This paper presents a methodology to use delay study
data to determine the existing level of service and to
estimate future operating conditions at unsignalized
intersections. In developing the methodology, delay
studies :+ere performed at more than 50 unsignalized
T-intersections In eastern and central Massachusetts.
Minor approaches of these intersections were
controlled by stop signs, yield signs and uncontrolled
(implied yield). The results of these delay studies
will also be compared to the delay calculated using
the ITCH unsignalized intersection analysis.
This paper relies on the existing HCH methodology as
the basis to estimate existing and future level of
service from delay data. Until changes are made in
the HCH procedure, the existing NCH methodology for
unsignalized intersections will continue to be
modified to yield results that better approximate
existing and future conditions.
a Transportation Engineer
Bruce Campbell 6 Associates, Boston MA
b Vice President
Bruce Campbell 6 Associates, Boston HA
UNSICNALI2ED INTERSECTION DELA
Delay was adopted as a measure of effectiveness for
signalized intersections in the 1985 IICM for many
reasons; two reasons are that the concept of delay is
understood by the user community and delay can be
measured in the field.3 The application of delay
for unsignalized intersections should follow this same
reasoning. The.,xeserve capacity is related to
average vehicle delay using the following equatidn
from the ITE Handbook2:
�— (1)
d (a - b)
d — average delay
a — service rate
b — side -street arrival rate
Recognizing that capacity is the service rate and
volume is the arrival rate at an unsignalized
Intersection, this formula shows that the average
vehicle delay is the reciprocal of reserve capacity.
The average seconds of delay per vehicle is calculated
using the following equation:
Aversse Deley (see/veh) - 3600 (see/fir) (2)
Reserve capeelty (veh/hr)
Table 1 shows the level of service designations which
correspond to reserve capacity and average vehicle
delay. Because the average delay per vehicle
approaches infinity as the reserve capacity goes to
zero, LOS F will be defined by any delay over 60
seconds. The average delay values for unsignalized
Intersections shown in Table 1 are very similar to the
delay values used to define the level of service of
signalized intersections. Table 1 is taken from Table
10-3 in the ITCH.
Table 1
Level -of -Service Criteria
For Unsignalized Intersections
Average **
Level of
Reserve Capacity
Stopped Delay
Service
(Pass Cars PeX Hour)
(sec/veh)
A
> 400
< 9.0
B
300 - 399
9.1 to 12.0
C
P00 . 299
12.1 to 18.0
.-D
100 - 199
18.1 to 36.0
E
0 - 99
36.1 to 60.0
F
*
> 60.0
* Demand exceeds capacity; extreme delays will be
encountered
** Calculated from Equation (2)
—1—
MEASURED DELAY VS CALCULATED DELAY
Delay studies at unsignalized intersections are
relatively easy to perform and can be performed in
conjunction with a turning movement count at low
volume intersections. The observer measures the time
between when a vehicle stops for a stop sign or 11
conflicting traffic and pulls onto the major street. 13
The measurement includes the time waiting in queue. 11
Tile. stopped delay is measured for random vehicles 11
turning left or right from the minor street or turning <
left from the major street. The average delay during
the peak hour Is calculated using a modified
signalized intersection delay equation:
Total Delay (sec) (�)
Average Daley (see/veh) • Number of Observations
For locations with a shared lane for left and right
turns on the minor street, the stopped delay for each
movement should be kept sepnrate if future conditions
will be projected from the data since the level of
service of each movement is calculated separately and
then combined as a shared lane movement. Special
consideration, discussed later, should be given to
shared lane approaches where the right turn delay will
be Increased by a high left turn volume. The existing
level of service for the shared lane Is the weighted
average of the combined movements.
Bruce Campbell & Associates performed delay studies at
more than 50 unsignalized intersections in eastern and
central Massachusetts. For all study locations, a
' traffic count was also performed, and the level of
service was calculated using the ITCH methodology. To
date, only a few delay studies have been performed at
4-legged intersections, so only the data for
T-intersections are included in this paper. The
' average delay per vehicle was calculated using
equation (3). Figures 1 through 3 compare the results
OF the measured delay and the calculated delay. The
curves are from regression equations relating
conflicting flow and average delay. At this point
there have been no attempts to correlate the delay
data to another variable such as speed, movement
demand or type of control.
' For all three critical movements at an unsignalized
intersection --the left turn from the minor street,
right turn from the minor street and left turn from
' the major street --the measured delay was found to be
shorter than the calculated delay. These date suggest
that drivers are selecting smaller gaps then those
recommended in the 1985 ITCH. Using the methodology
described below to back -calculate to the critical gap,
it was found that at over 80 percent of the locations;
the critical gap for both the minor left and right
turn movements was less than 6.0 seconds.
It was originally suspected that the smaller gap size
determined for the study locations would result in
higher accidents rates at these locations. Ilowever,
most of the intersections studied had accident rates
' less than 0.5 Acc/Million Entering Vehicles, and none
had accident rates over 2.0 Acc/HEV. In
Massachusetts, intersections with an accident rate of
less than 2.0 are not considered high accident
' locations.
FIGURE I
CONFLICTING FLOW VS. AVERAGE DELAY
0 0.9 a.• Ithoow
v.a .
me•dJ
CONrlicim TLOW
FIGURE 2
CONFLICTING FLOW VS. AVERAC�F D AY
It r )URN 1 ROM MrJOR 5IRE E I
a os a1 os o.e 1 •.x
Ithwso.da)
comicmis rIOW
. FIGURE 3
CONFLICTING FLOW VS. AVERAGE DELAY
Ru If
IUIiN I RUM MQJOR SIREEF
1 Thouswd9l
CO" 'EICIM FLOW
ULCUEAtEO
N,EPS�Eo
-2J
I
[1
1
1
1
Lli
LJ
Intersections with a shared lane on.the minor approach
provided conflicting results for the left and right
turn movements. In many cases, the critical gap
determined from the delay data for the right turn was
higher than the gap determined for the minor left
turn. This phenomenon is most likely due to the time
a right turner spends waiting in queue behind a left
turner. Because of the queue, the measured delays for
the two movements were not dramatically different.
Since the critical gap calculation relied on the
movement's conflicting flow, the right turn gap
calculates to a higher value then the left turn gap.
Generally, the minor left turn is the most critical
movement at an intersection, and the delay data for
the left turn is not significantly affected by a
shared lane. In retrospect, if delay data
measurements did not include stopped delays in a
queue, then the calculated gaps would be higher for
left turns than right turns in all instances.
Ilowever, not recording delays in a queue would give an
unfair representation of existing field conditions.
To further illustrate the shared lane phenomenon
affecting right -turning vehicles, the results in
Figures 1 and 2 show a large disparity between the
calculated delays vs, measured delays. However, in
the case of right -turning vehicles, the measured
delays were only 2-3 seconds less than the calculated
delays. The presence of left -turning vehicles in the
shared lane had, most likely, a significant impact on
the delay values recorded for right -turning vehicles.
Further research on shared -lane approaches is needed.
ESTIMAIING FUTURE LEVEL OF SERVICE
The following procedure is suggested to estimate
future level of service from existing delay data. It
relies on the existing I1CH methodology, and basically
back -calculates from delay to capacity to determine
the gap being accepted by drivers. Once the gap is
determined, the future capacity and level of service
can be estimated using the same gap.
The capacity for an unsignalized intersection movement
can be determined from delay by rearranging equation
(2) as follows:
Capacity (veh/hr) " 3600 (sec/hr) I Side Street Demand (4)
Average Delay (see/veh)
The 11CH equations relate critical gap to "potential
capacity." The potential capacity for the left turn
from the major street and right turn from the minor
street are the same as capacity, but the capacity of
the minor left turn needs to be converted to potential
capacity discounting the impedance factor of the major
left turn. The impedance factor is determined using
the following equation (the variable names
correspond to the variables in HCM):
1
I - 1 - 0.0038 G
lUG1 x 114 1.2052 (5)
J
p4
I - Impedance Factor
V4 - Left turn volume from major street
Cp4 - Capacity of left turn from major street
The potential capacity of the minor left turn is then
calculated using:
_ Cm7 (6)
Cp7 I
C 7 - Potential capacity of the minor left turn
Cm7 - Actual capacity of the minor left turn
(determined from delay date)
Using Figure 10-3 in the 1985 ITCH, the critical gap
can be estimated from the potential capacity and
conflicting flow. Alternatively, the equations in
Karsten C. Basso' article "The Potential Capacity of
Unsignalized Intersections" (IIE Journal, October
1987, pp. 43-46.) can be used to determine the gap.
The estimated critical gap may be lower than 4.0
seconds for low volume locations, but it is
recommended that 4.0 be the minimum gap used. HCH's
Figure 10-3 also shows the minimum critical gap to be
4.0 seconds.
Once the critical gap is estimated from the delay
data, the future level of service at a location is
determined using the standard IICH methodology. This
methodology is not recommended for intersections with
high accident experience, or where vehicles on the
side street are forcing a gap In the major street
traffic stream. The following is an example of this
methodology's application:
EXAMPLE:
A delay study and turning movement count were
performed at the T-intersection of Lincoln Avenue and
Bristow Street in Saugus, Massachusetts. The PH peak
hour turning movement volumes and vehicle delays are
summarized below:
Average
Peak Hour Conflicting Delay per Maximum .Semple
Movement Volume Flow Vehicle Delay sire
Minor left 107 1227 13.7 64 92
Minor Right 33 653 5.4 28 31
Major Left 36 653 3.8 /4 15
According to the IICH methodology, the left turn from
Bristow Street to Lincoln Avenue operates at LOS F.
The delay study data, however, show that the left turn
operates at LOS C.
the capacity of each movement is calculated using
equation (4).
Movement Demand Capacity
Minor Left 107 vph 370 vph
Minor Right 33 700
Major Left 36 983
The potential capacity of the minor left turn is
calculated using the impedance factor from equation
(5). The impedance factor is determined from the
demand and capacity of the major left turn,
I - 1 0.0038(100 x-2k)1.2052 _ 0.98
983
and potential capacity, Cp7 - 370 - 378 vph
0.98
-3-
'
The conflicting flow of the minor left turn - 1227
vph. Using Figure 10-3 in the HCH, a critical gap of
'
approximately 4.5 seconds is located for a potential
flow of 1227. These
FIGURE 4
capacity of 378 and a conflicting
flow chart in Figure 4.
ESTIMATING FUTURE LOS
FLOW CHART
steps are illustrated in the
Under the future conditions, the conflicting flow is
'
estimated to increase to 1400 vph, and the minor left
turn demand will increase to 170 yph. The future
Existing
Future
potential capacity located on Figure 10-3 is 300 vph
Conditions
Conditions
for a gap of 4.5 seconds and conflicting flow of 1400
'
vph.
The actual capacity accounts for the impedance factor
Measure
Future LOS
(for this example the impedance factor is assumed to
Delays
Table 1
'
be 0.98).
Cm7 - 300 x 0.98 - 294 vph
Avg. Delay
Avg. Delay
'
The reserve capacity - 294 - 170 - 124 vph,
Far Vehicle
Per Vehicle
Equation (3)
Equation (2)
and the average delay is calculated using equation (2),
'
Delay - 3,600 - 29.0 sec.
124
Capacity of
Reserve Cap.
The level of service for the future conditions will be
Movement
Subtract
'
LOS D.
Equation (4)
Demand
CONCLUSION
The methodology presented in this paper provides one
'
way to quantify the operation of an unsignalized inter-
Impedance
ctual.section
when the ITCH methodology does not correlate
Factor
apacity
[quation
with field observations. Future operating conditions
Equation (5)
(6)
can also be defined on the basis of existing
'
conditions delay data. The delay methodology should
not be used for intersections with high accident
experience or where vehicles on the side street are
forcing a gap in the major street traffic stream.
Potential
Potential
'
Further research is needed for intersections with a
Capacity
Capacity from
shared lane on the minor approach since the right turn
Equation (6)
11cli Fig. 10-3
delay is affected by the left turn movement. Data
collected for the left turn movement on a shared Lena
'
approach should not be significantly affected.
Delay is a measure of effectiveness that should be
Critical Gap
Assume Same
applied to unsignalized intersections because it is
ITCH Fig.
Critical Cap
easily moasured and also easily understood. Future
10-3
for Future
'
revisions of the NCH methodology should include
delay.
1
t
1
REFERENCES
'
1. Transportation Research Board, National Research
"Research Problem Statements: Highway
Council.
Capacity", Transporation Research Circular Number
319. Washington D.C., June 1987, page 27.
'
2. Institute of Transporation Engineers.
Engineering Handbook. 4.
Baass, Karsten G. "The Potential Capacity of
gransvoration and Traffic
Prentiss 11811 Inc.; 1982, pp. 499-536.
unsignalized Intersections",
ITE Journal, October,
3. Roess, Roger P. and McShane, William R. "Changing
1987, pp. 43-46.
National Research
Service in the 1985 Highway 5.
Transportation Research Board,
Concepts of Level of
Capacity Manual: Some Examples," ITE Journal, May
Council. Ilighwe�Caoacity
Manual, Special Report
1987, 27-31.
209. Washington D.C., 1985.
pp.
-4-
u
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 APPENDIX G
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
[]
1
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXYXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
INTERSECTION..harmony/shields
AREA TYPE..... OTHER
ANALYST....... mid
DATE .......... 10/9/93
TIME ......... .am am 1992 1995 1997
COMMENT...... 1
VOLUMES GEOMETRY
EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB
LT 100 100 90 350 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0
TH 740 160 660 490 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0
RT 110 155 210 60 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0
RR 10 10 10 10 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
M M Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T
EB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 20.5 3
WB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 20.5 3
NB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 20.5 3
SB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 20.5 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 100.0
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
EB LT X K NB LT X X
TH X TH X
RT X RT X
PO X PD X
WB LT X X SB LT X K
TH X TH K
RT X RT X
PD X PD K
GREEN 7.0 29.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 12.0 34.0 0.0 0.0
YELLOW 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.053 0.420 13.1 B 26.0 D
TR 0.899 0.310 27.5 D
WB L 0.053 0.420 13.1 B 16.3 C
TR 0.346 0.310 17.3 C
NB L 0.037 0.520 8.9 B 20.0 C
TR 0.807 0.360 21.1 C
SB L 0.841 0.520 29.5 D 21.4 C
TR 0.496 0.360 16.3 C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION: Delay = 21.7 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.755 LOS = C
1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
INTERSECTION..harmony/shields
AREA TYPE ..... OTHER
ANALYST....... mid
DATE .......... 10/9/93
TIME.......... am am 1992 1995 1997
COMMENT ...... .2010
VOLUMES GEOMETRY
EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB
LT 80 190 105 300 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0
TH 400 540 650 740 : T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0
RT 80 450 170 100 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0
RR 10 10 10 10 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE
M M Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T
EB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 20.5 3
WB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 20.5 3
NB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 20.5 3
SB 0.00 1.00 N 0 0 0.90 10 N 20.5 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 100.0
PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4
EB LT X X NB LT X X
TH X TH K
RT X RT X
PD X PD X
WB LT X X SB LT X X
TH X TH X
RT X RT X
PO X PD K
GREEN 7.0 33.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 10.0 32.0 0.0 0.0
YELLOW 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL OF SERVICE
LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS
EB L 0.053 0.460 11.4 B 15.6 C
TR 0.448 0.350 16.3 C
WB L 0.053 0.460 11.4 B 31.0 D
TR 0.980 0.350 34.6 D
NB L 0.042 0.480 10.5 B 20.5 C
TR 0.801 0.340 21.7 C
SB L 0.686 0.480 20.7 C 21.6 C
TR 0.809 0.340 21.9 C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION: Delay = 23.4 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.766 LOS = C
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1
X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
---------------------------------------------------------------------
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 40
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1
AREA POPULATION ...................... 100000
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... fossil creek
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... shields
NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. mJd
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 10/9/93
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. S pm 1993 1995 1997
OTHER INFORMATION... 2010
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH
-CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN
CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
-----------------------------------------------
EB WB NB SB
---- ---- ---- ----
LEFT 60 10 5 10
THRU 1 1 420 295
RIGHT 15 40 10 20
NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE
--------------------------------------------------------------------'
EB WB NB SB
------- ------- ------- -------
LANES 2 2 2 2
LANE USAGE LT + R LT + R
CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3
---------------------------------------------------------------------
POTEN- ACTUAL
FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS
p M SH R SH
------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ ---
MINOR STREET
EB LEFT 66 233 222 > 222 222 > 155 156 >D D
THROUGH 1 285 281 > 281 > 279 > C
RIGHT 17 857 857 857 840 A
MINOR STREET
WB LEFT 11 243 236 > 239 236 > 227 225 >C C
THROUGH 1 282 278 > 278 > 277 > C
RIGHT 44 801 801 801 757 A
MAJOR STREET
SB LEFT 11 647 647 647 636 A
NB LEFT 6 745 745 745 739 A
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... fossil creek
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... shields
DATE AND TIME OF THE A�(144Y,S IS..... 10/9/93 am pm 1993 1995 1997
OTHER INFORMATION.... 201/�)
N
1992
N O
N �- 93/284
N CV 79/327
HARMONY ROAD — 51 /115
5 /233
453 23N
68/44 --� cm '^
O
N I 0 N
t1'7
W
W
Q
F-
N
N
O
WJ
_
2
co
1993
�00
MCD �32 12
�. 3y
r FOSSIL CREEK DRIVE
r> IN
to \
� d-
t0
00
lq-
AM/PM
RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 2
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 40
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1
AREA POPULATION ...................... 100000
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... fossil creek
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... shields
NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. mjd
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 10/9/93
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. am S1993 1995 1997
OTHER INFORMATION.... 2010
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH/SOUTH
CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN
CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
------------------------------
EB WB NB SB
---- ---- ---- ----
LEFT 40 10 20 30
THRU 1 1 395 395
RIGHT 10 20 10 70
NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE
EB WB NS SB
------- -------------- -------
LANES 2 2 2 2
LANE USAGE LT + R LT + R
CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3
---------------------------------------------------------------------
POTEN- ACTUAL
FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS
p M SH R SH
MINOR STREET
EB LEFT 44 190 177 > 178 177 > 132 133 >D D
THROUGH 1 227 216 > 216 > 215 > C
RIGHT 11 785 785 785 774 A
MINOR STREET
WB LEFT 11 182 171 > 174 171 > 162 160 >D D
THROUGH 1 216 205 > 205 > 204 > C
RIGHT 22 812 812 612 790 A
MAJOR STREET
SB LEFT 33 664 664 664 631 A
NB LEFT 22 622 622 622 600 A
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... fossil creek
NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... shields
j DATE AND TIME OF THE .S..... 10/9/93 ; a pm 1993 1995 1997
OTHER INFORMATION... 2010
Table 1
Existing Peak Hour Operation
Level of Service
Intersection AM PM
Shields/Harmony (Signal B B
Shields/Fossil Creek
WB LT C D
WB RT A A
SB LT A A
Table 2
Trip Generation
Daily
A.M.
Peak
P.M.
Peak
Land Use
Trips
Trips
Trips
Trips
Trips
in
out
in
out
Phase 1
38 D.U.
360
7
21
25
14
Phase 2
26 D.U.
250
5
14
17
9
Phase 3
66 D.U.
630
13
36
43
24
Total 1240 25 71 85 47
I
1
�J
11
L
Shields/Fossil Creek intersection, the operation is acceptable.
Acceptable operation is defined as level of service D or better.
The Shields/Harmony intersection operates acceptably with the
existing signal control and geometry.
III. Proposed Development
Fossil Creek Estates is a residential development consisting
of 130 single family lots on a parcel of land west of Shields
Street. A site plan showing expected phasing of this development
is shown in Figure 3. The street named Fossil Creek Drive will
connect to the proposed Seven Springs Ranch residential development
to the west. Seven Springs Ranch will be submitted to the City of
Fort Collins in December 1993. The streets through both of these
developments will provide the only east/west connection between
Shields Street and Taft Hill Road between Harmony Road and Trilby
Road (CR 34). Within the Seven Springs Ranch development, this
through connection has an intersection with another street. This
intersection and the somewhat meandering alignment will de-
emphasize Fossil Creek Drive as a major street in the area.
However, it will function as a collector street for Fossil Creek
Estates and Seven Springs Ranch residential areas.
Phase 1 and 2 are expected to be developed by 1995 (the short
range future). Phase 3 of Fossil Creek Estates will not be
developed until the connection to Taft Hill Road is made through
Seven Springs Ranch. Based on the development program for Seven
Springs Ranch, this will likely occur by 1996. Therefore, full
development of Fossil Creek Estates was analyzed for a mid range
(1997) future. While Seven. Springs Ranch will have access through
Fossil Creek Estates to Shields Street, no vehicles were assigned
to this movement. Any vehicles that may make this movement are
covered by the rounding that occurs in the assignment procedure.
,. A. Trip Generation
Trip generation estimates for Fossil Creek Estates were
' obtained from Trip Generation, 5th Edition, ITE. Table 2 shows
phased trip generation on a daily and peak hour basis.
B. Background Traffic
' Background traffic is defined as the traffic that is and/or
will be on the area streets that is not related to the proposed
development. The intersections considered for the operations
analysis are Shields/Fossil Creek, which provides access to the
' site, and the signalized Shields/Harmony intersection.
2
1
�J
1
II
II
1
I
1
CLARENDON
HILLS
FORT COLLINS
OPEN SPACE
APPLEWOOD ESTATES
Phase 1
38 D.U.
� C
L
to ,,.
• ,.
•.,,,,.
Phase
26 D.1
i
t
Phase 3
66 D.U.
t
t ,
t
see*
1
FUTURE
t ,
FUTURE SEVEN SPRINGS1i i RANCH
J � —
40Z
NO SCALE
1
SITE PLAN
Figure 3
Background traffic for impacted streets was projected for each
of the future years analyzed. Background traffic was projected to
increase at 3 percent per year for the short range and mid range
futures. This rate of increase is normal for streets and roads in
the City of Fort Collins. It accounts for general traffic growth
and some level of continued development in the vicinity that would
also contribute to traffic growth. Long range background traffic
projections were made at the rate of 3 percent per year also, which
is in line with projections made in the North Front Range
Transportation Plan.
C. Trip Distribution
Trip distribution was determined based upon an evaluation of
attractions for home -based productions and the most likely routes
available to travel to those attractions. The directional
distribution of the approaching and departing traffic generated at
the proposed uses is a function of:
- Geographic location within the City of Fort Collins;
- Location of employment and business centers which are likely
to attract trips from this area;
- Access to the site.
The short range and mid range trip distribution assumed 90 percent
to/from the north and 10 percent to/from the south. This reflects
the trip distribution based upon the existing counts at the
Shields/Fossil Creek intersection. In the long range trip
distribution, some adjustment to this distribution was made, since
there will likely be continued development to the south. However,
trip attractions will continue to be predominantly to the north.
The long range trip distribution assumed 80 percent to/from the
north and 20 percent to/from the south.
D. Traffic Assignment and Intersection Operation
Using the vehicular trip generation estimates presented in
Table 2 and the trip distribution assumptions, the site generated
traffic was assigned to the Shields/Fossil Creek intersection and
the Shields/Harmony intersection.
Figure 4 shows the short range (1995) peak hour traffic
assignment. This reflects build -out of Phases 1 and 2 of Fossil
Creek Estates. This assignment also includes a 3 percent per year
increase in background traffic, assuming a 1995 future year. Table
3 shows the peak hour operation. Calculation forms are provided
in Appendix D. Signals are not warranted at the Shields/Fossil
Creek Drive intersection, based upon the forecasts shown in Figure
4. At the Shields/Fossil Creek intersection, operation will be
acceptable for all movements. The signalized Shields/Harmony
intersection will operate acceptably with the existing phasing
control and geometry.
3