HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFP - 8191 COLLEGE & PROSPECT INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS (3)RFP 8191 College & Prospect Intersection Improvements Page 1 of 23
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
8191 COLLEGE & PROSPECT INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
The City of Fort Collins is requesting proposals from qualified firms to provide the City with
preliminary engineering design (30% design – FIR), defining right-of-way acquisitions, traffic
analysis and public outreach coordination for the College and Prospect Intersection
Improvements. The design phase shall be extendable, at the City’s discretion, through final
design and construction with the anticipation of using a Construction Management/General
Contractor (CM/GC) delivery model for procurement of a general contractor for final project
delivery. The successful candidate will identify and address all of the tasks, issues and
deliverables in their proposal. Prospective teams must possess the expertise and experience
necessary to complete the project on time and within the established budget, and be motivated
to work with City staff, CDOT, and all other affected interests to accomplish the goals and
objectives associated with this project.
As part of the City’s commitment to Sustainable Purchasing, proposals submission via
email is preferred. Proposals shall be submitted in a single Microsoft Word or PDF file
under 20MB and e-mailed to: purchasing@fcgov.com. If electing to submit hard copy
proposals instead, eight (8) copies, will be received at the City of Fort Collins' Purchasing
Division, 215 North Mason St., 2nd floor, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524. Proposals must be
received before 3:00 p.m. (our clock), December 1, 2015 and referenced as Proposal No.
8191. If delivered, they are to be sent to 215 North Mason Street, 2nd Floor, Fort Collins,
Colorado 80524. If mailed, the address is P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, 80522-0580. Please
note, additional time is required for bids mailed to the PO Box to be received at the
Purchasing Office.
The City encourages all Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs) to submit proposals in
response to all requests for proposals. No individual or business will be discriminated against
on the grounds of race, color, sex, or national origin. It is the City’s policy to create a level
playing field on which DBEs can compete fairly and to ensure nondiscrimination in the award
and administration of all contracts.
A pre-proposal meeting will be held at 10:00 AM on November 13, 2015 in the Training
Room (Conference Room 2E) located at 215 N Mason Street, Fort Collins.
Questions concerning the scope of the bid should be directed to Project Managers, Tim Kemp
at (970) 416-2719 or tkemp@fcgov.com, or Dan Woodward at (970) 416-4203 or
dwoodward@fcgov.com.
Questions regarding bid submittal or process should be directed to Elliot Dale, Buyer at
(970) 221-6777 or edale@fcgov.com.
All questions must be submitted in writing via email to Tim Kemp and Dan Woodword,
with a copy to Elliot Dale, no later than 5:00 PM our clock on November 20, 2015.
Questions received after this deadline will not be answered.
Financial Services
Purchasing Division
215 N. Mason St. 2nd Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6775
970.221.6707
fcgov.com/purchasing
RFP 8191 College & Prospect Intersection Improvements Page 2 of 23
A copy of the RFP may be obtained at www.rockymountainbidsystem.com.
The City of Fort Collins is subject to public information laws, which permit access to most
records and documents. Proprietary information in your response must be clearly identified and
will be protected to the extent legally permissible. Proposals may not be marked ‘Proprietary’ in
their entirety. All provisions of any contract resulting from this request for proposal will be
public information.
New Vendors:
The City requires new vendors receiving awards from the City to fill out and submit an IRS form
W-9 and to register for Direct Deposit (Electronic) payment. If needed, the W-9 form and the
Vendor Direct Deposit Authorization Form can be found on the City’s Purchasing website at
www.fcgov.com/purchasing under Vendor Reference Documents.
Sales Prohibited/Conflict of Interest: No officer, employee, or member of City Council, shall have
a financial interest in the sale to the City of any real or personal property, equipment, material,
supplies or services where such officer or employee exercises directly or indirectly any decision-
making authority concerning such sale or any supervisory authority over the services to be
rendered. This rule also applies to subcontracts with the City. Soliciting or accepting any gift,
gratuity favor, entertainment, kickback or any items of monetary value from any person who has
or is seeking to do business with the City of Fort Collins is prohibited.
Collusive or sham proposals: Any proposal deemed to be collusive or a sham proposal will be
rejected and reported to authorities as such. Your authorized signature of this proposal assures
that such proposal is genuine and is not a collusive or sham proposal.
The City of Fort Collins reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to waive any
irregularities or informalities.
Utilization of Award by Other Agencies: The City of Fort Collins reserves the right to allow other
state and local governmental agencies, political subdivisions, and/or school districts to utilize the
resulting award under all terms and conditions specified and upon agreement by all parties.
Usage by any other entity shall not have a negative impact on the City of Fort Collins in the
current term or in any future terms.
Sustainability: Consulting firms/teams participating in the proposal are to provide an overview of
the organization’s philosophy and approach to Sustainability. In no more than two (2) pages
please describe how your organization strives to be sustainable in the use of materials,
equipment, vehicles, fuel, recycling, office practices, etc. The City of Fort Collins incorporates
the Triple Bottom Line into our decision process by including economic (or financial),
environmental, and social factors in our evaluation.
The selected Service Provider shall be expected to sign the City’s standard Agreement without
revision prior to commencing Services (see sample attached to this Proposal).
Sincerely,
Gerry S. Paul
Purchasing Director
RFP 8191 College & Prospect Intersection Improvements Page 3 of 23
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
8191 COLLEGE & PROSPECT INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
The City of Fort Collins Engineering Department is requesting proposals from a consulting firm
or team to provide the City with preliminary engineering design (30% design – FIR), defining
right-of-way acquisitions, traffic analysis and public outreach coordination for the Prospect and
College Intersection Improvements. The design phase shall be extendable, at the City’s
discretion, through final design and construction with the anticipation of using a CM/GC delivery
model for procurement of a general contractor for final project delivery. The successful
candidate will identify and address all of the tasks, issues and deliverables in their proposal.
Prospective teams must possess the expertise and experience necessary to complete the
project on time and within the established budget, and be motivated to work with City staff and
all other affected interests to accomplish the goals and objectives associated with this project.
This project is being funded with local funds from the City of Fort Collins. Colorado State
University (CSU) is also currently designing and paying for the construction of a portion of the
intersection due to development obligations. Through an agreement with the City, CSU is
financially responsible for the design and construction of the west leg median on Prospect, the
additional left turn lane on Prospect (eastbound to northbound) and the free right turn lane on
College Avenue (southbound to westbound). Extensive coordination with CSU’s design and
construction firm is expected throughout the entire process.
This RFP includes the work on the east side of College Avenue along Prospect as well as the
eastbound right turn lane on Prospect Road (eastbound to southbound). Work to the east of
College shall include adding a left turn lane westbound to southbound to create dual left turns.
See Attachment 1 for a summary of each entity’s responsibilities for the intersection.
The City has identified several alternatives for the intersection configuration (see Attachment 2).
The current preferred alternative removes the existing right turn lane and makes the outside
through lane a combined through and right turn lane. It also makes the eastbound to
southbound right turn lane an attached lane without a “pork chop” island. The City would like
the consultant to evaluate the alternatives and propose other possible solutions to most
effectively utilize funding.
Although both CSU and the City are working separately, coordinating the final delivery and
construction of both projects together in a seamless fashion is a top priority. The City is
anticipating awarding a Construction Management/General Contractor (CM/GC) contract at 30%
design to collaborate with the design team on the design and preparation of the construction
documents. The consultant should present their experience and abilities regarding the following:
Plan preparation and coordination involving all aspects of design engineering
Thorough understanding and experience with alternative delivery contracts,
specifically CM/GC, and how they will assist the City through this process
Ability to meet aggressive design and construction schedules including accelerated
right-of-way
Ability to work effectively as part of a team in a fast-paced project development
environment
It is the City’s intent to use a single consultant team through the final design of the project, but
this will be based on continued satisfactory performance of the consultant team.
All work associated with the project must be in accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area
Street Standards (LCUASS) roadway design standards. All specifications must be written in the
RFP 8191 College & Prospect Intersection Improvements Page 4 of 23
format of the 2011 Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Standard Specifications for
Road and Bridge Construction.
Tasks to complete the project include, but are not limited to, those outlined in the attached
preliminary Scope of Work (Section III).
Please limit the total length of your proposal to a maximum of twenty-five (25) pages total
(excluding covers and dividers).
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Fort Collins is seeking professional consulting services to design the Prospect and
College Intersection Improvements.
CSU is in the process of expanding their campus at the intersection of Prospect and College.
As part of their expansion they are required to provide the infrastructure improvements identified
above through an agreement with the City. Because of this, the City is looking to upgrade
existing deficiencies at this intersection in conjunction with the CSU improvements.
The City recently completed a traffic analysis study of the Prospect and College intersection
taking into account both City and CSU projected growth. The study found that the current ADT
for the intersection is approximately 70,000 vehicles per day. Based on this study, the need for
an additional westbound left turn lane as well as extending the current eastbound right turn lane
(existing deficiency) were identified. Along with these improvements, keeping the existing
westbound right turn lane would be a preferred alternative rather than combining it with the
outside through lane.
Currently, the intersection operates with single left turn lanes on eastbound and westbound
Prospect. CSU is responsible for the additional left turn lane on eastbound Prospect. The
existing right turn lanes on Prospect also have deficient storage and can cause long delays,
especially eastbound to southbound. With no improvements, the existing intersection would be
considered extremely deficient due to elevated levels of intersection delay.
The Prospect Road and College Avenue intersection is significant to the City of Fort Collins for
many reasons, including the following:
Prospect Road is a heavily travelled route from Fort Collins to I-25
Prospect Road and College Avenue is a major arterial intersection with several
developments in the area currently under construction
Prospect Road is the main entrance to CSU
Several existing Transfort routes traverse the intersection
Proximity to the MAX transportation system and CSU facilities
As mentioned above, the project will be funded through local City funds. This sole funding
source will be used for the design, right-of-way acquisition and construction of the
improvements. The anticipated “total” project budget is $2,700,000.00.
The City Utilities Department currently has several deficiencies in their network within the
project area that are in need of replacement. Extensive coordination of work phasing and
design features will be required throughout the project. It is anticipated that the utility work will
be done concurrently with the roadway construction.
City utility work may include but is not limited to trenching, pipe replacement/bursting, utility
realignments crossing College Avenue, storm sewer and water lines. It is expected that the
RFP 8191 College & Prospect Intersection Improvements Page 5 of 23
consultant coordinate work with City Utilities (with help from City Engineering staff) and be
aware of their plans so that design and construction of both projects is managed efficiently and
effectively.
Required elements for the Prospect Road and College Avenue Intersection Improvements:
Modeling and recommendations for future traffic projections with and without a dedicated
right turn lane westbound to northbound
Improved air quality through reduced vehicle wait time
Improved safety for vehicles and pedestrians
Improved functionality of the intersection, i.e. less wait time
Incorporating the design and construction of utility improvements (design parameters to
be determined)
Incorporating landscape and irrigation design for parkways and raised medians
Incorporating the design and construction of CSU improvements as necessary
Design analysis and turning templates for major turning movements
Design and construction of the project in a sustainable fashion which balances the
environmental, social and economic needs of the City and adjacent land owners
II. CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS AND PROJECT SCHEDULE
It is the City’s intent to hire a single Consultant Team capable of handling the following duties:
Planning, Design Engineering, Traffic Analysis, Utility Design, Public and Stakeholder
Involvement, Landscape and Irrigation Design, Alternative Delivery Procurement and
Coordination. Consultants should make sure to address their capabilities, experience and
expertise in all of these areas.
The Contract will be set up in a “Hourly Rate Not to Exceed” format. Cost will be one of the
rating criteria categories. However, the City will not award the Contract based on cost alone.
On time delivery is imperative for this project. Proposing teams must explain their approach and
delivery strategy to ensure an efficient schedule. Consultants shall submit a detailed project
schedule outlining all phases of the project including critical milestone dates. The City has listed
anticipated dates for the Consultant Selection and Project Schedule as noted below.
Consultant Selection Process:
RFP Available to the Public Week of November 2, 2015
Pre-Proposal Meeting November 13, 2015
RFP Submittal Deadline December 1, 2015
Conduct Interviews Week of December 7, 2015
Select and Notify Consultant Week of December 14, 2015
RFP 8191 College & Prospect Intersection Improvements Page 6 of 23
Project Schedule:
o It is the City’s goal to begin construction by March of 2017. The City would like
Preliminary Engineering (i.e. 30% plans) complete by May of 2016. At this time, the
City will plan to extend the contract to include Final Design Engineering and
construction, pending consultant performance. It is anticipated that the City will issue
a RFP to procure a construction contractor through a CM/GC contract in June of
2016. Below is a tentative schedule meeting this goal. We are interested in your
proven ability to meet or exceed this schedule.
Project Kick-Off & Scoping January – February, 2016
Traffic and Alternatives analysis January – February, 2016
Preliminary Engineering (30% design – FIR) February – May, 2016
ROW Acquisition Descriptions to City Council April 2016
Public Outreach and Coordination April – May, 2016
CM/GC Procurement of General Contractor May - June, 2016
Final Design Engineering (100% design) December, 2016
o The Consultant’s schedule shall clearly indicate “critical path work items”. Proposing
teams must explain their approach and strategy to ensuring this schedule is met as
well as their understanding of the challenges of meeting a fast-track schedule. The
delivery of both CSU’s project as well as the City’s may begin at the end of 2016 and
will carry into 2017. Construction must be complete by July of 2017.
III. SCOPE OF WORK
The following is an outline of a general scope of work. The Consultant shall expand each of the
tasks listed below. Additional tasks, if deemed necessary by the Consultant, shall be added to
the list to ensure achievement of all project objectives.
Project Kick-Off and Scoping Phase:
City Tasks
Provide Aerial Maps
Provide Existing Topographic Survey - per the High Accuracy Reference Network
(HARN), tied to City of Fort Collins Groundmaster Coordinate System (Horizontal)
and the City of Fort Collins Vertical Control Network (NGVD 1929 - Unadjusted
Vertical)
Provide a Digital Copy (CAD Format) of the Existing Surface and Point Files
Provide Property Analysis Map – Ownership, Property Lines, Relevant Easements
and Current Tenants based upon Title Commitments
Consultant Tasks
Existing Utility Locates through Potholing
Horizontal and Vertical Survey of Potholed Utilities (coordinate with City surveyor)
Produce Mapping based upon information provided by the City
Follow Up with Utility Companies to ensure accurate information is presented
RFP 8191 College & Prospect Intersection Improvements Page 7 of 23
Traffic and Alternatives Analysis Phase:
City Tasks
Provide current and projected traffic volumes and turning movements
Provide all alternatives that were examined along with current preferred alternative
Coordinate meetings with CSU consultant for input on their design in relation to the
City’s alternative analysis
Consultant Tasks
Examine City’s traffic analysis and update if necessary
Provide input on current alternatives
Explore options for keeping right turn lane westbound to northbound
Explore alternatives for left turn lane eastbound to southbound
Provide preliminary project impacts to the City for alternatives and provide input to
help choose the most effective
Preliminary Engineering Phase (30% Design – FIR):
This Phase entails development of a preliminary engineering plan set. The following
design considerations shall be addressed:
Traffic Report
Safety Improvements
CSU Improvements
Proposed Property Impacts
Thorough Utility Design, including storm sewer, water quality and outfall location(s)
Pedestrian Facilities
Coordination with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
Defining all necessary acquisitions (right-of-way, permanent easements, temporary
construction easements, etc.). The City Surveyor will prepare sketches and
descriptions for the City Council approval process for the Authorization to use
Eminent Domain. All acquisitions will follow the Uniform Act process and will be
handled by City Staff
Pavements Investigation/Coring and Geotechnical Boring Logs (a full pavement
design and geotechnical engineering report is not anticipated)
Landscaping and Irrigation design incorporation
The project team will work with the City’s Art in Public Places program
The following activities shall be completed within this phase of the project. Work items
are categorized according to City and Consultant tasks.
City Tasks:
Coordination with impacted businesses and residents regarding proposed
improvements
RFP 8191 College & Prospect Intersection Improvements Page 8 of 23
Coordination with CSU design consultant and CDOT
Facilitate coordination with City Utilities design and construction
Provide Legal Descriptions and Exhibits for right-of-way (ROW), temporary
construction easement (TCE) and permanent easement acquisitions. The City
will handle all property negotiations; including value finding, appraisals, offers,
negotiations and closings.
Consultant Tasks:
All tasks necessary to deliver Preliminary Engineering Design (30%) Plans,
Construction Specifications (including Standard Special Provisions and Project
Specific Special Provisions), Quantity Take-Offs, Bid Tabulations and Cost
Estimates. Plans must be produced in accordance with Larimer County Urban
Area Street Standards (LCUASS). Plans, specs, quantity take-offs, bid
tabulations and cost estimates will be submitted to the City both as hard copies
and electronically. The Consultant is fully responsible for Quality Assurance and
Quality Control (QA / QC) of the plan set.
Identify property impacts and extent of ROW and TCE needed. The Consultant
will provide a digital copy (CAD format) of the line work to the City of Fort Collins
Survey Department for all proposed acquisition areas (temporary and
permanent).
Development of a Preliminary Drainage Report
Include identification of any proposed floodplain work
If requested by the Consultant, the City will provide floodplain cross sections
at the time of initial topographic survey work. Cross section locations must
be included in the Survey Request Form.
Traffic Analysis and Traffic Report
Compare past traffic projections to current day traffic movements (See
Attachment 3 – Preliminary Traffic Study)
Include a twenty-year traffic projection for all movements, including the option
of keeping a dedicated right turn lane westbound to northbound
Examine interaction of all modes of transportation (vehicular, bicycle,
pedestrian, transit and rail) within the project area
Prioritize needed improvements based upon accident reduction, congestion
mitigation, right-of-way needs, cost and constructability
Adequately size turn lanes and access points
Thorough Utility Design
Coordinate with City Utility departments, including but not limited to:
Water/Wastewater, Stormwater, Light & Power, Fiber Optic and Traffic
Coordinate with all private utilities potentially impacted by the improvements
Determine extent and location of any utility relocations
Develop preliminary level stormwater improvement plans
RFP 8191 College & Prospect Intersection Improvements Page 9 of 23
Consider relevant Master Drainage Plans within the area
Incorporate City Utility design/work into plans as necessary
Pavements Investigation/Coring and Geotechnical Boring Logs
To include subsurface exploration (borings) with laboratory test results
The City will provide 20-year and 30-year Equivalent Single Axle Loads
(ESAL’s) for the Consultants pavement design calculations
To include recommendations for Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) and Portland
Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement sections
Develop Landscape and Irrigation Plans
Attend and conduct progress meetings. Meeting minutes shall be developed and
provided by the Consultant.
The City would like to encourage “real time reviews” when working with the
successful Consultant. Design items can be submitted prior to the formal
reviews in an effort to make the process more efficient.
Preliminary Engineering Phase (30% Design – FIR) Deliverables:
Preliminary Engineering Project Schedule
Meeting Minutes (Along with typical project meetings, regular meetings with CSU
and CDOT are expected throughout the duration of the project)
Preliminary Drainage Report
Traffic Report and Summary of Future Projections
Pavement Design and Geotechnical Engineering Report
Four (4) Half Size Preliminary plan sets (Black and White, 11x17)
One (1) .pdf file of the plan set
One (1) Digital copy of the design drawings (AutoCAD format)
One (1) Electronic copy of Preliminary Project Specification Book
Project Bid Tab and Opinion of Probable Cost
Preliminary Review Meeting Minutes and comment responses
CM/GC Procurement
This entails working with the City to help procure a contractor through a CM/GC contract.
It is anticipated that the consultant have thorough knowledge and understanding of the
advantages and requirements of the CM/GC procurement process. The consultant shall
assist the City in developing a RFP and provide input, analysis, reviews and engineering
documents as required.
The consultant shall have a thorough understanding of the advantages and
disadvantages of the CM/GC process and will assist the City through the
procurement phase
RFP 8191 College & Prospect Intersection Improvements Page 10 of 23
It is anticipated that the City will prepare the RFP with help and input from the
consultant
The consultant will be expected to coordinate extensively with CSU, CDOT and City
Utilities to best coordinate the successful delivery of all projects through the CM/GC
process
Currently the City anticipates CM/GC being the best method to deliver this project.
However, the consultant should be familiar with other alternative delivery methods
and provide analysis and input on the preferred delivery method to best suit the
City’s needs
It is expected that the consultant will have to meet with City Engineering and Utilities
Staff, City Purchasing Staff, CSU Facilities and CSU Purchasing among others
during this process
IV. PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
The City will develop and implement a Communication and Public Outreach Plan which
addresses public involvement and stakeholder coordination. The process will include
potentially affected interests such as City Council, multiple City departments, the City’s
Transportation Board, area property and business owners and bicycle / pedestrian
advocacy groups.
Consultant tasks to support the City’s public and stakeholder involvement process
include:
Graphics production / reproduction
Attendance/participation at project open house events
Preparation of presentation materials
Attendance at public meetings
For proposal purposes please plan on attending and providing graphical support for the
following:
Preliminary Engineering Phase:
o One (1) Public Open House Meeting
o Four (4) Project Coordination Meetings
o Four (4) Utility/CSU Coordination Meetings
V. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
All respondents are required to include the following information in this order as a minimum.
1. Project Understanding: Provide a brief summary of your understanding of the project.
2. Approach: Describe your recommended approach to achieve each of the tasks
outlined in the Scope of Work described above. Responses are encouraged to think
beyond the outlined Scope of Work and provide innovative and cost effective ideas to
create a successful plan.
3. Deliverables: Provide a description or examples of how you will present the
deliverables and the tools that will be used to create project products.
RFP 8191 College & Prospect Intersection Improvements Page 11 of 23
4. Team Profile: Provide relevant information regarding the team you propose to work on
this project including:
a. Overview of firm(s)
b. Example of recent and relevant projects with location and reference contacts
c. People (availability, commitment)
d. Proposed team organization (org chart) of key personnel with titles and specific
tasks
5. Schedule: Provide a detailed project schedule showing key milestones, deliverable
dates and public meetings.
6. Costs: Provide project cost information including:
a. Consultant’s hourly rates and reimbursable expenses
b. Sub-consultants and sub-contractor hourly rates, applicable mark-ups and
reimbursable expenses
c. Cost Estimate and Not To Exceed amount for Preliminary Engineering Design
(30% Design) including CM/GC Procurement and Public and Stakeholder
Involvement
d. Cost Estimate for Final Engineering Design (100% Design)
e. Cost Estimate for Design Support during construction
f. Total estimated project cost by phase
i. Preliminary Engineering Design
1. CM/GC Procurement
2. Public and Stakeholder Involvement
ii. Final Engineering Design
iii. Design Support during construction
iv. Total estimated project cost
g. Cost Estimates shall include a breakdown of personnel, hourly rates and time for
each task
VI. CONTACT INFORMATION
Engineering Department Contacts:
Tim Kemp, PE
Capital Projects Engineer
970.416.2719
tkemp@fcgov.com
Dan Woodward
Capital Projects Engineer
970.416.4203
dwoodward@fcgov.com
City of Fort Collins Engineering Department
215 North Mason
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
RFP 8191 College & Prospect Intersection Improvements Page 12 of 23
VII. ATTACHMENTS
1. Intersection Improvement Responsibilities (City vs. CSU)
2. Intersection Configuration Alternatives
3. Preliminary Traffic Study
VIII. REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT
Professional firms will be evaluated on the following criteria. These criteria will be the basis for
review and assessment of the written proposals and optional interview session. At the
discretion of the City, interviews of the top rated firms may be conducted.
The rating scale shall be from 1 to 5, with 1 being a poor rating, 3 being an average rating, and
5 being an outstanding rating.
RFP 8191 College & Prospect Intersection Improvements Page 13 of 23
WEIGHTING
FACTOR
QUALIFICATION STANDARD
2.0 Scope of Proposal
Does the proposal address all elements of the RFP?
Does the proposal show an understanding of the project
objectives, methodology to be used and
results/outcomes required by the project? Are there
any exceptions to the specifications, Scope of Work, or
agreement?
2.0 Assigned Personnel
Do the persons who will be working on the project have
the necessary skills and qualifications? Are sufficient
people of the requisite skills and qualifications assigned
to the project?
1.0 Availability
Can the work be completed in the necessary time? Can
the target start and completion dates be met? Are other
qualified personnel available to assist in meeting the
project schedule if required? Is the project team
available to attend meetings as required by the Scope
of Work?
1.0
Sustainability/TBL
Methodology
Does the firm demonstrate a commitment to
Sustainability and incorporate Triple Bottom Line
methodology in both their Scope of Work for the project,
and their day-to-day business operating processes and
procedures?
2.0
Cost and
Work Hours
Does the proposal included detailed cost break-down
for each cost element as applicable and are the line-
item costs competitive? Do the proposed cost and work
hours compare favorably with the Project Manager's
estimate? Are the work hours presented reasonable for
the effort required by each project task or phase?
2.0 Firm Capability
Does the firm have the resources, financial strength,
capacity and support capabilities required to
successfully complete the project on-time and in-
budget? Has the firm successfully completed previous
projects of this type and scope?
Definitions
Sustainability: To systematically, creatively, and thoughtfully utilize environmental, human, and
economic resources to meet our present needs and those of future generations without
compromising the ecosystems on which we depend. The City's Sustainability Services Area
consists of Environmental Services, Social Sustainability and Economic Health.
RFP 8191 College & Prospect Intersection Improvements Page 14 of 23
The Triple Bottom Line (TBL) is an accounting framework that incorporates three dimensions of
performance: economic or financial, environmental, and social. The generally accepted
definition of TBL by Andrew Savitz is that it “captures the essence of sustainability by measuring
the impact of an organization’s activities on the world…including both its profitability and
shareholders values and its social, human, and environmental capital.”
IX. REFERENCE EVALUATION (TOP RATED FIRM)
The Project Manager will check references using the following criteria. The evaluation rankings
will be labeled Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory.
QUALIFICATION STANDARD
Overall Performance
Would you hire this Professional again? Did they
show the skills required by this project?
Timetable
Was the original Scope of Work completed within the
specified time? Were interim deadlines met in a
timely manner?
Completeness
Was the Professional responsive to client needs; did
the Professional anticipate problems? Were
problems solved quickly and effectively?
Budget
Was the original Scope of Work completed within the
project budget?
Job Knowledge
a) If a study, did it meet the Scope of Work?
b) If Professional administered a construction
contract, was the project functional upon
completion and did it operate properly? Were
problems corrected quickly and effectively?
RFP 8191 College & Prospect Intersection Improvements Page 15 of 23
SAMPLE AGREEMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WORK ORDER TYPE
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into the day and year set forth below by and
between THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter
referred to as the "City" and , hereinafter referred to as "Professional".
WITNESSETH:
In consideration of the mutual covenants and obligations herein expressed, it is agreed
by and between the parties hereto as follows:
1. Scope of Services. The Professional agrees to provide services in accordance with any
project Work Orders for , issued by the City. A blank sample of a work order is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A", consisting of ( ) pages and is incorporated
herein by this reference. A general scope of services is attached hereto as Exhibit “B",
consisting of ( ) pages and is incorporated herein by this reference. The City
reserves the right to independently bid any project rather than issuing a Work Order to the
Professional for the same pursuant to this Agreement. Irrespective of references in Exhibit
A to certain named third parties, Professional shall be solely responsible for performance
of all duties hereunder.
2. The Work Schedule. The services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be
performed in accordance with the Work Schedule stated on each Work Order.
3. Time of Commencement and Completion of Services. The services to be performed
pursuant to this Agreement shall be initiated as specified on each Work Order. Time is of
the essence. Any extensions of any time limit must be agreed upon in writing by the
parties hereto.
4. Contract Period. This Agreement shall commence , 20 , and shall continue in
full force and effect until , 20 , unless sooner terminated as herein provided. In
addition, at the option of the City, the Agreement may be extended for additional one year
periods not to exceed ( ) additional one year periods. Renewals and pricing
changes shall be negotiated by and agreed to by both parties. Written notice of renewal
shall be provided to the Professional and mailed no later than thirty (30) days prior to
contract end.
5. Early Termination by City/Notice. Notwithstanding the time periods contained herein, the
City may terminate this Agreement at any time without cause by providing written notice of
termination to the Professional. Such notice shall be delivered at least fifteen (15) days
prior to the termination date contained in said notice unless otherwise agreed in writing by
the parties. All notices provided under this agreement shall be effective when mailed,
postage prepaid and sent to the following address:
RFP 8191 College & Prospect Intersection Improvements Page 16 of 23
Professional: City: Copy to:
Attn:
City of Fort Collins
Attn:
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
City of Fort Collins
Attn: Purchasing Dept.
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
In the event of any such early termination by the City, the Professional shall be paid for
services rendered prior to the date of termination subject only to the satisfactory
performance of the Professional's obligations under this Agreement. Such payment shall
be the Professional's sole right and remedy for such termination.
6. Design, Project Insurance and Insurance Responsibility. The Professional shall be
responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, timely completion and the
coordination of all services rendered by the Professional, including but not limited to
designs, plans, reports, specifications, and drawings and shall, without additional
compensation, promptly remedy and correct any errors, omissions, or other deficiencies.
The Professional shall indemnify, save and hold harmless the City its officers and
employees, in accordance with Colorado law, from all damages whatsoever claimed by
third parties against the City and for the City's costs and reasonable attorney’s fees arising
directly or indirectly out of the Professional's negligent performance of any of the services
furnished under this Agreement. The Professional shall maintain insurance in accordance
with Exhibit , consisting of one (1) page, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
7. Compensation. In consideration of services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement,
the City agrees to pay Professional on a time and reimbursable direct cost basis
designated in Exhibit "B", consisting of ( ) page(s), attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference. At the election of the City, each Work Order may
contain a maximum fee, which shall be negotiated by the parties hereto for each such
Work Order. Monthly partial payments based upon the Professional's billings and itemized
statements are permissible. The amounts of all such partial payments shall be based
upon the Professional's City-verified progress in completing the services to be performed
pursuant to the Work Order and upon approval of the Professional's direct reimbursable
expenses. Final payment shall be made following acceptance of the work by the City.
Upon final payment, all designs, plans, reports, specifications, drawings, and other
services rendered by the Professional shall become the sole property of the City.
8. City Representative. The City will designate, prior to commencement of work, its project
representative who shall make, within the scope of his or her authority, all necessary and
proper decisions with reference to the project. All requests for contract interpretations,
change orders, and other clarification or instruction shall be directed to the City
Representative.
9. Project Drawings. Upon conclusion of the project and before final payment, the
Professional shall provide the City with reproducible drawings of the project containing
accurate information on the project as constructed. Drawings shall be of archival,
RFP 8191 College & Prospect Intersection Improvements Page 17 of 23
prepared on stable mylar base material using a non-fading process to provide for long
storage and high quality reproduction. "CD" disc of the as-built drawings shall also be
submitted to the owner in and AutoCAD version no older then the established city
standard.
10. Monthly Report. Commencing thirty (30) days after Notice to Proceed is given on any
Work Order and every thirty days thereafter, Professional is required to provide the City
Representative with a written report of the status of the work with respect to the Work
Order, Work Schedule and other material information. Failure to provide any required
monthly report may, at the option of the City, suspend the processing of any partial
payment request.
11. Independent Contractor. The services to be performed by Professional are those of an
independent contractor and not of an employee of the City of Fort Collins. The City shall
not be responsible for withholding any portion of Professional's compensation hereunder
for the payment of FICA, Workers' Compensation, other taxes or benefits or for any other
purpose.
12. Subcontractors. Professional may not subcontract any of the Work set forth in the Exhibit
A, Statement of Work without the prior written consent of the city, which shall not be
unreasonably withheld. If any of the Work is subcontracted hereunder (with the consent
of the City), then the following provisions shall apply: (a) the subcontractor must be a
reputable, qualified firm with an established record of successful performance in its
respective trade performing identical or substantially similar work, (b) the subcontractor will
be required to comply with all applicable terms of this Agreement, (c) the subcontract will
not create any contractual relationship between any such subcontractor and the City, nor
will it obligate the City to pay or see to the payment of any subcontractor, and (d) the work
of the subcontractor will be subject to inspection by the City to the same extent as the
work of the Professional.
13. Personal Services. It is understood that the City enters into this Agreement based on the
special abilities of the Professional and that this Agreement shall be considered as an
agreement for personal services. Accordingly, the Professional shall neither assign any
responsibilities nor delegate any duties arising under this Agreement without the prior
written consent of the City.
14. Acceptance Not Waiver. The City's approval of drawings, designs, plans, specifications,
reports, and incidental work or materials furnished hereunder shall not in any way relieve
the Professional of responsibility for the quality or technical accuracy of the work. The
City's approval or acceptance of, or payment for, any of the services shall not be
construed to operate as a waiver of any rights or benefits provided to the City under this
Agreement.
15. Default. Each and every term and condition hereof shall be deemed to be a material
element of this Agreement. In the event either party should fail or refuse to perform
RFP 8191 College & Prospect Intersection Improvements Page 18 of 23
according to the terms of this Agreement, such party may be declared in default.
16. Remedies. In the event a party has been declared in default, such defaulting party shall
be allowed a period of ten (10) days within which to cure said default. In the event the
default remains uncorrected, the party declaring default may elect to (a) terminate the
Agreement and seek damages; (b) treat the Agreement as continuing and require specific
performance; or (c) avail himself of any other remedy at law or equity. If the non-
defaulting party commences legal or equitable actions against the defaulting party, the
defaulting party shall be liable to the non-defaulting party for the non-defaulting party's
reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred because of the default.
17. Binding Effect. This writing, together with the exhibits hereto, constitutes the entire
Agreement between the parties and shall be binding upon said parties, their officers,
employees, agents and assigns and shall inure to the benefit of the respective survivors,
heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of said parties.
18. Law/Severability. The laws of the State of Colorado shall govern the construction,
interpretation, execution and enforcement of this Agreement. In the event any provision of
this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent
jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision
of this Agreement.
19. Prohibition Against Employing Illegal Aliens. Pursuant to Section 8-17.5-101, C.R.S., et.
seq., Professional represents and agrees that:
a. As of the date of this Agreement:
1. Professional does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien who will
perform work under this Agreement; and
2. Professional will participate in either the e-Verify program created in Public Law 208,
104th Congress, as amended, and expanded in Public Law 156, 108th Congress,
as amended, administered by the United States Department of Homeland Security
(the “e-Verify Program”) or the Department Program (the “Department Program”),
an employment verification program established pursuant to Section 8-17.5-
102(5)(c) C.R.S. in order to confirm the employment eligibility of all newly hired
employees to perform work under this Agreement.
b. Professional shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform
work under this Agreement or knowingly enter into a contract with a subcontractor that
knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien to perform work under this
Agreement.
c. Professional is prohibited from using the e-Verify Program or Department Program
procedures to undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants while this
Agreement is being performed.
RFP 8191 College & Prospect Intersection Improvements Page 19 of 23
d. If Professional obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under
this Agreement knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien, Professional shall:
1. Notify such subcontractor and the City within three days that Professional has
actual knowledge that the subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal
alien; and
2. Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three days of receiving
the notice required pursuant to this section the subcontractor does not cease
employing or contracting with the illegal alien; except that Professional shall not
terminate the contract with the subcontractor if during such three days the
subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not
knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien.
e. Professional shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado Department of
Labor and Employment (the “Department”) made in the course of an investigation that
the Department undertakes or is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in
Subsection 8-17.5-102 (5), C.R.S.
f. If Professional violates any provision of this Agreement pertaining to the duties
imposed by Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. the City may terminate this Agreement. If
this Agreement is so terminated, Professional shall be liable for actual and
consequential damages to the City arising out of Professional’s violation of Subsection
8-17.5-102, C.R.S.
g. The City will notify the Office of the Secretary of State if Professional violates this
provision of this Agreement and the City terminates the Agreement for such breach.
20. Special Provisions. Special provisions or conditions relating to the services to be
performed pursuant to this Agreement are set forth in Exhibit " " - Confidentiality,
consisting of one (1) pages, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
RFP 8191 College & Prospect Intersection Improvements Page 20 of 23
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
By:
Gerry Paul
Purchasing Director
DATE:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
PROFESSIONAL'S NAME
By:
Printed:
Title:
CORPORATE PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT
Date:
RFP 8191 College & Prospect Intersection Improvements Page 21 of 23
EXHIBIT A
WORK ORDER FORM
PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AND
DATED:
Work Order Number:
Purchase Order Number:
Project Title:
Commencement Date:
Completion Date:
Maximum Fee: (time and reimbursable direct costs):
Project Description:
Scope of Services:
Professional agrees to perform the services
identified above and on the attached forms in
accordance with the terms and conditions
contained herein and in the Professional
Services Agreement between the parties. In
the event of a conflict between or ambiguity in
the terms of the Professional Services
Agreement and this Work Order (including the
attached forms) the Professional Services
Agreement shall control.
The attached forms consisting of ___ (_)
pages are hereby accepted and incorporated
herein, by this reference, and Notice to
Proceed is hereby given.
PROFESSIONAL
By:_______________________________
Date:_____________________________
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
By:_________________________________
Project Manager
Date: ______________________________
By: _______________________________
Gerry Paul
Purchasing Director (over $60,000.00)
Date: ____________________________
RFP 8191 College & Prospect Intersection Improvements Page 22 of 23
EXHIBIT
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
1. The Professional will provide, from insurance companies acceptable to the City, the
insurance coverage designated hereinafter and pay all costs. Before commencing work
under this bid, the Professional shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance
showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates and date of
expiration of policies, and containing substantially the following statement:
“The insurance evidenced by this Certificate will not reduce coverage or limits and
will not be cancelled, except after thirty (30) days written notice has been received
by the City of Fort Collins.”
In case of the breach of any provision of the Insurance Requirements, the City, at its
option, may take out and maintain, at the expense of the Professional, such insurance
as the City may deem proper and may deduct the cost of such insurance from any
monies which may be due or become due the Professional under this Agreement. The
City, its officers, agents and employees shall be named as additional insureds on the
Professional 's general liability and automobile liability insurance policies for any claims
arising out of work performed under this Agreement.
2. Insurance coverages shall be as follows:
A. Workers' Compensation & Employer's Liability. The Professional shall maintain
during the life of this Agreement for all of the Professional's employees engaged in
work performed under this Agreement:
1. Workers' Compensation insurance with statutory limits as required by
Colorado law.
2. Employer's Liability insurance with limits of $100,000 per accident,
$500,000 disease aggregate, and $100,000 disease each employee.
B. Commercial General & Vehicle Liability. The Professional shall maintain during the
life of this Agreement such commercial general liability and automobile liability
insurance as will provide coverage for damage claims of personal injury, including
accidental death, as well as for claims for property damage, which may arise
directly or indirectly from the performance of work under this Agreement.
Coverage for property damage shall be on a "broad form" basis. The amount of
insurance for each coverage, Commercial General and Vehicle, shall not be less
than $1,000,000 combined single limits for bodily injury and property damage.
In the event any work is performed by a subcontractor, the Professional shall be
responsible for any liability directly or indirectly arising out of the work performed
under this Agreement by a subcontractor, which liability is not covered by the
subcontractor's insurance.
C. Errors & Omissions. The Professional shall maintain errors and omissions
insurance in the amount of $1,000,000.
RFP 8191 College & Prospect Intersection Improvements Page 23 of 23
EXHIBIT
CONFIDENTIALITY
IN CONNECTION WITH SERVICES provided to the City of Fort Collins (the “City”) pursuant to
this Agreement (the “Agreement”), the Professional hereby acknowledges that it has been
informed that the City has established policies and procedures with regard to the handling of
confidential information and other sensitive materials.
In consideration of access to certain information, data and material (hereinafter individually and
collectively, regardless of nature, referred to as “information”) that are the property of and/or
relate to the City or its employees, customers or suppliers, which access is related to the
performance of services that the Professional has agreed to perform, the Professional hereby
acknowledges and agrees as follows:
That information that has or will come into its possession or knowledge in connection with the
performance of services for the City may be confidential and/or proprietary. The Professional
agrees to treat as confidential (a) all information that is owned by the City, or that relates to the
business of the City, or that is used by the City in carrying on business, and (b) all information
that is proprietary to a third party (including but not limited to customers and suppliers of the
City). The Professional shall not disclose any such information to any person not having a
legitimate need-to-know for purposes authorized by the City. Further, the Professional shall not
use such information to obtain any economic or other benefit for itself, or any third party, except
as specifically authorized by the City.
The foregoing to the contrary notwithstanding, the Professional understands that it shall have no
obligation under this Agreement with respect to information and material that (a) becomes
generally known to the public by publication or some means other than a breach of duty of this
Agreement, or (b) is required by law, regulation or court order to be disclosed, provided that the
request for such disclosure is proper and the disclosure does not exceed that which is required.
In the event of any disclosure under (b) above, the Professional shall furnish a copy of this
Agreement to anyone to whom it is required to make such disclosure and shall promptly advise
the City in writing of each such disclosure.
In the event that the Professional ceases to perform services for the City, or the City so requests
for any reason, the Professional shall promptly return to the City any and all information
described hereinabove, including all copies, notes and/or summaries (handwritten or
mechanically produced) thereof, in its possession or control or as to which it otherwise has
access.
The Professional understands and agrees that the City’s remedies at law for a breach of the
Professional’s obligations under this Confidentiality Agreement may be inadequate and that the
City shall, in the event of any such breach, be entitled to seek equitable relief (including without
limitation preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and specific performance) in addition to all
other remedies provided hereunder or available at law.
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW
40 0 40 80
SCALE: 1"=80'
CONCEPTUAL TURN LANE AND MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS
20
COLLEGE AND PROSPECT CONCEPTUAL IMPROVEMENTS
City of
Engineering
fcgov.com/engineering
LEGEND:
COLORADO STATE OBLIGATIONS
CITY OF FORT COLLINS IMPROVEMENTS
GENERAL NOTES:
1. THIS IS A GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF PROPOSED TURN LANE AND MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS
2. TURN LANE LENGTHS AND GEOMETRY WILL BE FINALIZED WITH THE ENGINEERING DESIGN
3. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT
4. UNDERGROUND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS AND IMPACTS HAVE NOT BEEN DETERMINED AT THIS TIME
5. THE EXTENT OF WORK ON COLLEGE AVENUE HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED AT THIS TIME
6. CONSTRUCTION PHASING HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED AT THIS TIME
7. THE CITY WILL PERFORM THE ASPHALT OVERLAY ON PROSPECT (STREET MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES)
S:\Engineering\Departments\Survey\Projects\Planning\West Centrl Area Plan ROW\LDD Prospect-Lake\dwg\TBK Layouts\CSU_City Exhibit.dwg, 10/13/2015 1:14:22 PM
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW
30 0 30 60
SCALE: 1"=60'
OPTION B - EASTBOUND DUAL LEFT, LANDSCAPED MEDIAN
15
PROSPECT AND COLLEGE
City of
Engineering
fcgov.com/engineering
S:\Engineering\Departments\Survey\Projects\Planning\West Centrl Area Plan ROW\LDD Prospect-Lake\dwg\TBK Layouts\College Prospect Int.dwg, 6/25/2015 3:56:57 PM
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW
30 0 30 60
SCALE: 1"=60'
OPTION D - WESTBOUND DUAL LEFT AND SHARED RIGHT
15
PROSPECT AND COLLEGE
City of
Engineering
fcgov.com/engineering
S:\Engineering\Departments\Survey\Projects\Planning\West Centrl Area Plan ROW\LDD Prospect-Lake\dwg\TBK Layouts\College Prospect Int.dwg, 6/26/2015 2:51:15 PM
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW
30 0 30 60
SCALE: 1"=60'
OPTION E - EASTBOUND LENGTHENED RIGHT WITH PORK CHOP
15
PROSPECT AND COLLEGE
City of
Engineering
fcgov.com/engineering
S:\Engineering\Departments\Survey\Projects\Planning\West Centrl Area Plan ROW\LDD Prospect-Lake\dwg\TBK Layouts\College Prospect Int.dwg, 6/30/2015 1:42:56 PM
1st Avenue/Emery Street Traffic Analysis
May 1, 2015
To: Tim Kemp, PE, LEED AP – City of Fort Collins
Martina Wilkinson, PE – City of Fort Collins
From: John Hausman PE, PTOE, Muller Engineering Company
Nancy Lambertson PE, PTOE, Muller Engineering Company
Date: July 6, 2015
Project: College Avenue/Prospect Road Intersection Analysis
Re: Traffic Analysis Memorandum
Introduction
The purpose of this technical memorandum is to present traffic analysis and improvement
recommendations for the College Avenue/Prospect Road intersection in the City of Fort Collins. This
traffic analysis will be used to propose intersection improvements to coincide with multiple planned
developments on the Colorado State University (CSU) Campus. Several options for intersection
geometric improvements have been proposed by the City of Fort Collins. Conceptual designs of these
options are provided in Appendix A.
Data Collection
Existing AM and PM peak hour conditions at the intersection were provided by the City of Fort Collins in
the current traffic signal timing Synchro network. The counts for the current traffic signal timings were
conducted in October 2014 at both the College Avenue/Prospect Road and Remington Street/Prospect
Road intersections.
In addition, the City of Fort Collins provided planning documents for future developments on the CSU
campus. The Colorado State University University Medical Center Traffic Impact Study (Kimley Horn,
2015) documents the anticipated traffic impact of the proposed University Medical Center in the
northwest quadrant of the College Avenue/Prospect Road intersection. The Colorado State University
University Square Parking Structure Traffic Impact Study (Kimley Horn, 2015) documents the anticipated
traffic impact of the proposed University Square Parking Structure approximately two blocks north of the
study intersection. The Colorado State University Multipurpose Stadium Transportation and Parking
Study (Kimley Horn, 2015) documents the anticipated traffic impact of the proposed on‐campus stadium
located approximately one‐half mile west of the study intersection. The Colorado State University
Parking and Transportation Master Plan (Kimley Horn, 2014) documents the forecast changes in travel
demand for the CSU campus based on planned parking and transportation‐related changes on the CSU
campus.
The existing conditions and planning documents noted above were used to develop near‐term (2017)
and mid‐term (2024) traffic volumes at the College Avenue and Remington Street intersections on
Prospect Road.
Technical Memorandum
College Avenue/Prospect Road Intersection Analysis
July 6, 2015
Muller Engineering Company Page 2 of 10
Existing Traffic Conditions (2014)
Table 1 presents the existing peak hour traffic volumes, level of service, average delay and 95th
percentile queues for each movement at the College Avenue and Remington Street intersections with
Prospect Road, based on current traffic signal timings and traffic volumes. Synchro output is provided in
Appendix B.
Table 1: 2014 Peak Hour Volume, LOS, Delay and 95th Percentile Queues
Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Vol
(vph) LOS
Delay
(sec)
Queue
(ft)1
Vol
(vph) LOS
Delay
(sec)
Queue
(ft) 1
College Ave/Prospect Rd 4,488 D 39 6,132 D 45
Eastbound Left 177 C 32 130 227 F 82 290
Eastbound Through 789 E 68 460 681 E 65 425
Eastbound Right 157 D 51 130 483 E 65 435
Westbound Left 156 C 34 145 198 E 58 245
Westbound Through 519 D 36 260 657 E 59 395
Westbound Right 174 C 26 100 75 C 33 70
Northbound Left 237 D 40 125 312 D 47 170
Northbound Through 1,293
C 27 295
1,154
C 23 410
Northbound Right 137 153
Southbound Left 75 D 36 55 232 E 57 160
Southbound Through 639 C 29 210 1,734 D 37 605
Southbound Right 135 E 70 115 226 B 20 65
Remington St/Prospect Rd 2,081 A 6 2,423 B 11
Eastbound Left 53 A 1 5 61 A 2 5
Eastbound Through 913
A 2 35
945
A 2 55
Eastbound Right 32 60
Westbound Left 43 A 4 20 64 A 5 35
Westbound Through 817
A 4 145
823
A 5 160
Westbound Right 45 40
Northbound Left 10 D 46 25 17 D 45 35
Northbound Through 72 D 49 95 59 D 45 70
Northbound Right 23 D 45 25 24 D 43 25
Southbound Left 11 D 38 20 71 D 39 75
Southbound Through 40 D 41 50 169 D 44 160
Southbound Right 22 D 38 15 90 D 48 35
Source: Muller Engineering Company, 2015
1. 95th percentile queues from Synchro 7 software are presented.
College Avenue/Prospect Road Intersection Analysis
July 6, 2015
Muller Engineering Company Page 3 of 10
volumes at College Avenue/Prospect Road often exceed the capacity of the intersection. The excess
demand, which is not serviced by the intersection, is not reflected in the traffic counts. As a result, actual
traffic conditions are likely worse than indicated by the analysis.
Near-Term Traffic Conditions (2017)
Near‐term (2017) conditions were forecast to account for background traffic growth within the City of
Fort Collins and the planned opening of CSU on‐campus developments. Forecast assumptions are
presented in Appendix C. Table 2 presents the forecast 2017 peak hour traffic volumes, level of service,
average delay and 95th percentile queues for each movement at the two study intersections assuming no
changes to current traffic signal timings and intersection geometry. Synchro output is provided in
Appendix B.
Table 2: 2017 No Action: Peak Hour Volume, LOS, Delay and 95th Percentile Queues
Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Vol
(vph) LOS
Delay
(sec)
Queue
(ft)
Vol
(vph) LOS
Delay
(sec)
Queue
(ft)
College Ave/Prospect Rd 4,640 D 42 6,325 E 63
Eastbound Left 180 E 62 250 230 F 327 430
Eastbound Through 795 E 66 455 685 E 60 415
Eastbound Right 160 D 35 85 485 E 55 570
Westbound Left 155 F 96 245 200 F 167 345
Westbound Through 525 D 37 255 660 D 44 365
Westbound Right 205 C 27 115 100 C 28 100
Northbound Left 240 D 42 125 315 D 44 165
Northbound Through 1,350
C 31 325
1,200
C 26 445
Northbound Right 135 155
Southbound Left 90 D 35 65 265 E 74 195
Southbound Through 670 C 28 215 1,805 E 63 690
Southbound Right 135 E 67 115 225 B 20 65
Remington St/Prospect Rd 2,150 A 6 2,500 A 10
Eastbound Left 55 A 1 5 65 A 2 10
Eastbound Through 930
A 1 35
980
A 2 50
Eastbound Right 35 60
Westbound Left 45 A 4 25 65 A 3 20
Westbound Through 850
A 4 155
850
A 4 355
Westbound Right 45 40
Northbound Left 10 D 46 25 20 D 45 40
Northbound Through 75 D 49 100 60 D 45 80
Northbound Right 25 D 45 25 25 D 43 25
College Avenue/Prospect Road Intersection Analysis
July 6, 2015
Muller Engineering Company Page 4 of 10
The College Avenue/Prospect Road intersection is forecast to operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour
and LOS E during the PM peak hour. The eastbound and westbound left‐turn movements are forecast to
operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The westbound left‐turn is also forecast to operate at LOS F
during the AM peak hour. The eastbound and westbound left‐ and right‐turn lanes are forecast to
experience queues that exceed available storage during both the AM and PM peak hours. The
Remington Street/Prospect Road intersection is forecast to operate at LOS A during both peak hours.
Three geometric improvement scenarios were tested for the College Avenue/Prospect Road intersection
to better serve near‐term forecast increases in vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Near‐term
geometric improvements were limited to improvements that would fit within the current footprint of
the intersection, but with the ability to adjust the curb line in the northwest quadrant of the intersection
with the construction of the University Medical Center. Geometric changes at the Remington
Street/Prospect Road were also considered in each scenario. The scenarios analyzed were based on the
options provided by the City of Fort Collins and are included in Appendix A. The changes for each
scenario are defined below.
Scenario 1 (Option A/Option B, Option C):
College Avenue/Prospect Road – Two eastbound left‐turn lanes, single westbound left‐turn lane,
westbound right‐turn lane
Remington Street/Prospect Road – Maintain existing geometry
Scenario 2 (Option A/Option B, Option C but without EB left‐turn at Remington Street)
College Avenue/Prospect Road – Two eastbound left‐turn lanes, single westbound left‐turn lane,
westbound right‐turn lane
Remington Street/Prospect Road – Remove eastbound left turn lane
Scenario 3 (Option D but with an EB left‐turn lane at Remington Street and without the right‐of‐way
acquisition for westbound Prospect Road east of College Avenue):
College Avenue/Prospect Road – Two eastbound left‐turn lanes, two westbound left‐turn lanes,
remove westbound right‐turn lane
Remington Street/Prospect Road – Maintain existing geometry but reduce eastbound left‐turn
lane to its minimum required length
Table 3 presents the comparison of LOS, average delay and v/c for these three scenarios during the AM
and PM peak hours.
These scenarios for the College Avenue/Prospect Road intersection result in minimal intersection‐wide
improvements in average delay and LOS. Both Scenarios 1 and 2 are forecast to operate over‐capacity
during the PM peak hour. Scenario 3 provides the largest operational benefit to the intersection. It is
recommended to implement the improvements included in Scenario 3 within the confines of existing
right‐of‐way east of College Avenue.
College Avenue/Prospect Road Intersection Analysis
July 6, 2015
Muller Engineering Company Page 5 of 10
Table 3: 2017 Scenario Comparison LOS, Delay, V/C
Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS
Delay
(sec/veh)
Intersection
v/c1 LOS
Delay
(sec/veh)
Intersection
v/c1
College Ave/Prospect Rd
No Action D 42 0.85 E 63 1.04
Scenario 1 D 42 0.89 D 54 1.01
Scenario 2 D 42 0.89 D 54 1.01
Scenario 3 D 41 0.79 D 51 0.93
Remington St/Prospect Rd
No Action A 6 0.44 A 10 0.47
Scenario 1 A 6 0.44 A 10 0.47
Scenario 2 A 6 0.47 B 10 0.49
Scenario 3 A 6 0.44 A 10 0.47
Source: Muller Engineering Company, 2015
1. HCM v/c for the entire intersection is presented.
2. Bold Red indicates LOS F or a v/c greater than 1.0.
The LOS, average delay, v/c and 95th percentile queues for each turning movement in Scenario 3 are
presented in Table 4.
The College Avenue intersection is forecast to operate at LOS D during both peak hours with the
Scenario 3 improvements. All movements at the intersection are forecast to operate at LOS E or better.
The southbound through movement is forecast to operate over‐capacity during the PM peak hour. The
westbound through movement queues are forecast to extend through the Remington Street
intersection. The proposed improvements are forecast to improve the operation of the eastbound and
westbound left‐turn lanes. The Remington Street intersection is forecast to operate at LOS A during both
peak hours; however, it will continue to be impacted by the westbound traffic queue at College Avenue.
College Avenue/Prospect Road Intersection Analysis
July 6, 2015
Muller Engineering Company Page 6 of 10
Table 4: 2017 Scenario 3: Peak Hour LOS, Delay, V/C and 95th Percentile Queues
Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS Delay v/c Queue LOS Delay v/c Queue
College Ave/Prospect Rd D 41 0.79 D 51 0.93
Eastbound Left D 38 0.52 80 E 60 0.81 160
Eastbound Through E 64 0.94 455 E 57 0.92 415
Eastbound Right C 35 0.21 80 D 53 0.90 570
Westbound Left D 45 0.52 75 D 38 0.64 105
Westbound Through/Right D 48 0.90 405 E 63 0.97 465
Northbound Left D 42 0.62 125 D 44 0.74 165
Northbound Through/Right C 30 0.87 325 C 26 0.72 445
Southbound Left D 35 0.38 60 E 74 0.93 195
Southbound Through C 28 0.45 215 E 65 1.06 690
Southbound Right E 66 0.10 110 B 20 0.25 65
Remington St/Prospect Rd A 6 0.44 A 10 0.47
Eastbound Left A 1 0.16 5 A 2 0.18 10
Eastbound Through/Right A 1 0.44 35 A 2 0.43 50
Westbound Left A 4 0.16 25 A 3 0.21 20
Westbound Through/Right A 4 0.38 155 A 4 0.37 355
Northbound Left D 46 0.10 25 D 45 0.20 40
Northbound Through D 49 0.50 100 D 45 0.23 80
Northbound Right D 45 0.02 25 D 43 0.02 25
Southbound Left D 38 0.17 25 D 39 0.42 80
Southbound Through D 40 0.27 50 D 44 0.65 165
Southbound Right D 38 0.02 15 D 48 0.07 35
Source: Muller Engineering Company, 2015
1. 95th percentile queues from Synchro 7 software are presented.
2. Bold Red indicates LOS F or a v/c greater than 1.0 or a 95th percentile queue greater than available storage.
Mid-Term Traffic Conditions (2024)
Mid‐term (2024) conditions were forecast to account for background traffic growth within the City of
Fort Collins and planned changes in CSU parking areas. Forecast assumptions are presented in
Appendix C.
Table 5 presents the 2024 peak hour traffic volumes, level of service, average delay and 95th percentile
queues for each movement at the two study intersections assuming the proposed changes in Scenario 3
are maintained as the base geometry in 2024. Synchro output is provided in Appendix B.
College Avenue/Prospect Road Intersection Analysis
July 6, 2015
Muller Engineering Company Page 7 of 10
Table 5: 2024 Base Geometry: Peak Hour LOS, Delay, V/C and 95th Percentile Queues
Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS Delay v/c Queue LOS Delay v/c Queue
College Ave/Prospect Rd D 42 0.80 E 56 0.94
Eastbound Left D 38 0.52 80 E 55 0.76 150
Eastbound Through E 66 0.95 460 D 55 0.91 420
Eastbound Right C 34 0.22 80 E 56 0.92 590
Westbound Left D 46 0.53 80 C 34 0.59 100
Westbound Through/Right D 48 0.90 410 E 59 0.95 465
Northbound Left D 42 0.63 125 D 46 0.79 180
Northbound Through/Right C 31 0.89 340 C 28 0.75 460
Southbound Left D 36 0.40 65 E 78 0.94 200
Southbound Through C 28 0.46 220 F 83 1.10 720
Southbound Right E 68 0.10 115 C 20 0.26 65
Remington St/Prospect Rd A 6 0.45 A 10 0.47
Eastbound Left A 1 0.17 5 A 2 0.18 10
Eastbound Through/Right A 1 0.44 35 A 2 0.44 50
Westbound Left A 4 0.16 25 A 4 0.22 20
Westbound Through/Right A 4 0.38 155 A 4 0.37 355
Northbound Left D 46 0.10 25 D 45 0.20 40
Northbound Through D 49 0.50 100 D 45 0.23 80
Northbound Right D 45 0.02 25 D 43 0.02 25
Southbound Left D 38 0.17 25 D 39 0.39 75
Southbound Through D 40 0.27 50 D 44 0.65 165
Southbound Right D 38 0.02 15 D 48 0.07 35
Source: Muller Engineering Company, 2015
1. 95th percentile queues from Synchro 7 software are presented.
2. Bold Red indicates LOS F or a v/c greater than 1.0 or a 95th percentile queue greater than available storage.
The College Avenue intersection is forecast to degrade to LOS E during the PM peak hour by 2024 if no
additional improvements are made to the Scenario 3 base geometry. The southbound through
movement is forecast to degrade to LOS F and to operate over‐capacity during the PM peak hour. In
addition, the westbound through movement is forecast to queue through the Remington Street
intersection during both peak hours. The Remington Street intersection is forecast to continue to
operate at LOS A during both peak hours.
Three geometric improvement scenarios, building upon the recommended improvements for 2017,
were tested for the College Avenue/Prospect Road intersection to better serve mid‐term (2024) forecast
increases in traffic. Mid‐term geometric improvements include acquiring additional right‐of‐way to
enlarge the intersection footprint to better serve traffic demand. Geometric changes at the Remington
Street/Prospect Road were not considered in each mid‐term scenario. The scenarios analyzed were
based on the options provided by the City of Fort Collins and are included in Appendix A. The changes
for each scenario are defined below. All three scenarios include the improvements identified for the
near‐term Scenario 3.
College Avenue/Prospect Road Intersection Analysis
July 6, 2015
Muller Engineering Company Page 8 of 10
Add northbound right‐turn (Option F):
College Avenue/Prospect Road – Two northbound left‐turn lanes, three northbound through
lanes, one northbound right‐turn lane
Add westbound right‐turn (Option G)
College Avenue/Prospect Road – Two westbound left‐turn lanes, two westbound through lanes,
one westbound right‐turn lane
Add both right‐turns (Options F and G):
College Avenue/Prospect Road – Geometry from both previous scenarios included
All right‐turns in these scenarios would be yield controlled. Channelizing islands are proposed for each
right‐turn to reduce the pedestrian crossing distances across each leg of the intersection. Table 6
presents the comparison of LOS, average delay and v/c for these three scenarios during the AM and PM
peak hours.
Table 6: 2024 Geometry Comparison LOS, Delay, V/C
Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS
Delay
(sec/veh)
Intersection
v/c1 LOS
Delay
(sec/veh)
Intersection
v/c1
College Ave/Prospect Rd
Scenario 3 Base Geometry D 42 0.80 E 56 0.94
Add NB Right‐Turn D 41 0.76 E 56 0.94
Add WB Right‐Turn D 42 0.80 D 53 0.97
Add Both Right‐Turns D 38 0.76 D 53 0.97
Remington St/Prospect Rd
Scenario 3 Base Geometry A 6 0.45 A 10 0.47
Add NB Right‐Turn A 6 0.45 A 10 0.47
Add WB Right‐Turn A 6 0.45 A 10 0.47
Add Both Right‐Turns A 6 0.45 A 10 0.50
Source: Muller Engineering Company, 2015
1. HCM v/c for the entire intersection is presented.
These scenarios for the College Avenue/Prospect Road intersection result in minimal intersection‐wide
improvements in average delay and LOS. The westbound right‐turn provides the most improvement to
intersection LOS. However, to provide greater timing flexibility by reducing pedestrian crossing
distances, both right‐turn lanes and the channelizing islands must be installed. As a result, adding both
right‐turns and the channelizing islands are recommended.
The LOS, average delay, v/c and 95th percentile queues for each turning movement when adding both
right‐turn lanes are presented in Table 7.
College Avenue/Prospect Road Intersection Analysis
July 6, 2015
Muller Engineering Company Page 9 of 10
Table 7: 2024 Both Right Turns Added: Peak Hour LOS, Delay, V/C and 95th Percentile Queues
Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS Delay v/c Queue LOS Delay v/c Queue
College Ave/Prospect Rd D 38 0.76 D 53 0.97
Eastbound Left D 38 0.52 80 E 55 0.76 150
Eastbound Through E 66 0.95 460 E 59 0.93 420
Eastbound Right C 34 0.22 80 E 59 0.93 590
Westbound Left D 46 0.53 80 C 35 0.59 105
Westbound Through C 34 0.65 260 D 44 0.84 370
Westbound Right C 29 0.19 90 D 37 0.12 90
Northbound Left D 42 0.63 125 D 46 0.79 180
Northbound Through C 27 0.80 270 C 25 0.65 400
Northbound Right C 28 0.13 60 D 37 0.13 70
Southbound Left D 35 0.38 60 E 48 0.94 200
Southbound Through C 28 0.46 220 E 45 1.08 720
Southbound Right E 68 0.10 115 B 20 0.26 65
Remington St/Prospect Rd A 6 0.45 A 10 0.50
Eastbound Left A 1 0.17 5 A 3 0.19 10
Eastbound Through/Right A 1 0.44 25 A 2 0.47 50
Westbound Left A 4 0.16 25 A 4 0.24 25
Westbound Through/Right A 4 0.38 155 A 4 0.39 370
Northbound Left D 46 0.10 25 D 45 0.20 40
Northbound Through D 49 0.50 100 D 45 0.23 80
Northbound Right D 45 0.02 25 D 43 0.02 25
Southbound Left D 38 0.17 25 D 39 0.39 75
Southbound Through D 40 0.27 50 D 44 0.65 165
Southbound Right D 38 0.02 15 D 49 0.07 35
Source: Muller Engineering Company, 2015
1. 95th percentile queues from Synchro 7 software are presented.
2. Bold Red indicates LOS F or a v/c greater than 1.0 or a 95th percentile queue greater than available storage.
The College Avenue intersection is forecast to operate at LOS D during both peak hours with both the
northbound and westbound right‐turn lanes added. All movements at the intersection are forecast to
operate at LOS E or better. The southbound through movement is forecast to operate over‐capacity
during the PM peak hour. The westbound through queues are forecast to extend through the Remington
Street intersection during the PM peak hour. In addition, the eastbound right‐turn queues are forecast
to exceed the available storage during the PM peak hour.
The addition of both right‐turn lanes with channelizing islands also decreases the pedestrian crossing
distance across each leg of the intersection. Currently, pedestrian crossing distances range from 85 feet
(west leg) to 125 feet (north leg). With the channelizing islands the east and west crossings are reduced
to 78 feet and the north and south crossings are reduced to 96 feet. The decreased crossing distances
require shorter flash/don’t walk clearances, allowing for more flexible signal timing plans to serve
increased vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle demands.
College Avenue/Prospect Road Intersection Analysis
July 6, 2015
Muller Engineering Company Page 10 of 10
Recommendations
Analysis of different intersection improvement scenarios identifies the near‐term (2017) improvements
that should be completed to improve intersection operations. Based on the analyzed scenarios for the
near‐term, the eastbound approach should be modified to provide a double left‐turn. In addition, the
right‐turn lane should be extended to provide as much vehicle storage as possible to better serve PM
peak hour demands. The westbound approach should be modified to provide a double left‐turn, a
through lane and a shared through/right‐turn lane without acquiring additional right‐of‐way east of the
intersection. At the Remington Street intersection, the eastbound left‐turn lane should be shortened to
provide 50 feet of vehicle storage.
Analysis of the mid‐term (2024) traffic identifies that operational improvements at the intersection are
possible with the acquisition of additional right‐of‐way. Based on analysis, a right‐turn lane should be
added in both the northbound and westbound directions as well as a channelizing island for each
right‐turn lane. This will enable the intersection to operate at LOS D or better in both peak hours. The
addition of channelizing islands decreases the pedestrian crossing distance across each leg of the
intersection, allowing for more flexible signal timing plans to serve increased vehicle, pedestrian and
bicycle demands.
College Avenue/Prospect Road Intersection Analysis
July 6, 2015
Muller Engineering Company
Appendix A: Proposed Intersection Geometry Options
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW
30 0 30 60
SCALE: 1"=60'
OPTION A - EASTBOUND DUAL LEFT STRIPED MEDIAN
15
PROSPECT AND COLLEGE
City of
Engineering
fcgov.com/engineering
S:\Engineering\Departments\Survey\Projects\Planning\West Centrl Area Plan ROW\LDD Prospect-Lake\dwg\TBK Layouts\College Prospect Int.dwg, 6/25/2015 3:56:16 PM
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW
30 0 30 60
SCALE: 1"=60'
OPTION B - EASTBOUND DUAL LEFT, LANDSCAPED MEDIAN
15
PROSPECT AND COLLEGE
City of
Engineering
fcgov.com/engineering
S:\Engineering\Departments\Survey\Projects\Planning\West Centrl Area Plan ROW\LDD Prospect-Lake\dwg\TBK Layouts\College Prospect Int.dwg, 6/25/2015 3:56:57 PM
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW
20 0 20 40
SCALE: 1"=40'
OPTION C - WESTBOUND LENGTHENED LEFT TURN LANE
City of
Engineering
fcgov.com/engineering
10
PROSPECT ROAD
S:\Engineering\Departments\Survey\Projects\Planning\West Centrl Area Plan ROW\LDD Prospect-Lake\dwg\TBK Layouts\College Prospect Int.dwg, 6/25/2015 4:02:10 PM
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW
30 0 30 60
SCALE: 1"=60'
OPTION D - WESTBOUND DUAL LEFT AND SHARED RIGHT
15
PROSPECT AND COLLEGE
City of
Engineering
fcgov.com/engineering
S:\Engineering\Departments\Survey\Projects\Planning\West Centrl Area Plan ROW\LDD Prospect-Lake\dwg\TBK Layouts\College Prospect Int.dwg, 6/26/2015 2:51:15 PM
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW
30 0 30 60
SCALE: 1"=60'
OPTION E - EASTBOUND LENGTHENED RIGHT WITH PORK CHOP
15
PROSPECT AND COLLEGE
City of
Engineering
fcgov.com/engineering
S:\Engineering\Departments\Survey\Projects\Planning\West Centrl Area Plan ROW\LDD Prospect-Lake\dwg\TBK Layouts\College Prospect Int.dwg, 6/30/2015 1:42:56 PM
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW
30 0 30 60
SCALE: 1"=60'
OPTION F and G - NORTHBOUND AND WESTBOUND RIGHTS
15
PROSPECT AND COLLEGE
City of
Engineering
fcgov.com/engineering
S:\Engineering\Departments\Survey\Projects\Planning\West Centrl Area Plan ROW\LDD Prospect-Lake\dwg\TBK Layouts\College Prospect Int.dwg, 6/30/2015 1:43:41 PM
College Avenue/Prospect Road Intersection Analysis
July 6, 2015
Muller Engineering Company
Appendix B: Synchro HCM Level of Service Output
Timings College Ave/Prospect Traffic Analysis
10: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/25/2015
2015 AM Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 177 789 157 156 519 174 237 1293 75 639 135
Turn Type pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1652
Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2
Detector Phase 74438816522
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 35.5 35.5 11.0 38.5 38.5 11.0 30.0 11.0 29.0 29.0
Total Split (s) 18.0 36.0 36.0 14.0 32.0 32.0 18.0 47.0 13.0 42.0 42.0
Total Split (%) 16.4% 32.7% 32.7% 12.7% 29.1% 29.1% 16.4% 42.7% 11.8% 38.2% 38.2%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.5 2.5 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 5.5 5.5 3.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None None Max None C-Max C-Max
Act Effct Green (s) 46.3 30.8 30.8 41.2 28.0 28.0 14.0 44.7 8.5 37.0 37.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.28 0.28 0.37 0.25 0.25 0.13 0.41 0.08 0.34 0.34
v/c Ratio 0.59 0.96 0.35 0.71 0.67 0.40 0.63 0.81 0.33 0.43 0.25
Control Delay 33.1 69.1 21.1 35.2 38.3 12.1 45.3 26.8 37.3 27.9 12.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 33.1 69.1 21.1 35.2 38.3 12.1 45.3 26.8 37.3 27.9 12.5
LOS CECDDBDCDCB
Approach Delay 56.7 32.4 29.4 26.3
Approach LOS E C C C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 110
Actuated Cycle Length: 110
Offset: 78 (71%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.96
Intersection Signal Delay: 36.2 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.4% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 10: Prospect & College (US 287)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Traffic Analysis
10: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/25/2015
2015 AM Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 177 789 157 156 519 174 237 1293 134 75 639 135
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 10 11 12 11 12 11 11 8 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.5 5.5 3.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1710 3303 1507 1769 3421 1560 3319 4838 3319 4916 1506
Flt Permitted 0.23 1.00 1.00 0.14 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Traffic Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/25/2015
2015 AM Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 53 913 43 817 10 72 23 11 40 22
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 2 2
Permitted Phases 4422 22
Detector Phase 4444222222
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Total Split (s) 78.0 78.0 78.0 78.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0
Total Split (%) 70.9% 70.9% 70.9% 70.9% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max None None None None None None
Act Effct Green (s) 89.9 89.9 89.9 89.9 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
v/c Ratio 0.15 0.41 0.15 0.35 0.09 0.43 0.15 0.11 0.24 0.15
Control Delay 1.4 1.6 4.8 4.1 43.0 51.3 16.7 36.3 40.5 14.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 1.4 1.7 4.8 4.1 43.0 51.3 16.7 36.3 40.5 14.3
LOS AAAADDBDDB
Approach Delay 1.7 4.1 43.0 31.9
Approach LOS A A D C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 110
Actuated Cycle Length: 110
Offset: 99 (90%), Referenced to phase 4:EBWB, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.43
Intersection Signal Delay: 6.0 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.8% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 34: Prospect & Remington
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Traffic Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/25/2015
2015 AM Synchro 7 - Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 53 913 32 43 817 45 10 72 23 11 40 22
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 8 10 10 8 10 11 10 10 11 9
Total Lost time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1649 3283 1648 3275 1634 1801 1443 1635 1801 1392
Flt Permitted 0.30 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.64 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Rd Traffic Analysis
10: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/25/2015
2015 PM Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 227 681 483 198 657 75 312 1154 232 1734 226
Turn Type pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1652
Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2
Detector Phase 74438816522
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 32.5 32.5 11.0 35.5 35.5 11.0 30.0 11.0 29.0 29.0
Total Split (s) 16.0 33.0 33.0 15.0 32.0 32.0 20.0 57.0 15.0 52.0 52.0
Total Split (%) 13.3% 27.5% 27.5% 12.5% 26.7% 26.7% 16.7% 47.5% 12.5% 43.3% 43.3%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.5 2.5 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 5.5 5.5 3.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max None Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 43.0 27.5 27.5 41.0 26.5 26.5 15.6 52.0 11.0 47.4 47.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.23 0.23 0.34 0.22 0.22 0.13 0.43 0.09 0.40 0.40
v/c Ratio 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.86 0.93 0.21 0.77 0.66 0.81 0.95 0.35
Control Delay 75.8 66.8 45.1 56.3 61.7 19.8 51.3 23.2 61.8 37.2 7.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 75.8 66.8 55.2 56.3 61.7 19.8 51.3 23.2 61.8 37.2 7.3
LOS EEEEEBDCEDA
Approach Delay 64.2 57.2 28.6 36.7
Approach LOS E E C D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 110 (92%), Referenced to phase 6:NBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 100
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.96
Intersection Signal Delay: 43.9 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.6% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 10: Prospect & College (US 287)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Rd Traffic Analysis
10: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/25/2015
2015 PM Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 227 681 483 198 657 75 312 1154 153 232 1734 226
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 10 11 12 11 12 11 11 8 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.5 5.5 3.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1710 3303 1475 1768 3421 1553 3319 4818 3319 4916 1477
Flt Permitted 0.15 1.00 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Rd Traffic Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/25/2015
2015 PM Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 61 945 64 823 17 59 24 71 169 90
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 2 2
Permitted Phases 4422 22
Detector Phase 4444222222
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 26.5 26.5 26.5 26.5 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Total Split (s) 82.0 82.0 82.0 82.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0
Total Split (%) 68.3% 68.3% 68.3% 68.3% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max None None None None None None
Act Effct Green (s) 93.1 93.1 93.1 93.1 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.16 0.42 0.20 0.36 0.17 0.22 0.10 0.40 0.64 0.32
Control Delay 2.2 2.3 6.1 5.0 45.6 44.6 15.1 42.2 49.3 11.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 2.2 2.6 6.1 5.0 45.6 44.6 15.1 42.2 49.3 11.9
LOS AAAADDBDDB
Approach Delay 2.6 5.1 37.8 37.6
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 113 (94%), Referenced to phase 4:EBWB, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.64
Intersection Signal Delay: 9.7 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.3% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 34: Prospect & Remington
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Rd Traffic Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/25/2015
2015 PM Synchro 7 - Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 61 945 60 64 823 40 17 59 24 71 169 90
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 8 10 10 8 10 11 10 10 11 9
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1649 3269 1651 3276 1637 1801 1442 1632 1801 1387
Flt Permitted 0.30 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.39 1.00 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
1: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2017 AM No Action Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 180 795 160 155 525 205 240 1350 90 670 135
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 74138 1652
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
Detector Phase 74138816522
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 10.0 4.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 35.5 11.0 11.0 38.5 38.5 11.0 30.0 11.0 29.0 29.0
Total Split (s) 18.0 36.0 18.0 14.0 32.0 32.0 18.0 47.0 13.0 42.0 42.0
Total Split (%) 16.4% 32.7% 16.4% 12.7% 29.1% 29.1% 16.4% 42.7% 11.8% 38.2% 38.2%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None None Max None C-Max C-Max
Act Effct Green (s) 14.8 30.4 45.9 11.0 26.6 26.6 14.0 42.5 8.6 37.1 37.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.28 0.42 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.13 0.39 0.08 0.34 0.34
v/c Ratio 0.86 0.95 0.26 0.95 0.69 0.45 0.62 0.88 0.38 0.45 0.24
Control Delay 69.9 67.1 12.6 101.2 39.4 12.4 45.0 30.8 38.3 28.2 12.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 69.9 67.1 12.6 101.2 39.4 12.4 45.0 30.8 38.3 28.2 12.4
LOS EEBFDBDCDCB
Approach Delay 59.8 44.0 32.8 26.8
Approach LOS E D C C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 110
Actuated Cycle Length: 110
Offset: 78 (71%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 105
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.95
Intersection Signal Delay: 40.4 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.7% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Prospect & College (US 287)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
1: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2017 AM No Action Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 180 795 160 155 525 205 240 1350 135 90 670 135
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 10 11 12 11 12 11 11 8 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 3303 1514 1770 3421 1560 3319 4714 3319 4775 1506
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2017 AM No Action Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 55 930 45 850 10 75 25 15 40 25
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 2 2
Permitted Phases 4422 22
Detector Phase 4444222222
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Total Split (s) 78.0 78.0 78.0 78.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0
Total Split (%) 70.9% 70.9% 70.9% 70.9% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max None None None None None None
Act Effct Green (s) 89.8 89.8 89.8 89.8 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
v/c Ratio 0.16 0.42 0.16 0.37 0.09 0.44 0.16 0.15 0.23 0.16
Control Delay 1.7 1.4 5.0 4.2 42.9 51.5 16.2 37.3 39.7 14.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 1.7 1.5 5.0 4.2 42.9 51.5 16.2 37.3 39.7 14.1
LOS AAAADDBDDB
Approach Delay 1.5 4.2 42.8 31.3
Approach LOS A A D C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 110
Actuated Cycle Length: 110
Offset: 99 (90%), Referenced to phase 4:EBWB, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.44
Intersection Signal Delay: 6.0 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.5% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 34: Prospect & Remington
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2017 AM No Action Synchro 7 - Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 55 930 35 45 850 45 10 75 25 15 40 25
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 8 10 10 8 10 11 10 10 11 9
Total Lost time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1649 3282 1648 3276 1634 1801 1443 1635 1801 1392
Flt Permitted 0.29 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
10: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2017 PM No Action Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 230 685 485 200 660 100 315 1200 265 1805 225
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 74138 1652
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
Detector Phase 74138816522
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 10.0 4.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 32.5 11.0 11.0 35.5 35.5 11.0 30.0 11.0 29.0 29.0
Total Split (s) 14.0 34.0 21.0 15.0 35.0 35.0 21.0 56.0 15.0 50.0 50.0
Total Split (%) 11.7% 28.3% 17.5% 12.5% 29.2% 29.2% 17.5% 46.7% 12.5% 41.7% 41.7%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max None Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 11.0 28.3 46.1 12.0 29.3 29.3 16.3 51.2 11.0 45.9 45.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.24 0.38 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.14 0.43 0.09 0.38 0.38
v/c Ratio 1.56 0.94 0.89 1.20 0.84 0.25 0.74 0.71 0.93 1.05 0.36
Control Delay 313.0 62.3 49.0 165.5 47.1 16.0 47.3 25.5 77.4 64.1 8.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 313.0 62.3 49.0 165.5 47.1 16.0 47.3 25.5 77.4 64.1 8.2
LOS F E D F D B D C E E A
Approach Delay 98.9 68.6 29.6 60.1
Approach LOS F E C E
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 110 (92%), Referenced to phase 6:NBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 130
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.56
Intersection Signal Delay: 61.9 Intersection LOS: E
Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.5% ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 10: Prospect & College (US 287)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
10: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2017 PM No Action Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 230 685 485 200 660 100 315 1200 155 265 1805 225
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 10 11 12 11 12 11 11 8 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 3303 1491 1770 3421 1551 3319 4697 3319 4775 1470
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2017 PM No Action Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 65 980 65 850 20 60 25 75 170 90
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 2 2
Permitted Phases 4422 22
Detector Phase 4444222222
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 26.5 26.5 26.5 26.5 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Total Split (s) 82.0 82.0 82.0 82.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0
Total Split (%) 68.3% 68.3% 68.3% 68.3% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max None None None None None None
Act Effct Green (s) 93.1 93.1 93.1 93.1 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.18 0.43 0.21 0.37 0.20 0.23 0.11 0.42 0.65 0.32
Control Delay 2.9 2.0 4.1 3.9 46.8 44.6 15.2 43.1 49.6 11.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 2.9 2.4 4.1 3.9 46.8 44.6 15.2 43.1 49.6 11.8
LOS AAAADDBDDB
Approach Delay 2.4 3.9 38.1 37.9
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 113 (94%), Referenced to phase 4:EBWB, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.65
Intersection Signal Delay: 9.2 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.8% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 34: Prospect & Remington
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2017 PM No Action Synchro 7 - Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 65 980 60 65 850 40 20 60 25 75 170 90
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 8 10 10 8 10 11 10 10 11 9
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1649 3270 1651 3277 1637 1801 1442 1632 1801 1387
Flt Permitted 0.29 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.39 1.00 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
1: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2017 AM - Scenario 1 Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 180 795 160 155 525 205 240 1350 90 670 135
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 74138 1652
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
Detector Phase 74138816522
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 10.0 4.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 35.5 11.0 11.0 38.5 38.5 11.0 30.0 11.0 29.0 29.0
Total Split (s) 19.0 35.0 18.0 16.0 32.0 32.0 18.0 46.0 13.0 41.0 41.0
Total Split (%) 17.3% 31.8% 16.4% 14.5% 29.1% 29.1% 16.4% 41.8% 11.8% 37.3% 37.3%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None None Max None C-Max C-Max
Act Effct Green (s) 12.8 29.7 45.2 12.8 29.7 29.7 14.0 41.4 8.6 36.0 36.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.27 0.41 0.12 0.27 0.27 0.13 0.38 0.08 0.33 0.33
v/c Ratio 0.51 0.97 0.26 0.82 0.62 0.42 0.62 0.90 0.38 0.47 0.25
Control Delay 40.5 72.3 12.2 72.2 35.6 11.4 45.0 33.1 38.5 29.3 12.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 40.5 72.3 12.2 72.2 35.6 11.4 45.0 33.1 38.5 29.3 12.9
LOS DEBEDBDCDCB
Approach Delay 58.8 36.4 34.8 27.7
Approach LOS E D C C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 110
Actuated Cycle Length: 110
Offset: 78 (71%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.97
Intersection Signal Delay: 39.6 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.7% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Prospect & College (US 287)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
1: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2017 AM - Scenario 1 Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 180 795 160 155 525 205 240 1350 135 90 670 135
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 10 11 12 11 12 11 11 8 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 3303 1515 1770 3421 1560 3319 4714 3319 4775 1506
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2017 AM - Scenario 1 Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 55 930 45 850 10 75 25 15 40 25
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 2 2
Permitted Phases 4422 22
Detector Phase 4444222222
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Total Split (s) 78.0 78.0 78.0 78.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0
Total Split (%) 70.9% 70.9% 70.9% 70.9% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max None None None None None None
Act Effct Green (s) 89.8 89.8 89.8 89.8 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
v/c Ratio 0.16 0.42 0.16 0.37 0.09 0.44 0.16 0.15 0.23 0.16
Control Delay 1.6 1.4 5.0 4.2 42.9 51.5 16.2 37.2 39.6 14.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 1.6 1.6 5.0 4.2 42.9 51.5 16.2 37.2 39.6 14.1
LOS AAAADDBDDB
Approach Delay 1.6 4.2 42.8 31.3
Approach LOS A A D C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 110
Actuated Cycle Length: 110
Offset: 99 (90%), Referenced to phase 4:EBWB, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.44
Intersection Signal Delay: 6.0 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.5% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 34: Prospect & Remington
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2017 AM - Scenario 1 Synchro 7 - Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 55 930 35 45 850 45 10 75 25 15 40 25
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 8 10 10 8 10 11 10 10 11 9
Total Lost time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1649 3282 1648 3276 1634 1801 1443 1635 1801 1392
Flt Permitted 0.29 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Propsect Rd Intersection Analysis
10: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2017 PM - Scenario 1 Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 230 685 485 200 660 100 315 1200 265 1805 225
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 74138 1652
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
Detector Phase 74138816522
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 10.0 4.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 32.5 11.0 11.0 35.5 35.5 11.0 30.0 11.0 29.0 29.0
Total Split (s) 14.0 35.0 21.0 15.0 36.0 36.0 21.0 55.0 15.0 49.0 49.0
Total Split (%) 11.7% 29.2% 17.5% 12.5% 30.0% 30.0% 17.5% 45.8% 12.5% 40.8% 40.8%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max None Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 11.0 29.0 46.8 12.0 30.0 30.0 16.3 50.5 11.0 45.2 45.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.24 0.39 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.42 0.09 0.38 0.38
v/c Ratio 0.81 0.91 0.87 1.20 0.82 0.25 0.74 0.72 0.93 1.07 0.37
Control Delay 66.4 58.2 47.2 165.5 45.5 15.9 46.6 26.3 77.4 70.2 8.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 66.4 58.2 47.2 165.5 45.8 15.9 46.6 26.3 77.4 70.2 8.4
LOS EEDFDBDCEEA
Approach Delay 55.7 67.7 30.1 65.0
Approach LOS E E C E
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 110 (92%), Referenced to phase 6:NBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 120
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.20
Intersection Signal Delay: 54.1 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.7% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 10: Prospect & College (US 287)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Propsect Rd Intersection Analysis
10: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2017 PM - Scenario 1 Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 230 685 485 200 660 100 315 1200 155 265 1805 225
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 10 11 12 11 12 11 11 8 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 3303 1491 1770 3421 1551 3319 4697 3319 4775 1470
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Propsect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2017 PM - Scenario 1 Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 65 980 65 850 20 60 25 75 170 90
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 2 2
Permitted Phases 4422 22
Detector Phase 4444222222
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 26.5 26.5 26.5 26.5 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Total Split (s) 82.0 82.0 82.0 82.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0
Total Split (%) 68.3% 68.3% 68.3% 68.3% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max None None None None None None
Act Effct Green (s) 93.1 93.1 93.1 93.1 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.18 0.43 0.21 0.37 0.20 0.23 0.11 0.42 0.65 0.32
Control Delay 2.9 2.0 4.1 3.9 46.8 44.6 15.2 43.1 49.6 11.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 2.9 2.3 4.1 3.9 46.8 44.6 15.2 43.1 49.6 11.8
LOS AAAADDBDDB
Approach Delay 2.3 3.9 38.1 38.0
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 113 (94%), Referenced to phase 4:EBWB, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.65
Intersection Signal Delay: 9.2 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.8% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 34: Prospect & Remington
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Propsect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2017 PM - Scenario 1 Synchro 7 - Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 65 980 60 65 850 40 20 60 25 75 170 90
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 8 10 10 8 10 11 10 10 11 9
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1649 3270 1651 3277 1637 1801 1442 1632 1801 1387
Flt Permitted 0.29 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.39 1.00 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
1: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2017 AM Scenario 2 Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 180 795 160 155 525 205 240 1350 90 670 135
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 74138 1652
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
Detector Phase 74138816522
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 10.0 4.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 35.5 11.0 11.0 38.5 38.5 11.0 30.0 11.0 29.0 29.0
Total Split (s) 19.0 35.0 18.0 16.0 32.0 32.0 18.0 46.0 13.0 41.0 41.0
Total Split (%) 17.3% 31.8% 16.4% 14.5% 29.1% 29.1% 16.4% 41.8% 11.8% 37.3% 37.3%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None None Max None C-Max C-Max
Act Effct Green (s) 12.8 29.7 45.2 12.8 29.7 29.7 14.0 41.4 8.6 36.0 36.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.27 0.41 0.12 0.27 0.27 0.13 0.38 0.08 0.33 0.33
v/c Ratio 0.51 0.97 0.26 0.82 0.62 0.42 0.62 0.90 0.38 0.47 0.25
Control Delay 40.5 72.3 12.2 72.4 35.4 11.3 45.0 33.1 38.5 29.3 12.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 40.5 72.3 12.2 72.4 35.4 11.3 45.0 33.1 38.5 29.3 12.9
LOS DEBEDBDCDCB
Approach Delay 58.8 36.3 34.8 27.7
Approach LOS E D C C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 110
Actuated Cycle Length: 110
Offset: 78 (71%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.97
Intersection Signal Delay: 39.6 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.7% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Prospect & College (US 287)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
1: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2017 AM Scenario 2 Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 180 795 160 155 525 205 240 1350 135 90 670 135
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 10 11 12 11 12 11 11 8 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 3303 1515 1770 3421 1560 3319 4714 3319 4775 1506
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2017 AM Scenario 2 Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 1005 45 900 10 75 25 15 40 25
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 2 2
Permitted Phases 4 2 2 2 2
Detector Phase 444222222
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Total Split (s) 78.0 78.0 78.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0
Total Split (%) 70.9% 70.9% 70.9% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode C-Max C-Max C-Max None None None None None None
Act Effct Green (s) 89.8 89.8 89.8 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
v/c Ratio 0.46 0.17 0.39 0.09 0.44 0.16 0.15 0.23 0.16
Control Delay 1.6 5.4 4.3 42.9 51.5 16.2 37.2 39.6 14.1
Queue Delay 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 1.9 5.4 4.3 42.9 51.5 16.2 37.2 39.6 14.1
LOS A A A D D B D D B
Approach Delay 1.9 4.4 42.8 31.3
Approach LOS A A D C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 110
Actuated Cycle Length: 110
Offset: 99 (90%), Referenced to phase 4:EBWB, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.46
Intersection Signal Delay: 6.1 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.1% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 34: Prospect & Remington
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2017 AM Scenario 2 Synchro 7 - Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 0 1005 35 45 900 45 10 75 25 15 40 25
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 8 10 10 8 10 11 10 10 11 9
Total Lost time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3283 1649 3278 1634 1801 1443 1635 1801 1392
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Proposed Rd Intersection Analysis
10: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2017 PM - Scenario 2 Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 230 685 485 200 660 100 315 1200 265 1805 225
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 74138 1652
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
Detector Phase 74138816522
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 10.0 4.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 32.5 11.0 11.0 35.5 35.5 11.0 30.0 11.0 29.0 29.0
Total Split (s) 14.0 35.0 21.0 15.0 36.0 36.0 21.0 55.0 15.0 49.0 49.0
Total Split (%) 11.7% 29.2% 17.5% 12.5% 30.0% 30.0% 17.5% 45.8% 12.5% 40.8% 40.8%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max None Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 11.0 29.0 46.8 12.0 30.0 30.0 16.3 50.5 11.0 45.2 45.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.24 0.39 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.42 0.09 0.38 0.38
v/c Ratio 0.81 0.91 0.87 1.20 0.82 0.25 0.74 0.72 0.93 1.07 0.37
Control Delay 66.4 58.2 47.2 165.5 45.5 15.9 46.6 26.3 77.4 70.2 8.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 66.4 58.2 47.2 165.5 45.8 15.9 46.6 26.3 77.4 70.2 8.4
LOS EEDFDBDCEEA
Approach Delay 55.7 67.7 30.1 65.0
Approach LOS E E C E
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 110 (92%), Referenced to phase 6:NBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 120
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.20
Intersection Signal Delay: 54.1 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.7% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 10: Prospect & College (US 287)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Proposed Rd Intersection Analysis
10: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2017 PM - Scenario 2 Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 230 685 485 200 660 100 315 1200 155 265 1805 225
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 10 11 12 11 12 11 11 8 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 3303 1491 1770 3421 1551 3319 4697 3319 4775 1470
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Proposed Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2017 PM - Scenario 2 Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 1045 65 850 20 60 25 75 170 90
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 2 2
Permitted Phases 4 2 2 2 2
Detector Phase 444222222
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 26.5 26.5 26.5 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Total Split (s) 82.0 82.0 82.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0
Total Split (%) 68.3% 68.3% 68.3% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode C-Max C-Max C-Max None None None None None None
Act Effct Green (s) 93.1 93.1 93.1 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.46 0.23 0.37 0.20 0.23 0.11 0.42 0.65 0.32
Control Delay 2.3 4.7 3.9 46.8 44.6 15.2 43.1 49.6 11.8
Queue Delay 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 2.6 4.7 3.9 46.8 44.6 15.2 43.1 49.6 11.8
LOS A A A D D B D D B
Approach Delay 2.6 4.0 38.1 38.0
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 113 (94%), Referenced to phase 4:EBWB, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.65
Intersection Signal Delay: 9.4 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.6% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 34: Prospect & Remington
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Proposed Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2017 PM - Scenario 2 Synchro 7 - Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 0 1045 60 65 850 40 20 60 25 75 170 90
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 8 10 10 8 10 11 10 10 11 9
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3272 1651 3277 1637 1801 1442 1632 1801 1387
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.39 1.00 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
1: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2017 AM - Scenario 3 Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 180 795 160 155 525 240 1350 90 670 135
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 741381652
Permitted Phases 4 2
Detector Phase 7413816522
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 10.0 4.0 4.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 35.5 11.0 11.0 38.5 11.0 30.0 11.0 29.0 29.0
Total Split (s) 18.0 36.0 18.0 14.0 32.0 18.0 47.0 13.0 42.0 42.0
Total Split (%) 16.4% 32.7% 16.4% 12.7% 29.1% 16.4% 42.7% 11.8% 38.2% 38.2%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None Max None C-Max C-Max
Act Effct Green (s) 12.6 30.5 46.0 10.4 28.4 14.0 43.0 8.6 37.6 37.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.28 0.42 0.09 0.26 0.13 0.39 0.08 0.34 0.34
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.94 0.26 0.52 0.90 0.62 0.87 0.38 0.45 0.24
Control Delay 41.5 66.2 12.6 49.3 48.7 45.0 30.1 38.3 27.9 12.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 41.5 66.2 12.6 49.3 48.7 45.0 30.1 38.3 27.9 12.4
LOS DEBDDDCDCB
Approach Delay 54.7 48.8 32.2 26.6
Approach LOS D D C C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 110
Actuated Cycle Length: 110
Offset: 78 (71%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.94
Intersection Signal Delay: 39.8 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.7% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Prospect & College (US 287)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
1: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2017 AM - Scenario 3 Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 180 795 160 155 525 205 240 1350 135 90 670 135
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 10 11 12 11 12 11 11 8 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 3303 1514 3433 3263 3319 4714 3319 4775 1506
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2017 AM - Scenario 3 Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 55 930 45 850 10 75 25 15 40 25
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 2 2
Permitted Phases 4422 22
Detector Phase 4444222222
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Total Split (s) 78.0 78.0 78.0 78.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0
Total Split (%) 70.9% 70.9% 70.9% 70.9% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max None None None None None None
Act Effct Green (s) 89.8 89.8 89.8 89.8 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
v/c Ratio 0.16 0.42 0.16 0.37 0.09 0.44 0.16 0.15 0.23 0.16
Control Delay 1.7 1.4 5.0 4.2 42.9 51.5 16.2 37.6 39.7 14.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 1.7 1.5 5.0 4.2 42.9 51.5 16.2 37.6 39.7 14.1
LOS AAAADDBDDB
Approach Delay 1.5 4.2 42.8 31.4
Approach LOS A A D C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 110
Actuated Cycle Length: 110
Offset: 99 (90%), Referenced to phase 4:EBWB, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.44
Intersection Signal Delay: 6.0 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.5% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 34: Prospect & Remington
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2017 AM - Scenario 3 Synchro 7 - Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 55 930 35 45 850 45 10 75 25 15 40 25
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 8 10 10 8 10 11 10 10 11 9
Total Lost time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1649 3282 1648 3276 1634 1801 1443 1635 1801 1392
Flt Permitted 0.29 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Ave
10: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2017 PM - Scenario 3 Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 230 685 485 200 660 315 1200 265 1805 225
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 741381652
Permitted Phases 4 2
Detector Phase 7413816522
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 10.0 4.0 4.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 32.5 11.0 11.0 35.5 11.0 30.0 11.0 29.0 29.0
Total Split (s) 14.0 34.0 21.0 15.0 35.0 21.0 56.0 15.0 50.0 50.0
Total Split (%) 11.7% 28.3% 17.5% 12.5% 29.2% 17.5% 46.7% 12.5% 41.7% 41.7%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max None Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 11.0 28.9 46.7 11.6 29.5 16.3 51.0 11.0 45.7 45.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.24 0.39 0.10 0.25 0.14 0.42 0.09 0.38 0.38
v/c Ratio 0.81 0.92 0.88 0.64 0.97 0.74 0.72 0.93 1.06 0.36
Control Delay 66.4 59.1 47.6 42.3 63.4 47.3 25.6 77.4 65.8 8.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 66.4 59.1 47.6 42.3 63.4 47.3 25.6 77.4 65.8 8.2
LOS EEDDEDCEEA
Approach Delay 56.3 59.0 29.7 61.5
Approach LOS E E C E
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 110 (92%), Referenced to phase 6:NBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 110
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.06
Intersection Signal Delay: 51.6 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.9% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 10: Prospect & College (US 287)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Ave
10: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2017 PM - Scenario 3 Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 230 685 485 200 660 100 315 1200 155 265 1805 225
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 10 11 12 11 12 11 11 8 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 3303 1491 3433 3345 3319 4697 3319 4775 1470
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Ave
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2017 PM - Scenario 3 Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 65 980 65 850 20 60 25 75 170 90
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 2 2
Permitted Phases 4422 22
Detector Phase 4444222222
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 26.5 26.5 26.5 26.5 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Total Split (s) 82.0 82.0 82.0 82.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0
Total Split (%) 68.3% 68.3% 68.3% 68.3% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max None None None None None None
Act Effct Green (s) 93.1 93.1 93.1 93.1 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.18 0.43 0.21 0.37 0.20 0.23 0.11 0.42 0.65 0.32
Control Delay 2.9 2.0 4.1 3.9 46.8 44.6 15.2 43.2 49.6 11.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 2.9 2.4 4.1 3.9 46.8 44.6 15.2 43.2 49.6 11.8
LOS AAAADDBDDB
Approach Delay 2.4 3.9 38.1 38.0
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 113 (94%), Referenced to phase 4:EBWB, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.65
Intersection Signal Delay: 9.3 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.8% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 34: Prospect & Remington
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Ave
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2017 PM - Scenario 3 Synchro 7 - Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 65 980 60 65 850 40 20 60 25 75 170 90
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 8 10 10 8 10 11 10 10 11 9
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1649 3270 1651 3277 1637 1801 1442 1632 1801 1387
Flt Permitted 0.29 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.39 1.00 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
1: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2024 AM - Base Geometry Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 180 805 160 160 530 245 1370 95 680 140
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 741381652
Permitted Phases 4 2
Detector Phase 7413816522
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 10.0 4.0 4.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 35.5 11.0 11.0 38.5 11.0 30.0 11.0 29.0 29.0
Total Split (s) 18.0 36.0 18.0 14.0 32.0 18.0 47.0 13.0 42.0 42.0
Total Split (%) 16.4% 32.7% 16.4% 12.7% 29.1% 16.4% 42.7% 11.8% 38.2% 38.2%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None Max None C-Max C-Max
Act Effct Green (s) 12.6 30.6 46.1 10.5 28.6 14.0 42.7 8.6 37.4 37.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.28 0.42 0.10 0.26 0.13 0.39 0.08 0.34 0.34
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.95 0.26 0.53 0.90 0.63 0.89 0.39 0.46 0.25
Control Delay 41.5 67.4 12.7 49.8 48.6 45.3 31.2 38.8 28.2 12.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 41.5 67.4 12.7 49.8 48.6 45.3 31.2 38.8 28.2 12.5
LOS DEBDDDCDCB
Approach Delay 55.7 48.8 33.2 26.9
Approach LOS E D C C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 110
Actuated Cycle Length: 110
Offset: 78 (71%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.95
Intersection Signal Delay: 40.4 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.6% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Prospect & College (US 287)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
1: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2024 AM - Base Geometry Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 180 805 160 160 530 205 245 1370 135 95 680 140
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 10 11 12 11 12 11 11 8 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 3303 1513 3433 3262 3319 4713 3319 4775 1504
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2024 AM - Base Geometry Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 55 945 45 860 10 75 25 15 40 25
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 2 2
Permitted Phases 4422 22
Detector Phase 4444222222
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Total Split (s) 78.0 78.0 78.0 78.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0
Total Split (%) 70.9% 70.9% 70.9% 70.9% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max None None None None None None
Act Effct Green (s) 89.8 89.8 89.8 89.8 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
v/c Ratio 0.16 0.43 0.16 0.37 0.09 0.44 0.16 0.15 0.23 0.16
Control Delay 1.7 1.4 5.1 4.2 42.9 51.5 16.2 37.6 39.7 14.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 1.7 1.5 5.1 4.2 42.9 51.5 16.2 37.6 39.7 14.1
LOS AAAADDBDDB
Approach Delay 1.5 4.2 42.8 31.4
Approach LOS A A D C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 110
Actuated Cycle Length: 110
Offset: 99 (90%), Referenced to phase 4:EBWB, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.44
Intersection Signal Delay: 5.9 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.0% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 34: Prospect & Remington
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2024 AM - Base Geometry Synchro 7 - Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 55 945 35 45 860 45 10 75 25 15 40 25
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 8 10 10 8 10 11 10 10 11 9
Total Lost time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1650 3282 1648 3276 1634 1801 1443 1635 1801 1392
Flt Permitted 0.28 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
10: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2024 PM - Base Geometry Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 235 695 495 205 670 320 1220 270 1830 230
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 741381652
Permitted Phases 4 2
Detector Phase 7413816522
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 10.0 4.0 4.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 32.5 11.0 11.0 35.5 11.0 30.0 11.0 29.0 29.0
Total Split (s) 15.0 34.0 20.0 17.0 36.0 20.0 54.0 15.0 49.0 49.0
Total Split (%) 12.5% 28.3% 16.7% 14.2% 30.0% 16.7% 45.0% 12.5% 40.8% 40.8%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max None Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 11.9 29.5 46.6 12.9 30.5 15.6 49.1 11.0 44.4 44.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.25 0.39 0.11 0.25 0.13 0.41 0.09 0.37 0.37
v/c Ratio 0.76 0.91 0.89 0.59 0.95 0.79 0.76 0.94 1.10 0.38
Control Delay 60.9 57.2 49.9 37.7 59.6 50.2 28.2 80.8 83.3 8.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 60.9 57.2 49.9 37.7 60.1 50.2 28.2 80.8 83.3 8.7
LOS E E D D E D C F F A
Approach Delay 55.3 55.4 32.4 75.6
Approach LOS E E C E
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 110 (92%), Referenced to phase 6:NBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 110
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.10
Intersection Signal Delay: 56.7 Intersection LOS: E
Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.9% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 10: Prospect & College (US 287)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
10: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2024 PM - Base Geometry Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 235 695 495 205 670 100 320 1220 155 270 1830 230
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 10 11 12 11 12 11 11 8 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 3303 1490 3433 3346 3319 4698 3319 4775 1470
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2024 PM - Base Geometry Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 65 995 65 865 20 60 25 70 170 90
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 2 2
Permitted Phases 4422 22
Detector Phase 4444222222
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 26.5 26.5 26.5 26.5 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Total Split (s) 82.0 82.0 82.0 82.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0
Total Split (%) 68.3% 68.3% 68.3% 68.3% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max None None None None None None
Act Effct Green (s) 93.1 93.1 93.1 93.1 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.18 0.44 0.22 0.37 0.20 0.23 0.11 0.39 0.65 0.32
Control Delay 2.7 2.0 4.3 4.0 46.8 44.6 15.2 42.2 49.3 11.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 2.7 2.4 4.3 4.1 46.8 44.6 15.2 42.2 49.3 11.9
LOS AAAADDBDDB
Approach Delay 2.4 4.1 38.1 37.6
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 113 (94%), Referenced to phase 4:EBWB, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.65
Intersection Signal Delay: 9.1 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.2% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 34: Prospect & Remington
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2024 PM - Base Geometry Synchro 7 - Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 65 995 60 65 865 40 20 60 25 70 170 90
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 8 10 10 8 10 11 10 10 11 9
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1649 3271 1651 3278 1637 1801 1442 1632 1801 1387
Flt Permitted 0.28 1.00 0.23 1.00 0.39 1.00 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
1: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2024 AM - NB Right Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 180 805 160 160 530 245 1370 135 90 680 140
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm
Protected Phases 7413816 52
Permitted Phases 4 6 2
Detector Phase 74138166522
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 10.0 4.0 4.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 35.5 11.0 11.0 38.5 11.0 30.0 30.0 11.0 29.0 29.0
Total Split (s) 18.0 36.0 18.0 14.0 32.0 18.0 47.0 47.0 13.0 42.0 42.0
Total Split (%) 16.4% 32.7% 16.4% 12.7% 29.1% 16.4% 42.7% 42.7% 11.8% 38.2% 38.2%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None Max Max None C-Max C-Max
Act Effct Green (s) 12.6 30.6 46.1 10.5 28.6 14.0 42.8 42.8 8.6 37.4 37.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.28 0.42 0.10 0.26 0.13 0.39 0.39 0.08 0.34 0.34
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.95 0.26 0.53 0.90 0.63 0.80 0.24 0.38 0.46 0.25
Control Delay 41.5 67.4 12.7 49.8 48.6 45.3 27.7 7.9 38.3 28.2 12.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 41.5 67.4 12.7 49.8 48.6 45.3 27.7 7.9 38.3 28.2 12.5
LOS DEBDDDCADCB
Approach Delay 55.7 48.8 28.6 26.8
Approach LOS E D C C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 110
Actuated Cycle Length: 110
Offset: 78 (71%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.95
Intersection Signal Delay: 38.7 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.5% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Prospect & College (US 287)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
1: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2024 AM - NB Right Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 180 805 160 160 530 205 245 1370 135 90 680 140
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 10 11 12 11 12 11 11 8 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 3303 1513 3433 3262 3319 4775 1341 3319 4775 1504
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2024 AM - NB Right Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 55 940 45 860 10 75 25 15 40 25
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 2 2
Permitted Phases 4422 22
Detector Phase 4444222222
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Total Split (s) 78.0 78.0 78.0 78.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0
Total Split (%) 70.9% 70.9% 70.9% 70.9% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max None None None None None None
Act Effct Green (s) 89.8 89.8 89.8 89.8 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
v/c Ratio 0.16 0.43 0.16 0.37 0.09 0.44 0.16 0.15 0.23 0.16
Control Delay 1.4 1.1 5.1 4.2 42.9 51.5 16.2 37.5 39.7 14.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 1.4 1.3 5.1 4.2 42.9 51.5 16.2 37.5 39.7 14.1
LOS AAAADDBDDB
Approach Delay 1.3 4.2 42.8 31.4
Approach LOS A A D C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 110
Actuated Cycle Length: 110
Offset: 99 (90%), Referenced to phase 4:EBWB, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.44
Intersection Signal Delay: 5.8 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.8% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 34: Prospect & Remington
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2024 AM - NB Right Synchro 7 - Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 55 940 35 45 860 45 10 75 25 15 40 25
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 8 10 10 8 10 11 10 10 11 9
Total Lost time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1650 3282 1648 3276 1634 1801 1443 1635 1801 1392
Flt Permitted 0.28 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
10: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2024 PM - NB Right Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 235 695 495 205 670 320 1220 155 270 1830 230
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm
Protected Phases 7413816 52
Permitted Phases 4 6 2
Detector Phase 74138166522
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 10.0 4.0 4.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 32.5 11.0 11.0 35.5 11.0 30.0 30.0 11.0 29.0 29.0
Total Split (s) 15.0 34.0 20.0 17.0 36.0 20.0 54.0 54.0 15.0 49.0 49.0
Total Split (%) 12.5% 28.3% 16.7% 14.2% 30.0% 16.7% 45.0% 45.0% 12.5% 40.8% 40.8%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 11.9 29.5 46.6 12.9 30.5 15.6 49.1 49.1 11.0 44.4 44.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.25 0.39 0.11 0.25 0.13 0.41 0.41 0.09 0.37 0.37
v/c Ratio 0.76 0.91 0.89 0.59 0.95 0.79 0.66 0.26 0.94 1.10 0.38
Control Delay 60.9 57.2 49.9 37.7 59.6 50.2 25.9 7.5 80.8 83.3 8.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 60.9 57.2 49.9 37.7 60.1 50.2 25.9 7.5 80.8 83.3 8.7
LOS E E D D E D C A F F A
Approach Delay 55.3 55.4 28.8 75.6
Approach LOS E E C E
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 110 (92%), Referenced to phase 6:NBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 110
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.10
Intersection Signal Delay: 55.7 Intersection LOS: E
Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.9% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 10: Prospect & College (US 287)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
10: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2024 PM - NB Right Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 235 695 495 205 670 100 320 1220 155 270 1830 230
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 10 11 12 11 12 11 11 8 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.96
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 3303 1490 3433 3346 3319 4775 1342 3319 4775 1470
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2024 PM - NB Right Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 65 995 65 865 20 60 25 70 170 90
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 2 2
Permitted Phases 4422 22
Detector Phase 4444222222
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 26.5 26.5 26.5 26.5 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Total Split (s) 82.0 82.0 82.0 82.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0
Total Split (%) 68.3% 68.3% 68.3% 68.3% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max None None None None None None
Act Effct Green (s) 93.1 93.1 93.1 93.1 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.18 0.44 0.22 0.37 0.20 0.23 0.11 0.39 0.65 0.32
Control Delay 3.2 2.2 4.3 4.0 46.8 44.6 15.2 42.1 49.3 11.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 3.2 2.6 4.3 4.1 46.8 44.6 15.2 42.1 49.3 11.9
LOS AAAADDBDDB
Approach Delay 2.6 4.1 38.1 37.6
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 113 (94%), Referenced to phase 4:EBWB, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.65
Intersection Signal Delay: 9.2 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.2% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 34: Prospect & Remington
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2024 PM - NB Right Synchro 7 - Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 65 995 60 65 865 40 20 60 25 70 170 90
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 8 10 10 8 10 11 10 10 11 9
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1649 3271 1651 3278 1637 1801 1442 1632 1801 1387
Flt Permitted 0.28 1.00 0.23 1.00 0.39 1.00 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Propsect Rd Intersection Analysis
1: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2024 AM - WB Right Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 180 805 160 160 530 245 1370 90 680 140
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 741381652
Permitted Phases 4 2
Detector Phase 7413816522
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 10.0 4.0 4.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 35.5 11.0 11.0 38.5 11.0 30.0 11.0 29.0 29.0
Total Split (s) 18.0 36.0 18.0 14.0 32.0 18.0 47.0 13.0 42.0 42.0
Total Split (%) 16.4% 32.7% 16.4% 12.7% 29.1% 16.4% 42.7% 11.8% 38.2% 38.2%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None Max None C-Max C-Max
Act Effct Green (s) 12.6 30.6 46.1 10.5 28.6 14.0 42.8 8.6 37.4 37.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.28 0.42 0.10 0.26 0.13 0.39 0.08 0.34 0.34
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.95 0.26 0.53 0.90 0.63 0.89 0.38 0.46 0.25
Control Delay 41.5 67.4 12.7 49.8 48.6 45.3 31.1 38.3 28.2 12.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 41.5 67.4 12.7 49.8 48.6 45.3 31.1 38.3 28.2 12.5
LOS DEBDDDCDCB
Approach Delay 55.7 48.8 33.1 26.8
Approach LOS E D C C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 110
Actuated Cycle Length: 110
Offset: 78 (71%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.95
Intersection Signal Delay: 40.4 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.6% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Prospect & College (US 287)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Propsect Rd Intersection Analysis
1: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2024 AM - WB Right Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 180 805 160 160 530 205 245 1370 135 90 680 140
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 10 11 12 11 12 11 11 8 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 3303 1513 3433 3262 3319 4713 3319 4775 1504
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Propsect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2024 AM - WB Right Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 55 940 45 860 10 75 25 15 40 25
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 2 2
Permitted Phases 4422 22
Detector Phase 4444222222
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Total Split (s) 78.0 78.0 78.0 78.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0
Total Split (%) 70.9% 70.9% 70.9% 70.9% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max None None None None None None
Act Effct Green (s) 89.8 89.8 89.8 89.8 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
v/c Ratio 0.16 0.43 0.16 0.37 0.09 0.44 0.16 0.15 0.23 0.16
Control Delay 1.7 1.4 5.1 4.2 42.9 51.5 16.2 37.6 39.7 14.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 1.7 1.5 5.1 4.2 42.9 51.5 16.2 37.6 39.7 14.1
LOS AAAADDBDDB
Approach Delay 1.6 4.2 42.8 31.4
Approach LOS A A D C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 110
Actuated Cycle Length: 110
Offset: 99 (90%), Referenced to phase 4:EBWB, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.44
Intersection Signal Delay: 6.0 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.8% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 34: Prospect & Remington
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Propsect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2024 AM - WB Right Synchro 7 - Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 55 940 35 45 860 45 10 75 25 15 40 25
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 8 10 10 8 10 11 10 10 11 9
Total Lost time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1650 3282 1648 3276 1634 1801 1443 1635 1801 1392
Flt Permitted 0.28 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
10: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2024 PM - WB Right Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 235 695 495 205 670 100 320 1220 270 1830 230
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 74138 1652
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
Detector Phase 74138816522
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 10.0 4.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 32.5 11.0 11.0 35.5 35.5 11.0 30.0 11.0 29.0 29.0
Total Split (s) 15.0 34.0 20.0 17.0 36.0 36.0 20.0 54.0 15.0 49.0 49.0
Total Split (%) 12.5% 28.3% 16.7% 14.2% 30.0% 30.0% 16.7% 45.0% 12.5% 40.8% 40.8%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max None Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 11.9 28.8 45.9 12.9 29.8 29.8 15.6 49.8 11.0 45.2 45.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.24 0.38 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.13 0.42 0.09 0.38 0.38
v/c Ratio 0.76 0.93 0.90 0.59 0.84 0.24 0.79 0.75 0.94 1.08 0.38
Control Delay 60.9 61.2 51.8 37.7 47.3 14.1 50.2 27.6 80.8 76.2 8.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 60.9 61.2 51.8 37.7 47.6 14.1 50.2 27.6 80.8 76.2 8.6
LOS EEDDDBDCFEA
Approach Delay 57.9 42.1 31.8 70.1
Approach LOS E D C E
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 110 (92%), Referenced to phase 6:NBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 110
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.08
Intersection Signal Delay: 53.0 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.3% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 10: Prospect & College (US 287)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
10: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2024 PM - WB Right Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 235 695 495 205 670 100 320 1220 155 270 1830 230
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 10 11 12 11 12 11 11 8 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 3303 1490 3433 3421 1551 3319 4698 3319 4775 1470
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2024 PM - WB Right Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 65 995 65 865 20 60 25 70 170 90
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 2 2
Permitted Phases 4422 22
Detector Phase 4444222222
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 26.5 26.5 26.5 26.5 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Total Split (s) 82.0 82.0 82.0 82.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0
Total Split (%) 68.3% 68.3% 68.3% 68.3% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max None None None None None None
Act Effct Green (s) 93.1 93.1 93.1 93.1 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.18 0.44 0.22 0.37 0.20 0.23 0.11 0.39 0.65 0.32
Control Delay 2.6 2.0 4.3 4.0 46.8 44.6 15.2 42.2 49.4 11.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 2.6 2.4 4.3 4.0 46.8 44.6 15.2 42.2 49.4 11.9
LOS AAAADDBDDB
Approach Delay 2.4 4.1 38.1 37.6
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 113 (94%), Referenced to phase 4:EBWB, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.65
Intersection Signal Delay: 9.1 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.2% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 34: Prospect & Remington
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2024 PM - WB Right Synchro 7 - Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 65 995 60 65 865 40 20 60 25 70 170 90
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 8 10 10 8 10 11 10 10 11 9
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1649 3271 1651 3278 1637 1801 1442 1632 1801 1387
Flt Permitted 0.28 1.00 0.23 1.00 0.39 1.00 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
1: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2024 AM - All Right Turns Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 180 805 160 160 530 205 245 1370 135 90 680 140
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm
Protected Phases 74138 16 52
Permitted Phases 4862
Detector Phase 741388166522
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 10.0 4.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 35.5 11.0 11.0 38.5 38.5 11.0 30.0 30.0 11.0 29.0 29.0
Total Split (s) 18.0 36.0 18.0 14.0 32.0 32.0 18.0 47.0 47.0 13.0 42.0 42.0
Total Split (%) 16.4% 32.7% 16.4% 12.7% 29.1% 29.1% 16.4% 42.7% 42.7% 11.8% 38.2% 38.2%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None None Max Max None C-Max C-Max
Act Effct Green (s) 12.6 30.6 46.1 10.5 28.6 28.6 14.0 42.8 42.8 8.6 37.4 37.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.28 0.42 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.13 0.39 0.39 0.08 0.34 0.34
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.95 0.26 0.53 0.65 0.40 0.63 0.80 0.24 0.38 0.46 0.25
Control Delay 41.5 67.4 12.7 49.8 37.0 8.3 45.3 27.7 7.9 38.3 28.2 12.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 41.5 67.4 12.7 49.8 37.0 8.3 45.3 27.7 7.9 38.3 28.2 12.5
LOS DEBDDADCADCB
Approach Delay 55.7 32.7 28.6 26.8
Approach LOS E C C C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 110
Actuated Cycle Length: 110
Offset: 78 (71%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 95
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.95
Intersection Signal Delay: 35.6 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.3% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 1: Prospect & College (US 287)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
1: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2024 AM - All Right Turns Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 180 805 160 160 530 205 245 1370 135 90 680 140
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 10 11 12 11 12 11 11 8 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 3303 1513 3433 3421 1556 3319 4775 1341 3319 4775 1504
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2024 AM - All Right Turns Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 55 940 45 860 10 75 25 15 40 25
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 2 2
Permitted Phases 4422 22
Detector Phase 4444222222
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Total Split (s) 78.0 78.0 78.0 78.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0
Total Split (%) 70.9% 70.9% 70.9% 70.9% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1% 29.1%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max None None None None None None
Act Effct Green (s) 89.8 89.8 89.8 89.8 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
v/c Ratio 0.16 0.43 0.16 0.37 0.09 0.44 0.16 0.15 0.23 0.16
Control Delay 1.4 1.1 5.1 4.2 42.9 51.5 16.2 37.6 39.7 14.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 1.4 1.3 5.1 4.2 42.9 51.5 16.2 37.6 39.7 14.1
LOS AAAADDBDDB
Approach Delay 1.3 4.2 42.8 31.4
Approach LOS A A D C
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 110
Actuated Cycle Length: 110
Offset: 99 (90%), Referenced to phase 4:EBWB, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 55
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.44
Intersection Signal Delay: 5.8 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.8% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 34: Prospect & Remington
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2024 AM - All Right Turns Synchro 7 - Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 55 940 35 45 860 45 10 75 25 15 40 25
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 8 10 10 8 10 11 10 10 11 9
Total Lost time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1650 3282 1648 3276 1634 1801 1443 1635 1801 1392
Flt Permitted 0.28 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
10: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2024 PM - All Right Turns Synchro 7 - Report
Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 235 695 495 205 670 100 320 1220 155 270 1830 230
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm
Protected Phases 74138 16 52
Permitted Phases 4862
Detector Phase 741388166522
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 10.0 4.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 11.0 32.5 11.0 11.0 35.5 35.5 11.0 30.0 30.0 11.0 29.0 29.0
Total Split (s) 15.0 34.0 20.0 17.0 36.0 36.0 20.0 54.0 54.0 15.0 49.0 49.0
Total Split (%) 12.5% 28.3% 16.7% 14.2% 30.0% 30.0% 16.7% 45.0% 45.0% 12.5% 40.8% 40.8%
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead Lag Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None None None None None None C-Max C-Max None Max Max
Act Effct Green (s) 11.9 28.8 45.9 12.9 29.8 29.8 15.6 49.8 49.8 11.0 45.2 45.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.24 0.38 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.13 0.42 0.42 0.09 0.38 0.38
v/c Ratio 0.76 0.93 0.90 0.59 0.84 0.24 0.79 0.66 0.25 0.94 1.08 0.38
Control Delay 60.9 61.2 51.8 38.6 46.8 13.7 50.2 25.3 7.5 80.8 76.2 8.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 60.9 61.2 51.8 38.6 47.1 13.7 50.2 25.3 7.5 80.8 76.2 8.6
LOS E E D D D B D C A F E A
Approach Delay 57.9 41.9 28.3 70.1
Approach LOS E D C E
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 110 (92%), Referenced to phase 6:NBT, Start of Yellow
Natural Cycle: 110
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.08
Intersection Signal Delay: 52.1 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.3% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 10: Prospect & College (US 287)
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
10: Prospect & College (US 287) 6/30/2015
2024 PM - All Right Turns Synchro 7 - Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 235 695 495 205 670 100 320 1220 155 270 1830 230
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 11 10 11 12 11 12 11 11 8 11 11 11
Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.5 4.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.96
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 3303 1490 3433 3421 1551 3319 4775 1342 3319 4775 1470
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Timings College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2024 PM - All Right Turns Synchro 7 - Report
Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 65 1065 65 915 20 60 25 70 170 90
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 4 2 2
Permitted Phases 4422 22
Detector Phase 4444222222
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Minimum Split (s) 26.5 26.5 26.5 26.5 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0
Total Split (s) 82.0 82.0 82.0 82.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.0
Total Split (%) 68.3% 68.3% 68.3% 68.3% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7% 31.7%
Yellow Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
All-Red Time (s) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lead/Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize?
Recall Mode C-Max C-Max C-Max C-Max None None None None None None
Act Effct Green (s) 93.1 93.1 93.1 93.1 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.19 0.47 0.24 0.39 0.20 0.23 0.11 0.39 0.65 0.32
Control Delay 3.7 2.4 5.1 4.5 46.8 44.6 15.2 42.1 49.3 11.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 3.7 2.8 5.1 4.5 46.8 44.6 15.2 42.1 49.3 11.9
LOS AAAADDBDDB
Approach Delay 2.8 4.6 38.1 37.6
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 120
Actuated Cycle Length: 120
Offset: 113 (94%), Referenced to phase 4:EBWB, Start of Green
Natural Cycle: 60
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.65
Intersection Signal Delay: 9.2 Intersection LOS: A
Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.1% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 34: Prospect & Remington
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis College Ave/Prospect Rd Intersection Analysis
34: Prospect & Remington 6/30/2015
2024 PM - All Right Turns Synchro 7 - Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 65 1065 60 65 915 40 20 60 25 70 170 90
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Lane Width 10 10 8 10 10 8 10 11 10 10 11 9
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1650 3273 1651 3279 1637 1801 1442 1632 1801 1387
Flt Permitted 0.26 1.00 0.21 1.00 0.39 1.00 1.00 0.72 1.00 1.00
College Avenue/Prospect Road Intersection Analysis
July 6, 2015
Muller Engineering Company
Appendix C: Traffic Forecast Assumptions
College Avenue/Prospect Road
Traffic Source EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR TOTAL
October 2014 Count 177 789 157 156 519 174 237 1293 134 75 639 135 4485
Football Stadium (2017)
1,2
0
Medical Center (2017) 14 27 8 16 65
University Square Parking Garage (2017)
3
14 23 7 11 55
Other Campus Growth (2015‐2017)
6
0
City of FOCO Growth (2015‐2017)
4
15113118104127
Other Campus Growth (2015‐2024)
6
0
City of FOCO Growth (2017‐2024)
4
417331145273214396
2017 Total Traffic Volumes 178 794 158 157 522 203 238 1351 135 90 670 136 4632
2024 Total Traffic Volumes 181 806 160 159 530 206 242 1370 137 92 680 138 4701
Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes
Traffic Source Ped Bike Ped Bike Ped Bike Ped Bike TOTAL
October 2014 Count 1241302114
Football Stadium (2017)
1,2
0
Medical Center (2017)
7
000000000
University Square Parking Garage (2017)
3
0
Other Campus Growth (2015‐2017)
5
001000001
City of FOCO Growth (2015‐2017)
4
000000000
Other Campus Growth (2015‐2024)
5
012110117
City of FOCO Growth (2017‐2024)
4
000000000
2017 Total Ped/Bike Volumes 1251302115
2024 Total Ped/Bike Volumes 1362403221
Notes:
1. The football stadium was assumed to not add weekday peak hour traffic to the network. However, the proposed stadium will remove 675 on‐campus parking spaces which will likely displace
existing vehicle trips using the College/Prospect intersection. No volume reductions were implemented to provide a conservative traffic forecast.
2. Stadium game day traffic is forecast to approach from the east and south at the study intersection.
3. The Parking Garage is not forecast to increase pedestrian and bicycle trips through the intersection.
4. City of Fort Collins background growth was assumed to be 0.3 percent annual growth of the existing volumes, not including additional CSU growth. The 0.3 percent annual growth (provided
by City
staff) was assumed from 2015 through 2024.
5. Changes in parking supply location and quantity presented in the CSU Campus Master Plan were not accounted for in these forecasts. Campus Master Plan forecasts for pedestrian and
bicycles
College Avenue/Prospect Road
Traffic Source EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR TOTAL
October 2014 Count 227 681 483 198 657 75 312 1154 153 232 1734 226 6132
Football Stadium (2017)
1,2
0
Medical Center (2017) 81613 2663
University Square Parking Garage (2017)
3
14 24 18 32 88
Other Campus Growth (2015‐2017)
6
0
City of FOCO Growth (2015‐2017)
4
143140271110135
Other Campus Growth (2015‐2024)
6
0
City of FOCO Growth (2017‐2024)
4
5 14 10 4 14 2 7 24 3 5 37 5 130
2017 Total Traffic Volumes 228 685 486 199 661 97 314 1201 154 264 1802 227 6318
2024 Total Traffic Volumes 232 695 493 202 671 99 319 1218 156 268 1829 231 6413
Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes
Traffic Source Ped Bike Ped Bike Ped Bike Ped Bike TOTAL
October 2014 Count 69511354245
Football Stadium (2017)
1,2
0
Medical Center (2017)
7
000000000
University Square Parking Garage (2017)
3
0
Other Campus Growth (2015‐2017)
5
121021108
City of FOCO Growth (2015‐2017)
4
000000000
Other Campus Growth (2015‐2024)
5
3621632124
City of FOCO Growth (2017‐2024)
4
000000000
2017 Total Ped/Bike Volumes 7 11 6 1 15 6 5 2 53
2024 Total Ped/Bike Volumes 9 15 7 2 19 8 6 3 69
Notes:
1. The football stadium was assumed to not add weekday peak hour traffic to the network. However, the proposed stadium will remove 675 on‐campus parking spaces which will likely displace
existing vehicle trips using the College/Prospect intersection. No volume reductions were implemented to provide a conservative traffic forecast.
2. Stadium game day traffic is forecast to approach from the east and south at the study intersection.
3. The Parking Garage is not forecast to increase pedestrian and bicycle trips through the intersection.
4. City of Fort Collins background growth was assumed to be 0.3 percent annual growth of the existing volumes, not including additional CSU growth. The 0.3 percent annual growth (provided
by
City staff) was assumed from 2015 through 2024.
5. Changes in parking supply location and quantity presented in the CSU Campus Master Plan were not accounted for in these forecasts. Campus Master Plan forecasts for pedestrian and
bicycles
College and Prospect 2017
2017 2017
PM peak hour ‐ weekday change in Scenario 1 Scenario 3
volume delay queue Add Eastbound left Add East/West left
2014 2017 Shared WB thru/right
Volumes LOS Delay 95% Q Volumes LOS Delay 95% Q LOS Delay LOS Delay
Eastbound Left 227 F 82 290 230 F 327 430 1% 299% 48% E60E60
Through 681 E 65 425 685 E 60 415 1% ‐8% ‐2% E56E56
Right 483 E 65 435 485 E 55 570 0% ‐15% 31% D 53 D 53
Approach 1,391 E 68 1,400 F 102 1% 50% E55E56
Westbound Left 198 E 58 245 200 F 167 345 1% 188% 41% F 167 D 38
Through 657 E 59 395 660 D 44 365 0% ‐25% ‐8% D43 E62
Right 75 C 33 70 100 C 28 100 33% ‐15% 43% C28
Approach 930 E 57 960 E 68 3% 19% E67E67
Northbound Left 312 D 47 170 315 D 44 165 1% ‐6% ‐3% D43D43
Through 1,154 C 23 410 1,200 C 26 445 4% 13% 9% C 26 C 26
Right 153 155 1%
Approach 1,619 C 28 1,670 C 29 3% 4% C29C29
Southbound Left 232 E 57 160 265 E 74 195 14% 30% 22% E 74 E 74
Through 1,734 D 37 605 1,805 E 63 690 4% 70% 14% E 69 E 65
Right 226 B 20 65 225 B 20 65 0% 0% 0% B 20 B 20
Approach 2,192 D 37 2,295 E 60 5% 62% E65E62
Overall Intersection 6,132 D 45 6,325 E 63 3% 40% D54D51
v/c: 0.92 v/c: 1.04 v/c: 1.01 v/c: 0.93
were included for the intersection.
6. No new pedestrian and bicycle trips were assumed in the CSU University Medical Center TIS.
PM PEAK HOUR
West Crossing East Crossing South Crossing North Crossing
Muller Engineering Company July 6, 2015
were included for the intersection.
6. No new pedestrian and bicycle trips were assumed in the CSU University Medical Center TIS.
AM PEAK HOUR
West Crossing East Crossing South Crossing North Crossing
Muller Engineering Company July 6, 2015
Satd. Flow (perm) 460 3273 371 3279 675 1801 1442 1230 1801 1387
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 68 1121 63 68 963 42 21 63 26 74 179 95
RTOR Reduction (vph) 02002000220080
Lane Group Flow (vph) 68 1182 0 68 1003 0 21 63 4 74 179 15
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 1 1 2 7 6 6 7
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4422
Permitted Phases 4 4 2 2 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 92.1 92.1 92.1 92.1 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4
Effective Green, g (s) 93.1 93.1 93.1 93.1 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 357 2539 288 2544 104 276 221 189 276 213
v/s Ratio Prot c0.36 0.31 0.03 c0.10
v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.18 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.19 0.47 0.24 0.39 0.20 0.23 0.02 0.39 0.65 0.07
Uniform Delay, d1 3.5 4.7 3.7 4.3 44.4 44.6 43.1 45.8 47.8 43.5
Progression Factor 0.60 0.38 0.73 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 1.11
Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.4 1.4 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.0 1.3 5.1 0.1
Delay (s) 3.0 2.2 4.1 4.1 45.3 45.0 43.2 38.7 44.2 48.6
Level of Service A A A A DDDDDD
Approach Delay (s) 2.2 4.1 44.6 44.2
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 9.9 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.1% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 3303 1490 3433 3421 1551 3319 4775 1342 3319 4775 1470
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 250 739 527 218 713 106 340 1298 165 287 1947 245
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 13 0 0 60 0 0 93 0 0 100
Lane Group Flow (vph) 250 739 514 218 713 46 340 1298 72 287 1947 145
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 21 7 7 18
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% 2% 5% 2%
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm
Protected Phases 74138 16 52
Permitted Phases 4862
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.9 27.8 42.4 11.9 28.8 28.8 14.6 48.8 48.8 10.0 44.2 44.2
Effective Green, g (s) 11.9 28.8 44.4 12.9 29.8 29.8 15.6 49.8 49.8 11.0 45.2 45.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.24 0.37 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.13 0.41 0.41 0.09 0.38 0.38
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.5 5.0 4.0 6.5 6.5 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 329 793 551 369 850 385 431 1982 557 304 1799 554
v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.22 c0.12 0.06 0.21 0.10 0.27 0.09 c0.41
v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 0.03 0.05 0.10
v/c Ratio 0.76 0.93 0.93 0.59 0.84 0.12 0.79 0.65 0.13 0.94 1.08 0.26
Uniform Delay, d1 52.7 44.6 36.4 51.0 42.8 34.9 50.6 28.2 21.7 54.2 37.4 25.9
Progression Factor 0.88 0.94 1.02 0.63 0.87 1.04 0.76 0.83 1.70 0.85 0.80 0.73
Incremental Delay, d2 9.2 16.8 22.0 2.4 6.9 0.1 7.9 1.4 0.4 31.5 45.4 0.9
Delay (s) 55.4 59.0 59.2 34.7 44.2 36.6 46.2 24.9 37.4 77.7 75.4 19.9
Level of Service E E E CDDDCDEEB
Approach Delay (s) 58.5 41.4 30.1 70.2
Approach LOS E D C E
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 52.6 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.97
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.3% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 495 3282 412 3276 1249 1801 1443 1082 1801 1392
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.91 0.98 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Adj. Flow (vph) 65 1106 41 53 945 46 12 88 29 18 47 29
RTOR Reduction (vph) 01002000260026
Lane Group Flow (vph) 65 1146 0 53 989 0 12 88 3 18 47 3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 4 4 2 6 6 6 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4422
Permitted Phases 4 4 2 2 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 86.2 86.2 86.2 86.2 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8
Effective Green, g (s) 87.2 87.2 87.2 87.2 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Clearance Time (s) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 392 2602 327 2597 123 177 142 106 177 137
v/s Ratio Prot c0.35 0.30 c0.05 0.03
v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.17 0.44 0.16 0.38 0.10 0.50 0.02 0.17 0.27 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 2.7 3.6 2.7 3.4 45.2 47.0 44.8 45.5 45.9 44.8
Progression Factor 0.20 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.86 0.85
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.4 1.1 0.4 0.3 2.2 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.1
Delay (s) 1.2 1.1 3.8 3.8 45.5 49.2 44.9 38.4 40.2 38.0
Level of Service A A A A DDDDDD
Approach Delay (s) 1.1 3.8 47.9 39.2
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 6.1 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.8% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 3303 1513 3433 3421 1556 3319 4775 1341 3319 4775 1504
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 196 875 174 174 576 223 266 1489 147 98 739 152
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 41 0 0 147 0 0 79 0 0 100
Lane Group Flow (vph) 196 875 133 174 576 76 266 1489 68 98 739 52
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4584
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% 2% 5% 2%
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm
Protected Phases 74138 16 52
Permitted Phases 4862
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.6 29.7 42.7 9.5 27.6 27.6 13.0 41.7 41.7 7.6 36.3 36.3
Effective Green, g (s) 12.6 30.7 44.7 10.5 28.6 28.6 14.0 42.7 42.7 8.6 37.3 37.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.28 0.41 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.13 0.39 0.39 0.08 0.34 0.34
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.5 5.0 4.0 6.5 6.5 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 380 922 615 328 889 405 422 1854 521 259 1619 510
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.26 0.03 0.05 0.17 0.08 c0.31 0.03 c0.15
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.95 0.22 0.53 0.65 0.19 0.63 0.80 0.13 0.38 0.46 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 45.8 38.9 21.3 47.4 36.2 31.7 45.5 29.9 21.7 48.2 28.4 24.9
Progression Factor 0.81 1.23 1.59 0.93 0.91 0.90 0.87 0.81 1.29 0.71 0.95 2.70
Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 17.7 0.2 1.6 1.6 0.2 2.4 3.0 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.4
Delay (s) 38.1 65.6 34.0 45.5 34.4 28.7 41.8 27.4 28.4 35.2 28.0 67.5
Level of Service D E CDCCDCCDCE
Approach Delay (s) 56.9 35.1 29.5 34.8
Approach LOS E D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 38.2 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.3% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 488 3271 406 3278 675 1801 1442 1230 1801 1387
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 68 1047 63 68 911 42 21 63 26 74 179 95
RTOR Reduction (vph) 02002000220080
Lane Group Flow (vph) 68 1108 0 68 951 0 21 63 4 74 179 15
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 1 1 2 7 6 6 7
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4422
Permitted Phases 4 4 2 2 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 92.1 92.1 92.1 92.1 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4
Effective Green, g (s) 93.1 93.1 93.1 93.1 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 379 2538 315 2543 104 276 221 189 276 213
v/s Ratio Prot c0.34 0.29 0.03 c0.10
v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.17 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.18 0.44 0.22 0.37 0.20 0.23 0.02 0.39 0.65 0.07
Uniform Delay, d1 3.5 4.6 3.6 4.2 44.4 44.6 43.1 45.8 47.8 43.5
Progression Factor 0.47 0.36 0.66 0.79 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 1.11
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.2 1.1 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.0 1.3 5.1 0.1
Delay (s) 2.1 1.8 3.5 3.7 45.3 45.0 43.2 38.7 44.3 48.4
Level of Service A A A A DDDDDD
Approach Delay (s) 1.9 3.6 44.6 44.2
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 9.9 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.2% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 3303 1490 3433 3421 1551 3319 4698 3319 4775 1470
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 250 739 527 218 713 106 340 1298 165 287 1947 245
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 13 0 0 60 0 13 0 0 0 100
Lane Group Flow (vph) 250 739 514 218 713 46 340 1450 0 287 1947 145
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 21 7 7 18
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% 2% 5% 2%
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 74138 16 52
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.9 27.8 42.4 11.9 28.8 28.8 14.6 48.8 10.0 44.2 44.2
Effective Green, g (s) 11.9 28.8 44.4 12.9 29.8 29.8 15.6 49.8 11.0 45.2 45.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.24 0.37 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.13 0.41 0.09 0.38 0.38
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.5 5.0 4.0 6.5 6.5 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 329 793 551 369 850 385 431 1950 304 1799 554
v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.22 c0.12 0.06 0.21 0.10 0.31 0.09 c0.41
v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 0.03 0.10
v/c Ratio 0.76 0.93 0.93 0.59 0.84 0.12 0.79 0.74 0.94 1.08 0.26
Uniform Delay, d1 52.7 44.6 36.4 51.0 42.8 34.9 50.6 29.7 54.2 37.4 25.9
Progression Factor 0.88 0.94 1.02 0.61 0.88 1.08 0.76 0.85 0.85 0.80 0.73
Incremental Delay, d2 9.2 16.8 22.0 2.4 7.0 0.1 7.9 2.2 31.5 45.4 0.9
Delay (s) 55.4 59.0 59.2 33.8 44.7 37.8 46.2 27.5 77.7 75.4 19.9
Level of Service E E E CDDDC EEB
Approach Delay (s) 58.5 41.7 31.0 70.2
Approach LOS E D C E
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 52.9 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.97
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.3% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 495 3282 412 3276 1249 1801 1443 1082 1801 1392
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.91 0.98 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Adj. Flow (vph) 65 1106 41 53 945 46 12 88 29 18 47 29
RTOR Reduction (vph) 01002000260026
Lane Group Flow (vph) 65 1146 0 53 989 0 12 88 3 18 47 3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 4 4 2 6 6 6 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4422
Permitted Phases 4 4 2 2 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 86.2 86.2 86.2 86.2 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8
Effective Green, g (s) 87.2 87.2 87.2 87.2 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Clearance Time (s) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 392 2602 327 2597 123 177 142 106 177 137
v/s Ratio Prot c0.35 0.30 c0.05 0.03
v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.17 0.44 0.16 0.38 0.10 0.50 0.02 0.17 0.27 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 2.7 3.6 2.7 3.4 45.2 47.0 44.8 45.5 45.9 44.8
Progression Factor 0.30 0.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.86 0.85
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.3 1.1 0.4 0.3 2.2 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.1
Delay (s) 1.3 1.3 3.8 3.8 45.5 49.2 44.9 38.4 40.2 38.0
Level of Service A A A A DDDDDD
Approach Delay (s) 1.3 3.8 47.9 39.2
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 6.2 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.8% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 3303 1513 3433 3262 3319 4713 3319 4775 1504
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 196 875 174 174 576 223 266 1489 147 98 739 152
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 41 0 36 0 0 10 0 0 0 100
Lane Group Flow (vph) 196 875 133 174 763 0 266 1626 0 98 739 52
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4584
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% 2% 5% 2%
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 74138 16 52
Permitted Phases 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.6 29.7 42.7 9.5 27.6 13.0 41.7 7.6 36.3 36.3
Effective Green, g (s) 12.6 30.7 44.7 10.5 28.6 14.0 42.7 8.6 37.3 37.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.28 0.41 0.10 0.26 0.13 0.39 0.08 0.34 0.34
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.5 5.0 4.0 6.5 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 380 922 615 328 848 422 1830 259 1619 510
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.26 0.03 0.05 0.23 0.08 c0.34 0.03 c0.15
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.95 0.22 0.53 0.90 0.63 0.89 0.38 0.46 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 45.8 38.9 21.3 47.4 39.3 45.5 31.4 48.2 28.4 24.9
Progression Factor 0.81 1.23 1.59 0.93 0.91 0.87 0.81 0.71 0.95 2.70
Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 17.7 0.2 1.6 11.8 2.4 5.6 0.9 0.9 0.4
Delay (s) 38.1 65.6 34.0 45.5 47.6 41.8 30.9 35.2 28.0 67.5
Level of Service D E C D D D C D C E
Approach Delay (s) 56.9 47.3 32.4 34.8
Approach LOS E D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 41.7 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.6% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 488 3271 406 3278 675 1801 1442 1230 1801 1387
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 68 1047 63 68 911 42 21 63 26 74 179 95
RTOR Reduction (vph) 02002000220080
Lane Group Flow (vph) 68 1108 0 68 951 0 21 63 4 74 179 15
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 1 1 2 7 6 6 7
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4422
Permitted Phases 4 4 2 2 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 92.1 92.1 92.1 92.1 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4
Effective Green, g (s) 93.1 93.1 93.1 93.1 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 379 2538 315 2543 104 276 221 189 276 213
v/s Ratio Prot c0.34 0.29 0.03 c0.10
v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.17 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.18 0.44 0.22 0.37 0.20 0.23 0.02 0.39 0.65 0.07
Uniform Delay, d1 3.5 4.6 3.6 4.2 44.4 44.6 43.1 45.8 47.8 43.5
Progression Factor 0.55 0.39 0.66 0.79 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 1.11
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.3 1.1 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.0 1.3 5.1 0.1
Delay (s) 2.6 2.1 3.5 3.7 45.3 45.0 43.2 38.7 44.2 48.5
Level of Service A A A A DDDDDD
Approach Delay (s) 2.1 3.6 44.6 44.2
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 10.0 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.2% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 3303 1490 3433 3346 3319 4775 1342 3319 4775 1470
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 250 739 527 218 713 106 340 1298 165 287 1947 245
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 13 0 10 0 0 0 94 0 0 101
Lane Group Flow (vph) 250 739 514 218 809 0 340 1298 71 287 1947 144
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 21 7 7 18
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% 2% 5% 2%
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm
Protected Phases 74138 16 52
Permitted Phases 4 6 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.9 28.5 43.1 11.9 29.5 14.6 48.1 48.1 10.0 43.5 43.5
Effective Green, g (s) 11.9 29.5 45.1 12.9 30.5 15.6 49.1 49.1 11.0 44.5 44.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.25 0.38 0.11 0.25 0.13 0.41 0.41 0.09 0.37 0.37
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.5 5.0 4.0 6.5 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 329 812 560 369 850 431 1954 549 304 1771 545
v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.22 c0.12 0.06 c0.24 0.10 0.27 0.09 c0.41
v/s Ratio Perm 0.23 0.05 0.10
v/c Ratio 0.76 0.91 0.92 0.59 0.95 0.79 0.66 0.13 0.94 1.10 0.26
Uniform Delay, d1 52.7 44.0 35.7 51.0 44.0 50.6 28.8 22.1 54.2 37.8 26.3
Progression Factor 0.88 0.93 1.03 0.61 0.89 0.76 0.84 1.70 0.85 0.81 0.74
Incremental Delay, d2 9.2 13.6 19.1 2.4 19.4 7.9 1.5 0.4 31.5 52.3 0.9
Delay (s) 55.4 54.6 56.0 33.8 58.8 46.2 25.6 38.1 77.7 82.7 20.4
Level of Service E D E C E D C D E F C
Approach Delay (s) 55.2 53.5 30.6 76.0
Approach LOS E D C E
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 56.0 HCM Level of Service E
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.9% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 495 3282 412 3276 1249 1801 1443 1082 1801 1392
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.91 0.98 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Adj. Flow (vph) 65 1106 41 53 945 46 12 88 29 18 47 29
RTOR Reduction (vph) 01002000260026
Lane Group Flow (vph) 65 1146 0 53 989 0 12 88 3 18 47 3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 4 4 2 6 6 6 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4422
Permitted Phases 4 4 2 2 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 86.2 86.2 86.2 86.2 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8
Effective Green, g (s) 87.2 87.2 87.2 87.2 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Clearance Time (s) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 392 2602 327 2597 123 177 142 106 177 137
v/s Ratio Prot c0.35 0.30 c0.05 0.03
v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.17 0.44 0.16 0.38 0.10 0.50 0.02 0.17 0.27 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 2.7 3.6 2.7 3.4 45.2 47.0 44.8 45.5 45.9 44.8
Progression Factor 0.20 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.86 0.85
Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.4 1.1 0.4 0.3 2.2 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.1
Delay (s) 1.2 1.1 3.8 3.8 45.5 49.2 44.9 38.3 40.2 38.0
Level of Service A A A A DDDDDD
Approach Delay (s) 1.1 3.8 47.9 39.2
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 6.1 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.8% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 3303 1513 3433 3262 3319 4775 1341 3319 4775 1504
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 196 875 174 174 576 223 266 1489 147 98 739 152
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 41 0 36 0 0 0 79 0 0 100
Lane Group Flow (vph) 196 875 133 174 763 0 266 1489 68 98 739 52
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4584
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% 2% 5% 2%
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm
Protected Phases 74138 16 52
Permitted Phases 4 6 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.6 29.7 42.7 9.5 27.6 13.0 41.7 41.7 7.6 36.3 36.3
Effective Green, g (s) 12.6 30.7 44.7 10.5 28.6 14.0 42.7 42.7 8.6 37.3 37.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.28 0.41 0.10 0.26 0.13 0.39 0.39 0.08 0.34 0.34
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.5 5.0 4.0 6.5 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 380 922 615 328 848 422 1854 521 259 1619 510
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.26 0.03 0.05 0.23 0.08 c0.31 0.03 c0.15
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.05 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.95 0.22 0.53 0.90 0.63 0.80 0.13 0.38 0.46 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 45.8 38.9 21.3 47.4 39.3 45.5 29.9 21.7 48.2 28.4 24.9
Progression Factor 0.81 1.23 1.59 0.93 0.91 0.87 0.81 1.29 0.71 0.95 2.70
Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 17.7 0.2 1.6 11.8 2.4 3.0 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.4
Delay (s) 38.1 65.6 34.0 45.5 47.6 41.8 27.4 28.4 35.2 28.0 67.5
Level of Service D E C D D DCCDCE
Approach Delay (s) 56.9 47.3 29.5 34.8
Approach LOS E D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 40.6 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.5% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 488 3271 406 3278 675 1801 1442 1230 1801 1387
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 68 1047 63 68 911 42 21 63 26 74 179 95
RTOR Reduction (vph) 02002000220080
Lane Group Flow (vph) 68 1108 0 68 951 0 21 63 4 74 179 15
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 1 1 2 7 6 6 7
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4422
Permitted Phases 4 4 2 2 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 92.1 92.1 92.1 92.1 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4
Effective Green, g (s) 93.1 93.1 93.1 93.1 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 379 2538 315 2543 104 276 221 189 276 213
v/s Ratio Prot c0.34 0.29 0.03 c0.10
v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.17 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.18 0.44 0.22 0.37 0.20 0.23 0.02 0.39 0.65 0.07
Uniform Delay, d1 3.5 4.6 3.6 4.2 44.4 44.6 43.1 45.8 47.8 43.5
Progression Factor 0.47 0.36 0.66 0.79 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 1.11
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.2 1.1 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.0 1.3 5.1 0.1
Delay (s) 2.1 1.9 3.5 3.7 45.3 45.0 43.2 38.7 44.2 48.4
Level of Service A A A A DDDDDD
Approach Delay (s) 1.9 3.6 44.6 44.2
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 9.9 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.2% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 3303 1490 3433 3346 3319 4698 3319 4775 1470
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 250 739 527 218 713 106 340 1298 165 287 1947 245
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 13 0 10 0 0 14 0 0 0 101
Lane Group Flow (vph) 250 739 514 218 809 0 340 1449 0 287 1947 144
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 21 7 7 18
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% 2% 5% 2%
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 74138 16 52
Permitted Phases 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.9 28.5 43.1 11.9 29.5 14.6 48.1 10.0 43.5 43.5
Effective Green, g (s) 11.9 29.5 45.1 12.9 30.5 15.6 49.1 11.0 44.5 44.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.25 0.38 0.11 0.25 0.13 0.41 0.09 0.37 0.37
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.5 5.0 4.0 6.5 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 329 812 560 369 850 431 1922 304 1771 545
v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.22 c0.12 0.06 c0.24 0.10 0.31 0.09 c0.41
v/s Ratio Perm 0.23 0.10
v/c Ratio 0.76 0.91 0.92 0.59 0.95 0.79 0.75 0.94 1.10 0.26
Uniform Delay, d1 52.7 44.0 35.7 51.0 44.0 50.6 30.3 54.2 37.8 26.3
Progression Factor 0.88 0.93 1.03 0.61 0.89 0.76 0.86 0.85 0.81 0.74
Incremental Delay, d2 9.2 13.6 19.1 2.4 19.4 7.9 2.4 31.5 52.3 0.9
Delay (s) 55.4 54.6 56.0 33.8 58.8 46.2 28.4 77.7 82.7 20.4
Level of Service E D E C E D C E F C
Approach Delay (s) 55.2 53.5 31.7 76.0
Approach LOS E D C E
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 56.3 HCM Level of Service E
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.9% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 495 3282 409 3276 1249 1801 1443 1082 1801 1392
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.91 0.98 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Adj. Flow (vph) 65 1112 41 53 945 46 12 88 29 18 47 29
RTOR Reduction (vph) 01002000260026
Lane Group Flow (vph) 65 1152 0 53 989 0 12 88 3 18 47 3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 4 4 2 6 6 6 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4422
Permitted Phases 4 4 2 2 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 86.2 86.2 86.2 86.2 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8
Effective Green, g (s) 87.2 87.2 87.2 87.2 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Clearance Time (s) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 392 2602 324 2597 123 177 142 106 177 137
v/s Ratio Prot c0.35 0.30 c0.05 0.03
v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.17 0.44 0.16 0.38 0.10 0.50 0.02 0.17 0.27 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 2.7 3.6 2.7 3.4 45.2 47.0 44.8 45.5 45.9 44.8
Progression Factor 0.30 0.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.86 0.85
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.3 1.1 0.4 0.3 2.2 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.1
Delay (s) 1.3 1.3 3.8 3.8 45.5 49.2 44.9 38.4 40.2 38.0
Level of Service A A A A DDDDDD
Approach Delay (s) 1.3 3.8 47.9 39.2
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 6.2 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.0% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 3303 1513 3433 3262 3319 4713 3319 4775 1504
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 196 875 174 174 576 223 266 1489 147 103 739 152
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 41 0 36 0 0 10 0 0 0 100
Lane Group Flow (vph) 196 875 133 174 763 0 266 1626 0 103 739 52
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4584
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% 2% 5% 2%
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 74138 16 52
Permitted Phases 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.6 29.7 42.7 9.5 27.6 13.0 41.7 7.6 36.3 36.3
Effective Green, g (s) 12.6 30.7 44.7 10.5 28.6 14.0 42.7 8.6 37.3 37.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.28 0.41 0.10 0.26 0.13 0.39 0.08 0.34 0.34
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.5 5.0 4.0 6.5 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 380 922 615 328 848 422 1830 259 1619 510
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.26 0.03 0.05 0.23 0.08 c0.34 0.03 c0.15
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.95 0.22 0.53 0.90 0.63 0.89 0.40 0.46 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 45.8 38.9 21.3 47.4 39.3 45.5 31.4 48.2 28.4 24.9
Progression Factor 0.81 1.23 1.59 0.93 0.91 0.87 0.81 0.72 0.95 2.70
Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 17.7 0.2 1.6 11.8 2.4 5.6 1.0 0.9 0.4
Delay (s) 38.1 65.6 34.0 45.5 47.6 41.8 30.9 35.5 28.0 67.5
Level of Service D E C D D D C D C E
Approach Delay (s) 56.9 47.3 32.4 34.8
Approach LOS E D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 41.7 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.6% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 498 3270 413 3277 675 1801 1442 1230 1801 1387
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 68 1032 63 68 895 42 21 63 26 79 179 95
RTOR Reduction (vph) 02002000220080
Lane Group Flow (vph) 68 1093 0 68 935 0 21 63 4 79 179 15
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 1 1 2 7 6 6 7
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4422
Permitted Phases 4 4 2 2 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 92.1 92.1 92.1 92.1 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4
Effective Green, g (s) 93.1 93.1 93.1 93.1 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 386 2537 320 2542 104 276 221 189 276 213
v/s Ratio Prot c0.33 0.29 0.03 c0.10
v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.16 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.18 0.43 0.21 0.37 0.20 0.23 0.02 0.42 0.65 0.07
Uniform Delay, d1 3.5 4.5 3.6 4.2 44.4 44.6 43.1 46.0 47.8 43.5
Progression Factor 0.52 0.36 0.63 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 1.10
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.2 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.0 1.5 5.1 0.1
Delay (s) 2.3 1.9 3.3 3.5 45.3 45.0 43.2 39.2 44.4 48.1
Level of Service A A A A DDDDDD
Approach Delay (s) 1.9 3.5 44.6 44.2
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 10.0 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.8% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 3303 1491 3433 3345 3319 4697 3319 4775 1470
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 245 729 516 213 702 106 335 1277 165 282 1920 239
RTOR Reduction (vph) 009010001400099
Lane Group Flow (vph) 245 729 507 213 798 0 335 1428 0 282 1920 140
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 21 7 7 18
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% 2% 5% 2%
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 74138 16 52
Permitted Phases 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0 27.9 43.2 10.6 28.5 15.3 50.0 10.0 44.7 44.7
Effective Green, g (s) 11.0 28.9 45.2 11.6 29.5 16.3 51.0 11.0 45.7 45.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.24 0.38 0.10 0.25 0.14 0.42 0.09 0.38 0.38
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.5 5.0 4.0 6.5 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 304 795 562 332 822 451 1996 304 1818 560
v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.22 c0.12 0.06 c0.24 0.10 0.30 0.08 c0.40
v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 0.10
v/c Ratio 0.81 0.92 0.90 0.64 0.97 0.74 0.72 0.93 1.06 0.25
Uniform Delay, d1 53.5 44.4 35.3 52.2 44.8 49.8 28.5 54.1 37.1 25.4
Progression Factor 0.87 0.94 1.01 0.64 0.87 0.77 0.84 0.85 0.80 0.75
Incremental Delay, d2 13.7 14.5 17.0 4.0 23.7 5.5 1.9 27.7 35.5 0.8
Delay (s) 60.4 56.5 52.6 37.5 62.7 43.8 25.8 73.7 65.1 19.9
Level of Service E E D D E D C E E B
Approach Delay (s) 55.8 57.5 29.2 61.7
Approach LOS E E C E
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 51.2 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.9% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 501 3282 418 3276 1249 1801 1443 1082 1801 1392
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.91 0.98 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Adj. Flow (vph) 65 1094 41 53 934 46 12 88 29 18 47 29
RTOR Reduction (vph) 01002000260026
Lane Group Flow (vph) 65 1134 0 53 978 0 12 88 3 18 47 3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 4 4 2 6 6 6 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4422
Permitted Phases 4 4 2 2 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 86.2 86.2 86.2 86.2 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8
Effective Green, g (s) 87.2 87.2 87.2 87.2 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Clearance Time (s) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 397 2602 331 2597 123 177 142 106 177 137
v/s Ratio Prot c0.35 0.30 c0.05 0.03
v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.16 0.44 0.16 0.38 0.10 0.50 0.02 0.17 0.27 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 2.7 3.6 2.7 3.4 45.2 47.0 44.8 45.5 45.9 44.8
Progression Factor 0.30 0.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.86 0.85
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.3 2.2 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.1
Delay (s) 1.3 1.3 3.7 3.8 45.5 49.2 44.9 38.4 40.2 38.0
Level of Service A A A A DDDDDD
Approach Delay (s) 1.3 3.8 47.9 39.2
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 6.2 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.5% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 3303 1514 3433 3263 3319 4714 3319 4775 1506
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 196 864 174 168 571 223 261 1467 147 98 728 147
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 43 0 36 0 0 11 0 0 0 97
Lane Group Flow (vph) 196 864 131 168 758 0 261 1603 0 98 728 50
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3363
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% 2% 5% 2%
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 74138 16 52
Permitted Phases 4 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.6 29.6 42.6 9.4 27.4 13.0 41.9 7.6 36.5 36.5
Effective Green, g (s) 12.6 30.6 44.6 10.4 28.4 14.0 42.9 8.6 37.5 37.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.28 0.41 0.09 0.26 0.13 0.39 0.08 0.34 0.34
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.5 5.0 4.0 6.5 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 380 919 614 325 842 422 1838 259 1628 513
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.26 0.03 0.05 0.23 0.08 c0.34 0.03 c0.15
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.94 0.21 0.52 0.90 0.62 0.87 0.38 0.45 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 45.8 38.8 21.3 47.4 39.4 45.5 31.0 48.2 28.2 24.7
Progression Factor 0.81 1.23 1.64 0.92 0.91 0.87 0.80 0.71 0.95 2.65
Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 16.4 0.2 1.3 11.9 2.1 4.9 0.9 0.8 0.4
Delay (s) 38.0 64.2 35.0 45.1 47.9 41.5 29.8 35.2 27.6 65.8
Level of Service D E C D D D C D C E
Approach Delay (s) 55.9 47.4 31.5 34.2
Approach LOS E D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 41.0 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.7% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 3272 381 3277 675 1801 1442 1230 1801 1387
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1100 63 68 895 42 21 63 26 79 179 95
RTOR Reduction (vph) 02002000220080
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1161 0 68 935 0 21 63 4 79 179 15
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 1 1 2 7 6 6 7
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4422
Permitted Phases 4 2 2 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 92.1 92.1 92.1 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4
Effective Green, g (s) 93.1 93.1 93.1 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2539 296 2542 104 276 221 189 276 213
v/s Ratio Prot c0.35 0.29 0.03 c0.10
v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.46 0.23 0.37 0.20 0.23 0.02 0.42 0.65 0.07
Uniform Delay, d1 4.7 3.7 4.2 44.4 44.6 43.1 46.0 47.8 43.5
Progression Factor 0.40 0.70 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 1.10
Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 1.2 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.0 1.5 5.1 0.1
Delay (s) 2.1 3.8 3.5 45.3 45.0 43.2 39.1 44.4 47.9
Level of Service A A A DDDDDD
Approach Delay (s) 2.1 3.5 44.6 44.2
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 10.1 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.6% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 3303 1491 1770 3421 1551 3319 4697 3319 4775 1470
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 245 729 516 213 702 106 335 1277 165 282 1920 239
RTOR Reduction (vph) 009004101300098
Lane Group Flow (vph) 245 729 507 213 702 65 335 1429 0 282 1920 141
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 21 7 7 18
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% 2% 5% 2%
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 74138 16 52
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0 28.0 43.3 11.0 29.0 29.0 15.3 49.5 10.0 44.2 44.2
Effective Green, g (s) 11.0 29.0 45.3 12.0 30.0 30.0 16.3 50.5 11.0 45.2 45.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.24 0.38 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.42 0.09 0.38 0.38
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.5 5.0 4.0 6.5 6.5 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 304 798 563 177 855 388 451 1977 304 1799 554
v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.22 c0.12 c0.12 0.21 0.10 0.30 0.08 c0.40
v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 0.04 0.10
v/c Ratio 0.81 0.91 0.90 1.20 0.82 0.17 0.74 0.72 0.93 1.07 0.25
Uniform Delay, d1 53.5 44.3 35.2 54.0 42.5 35.2 49.8 28.9 54.1 37.4 25.8
Progression Factor 0.87 0.94 1.02 0.65 0.87 0.79 0.75 0.84 0.85 0.80 0.73
Incremental Delay, d2 13.7 14.1 16.8 131.5 6.1 0.2 5.5 2.0 27.7 39.6 0.9
Delay (s) 60.4 55.9 52.7 166.8 43.0 28.1 43.1 26.4 73.7 69.5 19.8
Level of Service E E D F DCDC EEB
Approach Delay (s) 55.5 67.3 29.5 65.1
Approach LOS E E C E
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 53.9 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.7% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 3283 377 3278 1249 1801 1443 1082 1801 1392
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.91 0.98 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1182 41 53 989 46 12 88 29 18 47 29
RTOR Reduction (vph) 01002000260026
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1222 0 53 1033 0 12 88 3 18 47 3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 4 4 2 6 6 6 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4422
Permitted Phases 4 2 2 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 86.2 86.2 86.2 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8
Effective Green, g (s) 87.2 87.2 87.2 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Clearance Time (s) 9.0 9.0 9.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2603 299 2599 123 177 142 106 177 137
v/s Ratio Prot c0.37 0.32 c0.05 0.03
v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.18 0.40 0.10 0.50 0.02 0.17 0.27 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 3.8 2.7 3.5 45.2 47.0 44.8 45.5 45.9 44.8
Progression Factor 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.86 0.85
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 1.3 0.5 0.3 2.2 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.1
Delay (s) 1.5 4.0 3.9 45.5 49.2 44.9 38.0 40.1 38.1
Level of Service A A A DDDDDD
Approach Delay (s) 1.5 3.9 47.9 39.1
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 6.3 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.1% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 3303 1515 1770 3421 1560 3319 4714 3319 4775 1506
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 196 864 174 168 571 223 261 1467 147 98 728 147
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 52 0 0 112 0 11 0 0 0 99
Lane Group Flow (vph) 196 864 122 168 571 111 261 1603 0 98 728 48
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3363
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% 2% 5% 2%
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 74138 16 52
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.8 28.7 41.7 11.8 28.7 28.7 13.0 40.4 7.6 35.0 35.0
Effective Green, g (s) 12.8 29.7 43.7 12.8 29.7 29.7 14.0 41.4 8.6 36.0 36.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.27 0.40 0.12 0.27 0.27 0.13 0.38 0.08 0.33 0.33
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.5 5.0 4.0 6.5 6.5 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 386 892 602 206 924 421 422 1774 259 1563 493
v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.26 0.03 c0.09 0.17 0.08 c0.34 0.03 c0.15
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.07 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.51 0.97 0.20 0.82 0.62 0.26 0.62 0.90 0.38 0.47 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 45.6 39.7 21.7 47.4 35.2 31.6 45.5 32.4 48.2 29.4 25.7
Progression Factor 0.80 1.25 1.83 0.92 0.90 0.76 0.87 0.81 0.71 0.96 2.67
Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 21.8 0.2 20.4 1.2 0.3 2.1 6.6 0.9 0.9 0.4
Delay (s) 37.3 71.6 39.8 63.9 32.9 24.3 41.5 32.8 35.3 29.1 69.0
Level of Service D E D E CCDC DCE
Approach Delay (s) 61.7 36.3 34.0 35.7
Approach LOS E D C D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 41.5 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.7% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 498 3270 413 3277 675 1801 1442 1230 1801 1387
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 68 1032 63 68 895 42 21 63 26 79 179 95
RTOR Reduction (vph) 02002000220080
Lane Group Flow (vph) 68 1093 0 68 935 0 21 63 4 79 179 15
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 1 1 2 7 6 6 7
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4422
Permitted Phases 4 4 2 2 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 92.1 92.1 92.1 92.1 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4
Effective Green, g (s) 93.1 93.1 93.1 93.1 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 386 2537 320 2542 104 276 221 189 276 213
v/s Ratio Prot c0.33 0.29 0.03 c0.10
v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.16 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.18 0.43 0.21 0.37 0.20 0.23 0.02 0.42 0.65 0.07
Uniform Delay, d1 3.5 4.5 3.6 4.2 44.4 44.6 43.1 46.0 47.8 43.5
Progression Factor 0.52 0.35 0.63 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 1.10
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.2 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.0 1.5 5.1 0.1
Delay (s) 2.3 1.8 3.3 3.5 45.3 45.0 43.2 39.1 44.4 47.9
Level of Service A A A A DDDDDD
Approach Delay (s) 1.8 3.5 44.6 44.2
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 9.9 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.8% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 3303 1491 1770 3421 1551 3319 4697 3319 4775 1470
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 245 729 516 213 702 106 335 1277 165 282 1920 239
RTOR Reduction (vph) 009004101300098
Lane Group Flow (vph) 245 729 507 213 702 65 335 1429 0 282 1920 141
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 21 7 7 18
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% 2% 5% 2%
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 74138 16 52
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0 28.0 43.3 11.0 29.0 29.0 15.3 49.5 10.0 44.2 44.2
Effective Green, g (s) 11.0 29.0 45.3 12.0 30.0 30.0 16.3 50.5 11.0 45.2 45.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.24 0.38 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.42 0.09 0.38 0.38
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.5 5.0 4.0 6.5 6.5 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 304 798 563 177 855 388 451 1977 304 1799 554
v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.22 c0.12 c0.12 0.21 0.10 0.30 0.08 c0.40
v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 0.04 0.10
v/c Ratio 0.81 0.91 0.90 1.20 0.82 0.17 0.74 0.72 0.93 1.07 0.25
Uniform Delay, d1 53.5 44.3 35.2 54.0 42.5 35.2 49.8 28.9 54.1 37.4 25.8
Progression Factor 0.87 0.94 1.02 0.65 0.87 0.79 0.75 0.84 0.85 0.80 0.73
Incremental Delay, d2 13.7 14.1 16.8 131.5 6.1 0.2 5.5 2.0 27.7 39.6 0.9
Delay (s) 60.4 55.9 52.7 166.8 43.0 28.1 43.1 26.4 73.7 69.5 19.8
Level of Service E E D F DCDC EEB
Approach Delay (s) 55.5 67.3 29.5 65.1
Approach LOS E E C E
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 53.9 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.7% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 501 3282 418 3276 1249 1801 1443 1082 1801 1392
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.91 0.98 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Adj. Flow (vph) 65 1094 41 53 934 46 12 88 29 18 47 29
RTOR Reduction (vph) 01002000260026
Lane Group Flow (vph) 65 1134 0 53 978 0 12 88 3 18 47 3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 4 4 2 6 6 6 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4422
Permitted Phases 4 4 2 2 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 86.2 86.2 86.2 86.2 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8
Effective Green, g (s) 87.2 87.2 87.2 87.2 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Clearance Time (s) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 397 2602 331 2597 123 177 142 106 177 137
v/s Ratio Prot c0.35 0.30 c0.05 0.03
v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.16 0.44 0.16 0.38 0.10 0.50 0.02 0.17 0.27 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 2.7 3.6 2.7 3.4 45.2 47.0 44.8 45.5 45.9 44.8
Progression Factor 0.28 0.27 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.86 0.85
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.3 2.2 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.1
Delay (s) 1.3 1.3 3.7 3.8 45.5 49.2 44.9 38.0 40.1 38.1
Level of Service A A A A DDDDDD
Approach Delay (s) 1.3 3.8 47.9 39.1
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 6.2 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.5% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 3303 1515 1770 3421 1560 3319 4714 3319 4775 1506
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 196 864 174 168 571 223 261 1467 147 98 728 147
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 52 0 0 112 0 11 0 0 0 99
Lane Group Flow (vph) 196 864 122 168 571 111 261 1603 0 98 728 48
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3363
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% 2% 5% 2%
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 74138 16 52
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.8 28.7 41.7 11.8 28.7 28.7 13.0 40.4 7.6 35.0 35.0
Effective Green, g (s) 12.8 29.7 43.7 12.8 29.7 29.7 14.0 41.4 8.6 36.0 36.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.27 0.40 0.12 0.27 0.27 0.13 0.38 0.08 0.33 0.33
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.5 5.0 4.0 6.5 6.5 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 386 892 602 206 924 421 422 1774 259 1563 493
v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.26 0.03 c0.09 0.17 0.08 c0.34 0.03 c0.15
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.07 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.51 0.97 0.20 0.82 0.62 0.26 0.62 0.90 0.38 0.47 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 45.6 39.7 21.7 47.4 35.2 31.6 45.5 32.4 48.2 29.4 25.7
Progression Factor 0.80 1.25 1.83 0.91 0.91 0.77 0.87 0.81 0.72 0.96 2.67
Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 21.8 0.2 20.5 1.2 0.3 2.1 6.6 0.9 0.9 0.4
Delay (s) 37.3 71.6 39.8 63.6 33.1 24.6 41.5 32.8 35.3 29.1 69.0
Level of Service D E D E CCDC DCE
Approach Delay (s) 61.7 36.4 34.0 35.7
Approach LOS E D C D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 41.6 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.7% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 498 3270 413 3277 675 1801 1442 1230 1801 1387
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 68 1032 63 68 895 42 21 63 26 79 179 95
RTOR Reduction (vph) 02002000220080
Lane Group Flow (vph) 68 1093 0 68 935 0 21 63 4 79 179 15
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 1 1 2 7 6 6 7
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4422
Permitted Phases 4 4 2 2 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 92.1 92.1 92.1 92.1 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4
Effective Green, g (s) 93.1 93.1 93.1 93.1 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 386 2537 320 2542 104 276 221 189 276 213
v/s Ratio Prot c0.33 0.29 0.03 c0.10
v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.16 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.18 0.43 0.21 0.37 0.20 0.23 0.02 0.42 0.65 0.07
Uniform Delay, d1 3.5 4.5 3.6 4.2 44.4 44.6 43.1 46.0 47.8 43.5
Progression Factor 0.52 0.36 0.63 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 1.10
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.2 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.0 1.5 5.1 0.1
Delay (s) 2.3 1.9 3.3 3.5 45.3 45.0 43.2 39.0 44.4 47.9
Level of Service A A A A DDDDDD
Approach Delay (s) 1.9 3.5 44.6 44.2
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 10.0 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.8% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 3303 1491 1770 3421 1551 3319 4697 3319 4775 1470
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 245 729 516 213 702 106 335 1277 165 282 1920 239
RTOR Reduction (vph) 009004201400099
Lane Group Flow (vph) 245 729 507 213 702 64 335 1428 0 282 1920 140
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 21 7 7 18
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% 2% 5% 2%
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 74138 16 52
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 10.0 27.3 42.6 11.0 28.3 28.3 15.3 50.2 10.0 44.9 44.9
Effective Green, g (s) 11.0 28.3 44.6 12.0 29.3 29.3 16.3 51.2 11.0 45.9 45.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.24 0.37 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.14 0.43 0.09 0.38 0.38
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.5 5.0 4.0 6.5 6.5 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 157 779 554 177 835 379 451 2004 304 1826 562
v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.22 c0.12 0.12 0.21 0.10 0.30 0.08 c0.40
v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 0.04 0.10
v/c Ratio 1.56 0.94 0.92 1.20 0.84 0.17 0.74 0.71 0.93 1.05 0.25
Uniform Delay, d1 54.5 45.0 35.9 54.0 43.1 35.8 49.8 28.3 54.1 37.1 25.3
Progression Factor 0.88 0.95 1.01 0.65 0.86 0.77 0.77 0.84 0.85 0.80 0.75
Incremental Delay, d2 279.4 17.6 19.0 131.5 7.3 0.2 5.5 1.9 27.7 33.8 0.8
Delay (s) 327.3 60.2 55.2 166.8 44.4 27.9 43.8 25.6 73.7 63.3 19.7
Level of Service F E E F DCDC EEB
Approach Delay (s) 102.4 68.2 29.0 60.3
Approach LOS F E C E
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 62.5 HCM Level of Service E
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.04
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.5% ICU Level of Service F
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 501 3282 418 3276 1249 1801 1443 1082 1801 1392
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.91 0.98 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Adj. Flow (vph) 65 1094 41 53 934 46 12 88 29 18 47 29
RTOR Reduction (vph) 01002000260026
Lane Group Flow (vph) 65 1134 0 53 978 0 12 88 3 18 47 3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 4 4 2 6 6 6 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4422
Permitted Phases 4 4 2 2 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 86.2 86.2 86.2 86.2 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8
Effective Green, g (s) 87.2 87.2 87.2 87.2 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Clearance Time (s) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 397 2602 331 2597 123 177 142 106 177 137
v/s Ratio Prot c0.35 0.30 c0.05 0.03
v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.16 0.44 0.16 0.38 0.10 0.50 0.02 0.17 0.27 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 2.7 3.6 2.7 3.4 45.2 47.0 44.8 45.5 45.9 44.8
Progression Factor 0.30 0.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.86 0.85
Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.3 2.2 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.1
Delay (s) 1.3 1.3 3.7 3.8 45.5 49.2 44.9 38.0 40.2 38.1
Level of Service A A A A DDDDDD
Approach Delay (s) 1.3 3.8 47.9 39.1
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 6.2 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.5% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 1711 3303 1514 1770 3421 1560 3319 4714 3319 4775 1506
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 196 864 174 168 571 223 261 1467 147 98 728 147
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 44 0 0 116 0 11 0 0 0 97
Lane Group Flow (vph) 196 864 130 168 571 107 261 1603 0 98 728 50
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3363
Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% 2% 5% 2%
Turn Type Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 74138 16 52
Permitted Phases 4 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.8 29.4 42.4 10.0 25.6 25.6 13.0 41.5 7.6 36.1 36.1
Effective Green, g (s) 14.8 30.4 44.4 11.0 26.6 26.6 14.0 42.5 8.6 37.1 37.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.28 0.40 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.13 0.39 0.08 0.34 0.34
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.5 5.0 4.0 6.5 6.5 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 230 913 611 177 827 377 422 1821 259 1610 508
v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 c0.26 0.03 c0.09 0.17 0.08 c0.34 0.03 c0.15
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.07 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.85 0.95 0.21 0.95 0.69 0.28 0.62 0.88 0.38 0.45 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 46.5 39.0 21.4 49.2 38.0 33.9 45.5 31.4 48.2 28.5 25.0
Progression Factor 0.82 1.24 1.64 0.93 0.91 0.78 0.87 0.81 0.71 0.95 2.65
Incremental Delay, d2 24.0 17.4 0.2 50.8 2.4 0.4 2.1 5.3 0.9 0.9 0.4
Delay (s) 62.3 65.6 35.2 96.4 37.0 26.9 41.5 30.6 35.2 28.0 66.5
Level of Service E E D F DCDC DCE
Approach Delay (s) 60.8 45.0 32.1 34.6
Approach LOS E D C C
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 42.1 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.7% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 515 3269 432 3276 679 1801 1442 1231 1801 1387
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 64 995 63 67 866 42 18 62 25 75 178 95
RTOR Reduction (vph) 02002000210080
Lane Group Flow (vph) 64 1056 0 67 906 0 18 62 4 75 178 15
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 1 1 2 7 6 6 7
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4422
Permitted Phases 4 4 2 2 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 92.1 92.1 92.1 92.1 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4
Effective Green, g (s) 93.1 93.1 93.1 93.1 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Clearance Time (s) 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 400 2536 335 2542 104 276 221 189 276 213
v/s Ratio Prot c0.32 0.28 0.03 c0.10
v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.16 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.16 0.42 0.20 0.36 0.17 0.22 0.02 0.40 0.64 0.07
Uniform Delay, d1 3.4 4.5 3.6 4.2 44.2 44.5 43.1 45.8 47.7 43.5
Progression Factor 0.40 0.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.82 1.11
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.2 1.3 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.0 1.3 5.0 0.1
Delay (s) 1.8 2.1 4.9 4.6 45.0 45.0 43.2 38.6 44.2 48.4
Level of Service A A A A DDDDDD
Approach Delay (s) 2.0 4.6 44.5 44.1
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 10.5 HCM Level of Service B
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.3% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 262 3303 1475 281 3421 1553 3319 4818 3319 4916 1477
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 241 724 514 211 699 80 332 1228 163 247 1845 240
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 210 0 0 31 0 14 0 0 0 104
Lane Group Flow (vph) 241 724 304 211 699 49 332 1377 0 247 1845 136
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 18 18 6 6 15
Turn Type pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 38.5 26.5 26.5 36.5 25.5 25.5 14.6 51.0 10.0 46.4 46.4
Effective Green, g (s) 40.5 27.5 27.5 38.5 26.5 26.5 15.6 52.0 11.0 47.4 47.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.23 0.23 0.32 0.22 0.22 0.13 0.43 0.09 0.39 0.39
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 6.5 6.5 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 245 757 338 239 755 343 431 2088 304 1942 583
v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.22 0.09 0.20 c0.10 0.29 0.07 c0.38
v/s Ratio Perm c0.23 0.21 0.20 0.03 0.09
v/c Ratio 0.98 0.96 0.90 0.88 0.93 0.14 0.77 0.66 0.81 0.95 0.23
Uniform Delay, d1 32.9 45.7 44.9 33.2 45.8 37.6 50.5 27.0 53.5 35.2 24.2
Progression Factor 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.89 0.93 0.87 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.78 0.80
Incremental Delay, d2 50.9 21.6 24.0 28.5 16.6 0.2 7.1 1.4 11.7 9.3 0.7
Delay (s) 82.3 65.1 65.3 58.1 59.4 32.8 47.3 23.4 56.7 36.6 19.9
Level of Service F EEEECDC EDB
Approach Delay (s) 68.0 57.0 28.0 37.0
Approach LOS E E C D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 44.7 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.6% ICU Level of Service E
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 522 3283 430 3275 1249 1801 1443 1104 1801 1392
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.91 0.98 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Adj. Flow (vph) 62 1074 38 51 898 46 12 85 27 13 47 26
RTOR Reduction (vph) 01002000240023
Lane Group Flow (vph) 62 1111 0 51 942 0 12 85 3 13 47 3
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 4 4 2 6 6 6 6
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4422
Permitted Phases 4 4 2 2 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 86.3 86.3 86.3 86.3 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7
Effective Green, g (s) 87.3 87.3 87.3 87.3 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Clearance Time (s) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 414 2606 341 2599 121 175 140 107 175 135
v/s Ratio Prot c0.34 0.29 c0.05 0.03
v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.15 0.43 0.15 0.36 0.10 0.49 0.02 0.12 0.27 0.02
Uniform Delay, d1 2.7 3.5 2.7 3.3 45.3 47.0 44.9 45.4 46.0 44.9
Progression Factor 0.26 0.34 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.87 0.84
Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.4 2.1 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.1
Delay (s) 1.1 1.5 3.6 3.7 45.6 49.2 45.0 37.8 41.0 37.7
Level of Service A A A A DDDDDD
Approach Delay (s) 1.4 3.7 47.9 39.5
Approach LOS A A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 6.2 HCM Level of Service A
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.8% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Satd. Flow (perm) 421 3303 1507 266 3421 1560 3319 4838 3319 4916 1506
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Adj. Flow (vph) 199 887 176 175 583 196 266 1453 151 84 718 152
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 86 0 0 98 0 11 0 0 0 102
Lane Group Flow (vph) 199 887 90 175 583 98 266 1593 0 84 718 50
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 3 3 3 5 3
Turn Type pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Prot Prot Perm
Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 1 6 5 2
Permitted Phases 4 4 8 8 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 42.3 29.8 29.8 36.7 27.0 27.0 14.0 42.7 6.3 35.0 35.0
Effective Green, g (s) 44.3 30.8 30.8 38.7 28.0 28.0 15.0 43.7 7.3 36.0 36.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.28 0.28 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.40 0.07 0.33 0.33
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 6.5 6.5 4.0 6.5 6.5 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 328 925 422 240 871 397 453 1922 220 1609 493
v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.27 c0.07 0.17 0.08 c0.33 0.03 c0.15
v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.06 0.19 0.06 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.61 0.96 0.21 0.73 0.67 0.25 0.59 0.83 0.38 0.45 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 23.4 39.0 30.3 27.8 36.8 32.6 44.6 29.8 49.2 29.1 25.7
Progression Factor 1.25 1.24 1.67 0.84 0.91 0.78 0.87 0.80 0.71 0.95 2.70
Incremental Delay, d2 3.0 19.4 0.2 10.2 1.9 0.3 1.5 3.4 1.0 0.9 0.4
Delay (s) 32.3 67.6 50.9 33.6 35.5 25.8 40.1 27.3 35.8 28.5 69.9
Level of Service C E DCDCDC DCE
Approach Delay (s) 59.7 33.2 29.1 35.8
Approach LOS E C C D
Intersection Summary
HCM Average Control Delay 38.8 HCM Level of Service D
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.4% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Southbound Left 15 D 38 25 75 D 39 80
Southbound Through 40 D 40 50 170 D 44 165
Southbound Right 25 D 38 15 90 D 48 35
Source: Muller Engineering Company, 2015
1. 95th percentile queues from Synchro 7 software are presented.
2. Bold Red indicates LOS F or a 95th percentile queue greater than available storage.
2. Bold Red indicates LOS F or a 95th percentile queue greater than available storage.
The College Avenue/Prospect Road intersection currently operates at LOS D during both peak hours,
with several movements operating at LOS E or F. The Remington Street/Prospect Road intersection
operates at LOS A during the AM peak hour and LOS B during the PM peak hour. The longest queues at
the College Avenue intersection form in the through lanes in each direction during the PM peak hour.
The eastbound and westbound left‐turn and the eastbound right‐turn queues exceed available storage
during at least one peak hour. Based on field observations, it is also worth noting that the demand