HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Impact StudyTotal Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph)
-- Arrival Type
Effective Green, g (sec)
Cycle Length, C (sec)
_- Rp ( from Exhibit 16-11)
Proportion vehicles arriving on green
g(ql)
P
g(q2)
g (q)
w Computation 2-Proporion ofTWSCtIntersection
Time
blocked
Movement 2 Movement 5
V(t)
alpha
V(l,Prot) V(t) V(i,prot)
beta
Travel time, t(a) (sec)
Smoothing Factor, F
Proportion of conflicting flow, f
Max platooned flow, V(c,max)
Min platooned flow, V(c,min)
�- Duration of blocked period, t(p)
Proportion time blocked,
p
_.. Computation 3-Platoon Event Periods
0.000 0.000
Result
P(2)
p(5)
0.000
�- p (dom)
0.000
p (subo)
Constrained or unconstrained?
Proportion
unblocked
(1)
for minor Single -stage
movements,
(2)
(3)
p(x) Process
Two
-Stage Process
p(1)
Stage I
Stage II
P(4)
p(7)
P (8)
p(9)
_
P(10)
P(11)
p(12)
Computation 4 and 5
Single -Stage Process
_ Movement
1 4
L L L
8
9 10 11 12
V c' x 435
R L T R
s
Px
837 837 432
V c, u, x
C plat,x
Two -Stage Process
7 8
_
10 11
V(c,x)
s
P(x)
V(c,U,x)
C(r— )
C(plat,x)
Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2
Worksheet 6-Impedance and Capacity Equations
Step 1: RT from Minor St.
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
Step 2: LT from Major St.
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
Maj L-Shared Prob Q free St.
Step 3: TH from Minor St.
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
Step 4: LT from Minor St.
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor.
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
7
1.00
1.00
4
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.00
7
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.94
1500
_ Worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance
Step 3: TH from Minor St.
8
Part 1 - First Stage
_. Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
12
432
628
1.00
628
0.94
1
435
1135
1.00
1135
0.99
11
837
305
1.00
0.99
302
1.00
10
837
339
1.00
0.99
335
11
1500
— Part 2 - Second Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
_ Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
' Part 3 - Single Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
837
-- Pedestrian Impedance Factor
305
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
00
1.99
0 •99
1.00
0.99
302
Result for 2 stage process:
a
y
C t
Probability of Queue free St.
302
1.00
1.00
-. Step 4: LT from Minor St.
7
10
Part 1 - First Stage
_ Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
- Movement Capacity
Part 2 - Second Stage
^, Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Part 3 - Single Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
837
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
339
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor
1.00
1.00
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor.
0.99
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
0.99
0•94
0.99
Results for Two -stage process:
335
a
- y
C t
335
Worksheet 8-Shared Lane Calculations
Movement
— 7
L
8 9 10
T R
11 12
Volume (vph)
L
T R
Movement Capacity (vph)
18
0
Shared Lane Capacity (vph)
335
302
62 628
486
Worksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches
Movement
7 8 9 10 11
L T R L T
C sep
Volume 335 302
Delay 18 0
Q sep
Q sep +1
round (Qsep +l)
n max
C sh
SUM C sep
n
C act
— Worksheet 10-Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Movement 1 4 7
Lane Config L 8 9 10
v (vph) 12
C(m) (vph) 1135
v/c 0.01
95% queue length 0.03
Control Delay 8.2
LOS A
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Worksheet 11-Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay
Movement 2
P (oj )
v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 0.99
v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6
s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5
3(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6
P* (oj )
d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4
N, Number of major street through lanes
d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5
9M
11
LTR
54
486
0.11
0.37
13.3
B
13.3
B
12
Movement 5
1.00
12
R
628
36
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1f
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL
SUMMARY
_ Analyst: J Rosenlund
Agency/Co.: JUB Engineers Inc
Date Performed: 9/4/2007
Analysis Time Period: PM Peak
Intersection:
Jurisdiction: ACHD/Meridian
Units: U. S. Customary
Analysis Year: 2010
Project ID: Chalet Marseilles Sub
East/West Street: E. Monet Street
North/South Street: Locust Grove Road
Intersection Orientation: NS
Study period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street: Approach
Northbound
Movement 1
Southbound
2 3
I 4 5 6
�. L T R
I L T R
Volume 32 556
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00
355
_ Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 32 556
1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 __ _-
355 21
Median Type/Storage Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes 1 1
Configuration L T
1 0
Upstream Signal? No
TR
No
Minor Street: Approach Westbound
Movement 7 8 9
Eastbound
L T R
I 10 11 12
I L T R
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
10 0 19
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Vehicles
10 0 19
Percent Grade ( o )
0 0 0
Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage 0
0
Lanes
/ No /
Configuration
0 1 0
LTR
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach NB
SB Westbound
_ Movement 1 4
Eastbound
1 7 8
Lane Config L I
9 I 10 11 12
I LTR
v (vph) 32
-- C (m) (vph) 1194
29
v/c 0.03
447
95% queue length 0.08
0.06
_. Control Delay 8.1
0.21
LOS A
13.6
Approach Delay
B
_ Approach LOS
13.6
B
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release
4.1f
— J-U-B Staff
J-U-B Engineers, Inc.
250 S Beechwood Ave
#201
— Boise, ID. 83709
Phone: 2083767330
E-Mail: it_purchaser@jub.com
Fax:
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS
w Analyst: J Rosenlund
Agency/Co.: JUB Engineers Inc
Date Performed: 9/4/2007
Analysis Time Period: PM Peak
Intersection:
Jurisdiction: ACHD/Meridian
Units: U. S. Customary
_ Analysis Year: 2010
Project ID: Chalet Marseilles Sub
East/West Street: E. Monet Street
— North/South Street: Locust Grove Road
Intersection Orientation: NS
Study period (hrs):
0.25
Vehicle Volumes
— Major Street Movements 1
and Adjustments
2
L T
3 4 5
R L
6
T
R
— Volume 32 556
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00
355
21
Peak-15 Minute Volume 8 139
1.
1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 32 556
8 9
5
_ Percent Heavy Vehicles 0
355
21
Median Type/Storage Undivided
RT Channelized?
/
_ Lanes 1 1
Configuration
1 0
L T
Upstream Signal?
TR
No
No
— Minor Street Movements 7 8
L T
9 10 11
R
12
L T
R
— Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
10 0
19
Peak-15 Minute Volume
1.00 1.00
1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
2 0
5
Percent Heavy Vehicles
10 0
19
Percent Grade (o)
0 0
0
Flared A 0
Exists?/Storage
0
— RT Channeli�edh�
/
Lanes
No /
Configuration
0 1 0
—
LTR
Movements Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments
13 14
15 16
Flow ( I.) / r)
0 0
0 0
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/sec)
12.0
12.0
Percent Blockage
4200 4.0
4.0
4.0
0 0
0
0
Prog.
Upstream Signal Data
Sat
... Flow
Arrival
Flow Type
Green
Time
Cycle Prog. Distance
vph
vph
Length Speed to Signal
S2 Left -Turn
sec
sec mph
P feet
Through
S5 Left -Turn
Through
w
Worksheet 3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles
Movement 2 Movement 5
Shared In volume, major th vehicles:
Shared in volume, major rt vehicles:
Sat flow rate, major th vehicles:
Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles:
Number of major street through lanes:
Worksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation
Critical Gap Calculation
Movement 1 4
7
L L L T R 10 11 12
t(c,base) 4.1 T R
t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.1 6.5 6,2
P(hv) 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
t (c, g) 020 0 0 0
.
Grade/100 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10
t(3,lt) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t(c,T): 1-stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00
2-stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
10.00
t(c) 1-stage 4.1 .00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
2-stage 6.4 6.5 6.2
Follow -Up Time Calculations
... Movement 1 4
7 g
L L L T R 10L
11 12
_ t (f,base) T R
t(f,HV) 2.20
0.90 0•90 0 90 3.50 4.00 3.30
P(0 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
t (f) f) 2.2 0
0 0
3.5 4.0 3.3
- Worksheet 5-Effect of Upstream Signals
Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal
Movement 2 Movement 5
V prog
V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot)
Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph)
Arrival Type
Effective Green, g (sec)
Cycle Length, C (sec)
RP ( from Exhibit 16-11)
Proportion vehicles arriving on green P
g (ql)
g(q2)
.' g (q)
Computation 2-Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked
Movement 2 Movement 5
V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot)
_ alpha
beta
Travel time, t(a) (sec)
Smoothing Factor, F
Proportion of conflicting flow, f
Max platooned flow, V(c,max)
Min platooned flow, V(c,min)
— Duration of blocked period, t(p)
Proportion time blocked, p
0.000
0.000
_ Computation 3-Platoon Event Periods
Result
p(2)
0.000
p(5)
0.000
_ p (dom)
p (subo)
Constrained or unconstrained?
Proportion
unblocked (1)
(2)
for minor Single -stage
Two -Stage
(3)
Process
movements, p(x) Process
Stage I
Stage II
p(1)
— p(4)
p(7)
p (8)
P(9)
_ p(10)
P(11)
P(12)
Computation 4 and 5
Single -Stage Process
_ Movement 1 4 7
L L L
8 9
T
10 11 12
R
L T R
V C, X
376
— s
986 986 36
Px
V c,u,X
C r, x
C plat,x
— Two -Stage Process
7 8
10
11
V(c,X)
s
P (x)
V(c,U,X)
C(r j —
C (plat, x)
Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2
Worksheet 6-Impedance and Capacity Equations
Step 1: RT from Minor St.
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
Step 2: LT from Major St.
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
Maj L-Shared Prob Q free St.
Step 3: TH from Minor St.
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
Step 4: LT from Minor St.
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor.
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
W
1.00
1.00
4
1.00
1.00
E
1.00
0.97
1.00
7
1.00
0.97
0.98
0.95
1500
Worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance
Step 3: TH from Minor St.
8
Part 1 - First Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
12
366
684
1.00
684
0.97
1
376
1194
1.00
1194
0.97
11
986
250
1.00
0.97
243
1.00
10
986
277
1.00
0.97
270
11
1500
-- Part 2 - Second Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
— Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
— Part 3 - Single Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
986
— Pedestrian Impedance Factor
250
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
1.00
0.97
1.00
Movement Capacity
0.97
_
243
Result for 2 stage process:
a
y
C t
Probability of Queue free St.
243
1.00
1.00
_ Step 4: LT from Minor St.
7
10
Part 1 - First Stage
_ Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
— Movement Capacity
Part 2 - Second Stage
_ Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
—
Movement Capacity
Part 3 - Single Stage
_. Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
986
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
277
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor
—
1.00
1.00
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor.
0.97
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
0.98
0•95
0.97
—
270
Results for Two -stage process:
a
_ y
C t
270
— Worksheet 8-Shared Lane Calculations
Movement
— 7
L
8 9 10
T
11 12
Volume (vph)
R L
T R
Movement Capacity (vph)
10
0 19
Shared Lane Capacity (vph)
270
243 684
447
Worksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches
Movement 7 8 9
10 11 — L T R L T
C sep
Volume 270 243
Delay 10 0
Q sep
Q sep +1
round (Qsep +1)
n max
_ C sh
SUM C sep 447
n
C act
Worksheet 10-Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Movement 1 4 7 8 9
Lane Config L 10 11
LTR
v (vph) 32
C(m) (vph) 1194 29
v/c 0.03 447
95% queue length 0.08 0.06
Control Delay 8.1 0.21
LOS A 13.6
Approach Delay B
Approach LOS 13.6
B
Worksheet 11-Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay
Movement 2
P(oj)
v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 0.97
v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6
s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5
s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6
P* (oj )
d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4
N, Number of major street through lanes
d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5
M
12
R
684
19
12
Movement 5
1.00
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1f
_ J-U-B Staff
J-U-B Engineers, Inc.
250 S Beechwood Ave
#201
' Boise, ID. 83709
Phone: 2083767330
E-Mail: it_purchaser@jub.com
Fax:
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS
Analyst: J Rosenlund
Agency/Co.: JUB Engineers Inc
Date Performed: 9/4/2007
Analysis Time Period: AM Peak
Intersection:
Jurisdiction: ACHD/Meridian
Units: U. S. Customary
— Analysis Year: 2010 No Yellow Peak
Project ID: Chalet Marseilles Sub
East/West Street: E. Monet Street
North/South Street: Locust Grove Road
Intersection Orientation: NS
Study period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and
— Major Street Movements 1
Adjustments
2 3
4 5 6
L T R
L T R
_ Volume 16 381
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00
30 4
Peak-15 Minute Volume 4 95
11..000 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 16 381
1
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0
4 30
30 4
Median Type/Storage Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes 1 1
Configuration L T
1 0
Upstream Signal? No
TR
No
' Minor Street Movements 7 8 9
10 11 12
L T R
L T R
— Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
15 0 40
Peak-15 Minute Volume
1.00 1.00 1.00
— Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
4 0 10
Percent Heavy Vehicles
15 0 40
Percent Grade (o)
0 0 0
Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage 0
0
— RT Channelized?
/ No /
Lanes
Configuration
0 1 0
—
LTR
Movements
Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments
_ 13
14 15 16
Flow (ped/hr) 0
0 0 0
Lane Width (ft)
-- Walking Speed (ft/sec)
Percent Blockage
Prog.
Flow
vph
S2 Left -Turn
Through
S5 Left -Turn
Through
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
0 0 0 0
Upstream Signal Data
Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance
Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal
vph sec sec mph feet
Worksheet 3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles
Movement 2 Movement 5
Shared In volume, major th vehicles:
Shared In volume, major rt vehicles:
Sat flow rate, major th vehicles:
Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles:
Number of major street through lanes:
Worksheet 4-Critical
Gap and
Follow-up Time
Calculation
Critical
Gap Calculation
Movement
1
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
_.
L
L
L
T
R
L
T
R
t(c,base)
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
t(c,hv)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
P (hv)
0
0
0
0
t(c,g)
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.10
Grade/100
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
._ t(3,1t)
0.00
0.70
0.00
0.00
t(c,T):
1-stage 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2-stage 0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
t(c)
1-stage 4.1
6.4
6.5
6.2
2-stage
Follow -Up
Time Calculations
- Movement
1
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
L
L
L
T
R
L
T
R
_ t(f,base)
t(f,HV)
2.20
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
3.50
4.00
3.30
P (HV)
0
0.90
0.90
0.90
t(f)
2.2
0
0
0
3.5
4.0
3.3
Worksheet 5-Effect of Upstream Signals
Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal
Movement 2 Movement 5
�- V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot)
V prog
Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph)
-- Arrival Type
Effective Green, g (sec)
Cycle Length, C (sec)
Rp (from Exhibit 16-11)
Proportion vehicles arriving on green P
g(ql)
g(q2)
g (q)
Computation 2-Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked
Movement 2 Movement 5
V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot)
alpha
beta
Travel time, t (a) (sec)
Smoothing Factor, F
Proportion of conflicting flow, f
Max platooned flow, V(c,max)
Min platooned flow, V(c,min)
— Duration of blocked period, t(p)
Proportion time blocked, p
Computation 3-Platoon Event Periods
P(2)
p(5)
p (dom )
p (subo)
Constrained or unconstrained?
Proportion
unblocked (1)
for minor Single -stage
movements, p(x) Process
P(1)
-� P(4)
P(7)
P(8)
P(9)
p(10)
p (11)
p(12)
Computation 4 and 5
Single -Stage Process
Movement
V C, x
-- s
Px
V C, U, x
C r, x
C plat,x
Two -Stage Process
Result
0.000
0.000
(2) (3)
Two -Stage Process
Stage I Stage II
1 4 7 8 9 10 ll 12
L L L T R L T R
434 845 845 432
7
8 10 11
Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2
V(c,x)
s
P (x)
V(c,U,x)
C(r,x)
C (plat, x)
Worksheet 6-Impedance and Capacity Equations
Step 1: RT from Minor St.
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
Step 2. LT from Major St.
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
Mai L-Shared Prob Q free St.
Step 3: TH from Minor St.
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
Step 4: LT from Minor St.
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor.
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
9
1.00
1.00
4
1.00
1.00
I
1.00
0.99
1.00
7
1.00
0.99
0.99
0.93
1500
Worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance
Step 3: TH from Minor St.
8
Part l - First Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
12
432
628
1.00
628
0.94
1
434
1136
1.00
1136
0.99
11
845
302
1.00
0.99
298
1.00
10
845
336
1.00
0.99
331
11
1500
— Part 2 - Second Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
_ Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
' Part 3 - Single Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
845
— Pedestrian Impedance Factor
302
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
1.00
0.99
1.00
Movement Capacity
0.99
_
298
Result for 2 stage process:
a
y
— C t
Probability of Queue free St.
1.00
298
1.00
._ Step 4: LT from Minor St.
7
10
Part 1 - First Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
— Movement Capacity
Part 2 - Second Stage
_ Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
�- Movement Capacity
Part 3 - Single Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
845
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
1.00
336
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor
1.000.99
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor.
0.99
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
0.93
0.99
--
331
Results for Two -stage process:
a
y
_
C t
331
— Worksheet 8-Shared Lane Calculations
Movement
—
L
8 9 10
T
11
12
Volume (vph)
R L
T
R
_ Movement Capacity (vph)
15
0
40
Shared Lane Capacity (vph)
331
298
628
505
Worksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches
Movement 7 8 9 10 11
L T R L T
C sep
Volume 331 298
Delay 15 0
Q sep
Q sep +1
round (Qsep +1)
n max
C sh
SUM C sep 505
n
C act
Worksheet 10-Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10
Lane Config L 11
LTR
C(m) (vph) 1136 55
v/c 0.01 505
95% queue length 0.04 0.11
Control Delay 8.2 0.36
LOS A 13.0
Approach Delay B
Approach LOS 13.0
B
— Worksheet 11-Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay
_ Movement 2
P (oj ) 0.99
v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5
v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6
s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5
s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6
P*(oj)
d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4
N, Number of major street through lanes 8 2
d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5
12
R
628
40
12
Movement 5
1.00
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1f
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL
SUMMARY
_ Analyst: J Rosenlund
Agency/Co.: JUB Engineers Inc
Date Performed: 9/4/2007
_ Analysis Time Period: PM Peak
Intersection:
Jurisdiction: ACHD/Meridian
Units: U. S. Customary
— Analysis Year: 2010 No Yellow Peak
Project ID: Chalet Marseilles Sub
East/West Street: E. Monet Street
North/South Street: Locust Grove Road
Intersection Orientation: NS
Study period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street: Approach
Northbound
Movement 1
Southbound
2 3
1 4 5 6
L T R
I L T R
Volume 44 556
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00
356 18
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 44 556
1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 __
356 18
Median Type/Storage Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
— Lanes 1 1
Configuration
1 0
L T
Upstream Signal?
TR
No
_
No
Minor Street: Approach Westbound
Movement 7 8 9
Eastbound
L T R
1 10 11 12
—
I L T R
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
8 0 30
_ Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Vehicles
8 0 30
Percent Grade (%) 0
0 0 0
Flared A
Approach: Exists?/Storage
0
Lanes
/ No /
Configuration
0 1 0
LTR
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach NB
SB Westbound
Movement 1 4
Eastbound
— 1 7 8
Lane Config L 1
9 I 10 11 12
1 LTR
v (vph) 44
— C(m) (vph) 1196
38
v/c 0.04
509
95% queue length 0.11
0.07
Control Delay 8.1
0.24
LOS A
12.6
Approach Delay
B
Approach LOS
12.6
B
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1f
_ J-U-B Staff
J-U-B Engineers, Inc.
250 S Beechwood Ave
#201
-" Boise, ID. 83709
Phone: 2083767330
E-Mail: it_purchaser@jub.com
Fax:
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC)
ANALYSIS
— Analyst: J Rosenlund
Agency/Co.: JUB Engineers Inc
Date Performed: 9/4/2007
Analysis Time Period: PM Peak
Intersection:
Jurisdiction: ACHD/Meridian
Units: U. S. Customary
,. Analysis Year: 2010 No Yellow Peak
Project ID: Chalet Marseilles Sub
East/West Street: E. Monet Street
North/South Street: Locust Grove Road
Intersection Orientation: NS
Study period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and
— Major Street Movements 1
Adjustments
2 3
4 5 6
L T R
L T R
_ Volume 44 556
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00
18
Peak-15 Minute Volume 11 139
11..000 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 44 556
89 4
'- Percent Heavy Vehicles 0
356 18
Median Type/Storage Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
_ Lanes 1 1
Configuration L
1 0
T
Upstream Signal? No
TR
No
Minor Street Movements 7 8 9
L T R
10 11 12
L T R
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
8 0 30
Peak-15 Minute Volume
1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
2 0 8
Percent Heavy Vehicles
8 0 30
Percent Grade (o) 0
0 0 0
Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage
0
— RT Channelized?
/ No /
Lanes
Configuration
0 1 0
—
LTR
Pedestrian Volumes and
Movements
Adjustments
13
'- 14 15
16
Flow (ped/hr)
0 0 0
0
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0
Upstream Signal Data
Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance
Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal
vph vph sec sec mph feet
S2 Left -Turn
�- Through
S5 Left -Turn
Through
Worksheet 3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles
Movement 2 Movement 5
Shared In volume, major th vehicles:
Shared In volume, major rt vehicles:
Sat flow rate, major th vehicles:
Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles:
Number of major street through lanes:
Worksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation
Critical Gap Calculation
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
L L L T R L T R
t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2
t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0
t(c,g) 0
0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10
Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00
t(c,T): 1-stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2-stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
t(c) 1-stage 4.1 6.4 6.5 6.2
2-stage
Follow -Up Time Calculations
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11
12
L L
L T R L T R
t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 4.00 3.30
t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
P (HV) 0 0 0
t (f) 2.2 0
3.5 4.0 3.3
Worksheet 5-Effect of Upstream Signals
Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal
Movement 2 Movement 5
V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot)
V prog
Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph)
-- Arrival Type
Effective Green, g (sec)
Cycle Length, C (sec)
Rp (from Exhibit 16-11)
Proportion vehicles arriving on green P
g(ql)
g(q2)
g (q)
w Computation 2-Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked
Movement 2 Movement 5
V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot)
w alpha
beta
Travel time, t(a) (sec)
Smoothing Factor, F
^' Proportion of conflicting flow, f
Max platooned flow, V(c,max)
Min platooned flow, V(c,min)
_.. Duration of blocked period, t(p)
Proportion time blocked, p
0.000
0.000
_ Computation 3-Platoon Event Periods
Result
p(2)
0.000
P(5)
0.000
p (dom)
p(subo)
Constrained or unconstrained?
Proportion
unblocked (1)
(2)
for minor Single -stage
—
Two -Stage
(3)
Process
movements, p(x) Process
Stage I
Stage II
p(l)
_.. P(4)
P(7)
P(8)
P(9)
P(10)
P(11)
P(12)
Computation 4 and 5
Single -Stage Process
_ Movement 1 4 7
8
L L L
9
T R
10 11 12
L T R
V c, x 374
- S
1009 1009 365
Px
V c, u, x
C r, x
C plat,x
-" Two -Stage Process
7 8
10
_
11
Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2
V(c,X)
s
P (x)
V(c,u,X)
C(r,x)
C(plat,x)
Worksheet 6-Impedance and Capacity Equations
Step 1: RT from Minor St.
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
Step 2: LT from Major St.
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
Maj L-Shared Prob Q free St.
Step 3: TH from Minor St.
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
Step 4: LT from Minor St.
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor.
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
9
1.00
1.00
4
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.96
1.00
7
1.00
0.96
0.97
0.93
1500
Worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance
Step 3: TH from Minor St.
8
Part 1 - First Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
12
365
685
1.00
685
0.96
1
374
1196
1.00
1196
0.96
11
1009
242
1.00
0.96
233
1.00
10
1009
269
1.00
0.96
259
11
1500
— Part 2 - Second Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
_ Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
— Part 3 - Single Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
1009
— Pedestrian Impedance Factor
242
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
1.
0'96
1.00
Movement Capacity
0.96
_
233
Result for 2 stage process:
a
y
— C t
Probability of Queue free St.
233
1.00
1.00
_. Step 4: LT from Minor St.
7
10
Part 1 - First Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
— Movement Capacity
Part 2 - Second Stage
_ Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
— Movement Capacity
Part 3 - Single Stage
_ Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
1009
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
269
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor
1.00
1.00
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor.
0.96
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
0.97
0.93
0.96
—
259
Results for Two -stage process:
a
y
_
C t
259
Worksheet 8-Shared Lane Calculations
Movement
7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T
volume (vph) R
Movement Capacity (vph) 8 0 30
Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 259 233 685
509
-- Worksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches
Movement 7
8 9 10 11 L T R L T
C sep
Volume 259 233
Delay 8 0
Q sep
Q sep +1
round (Qsep +1)
n max
_ C sh
SUM C sep 509
n
C act
— Worksheet 10-Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Movement 1 4 7 8 9
Lane Config L 10 11
LTR
-" v (vph) 44
C(m) (vph) 1196 38
v/c 0.04 509
95% queue length 0.11 0.07
Control Delay 8.1 0.24
LOS A 12.6
Approach Delay B
Approach LOS 12.6
B
-- Worksheet 11-Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay
_ Movement 2
P (oj )
v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5 0.96
v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6
s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5
s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6
P* (oj )
d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4
N, Number of major street through lanes
d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5
8.1
12
Movement 5
1.00
12
R
685
30
— HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1f
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
— Analyst: J Rosenlund
Agency/Co.: JUB Engineers Inc
Date Performed: 9/4/2007
Analysis Time Period: AM Peak
'-
Intersection:
Jurisdiction: ACHD/Meridian
Units: U. S. Customary
— Analysis Year: 2010
Project ID: Chalet Marseilles Sub
East/West Street: Ustick Road
_ North/South Street: Lilyford Avenue
Intersection Orientation: EW
Study period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and
— Major Street: Approach
Adjustments
Eastbound
Movement 1 2
Westbound
3 I 4 5 6
L T
—
R I L T R
Volume 5 713
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00
365 6
— Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 713
1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 --
__ 365 6
Median Type/Storage Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
— Lanes 1 1
Configuration L T
1 0
Upstream Signal? No
TR
No
_
Minor Street: Approach Northbound
Southbound
Movement 7 8
9 I 10 11 12
— L T
R I L T R
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
12 0 20
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
1.00 1.00 1.00
Percent Heavy Vehicles
12 0 20
Percent Grade (a) 0
0 0 0
Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage
—
0
/
Lanes
No /
Configuration
0 1 0
LTR
Delay, Queue Length, and
Approach
Level of Service
EB WB Northbound
Movement 1 4 Southbound
— 1 7 8
Lane Config L I
9 I 10 11 12
I LTR
v (vph) 5
— C(m) (vph) 1199
32
v/c 0.00
402
95% queue length 0.01
0.08
_ Control Delay 8.0
0.26
LOS A
14.7
Approach Delay
B
— Approach LOS
14.7
B
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1f
— J-U-B Staff
J-U-B Engineers, Inc.
250 S Beechwood Ave
#201
— Boise, ID. 83709
Phone: 2083767330
E-Mail: it_purchaser@jub.com
Fax:
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC)
ANALYSIS
— Analyst: J Rosenlund
Agency/Co.: JUB Engineers Inc
Date Performed: 9/4/2007
Analysis Time Period: AM Peak
— Intersection:
Jurisdiction: ACHD/Meridian
Units: U. S. Customary
— Analysis Year: 2010
Project ID: Chalet Marseilles Sub
East/West Street: Ustick Road
— North/South Street: Lilyford Avenue
Intersection Orientation: EW
Study period (hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and
— Major Street Movements 1
Adjustments
2 3
4 5 6
L T R
L T R
— Volume 5 71
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00
7365 6
Peak-15 Minute Volume 1 178
1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 713
91 91 2
— Percent Heavy Vehicles 0
365 6
Median Type/Storage Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes 1 1
Configuration L T
1 0
Upstream Signal? No
TR
No
— Minor Street Movements 7 8 9
10
11 12
L T R
L T R
— Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
12 0 20
Peak-15 Minute Volume
1.00 1.00 1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
3 0 5
_
Percent Heavy Vehicles
12 0 20
Percent Grade (%) 0
0 0 0
Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage
/ 0
— RT Channelized?
No /
Lanes
Configuration
0 1 0
LTR
Pedestrian Volumes and
Movements
Adjustments
— 13 14 15
16
Flow (ped/hr) 0
0 0
p
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Percent Blockage 0 0 0 0
Upstream Signal Data
Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance
Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal
vph vph sec sec mph feet
S2 Left -Turn
Through
S5 Left -Turn
Through
Worksheet 3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles
Movement 2 Movement 5
Shared In volume, major th vehicles:
- Shared In volume, major rt vehicles:
Sat flow rate, major th vehicles:
Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles:
- Number of major street through lanes:
Worksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation
Critical Gap Calculation
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
L L L T R L T R
t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2
t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
- P(hv) 0 0 0
t(c,g) 0
0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10
Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t(3,1t) 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00
t(c,T): 1-stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2-stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
t(c) 1-stage 4.1 6.4 6.5 6.2
2-stage
Follow -Up Time Calculations
- Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11
12
L L
L T R L T R
_ t(c,base) 2,20
t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
P (HV) 0 0 0
t (f) 2.2 0
-- 3.5 4.0 3.3
Worksheet 5-Effect of Upstream Signals
Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal
Movement 2 Movement 5
V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot)
V prog
Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph)
-- Arrival Type
Effective Green, g (sec)
Cycle Length, C (sec)
— Rp (from Exhibit 16-11)
Proportion vehicles arriving on green
P
g(ql)
9(q2)
_
g (q)
— Computation 2-Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time
blocked
Movement
2 Movement 5
V(t) V(l,prot)
V(t) V(l,prot)
— alpha
beta
Travel time, t(a) (sec)
Smoothing Factor, F
— Proportion of conflicting flow, f
Max platooned flow, V(c,max)
Min platooned flow, V(c,min)
— Duration of blocked period, t(p)
Proportion time blocked, p
0.000
0.000
— Computation 3-Platoon Event Periods
Result
p(2)
0.000
p (5)
0.000
— p (dom)
p (subo)
Constrained or unconstrained?
Proportion
unblocked (1)
(2)
(3)
for minor Single -stage
—
Two -Stage
Process
movements, p(x) Process
Stage I
Stage II
p(1)
_. p (4)
p(7)
P(8)
P(9)
— p(10)
P(11)
p (12)
Computation 4 and 5
Single -Stage Process
Movement 1 4 7
8 9
L L L
T R
10 11 12
L
T R
V c, x 371
— s
1091 1091 368
Px
V c, u, x
C r, x
C plat,x
— Two -Stage Process
7 8
10
11
Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2
V(c,x)
s
P (x)
V(c,u,x)
C(r,x)
C (plat, x)
Worksheet 6-Impedance and Capacity Equations
Step 1: RT from Minor St.
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
Step 2: LT from Major St.
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
Maj L-Shared Prob Q free St.
Step 3: TH from Minor St.
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
Step 4: LT from Minor St.
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor.
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
1.00
1.00
4
1.00
1.00
F
1.00
1.00
1.00
7
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.97
1500
Worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance
— Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8
Part 1 - First Stage
_ Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
12
368
682
1.00
682
0.97
1
371
1199
1.00
1199
1.00
11
1091
217
1.00
1.00
216
1.00
10
1091
240
1.00
1.00
239
11
1500
Part: 2 - Second Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Part 3 - Single Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
-- Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Result for 2 stage process:
a
y
C t
Probability of Queue free St.
— Step 4: LT from Minor St.
Part 1 - First Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Part 2 - Second Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Part 3 - Single Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor.
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Results for Two -stage process:
a
y
C t
Worksheet 8-Shared Lane Calculations
Movement 7
L
Volume (vph)
Movement Capacity (vph)
Shared Lane Capacity (vph)
1091
217
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
216
216
1.00 1.00
7 10
1091
240
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.97
1.00
239
239
8 9 10 11 12
T R L T R
12 0 20
239 216 682
402
-- Worksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches
Movement 7 8 9 10 11
L T R L T
C sep 239 216
Volume
Delay 12 0
Q sep
Q sep +1
— round (Qsep +1)
n max.
_ C sh
SUM C sep
n
C act
Worksheet 10-Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Movement
1 4 7 8 9
Lane Config
L
v (vph)
5
C(m) (vph)
1199
v/c
0.00
— 95% queue length
0.01
Control Delay
8.0
LOS
A
— Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Worksheet 11-Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay
402
10 11 12
LTR
32
402
0.08
0.26
14.7
B
14.7
B
Movement 2
p (oj ) 1.00
v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5
v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6
s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5
s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6
P* (oj )
d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 8.0
N, Number of major street through lanes
d(rank,,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5
12
R
682
20
Movement 5
1.00
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1f
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
Analyst: J Rosenlund
Agency/Co.: JUB Engineers Inc
Date Performed: 9/4/2007
Analysis Time Period: PM Peak
Intersection:
Jurisdiction: ACHD/Meridian
Units: U. S. Customary
Analysis Year: 2010
Project ID: Chalet Marseilles Sub
East/West Street: Ustick Road
North/South Street: Lilyford Avenue
Intersection Orientation: EW
Study period
(hrs):
0.25
Vehicle Volumes and
Adjustments
Major Street: Approach Eastbound
Westbound
Movement 1 2
3 1 4
5
6
L T
R I L
T
R
Volume 20 532
801
14
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00
1.00
1.00
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 20 532
801
14
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0
Median Type/Storage Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
Lanes 1 1
1 0
Configuration L T
Upstream Signal? No
TR
No
Minor Street: Approach Northbound
Southbound
Movement 7 8
9 I 10
11
12
L T
R I L
T
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent Grade M 0
Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage
Lanes
Configuration
Approach
Movement
Lane Config
v (vph)
C (m) (vph)
v/c
95% queue length
Control Delay
LOS
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
R
7 0 14
1.00 1.00 1.00
7 0 14
0 0 0
0
/ No /
0 1 0
LTR
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
EB WB Northbound Southbound
1 4 1 7 8 9 I 10 11 12
L I I LTR
20
821 21
0.02 259
0.07 0.08
9.5 0.26
A 20.1
C
20.1
C
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1f
_ J-U-B Staff
J-U-B Engineers, Inc.
250 S Beechwood Ave
#201
_ Boise, ID. 83709
Phone: 2083767330
E-Mail: it_purchaser@jub.com
Fax:
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC)
ANALYSIS
— Analyst: J Rosenlund
Agency/Co.: JUB Engineers Inc
Date Performed: 9/4/2007
Analysis Time Period: PM Peak
-" Intersection:
Jurisdiction: ACHD/Meridian
Units: U. S. Customary
— Analysis Year: 2010
Project ID: Chalet Marseilles Sub
East/West Street: Ustick Road
_ North/South Street: Lilyford Avenue
Intersection Orientation: EW
Study period (hrs)• 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and
— Major Street Movements 1
Adjustments
2 3
4 5 6
L T R
L T R
_ Volume 20 532
801 14
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
Peak-15 Minute Volume 5 133
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 20 532
200 4
801
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0
14
Median Type/Storage Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
_ Lanes 1 1
1 0
Configuration L T
Upstream Signal? No
TR
No
Minor Street Movements 7 8 9
10 11 12
L T R
L T R
— Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
7 0 14
1.00 1.00 1.00
Peak-15 Minute Volume
2
— Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
0 4
7
Percent Heavy Vehicles
0 14
0
Percent Grade (%) 0
0 0
Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage
—
0
/
RT Channelized?
No /
Lanes
Configuration
0 1 0
_
LTR
Pedestrian Volumes and Adjustments
_ Movements 13 14
15 16
Flow (ped/hr)
0 0 0 0
Lane Width (ft)
-- Walking Speed (ft/sec)
Percent Blockage
Prog.
Flow
vph
S2 Left -Turn
Through
S5 Left -Turn
Through
12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
0 0 0 0
Upstream Signal Data
Sat Arrival Green Cycle Prog. Distance
Flow Type Time Length Speed to Signal
vph sec sec mph feet
Worksheet 3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles
Movement 2 Movement 5
Shared In volume, major th vehicles:
Shared In volume, major rt vehicles:
Sat flow rate, major th vehicles:
Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles:
Number of major street through lanes:
Worksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation
Critical Gap Calculation
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
L L L T R L T R
t(c,base) 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2
t(c,hv) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
P (hv) 0 0 0 0
t(c,g) 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10
Grade/100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t(3,lt) 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00
t(c,T): 1-stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2-stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
t(c) 1-stage 4.1 6.4 6.5 6.2
2-stage
Follow -Up Time Calculations
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
L L L T R L T R
_ t(f,base) 2.20 3.50 4.00 3.30
t(f,HV) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
P (HV) 0 0 0 0
t (f) 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3
Worksheet 5-Effect of Upstream Signals
Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal
Movement 2 Movement 5
V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot)
V prog
Total Saturation Flow Rate, s (vph)
— Arrival Type
Effective Green, g (sec)
Cycle Length, C (sec)
Rp (from Exhibit 16-11)
Proportion vehicles arriving on green
P
g(ql)
g(q2)
_
g (q)
_ Computation 2-Proportion of TWSC Intersection Time blocked
Movement 2 Movement
5
V(t) V(l,prot) V(t)
V(l,prot)
_ alpha
beta
Travel time, t(a) (sec)
Smoothing Factor, F
— Proportion of conflicting flow, f
Max platooned flow, V(c,max)
Min platooned flow, V(c,min)
_- Duration of blocked period, t(p)
Proportion time blocked, p
0.000
0.000
_ Computation 3-Platoon Event Periods
Result
p(2)
0.000
p(5)
0.000
— p (dom)
p (subo)
Constrained or unconstrained?
Proportion
unblocked (1)
(2) (3)
for minor Single -stage
Two -Stage Process
movements, p(x) Process
Stage I Stage II
g
p(1)
— p(4)
p(7)
p (8)
P(9)
p(10)
P(11)
P(12)
Computation 4 and 5
Single -Stage Process
_ Movement 1 4 7
8 9
L L L
10
T R L
11 12
T R
V c, x 815
- S
1380
138 8808
Px
V c, u, x
C r, x
C plat,x
— Two -Stage Process
7 8
10
11
Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2 Stagel Stage2
V(c,x)
s 1500
P(x) 1500
V(C,u,x)
C(r,x)
C(plat,x)
Worksheet 6-Impedance and Capacity Equations
Step 1: RT from Minor St.
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
Step 2: LT from Major St.
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
Maj L-Shared Prob Q free St.
Step 3: TH from Minor St.
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
Step 4: LT from Minor St.
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor.
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
E
1.00
1.00
4
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.98
1.00
7
Worksheet 7-Computation of the Effect of Two -stage Gap Acceptance
Step 3: TH from Minor St. 8
Part 1 - First Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
Probability of Queue free St.
12
808
384
1.00
384
0.96
1
815
821
1.00
821
0.98
11
1380
146
1.00
0.98
142
1.00
10
1380
161
1.00
0.98
157
11
— Part 2 - Second Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
— Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
Movement Capacity
— Part 3 - Single Stage
Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
1380
— Pedestrian Impedance Factor
146
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
0.98
100
Movement Capacity
0.98
—
142
142
Result for 2 stage process:
a
y
C t
Probabilityof Queue free St.
1.00
142
1.00
_ Step 4: LT from Minor St.
7
10
Part 1 - First Stage
Conflicting Flows
_
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
— Movement Capacity
Part 2 - Second Stage
— Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
'- Movement Capacity
Part 3 - Single Stage
_ Conflicting Flows
Potential Capacity
1380
Pedestrian Impedance Factor
1.00
161
— Maj. L, Min T Impedance factor
98
1.000
Maj. L, Min T Adj. Imp Factor.
0.98
Cap. Adj. factor due to Impeding mvmnt
0.95
0.98
Movement Capacity
157
157
Results for Two -stage process:
a
_ y
C t
157
Worksheet 8-Shared Lane Calculations
Movement 7 8
— 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume (vph)
Movement Capacity (vph) 7 0 14
Shared Lane Capacity (vph) 157 142 384
259
Worksheet 9-Computation of Effect of Flared Minor Street Approaches
Movement 7 8 9 10 11
L T R L T
C sep 157 142
Volume
Dela7 0
y
Q sep
Q sep +1
round (Qsep +1)
n max
C sh
SUM C sep
n
C act
Worksheet 10-Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Movement 1 4 7 8 9
Lane Config L
v (vph) 20
C(m) (vph) 821
v/c 0.02
95% queue length 0.07
Control Delay 9.5
LOS A
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
Worksheet 11-Shared Major LT Impedance and Delay
259
10 11 12
LTR
21
259
0.08
0.26
20.1
C
20.1
C
Movement
P (oj ) 0.98
v(il), Volume for stream 2 or 5
v(i2), Volume for stream 3 or 6
s(il), Saturation flow rate for stream 2 or 5
s(i2), Saturation flow rate for stream 3 or 6
P* (oj )
d(M,LT), Delay for stream 1 or 4 9.3
N, Number of major street through lanes
d(rank,l) Delay for stream 2 or 5
12
R
384
14
Movement 5
1.00
CHALET MARSEILLES SUBDIVISION
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Chalet Marseilles Subdivision is a 21.81-acre residential development located at the northwest
corner of Ustick Road and Locust Grove Road in Meridian, Idaho. Both of these streets are
classified as minor arterials. There are 67 residential condominium units (ITE Use 230) planned for
this subdivision along with 87 detached senior adult housing units (ITE Use 251) resulting in a gross
density of 7.06 units per acre. Direct access to the site is located on Locust Grove Road,
approximately 660 feet north of Ustick Road. Another access is to the north on Heritage View
Avenue through the Heritage Commons Subdivision. A future third access for the site south to
Ustick Road may be through the Wanda's Meadow Subdivision on Yellow Peak Lane. That
potential connection is currently blocked by an eight -foot strip of land owned by a third party.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
1. The site will generate 938 daily trip ends with 71 AM peak -hour trips and 94 PM peak -hour
trips.
2. The intersection of Ustick Road and Locust Grove Road presently operates at LOS C with
an average delay of 34.7 seconds during the AM peak hour and 30.4 seconds during the
PM peak. No approach to the intersection operates below LOS D.
In 2010, without the traffic added by the subdivision, the Ustick/Locust Grove intersection
will operate at LOS D during the morning and evening peak hours; the average delay will be
49.0 seconds and 41.5 seconds, respectively. The westbound left turn will operate at LOS F
in both the morning and evening peak hours.
The Ustick/Locust Grove intersection with site traffic added in 2010 will operate at LOS D
during the morning and evening peak hours; the average delay will be 51.2 seconds and
42.3 seconds, respectively. The westbound left turn will operate at LOS F in both the
morning and evening peak hours.
— Chalet Marseilles Subdivision
� J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
3. The E Monet Street intersection at Locust Grove Road is expected to operate at LOS B with
13.6 seconds average delay per vehicle in the PM peak and 13.3 seconds delay in the AM
peak. If the connection to Yellow Peak Avenue is not made, the intersection will still operate
at LOS B with an average delay of 12.6 seconds in the PM peak and 13.0 seconds without
the connection.
4. If the road connection is made between Chalet Marseilles and Wanda's Meadow
Subdivision, Lillyturf Avenue at Ustick Road will operate at LOS C with 20.1 seconds
average delay per vehicle in the PM peak and at LOS B with 14.7 seconds delay in the AM
peak.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Construct the connection between Chalet Marseilles and Wanda's Meadow Subdivisions at
the earliest possible time. This connection will reduce the number of vehicle trips through
the Ustick/Locust Grove intersection. It may also keep the traffic volume on Park Commons
Avenue below in the Heritage Commons Subdivision below the 1,000 vehicles per day local
street threshold.
2. Consider relocating Monet Street further south along Locust Grove Road to obtain a
125-foot minimum offset from Summerheights Drive. This will reduce conflicts between the
traffic from these two streets as well as the adjacent church driveway.
3. Coordinate site improvement to facilitate installation of a southbound through -lane at the
intersection of Ustick Road and Locust Grove Road. This lane is needed to maintain all
movements within the intersection above LOS F. This improvement is needed with or
without the traffic generated by the Chalet Marseilles Subdivision.
STUDY OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study is to assess the traffic impacts of the proposed Chalet Marseilles
Subdivision on the local road system and evaluate the ability of the system to accommodate the
site -generated traffic. This study is to be done in conformance to Ada County Highway District's
policies for traffic impact studies.
_ Chalet Marseilles Subdivision 2
J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
SITE DESCRIPTION
Chalet Marseilles Subdivision is a 21.81-acre residential development located at the northwest
corner of Ustick Road and Locust Grove Road in Meridian, Idaho (Figure 1). At build -out, the
development will consist of 87 senior adult housing units and 67 residential condominium units
comprised primarily of four-plex buildings. The gross density will be approximately 7.1 dwellings
per acre. Construction will be done in two phases with build -out projected to be in the year 2010.
Chalet Marseilles will connect to Locust Grove Road approximately 660 feet north of Ustick Road.
The subdivision will also connect to the Heritage Commons Subdivision to the north via Heritage
View Avenue. It is likely that Chalet Marseilles will also connect to Ustick Road indirectly through
Wanda's Meadow Subdivision via Yellow Peak Avenue. Presently, another property owner owns
an eight -foot strip of land that divides the two subdivisions and prevents the connection. It is
_ expected that this connection will be made when that parcel of land is developed in the future.
_. Chalet Marseilles Subdivision 3
J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
VILMI1 i MAN WOW
Chalet Marseilles Subdivision
4
J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
Chalet Marseilles Subdivision
Condominiums
a ,
Figure 2. Site Plan
STUDY APPROACH
1. Determine existing traffic conditions and assess operational characteristics of the Ustick
Road/Locust Grove intersection.
2. Establish baseline conditions and evaluate the intersection capacities based on the
COMPASS 2010 Long Range Transportation Model.
3. Estimate traffic volumes generated by the proposed development using the ITE Trip
Generation Manual and distribute the trips to the approach road and adjacent arterial
intersections.
4. Evaluate traffic conditions for baseline plus site generated traffic.
Chalet Marseilles Subdivision 5 J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
5. Identify capacity limitation of the existing roadway and suggest improvements to mitigate
those limitations.
Facilities to be evaluated include the intersection of Ustick Road at Locust Grove Road, Locust
Grove Road at Monet Street, and Ustick Road at Lillyturf Avenue.
ASSUMPTIONS
The following are the assumptions used in this traffic study to analyze traffic conditions:
1. The 2010 traffic volume on Ustick Road in the vicinity of the proposed development is
approximately 13,400 vehicles per day. This value was determined by using project
growth rate through 2030 from COMPASS "Trend" model and applying it to the 4/7/05
ACHD count of 10,975. The projected growth rate is approximately 4% per year.
w
2. The 2010 traffic volume on Locust Grove Road in the vicinity of the proposed
development is approximately 10,125 vehicles per day. This value was determined by
using project growth rate through 2030 from COMPASS "Trend" model and applying it to
the 12/13/05 ACHD count of 9,399 in the vicinity of the proposed development. The
projected growth rate on Locust Grove, north of Ustick is approximately 1.5% per year.
3. This project is expected to be built out by 2010.
The COMPASS "Trend" Long Range Transportation Model prediction was used because the traffic
volumes predicted are higher than the "Choice" model, thereby providing a more conservative
analysis.
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The baseline level of service for the study area was calculated for the 2010 traffic conditions. This
.- provides the basis for determining the traffic impacts created by the development. Existing roadway
geometry and level terrain classification were used in the analysis.
Table 5
2010 Traffic Volumes
Street
Daily
AM Peak
PM Peak
Usti * Road
13400
947
952
Locust Grove Road
10125
810
911
_, Chalet Marseilles Subdivision 6 J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
The COMPASS model shows the 2010 traffic volumes on Locust Grove Road to be less than the
volumes recorded in 2005 by ACHD. The growth rate predicted between the 2010 model and the
2030 model were used to calculate 2010 traffic volumes for Locust Grove using the 2005 traffic
counts as a base year. Directional splits and peak -hour volumes were calculated using the existing
splits and peak -hour percentage of total daily traffic.
Site Generated Traffic
t The vehicle trips to be generated by the proposed development were determined using the latest
edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual (7th Edition). There are 87 proposed Senior Adult
Detached Housing units (Use 251) and 67 Residential Condominium/Townhouse units (Use 230).
Using the fitted curve equation for total daily trips generated, a total of 938 vehicle trips per day will
be generated by this site. AM peak -hour trips were calculated to be 71 trips and PM peak -hour trips
were calculated to be 94 total trip ends. No trip capture is assumed for this analysis.
Trip Distribution
Existing demographics and directional traffic flows were used to determine future traffic distributions
on Ustick Road and Locust Grove Road. The predominant direction of travel from the Chalet
Marseilles Subdivision will be to the south and west. The primary access will be Monet Street at
Locust Grove Road. A few trips will utilize Heritage View Avenue to the north, but should be very
low because of the indirect connection to any functionally classified street.
If the connection to Yellow Peak Avenue is made, about 10% of the development's traffic is likely to
use this route to avoid traveling through the Ustick/Locust Grove to travel to the west. Most of the
new traffic that is likely to travel through the Wanda's Meadow Subdivision to access Ustick Road
would be from the Heritage Commons Subdivision. This route is a much more direct route for
residents of that subdivision traveling to or from the west than what is available to them now.
'— Figures 3 and 4 show the site trip distribution with and without the connection to Yellow Peak
Avenue.
Chalet Marseilles Subdivision 7 J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
Site Trip Distribution (ADT)
With Yellow Peak Connection
r-
h
3
t �
rryCO
Ustick Road
Monet Street 707
Figure 3.
0
0
V
0
L
d-+
U
0
J
Chalet Marseilles Subdivision
8 J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
Site Distribution
Without Yellow Peak Connection
N
255
a
c
a�
Q
Y
r7
Ustick Road
Figure 4.
If the connection to Yellow Peak Avenue is not made, the traffic volume on Park Crossing Avenue
within the Heritage Commons Subdivision could exceed the 1,000 vehicles per day for local streets
as specified in ACHD's development policies. The traffic volume predicted on Park Crossing
Avenue by the Heritage Commons Traffic Impact Study conducted by Washington Group
International is 867 vehicles per day. The connection to Yellow Peak draws traffic out of Heritage
Commons Subdivision which counterbalances the additional traffic passing through Heritage
Commons generated by Chalet Marseilles.
Chalet Marseilles Subdivision
9
J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
Baseline Plus Site Traffic
Site traffic was added to the baseline traffic to determine the capacity and level of service for the
Ustick/Locust Grove intersection and the intersections at the subdivision access points for the
build -out year of 2010. Level of service is a measure of average vehicular delay on the controlled
approaches at an intersection.
Analysis was conducted for AM and PM peak hour conditions. Tables 2, 3 and 4 show the
peak -hour traffic volumes for the study intersections for the baseline plus sight conditions in 2010.
Ustick / Locust Grove
AM Peak
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
RT
THRU
LT
RT
THRU
LT
RT
THRU
LT
RT
THRU
LT
Existing
140
349
116
87
250
229
144
275
42
37
367
83
2010 No Build
165
411
137
106
304
278
175
335
51
40
396
89
2010 + Site
165
412
140
110
304
110
175
340
52
47
411
100
PM Peak
Eastbound
Westbound
Northbound
Southbound
RT
THRU
LT
RT
THRU
LT
RT
THRU
LT
RT
THRU
LT
Existing
83
342
32
97
394
195
151
444
143
68
297
47
2010 No Build
101
416
39
118
481
238
184
540
174
73
320
51
2010 + Site 1
101
417
33 1
130
482
238
184
554
175
77
327
57
Table 2
Monet / Locust Grove
AM Peak
Eastbound
Northbound
Southbound
RT
THRU
LT
RT
THRU
LT
RT
THRU
LT
2010 + Site
36
18
381
12
5
430
2010 No
Connection
40
15
381
16
4
430
PM Peak
Eastbound
Northbound
Southbound
RT
THRU
LT
RT
THRU
LT
RT
THRU
LT
2010 + Site
19
10
556
32
21
355
2010 No
Connection
30
8
556
44
18
356
Table 3
Chalet Marseilles Subdivision 10 J-U-13 ENGINEERS, Inc.
Ustick / Lillyturf
AM Peak
Eastbound
Westbound
Southbound
RT
THRU
LT
RT
THRU
LT
RT
THRU
LT
2010 + Site
713
5
6
365
20
12
2010 No
Connection
713
3
4
365
9
12
PM Peak
Eastbound
Westbound
Southbound
RT
THRU
LT
RT
THRU
LT
RT
THRU
LT
2010 + Site
532
20
14
801
14
7
2010 No
Connection
532
8
12
801
5
7
Table 4
Intersection Operation
The Ustick/Locust Grove intersection operates at LOS D in 2010 with or without traffic (Tables 5
and 6). The westbound left turn operates at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours without site
traffic. The volume for this movement is approaching 300 vehicles during peak traffic hours. This is
the point at which a dual left turn is considered for improving the capacity of a left -turn movement.
There is space on Ustick Road to provide an additional left -turn lane, but because of the existing
lane alignments, adding the lane may cause other operational issues.
Installation of a southbound through -lane will improve the westbound left -turn movement LOS to E.
The additional southbound lane reduces the time needed to serve southbound through traffic and
makes this additional time available to serve the westbound left -turn lane.
Ustick at Locust Grove AM
Peak
EB
Lt
EB
Thru/
Rt
WB
Lt
WB
Thru
WB
Rt
NB
Lt
NB
Thu/
Rt
SIB
Lt
SB
Thru/
Rt
Summar
Existing
Volume
116
489
229
250
87
42
419
83
404
2119
LOS
D
D
D
C
B
C
C
C
D
C
V/C
0.68
0.83
0.76
0.37
0.06
0.26
0.46
0.30
0.84
0.79
Delay sec
48.4
38.4
4-3
20.5
17.8
24.6
29.4
20.9
42.3
34.7
2010
Background
Volume
137
576
278
304
106
51
510
89
436
2487
LOS
D
D
F
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
V/C
0.69
0.89
1.10
0.47
0.07
0.30
0.53
0.35
0.89
0.87
Delaysec
51.2
46.2
129.0
25.3
21.2
26.2
32.4
23.7
51.5
49.0
Chalet Marseilles Subdivision 11 J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
Site +
Background
Volume
140
577
278
304
110
52
515
100
457
2533
LOS
D
D
F
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
V/C
0.70
0.90
1.13
0.49
0.08
0.32
0.52
0.38
0.90
0.89
Delay (sec)
52.7
40.0
140.6
26.5 1
22.3 1
26.5 1
32.4 1
23.3 1
52.7
51.2
Table 5
ACHD's Long Range Capitol Improvement Plans shows that the necessary lane configuration for
the Ustick/Locust Grove intersection is five lanes for each approach, except the south leg which is
shown as only needing four lanes. The east and south legs are at five lanes already. The
projected time for these improvements to be constructed is in the 6- to 10-year time frame. This
would fall in line with the build -out of the Chateau Marseilles Subdivision. The additional
southbound lane on the north leg will be needed by 2010 with or without the traffic added by the
subdivision.
Chalet Marseilles Subdivision 12
J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
Ustick at Locust Grove PM Peak
EB Lt
EB
Thru/
Rt
WB
Lt
WB
Thru
WB
Rt
NB
Lt
NB
Thu/
Rt
SB Lt
SB
Thru/
Rt
Summar
Existing
Volume
32
425
195
394
97
143
595
47
365
2293
LOS
D
F 6-11
D
C
B
C
C
C
D
C
WC
0.38
0.75
0.73
0.56
0.07
0.55
0.57
0.21
0.81
0.74
Delay sec
43.6
34.0
44.8
21.7
16.7
21.4
26.7
22.8
40.8
30.4
2010
Background
Volume
39
517
238
481
118
174
724
51
393
2735
LOS
D
D
F
C
B
C
C
C
D
D
WC
0.46
0.87
0.97
0.68
0.09
0.66
0.67
0.26
0.85
0.85
Delay sec
51.5
47.4
91.0
28.2
19.6
27.6
32.3
26.2
50.6
41.5
Site +
Background
Volume
33
518
238
482
130
175
738
57
404
2775
LOS
D
D
F
C
B
C
C
C
D
D
WC
0.41
0.87
0.98
0.68
0.10
0.67
0.68
0.29
0.87
0.86
Delay sec
51.8
48.2
96.3 1
28.6
19.9 1
28.2
32.6 1
26.2
51.9
42.3
Table 6
Table 7 shows the operational capacity of the intersection of Monet at Locust Grove with and
without the internal connection to Yellow Peak Avenue. The Monet approach operates at LOS B
during both peaks with or without the internal connection to Yellow Peak Avenue. In fact, the
approach would work slightly better without the connection because it will not have traffic from the
Wanda's Meadow Subdivision.
Monet at Locust Grove AM Peak
NB
Lt
NB
I Thru
SB
I Thru
I SB
Rt
Monet
Site + Background
Volume
12
381
430
5
54
LOS
A
B
WC
0.01
0.11
Delay
sec
8.2
21.2
und No Connection
Site + B78.2
Volume
381
430
4
45
LOS
B
WC
0.11
Delay
sec
13.0
Monet at Locust Grove PM Peak
NB
Lt
NB
Thru
SB
Thru
SB
Rt
Monet
Site + Background
Volume
32
556
355
21
29
LOS
A
B
WC
0.03
0.06
Delay
sec
8.1
13.6
Site + Back round No Connection
Volume
44
556
356
18
38
LOS
A
B
V/C
0.04
0.07
Delay
sec
8.1
1
1
1
12.6
Table 7
Chalet Marseilles Subdivision 13
J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
Table 8 shows the operational capacity of the intersection of Lillyturf Avenue at Ustick Road.
Calculations were not made for condition without the Yellow Peak connection because it would not
be at change from the existing condition. With the connection of Yellow Peak, the Lillyturf approach
at Ustick Road will operate at LOS B during the morning peak traffic hour and at LOS C during the
PM peak.
Lillyturf at Ustick AM Peak
EB Lt
EB
Thru
WB
Thru
WB
Rt
I Lillyturf
Site + Background
Volume
5
713
365
6
32
LOS
A
B
WC
0.01
0.08
Delay
(sec)
8.0
14.7
Lillyturf at Ustick PM Peak
EB Lt
EB
Thru
WB
Thru
WB
Rt
Lillyturf
Site + Background
Volume
20
532
801
14
21
LOS
A
C
V/C
0.02
0.08
Delay
(sec)
9.5
201
Table 8
An operational issue that should be discussed is the offset of Monet Street from Summerheights
Drive and the driveway of the church directly north of Monet Street. ACHD's development policy
calls for local street intersections to be offset by at least 125 feet. The purpose of this policy is to
minimize conflicts between vehicles entering or exiting the side streets. There is ample distance
between Ustick Road and Monet Street to provide for the offset without losing full access to Monet
Street. As presently designed, the offset is about 50 feet between Monet and Summerheights.
-
There is virtually no offset between Monet and the church driveway.
Chalet Marseilles Subdivision 14 J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
Appendix
Chalet Marseilles Subdivision
J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
LU I U t5UIIU: LU I U wetwurK Willi LU I U I rer1U UeIIIU�fdiJlll(
b
8/16/2007
�
g
b
N
_
C1
(V
J US 20726
N
8200
8500
N
US 20/26
US 20/26 US 20/26
18000 18000
?8000 15800
i
8000
8200
200 16700
16700 14600
0
o
$
�
tN�t
A
m
d
p
8
O
W
O O
N m
~
McMillan Rd.
7
o
m
7800
8600
7800
8700
9400
9400 McMillan Rd.
6300
10000 8400
5300 4700
0
7100
7000
8000
8600
8600 9500 9600
6200 5500
O
M
O
Ch
ch
pO
N
P U
O O
N �j
O $
M q
$
�
pOppp
a
N N
a
�a
Aa
c'1
0
W N N
UStick Rd
7100
7300 6900
7900
8300
8500
UsGck Rd. Ustick Rd.
8200
!800 8800 7700
5800
$
7800 8400 v
8500
9000,:i
8400
7800 8700 8 300
6200
M
3
c
$
Q
N $
Usticktick Rd.
11
N
N N
1�
1000 1000
7-
1�
T$
I 700
1000 1000
Wigaw $
I
40p Or 1000
800$t�0
o 0
800 1900
ID $
$
400 1000
w N N
52
Cherry Ln
80ry
10300
CND
10300
0
Fairview Ave o Fairview Ave ?g
§
14100
14100
14100
o
15800 78600 15200
16300
7400 9600
9600 g 12700
12700
1270Cm N
m
15900 $ $ 18800 17300
76400
18500
$
o m
^ 00 0
8100
m m
v rn m
$
ry� N N
pppp
O
O 0 O
`fII
ty O
$ 0 2700
1800 1600r
1900 $ $ a Pine St
d .8 3300 2300
g $
2700 s300
20 $ff-3900
1200 �� 8' 1500
'
v 3900
3900
1700 1400 2600
1700 1 0100
2100
2400 3500
1300 1600 N $ 4000
3
3900
O
4000
O N
400 O 40004000
o
O
cf"'it
O Oo_�
o o
N N
Op
uj N
W
Franklin Rd.
7100 t 0200 10200
o 6
$
10(0 8000
11300
Franklin Rf $
O o
Franklin Rd. $ $ ranklin Rd.
11500 0 1 )0
'
12500 12500 N N 14800
�9100 12200 12200
_
12600 30 N 300
S
10200
1040^. 10600
10600
14800
D
o 0o a
o
a:
10600 13800
m c
13800
N NefD-
Oa
00 O
O O
tU
O
O
m a a
O O
200
D
av
W 00
UU�
O
100
O N
N
J
o a
_
OiUAG4tawmodallTlPllyDBtTgaaelTrandWM101NOUNDED eZp10.NET------------------
M
Tltie F
olfjr of the modal valid fa, yie eye mdregion P. ederal Hlyhyrey Adm 11"b- (FHWA) guidelines.
Modal voolume orecasle ere displayM'rar nr unadn lusbd. Thpus. {wnlessronel,udgmenl elwuld M applied when uvng model /erensb.
For area-saeofic valideEon sa0alica, phase
confect COMPASS.
Licensed to Community Planning
Association
Lk) I V DUI IU. LV I V INUtVVVI IN VV 11.11 GV I V \_V I III I IU I I It y LI IVILCJ LJUI I IV�'I dpI IIl,J
8/16/2007
i US 20/26
N N
9900 9900 10200 10600 11800
10100 10100
10200 10600 11900
N N
US 20/26 US 20/26 US 20/26
11700 19100 igloo 19100 16900
11800 100 18600 18600 16600
0
0
v
20
0
N
v
-1
�
C
^
20
n
1
N
N
O
W
JI
a
II
e
v
�
0
8
0
7,cMillan Rd.
O
O
c
7200
7900
7500
8200
8500
8500 McMillan Rd.
8200
7300
8000
7000 4200
3600
7
7400
8100
8600
8600 8300
8000 4900
4300
co
0
0
o
yi
N
S
sa
4
A
a
v
tr
mo
o
o
Ko
0
v
C
M
mo(pp
kA0
M
stick Rd
O
o
O
W N
N
7000
7100
6700
7300
7600
7600
U fiti k d.
UstidkRd.
6800
7600
7400
5800
6900
6400
7200
7500
7500
6700 7600
7800
59W
`
900 900
I'
1000 1000
WillOktco
b $
g $'goo
400 Or 1000
900
2 o
o
900
400 1000
$
N
M,
N
i
m
� v }
$ $ N
ry n
320
harry Ln
8200 10500
°'
10500 13300
Fairview Ave
13300
o $
13300 ti n Fairview �3� ��' Fairview Ave'
5800 d� $ 19100 14800 16000
15400
7600 9800
9800 g 12400
12400
12400
D
15700 $ 18000 15300
^
0 0 16500
15800
o g
o ^
ryo 0o rn
0 o
N N
O O 0
O O
o $
1700 2800
O O
$ $ S�
1800 - 2800
Pine St
2300
O V
o
2600' 200
10 $
0 0
500 + Nv 2800 3200
'o 0 00
3?'
1800 2900
1900 N 2$700
2700
2300 2000
3�� 3200
500 j $ 2900
r
3300
ro o 3 3
v
O>
a$ $
N
300 3300
N
aD O~i
C O O
C8,
N
Franklin R d.
11200
Na �
10c o g 9200
12200
Franklin Rk $
g
W
o
Franklin Rd. N ranklin Rd.
m
12400 1 O )0
N�'
13400 13400 N 13800
T 12300 12300
128000 80 300
o
o
�111400
1160n. 11200
13800
11200 11200 15100
N
f
q
N W 15100
A O
00
C O
O
N
�MW
D.IUAGMewmpdyl71RhY08121Sese1bT01UROUNDED b—Z;Dw NET
Cellbsf d dro motlM is pW, d - Me Mu -county regipn per F-de * H0h Y AdM1-"bW FHWA
Ma1e1 vdume IoracesN are dnpkYetl'2w' a unedjusW Thus. prdeasanel ( 1 yh Nmes.
judgment shaultl
--- --- ---
be applied h g motlel forecasts Fnr areaspenfi< aHdabon sutisticb.
please calbcl COMPASS.
Licensed to Community Planning Association
2030 Build: 2030 Network with 2030 Trend Demographics
8/16/2007
o r
iirrll o 0
N Q
a U
0 0�
L� n
I �
kI
Millan Rd- $ o
11300 12100
11500 13700 18800
' 110000 10700
`` 10200 12400 16900
t 0 0
Q CO
O O
I
V W
O �1
O O
I
I �
0'
1-880-0
16900
�
aC
> $
7JSft
EDro
y4
I
Rd
i8600 186M
18000
17800 17801t22500
UstldcRd.
22500
0
� 224�
00i6622300 22700 22821100
1200 1200
1
1200 12007
_
o
o
$_
4 0 a
01100
1000
3000
500
1100
0
8
�F
r
0 4l
o0
0
.harry Ln
o
17900
20100
20100
Fairview Ave
$
O
23300 23300
23300
17100
19300
19300
22100 22100
$ $
22100
7
O
_
Vr
O
O fD
W c7
5500'
o
6500
49M
N rn Pine St
R A200 3100
o
3100o
0
5600
6600
0
49� 0 1 v 3 4400 3300
3200
8400
$
T
Franklin Rd
v
o
O
o
0 0
23300 23300
20£
�o 0
�ai m
g $
of a
0 $
m �
McMillan Rd.
18000
17200 13200
1240(
16300
17100 13000
1260C
0 0
O O
O �
O N
V
� O O
Vj
W N N
Usiick Rd.
17100
17100
13000
21600
18700
14500
o $
N (vNj
`79.00
FawAawO veV, Fa
r� ffvtew
$ 00 a 29300 259Ave.
r4600 g 27600
27800
g
A
m
N
g
ty
O O
N] !vl
300
N
N
$
O
ry
10
7500 8800O
$
8800 cNi
N 6400
8400 9700
9800 c0
W
$
rn
0 69M
N
$
N
29300 274
6900 6900
6g�
7700 7700
14600 74500 132 12800 16400
Franklin Rd $
16500
$
ISGO
o
Franklin Rd. N
53900 1390Q 15800 12800
16300
15700 15700 "� N 27600
N27600
... 0
16400
15700
15700 15700
Ix
29200 29200
00
e-
$
O
C: WAG`m W" W &4P'NGAt]` ald MreMWMiOWOVNDED_DZ03D—T -- —.. TMs
N IM natal h Mr MoauOy
100
VOWM "9l^n Gar FMnnq MlpwvAT AdmYiNeNbD
IWY .
MI(OOIN�^vo�\I'mnlbnneb an 6�yM YM a w�uyp. TDw. pob�yaW NaVnNf tlldi! MtFNMI PEA.
ADO
Wtw "m Wt_.WFa-w-P""`"IM"R
DMw-ftd
COWAU
------ --
Licensed to Community Planning
Association
LU3U 13UIIU: LUJU IVCLWUIK W11.I1 LUJU L.UIIIIIIUIIILY l IIUIICb LJCIIIU�Idi11111
8/16/2007
co
0
r
= G7
o
a
m
a
Yanr
0
m
N
N
7,Ai#an Rd.
�
a
o
�
$
00800
11500
10800
i
12400
17300 1730C
�9900
10500
10100
11800
16600 16600
a
o
00
0
m
:7
f
7
fY
J
J
p
a.
$
0
_
W
Sack Rd
m O
m
.0 00 22500 22500
0
C
O
0
0
m
� m
McMillan Rd.
16000 12700
15300 12300
clJo
$ $
0 0
� m
m rn
p p
go O
20500
9500
8900
9100
8400
7500
17200
17500
17700
1770
Usfidc Rd.
Ustidc Rd.
8000
16700
15300
15600
14000
11700
17700
18000
18100
18100
17500
16100
16500
o a
N N
15200
12900
p
�
0 a
N N
12�
1200 1200
1�
1300 1300
wiry
g2900
300 ��
1400
1000
10
2900
0
0
I
400
1400
_o
�N N
�
F
harry Ln
m17400
19200
Fairview Ave
21700
21700
Fairview Ave019200
°
Fairview Ave.
R
^
23100
w Oo 27200 24700
26000
4 8200 20000
20000
22100
Q
22100
22100
22500ommi
$ 26200 25200
24700
40
�T"i
^
a
0 o
26500 25300
0 CO
n
C5
o
"I N e
LTI
i�
$ $
°D Ni
0
g m
M N N ry
0 0
5100 M6000
0
0 o
4100 �800
Pine St
3200
m
3000 g3
m
3900
ZO oF--�
46002`Sy8 48W N200
5200 6100
4100 8 1 0 40M
3300
3100
4200
4200
6000 6Q00
4900 5200 $ $ 50i00 6�0
7200
7200
�?
�y
o
o
v
ao
o
W^ ^
Franklin Rd.
14200
o
o
^ p
Franklin Rd 0
$
0 0
)12(,;,
o
126
12200
18000
18000
iN 00
Franklin Rd.
^
^
15200
N
15200 N N 24200
13900 13900
1c000
12500
17700
17800 15700
24200
o
0
o
15700
15700 25900
25900
N
N $
$
>
O
W 0.
O
(,
�
O 0
0
i
m
600
o
O
N
700
O.I AGNewmode�T M=",,�a!-e;i 003(hROUNDEC D2030 NET!
'-----
Thrs Wibrafian of dls model ivalitl for the N,d dU ly repon per Federal Hghway Admin "hod (FHWA)
Model vdume forecasts are displayed •raw or =sod. Thue, easorul
guidelines.
prof
)udgmem shoWd ha a,plod when ue19 model lerecasls. For ere ,-fic velidalon S-5bes, pWae cordach COMPASS.
Licensed to Community Planning
Association
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Ustick & Locust Grove 9/5/2007
I top� 1*. 4/
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Lane Width
12
16
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
12
12
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
4.0
1.00
4.0
1.00
F
Fit t Protected
1.00
0.95
0.96
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.99
Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
2020
0.95
1770
1.00
1863
1.00
1583
0.95
1770
1.00
3356
0.95
1.00
Fit Permitted
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.19
1.00
1770
0.32
1837
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1770
2020
1770
1863
1583
350
3356
600
1837
Volume (vph)
Peak -hour factor, PHF
116
0.92
349
0.92
140
0.92
229
250
87
42
275
144
83
367
37
Adj. Flow (vph)
126
379
152
0.92
249
0.92
272
0.92
95
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
12
0
0
0
46
299
157
90
399
40
Lane Group Flow (vph)
126
519
0
249
272
58
37
0
46
60
396
0
0
3
0
Turn Type
Prot
Prot
Perm
pm+pt
0
90
436
0
m+ t
p p
Protected Phases
7
4
3
g
Permitted Phases
5
2
1
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
8.8
28.1
16.3
35.6
8
35.6
2
26.9
23.2
6
31.7
Effective Green, s
9 O
9.8
29.1
17.3
36.6
36.6
28.9
24.2
33.7
25.6
26.6
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
0.10
5.0
0.31
0.18
0.39
0.39
0.31
0.26
0.36
0.28
Vehicle Extensions
()
2.0
5.0�"'.
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
�� 5.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
20
2 0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
185
627
327
728
618
179
867
304
2 0
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
0.07
c0.26
c0.14
0.15
0.01
0.12
c0.02
c0 24
v/c Ratio
0.68
0.83
0.76
0.37
0.02
0.06
0.07
0.26
0.46
0.08
_ Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
40.4
30.0
36.2
20.4
17.8
24.3
29.2
0.30
20.7
0.84
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.3 00
Incremental Delay, d2
8.0
8.4
9.1
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.1;
Delay (s)
48.4
38.4
45.3
20.5
17.8
24.6
29.4
20.9
Level of Service WIV
D
D
D
C
B
C
C
42.3
Approach Delay (s)
40.3
30.1
C
D
Approach LOS
C
28.938.6
�.
C
D
HCM Average Control Delay
34.7 HCM Level of Service " ` "` ` Cr
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
93.7 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
Analysis Period (min)
78.6% ICU Level of Service D
15
c Critical Lane Group
Ustick/Locust Grove 9/5/2007 2007 AM
J-U-B Engineers, Inc.
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Ustick & Locust Grove 9/5/2007
- Lane Configurations
+
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
190a
Lane Width
12
16
12
12
12
12
12
12
. 12
12
12
12
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
- Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
Frt
1.00
0.97
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.96
1.00
0.97
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
_ Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
2049
1770
1863
1583
1770
3405
1770
1811
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.17
1.00
0.31
1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)
1770
2049
1770
1863
1583
325
3405
578
1811
Volume (vph)
32
342
83
195
394
97
143
444
151
47
297
68
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)
35
372
90
212
428
105
155
483
164
51
323
74
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
7
0
0
0
62
0
27
0
0
7
0
- Lane Group Flow (vph)
35
455
0
212
428
43
155
620
0
51
390
0
Turn Type
Prot
Prot
Perm
pm+pt
pm+pt
Protected Phases
7
4
3
8
5
2
1
6
x
Permitted Phases
8
2
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
3.8
26.5
14.2
36.9
36.9
37.1
28.7
27.3
23.8
,
Effective Green, g (s)
4.8
27.5
15.2
37.9
37.9
38.2
29.7
29.3
24.8
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.05
0.30
0.16
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.32
0.32
0.27
Clearance Time (s)
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
91
607
290
760
646
280
1089
240
483
v/s Ratio Prot
0.02
c0.22
c0.12
0.23
c0.06
0.18
0.01
c0.22
v/s Ratio Perm
0.03
0.17
0.06
v/c Ratio
0.38
0.75
0.73
0.56
0.07
0.55
0.57
0.21
0.81
Uniform Delay, d1
42.6
29.6
36.9
21.1
16.7
20.0
26.3
22.6
31.8
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Incremental Delay, d2
1.0
4.4
7.9
0.6
0.0
1.3
0.4
0.2
9.0
Delay (s)
43.6
34.0
44.8
21.7
16.7
21.4
26.7
22.8
40.8
Level of Service
D
C
jD
C
B
C
C
C
D
Approach Delay (s)
34.7
27.6
25.7
38.8
Approach LOS C
C
.-
D
HCM Average Control Delay
30.4 HCM Level of Service C
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.74
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
92.9 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization
74.9% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)
15
c Critical Lane Group
e ine
J-U-B Engineers, Inc. Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
- HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Ustick & Locust Grove
9/5/2007
I
�
Lane Configurations ►�
,�
-
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Lane Width
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
�`
1900
1900
1900
1900 190Q
12
Total Lost time (s) 4.0
16 12
4.0
12
4.0
12
4.0
12
12
12
12
12
12 12
- Lane Util. Factor 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.0
1.00
4.0
1.00
4.0
0.95
4.0
4.0
Frt 1.95
Fat Protected 0.95
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.99
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770
1.00
1.00
2021
0.95
1770
1.00
1863
1.00
1583
0.95
1770
1.00
0.95
1.00
Flt Permitted 0.95
1.00
0
0.14
3357
1.00
1727
1837
Satd. Flow perm) 1770
2021
1770
1863
1583
254
3357
Volume (vph) 137
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92
411 165
0.92
278
304
10
551
335
175
508
89
18837
96 40
Adj. Flow (vph) 149
0.92
447 179
0.92
302
0.92
330
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
11 0
0
115
55
364
190
97
430 43
- Lane Group Flow (vph) 149
615 0
302
0
330
72
43
0
55
58
0
0
3 0
Turn Type Prot
Prot
Perm pm+pt
496
0
97
470 0
Protected Phases 7
4
3
8
m+
P Pt
_ Permitted Phases
5
2
1
6
Actuated Green, G (s) 11.9
34.9
15.3
38.3
8
38.3
2
33.9
28.3
6
Effective Green, g (s) 12.9
35.9
16.3
39.3
39.3
35.9
29.3
36.1
29.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12
0.34
0.15
0.37
0.37
0.34
0.28
38•1
30.4
Clearance Time (s) 5.0
5.0 "
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
0.36
0.29
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 217
-
690
274 74
9
69 6
591
182
2.0
935
2.0
2.0
v/s Ratio Prot 0.08
c0.30
c0 c0
.1 70.02
0.15
276
531 • �
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.03
c0.26
v/c Ratio 0.69
0.89
1.10
0.47
0.03
0.07
0.08
0.30
0.53
0.10
y
_ Uniform Delay, d1 44.2
32.844.4
3 2.1
0 89
Progression Factor 1.00
1.00
00
? 00
? 00
00
00
23.4
T
Incremental Delay, d2 7.0
13.4
84.5
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.3
�
1.03
1.00
1.
1
Delay (s) 51.2
46.2 129.0
25.3
21.2
26.2
32.4
0.3
15.7
Level of Service �� ..
F
C
C
23.7
51.5
Approach Delay (s) `
47.2
C
C
C
D
Approach LOSS
D
66.6
E
31.9
46 7
C
ell
D
HCM Average Control Delay
49.0
HCM Level of Service
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.87AM
D
_ Actuated Cycle Length (s)
105.2
Sum of lost time (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
87.8%
ICU Level of Service
16.0
Analysis Period (min)
15
E
_ c Critical Lane Group
Ustick/Locust Grove 9/5/2007 2010 AM No Build
J-U-B Engineers, Inc.
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
- HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Ustick & Locust
Grove
9/5/2007
T
�•
j .�
#F
_ Lane Configurations,
a
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
19
0
1912
19 1912
Total Lost time (s)
12
4.0
16 12
4.0
12
4.0
12
12
12
12
12
12
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.0
1.00
4.0
1.00
4.0
1.00
4.0
4.0
4.0
Frt
Fit Protected
1.00
0.95
0.97
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.95
0.96
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.97
_ Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
2049
1770
1.00
1863
1.85
1583
1.96
0.95
1.00
Fit Permitted
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1770
0.14
3404
17
1 811
Satd. Flow (perm)
1770
2049
1770
1863
1583
254
1.00
3404
0.22
1..00 0
- Volume (vph)
Peak -hour factor, PHF
39
0.92
416 101
238
481
118
174
540
184
4�
5
11
18
20 73
Adj. Flow (vph)
42
0.92 0.92
452 110
0.92
259
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
7 0
523
128
189
587
200
55
348 79
- Lane Group Flow (vph)
42
555 0
0
259
0
523
68
60
0
189
27
0
0
7 0
Turn Type
Prot
Prot
Perm
760
0 55
420 0
Protected Phases
7
4
3
pm+pt
Pm+ pt
- Permitted Phases
8
5
2
1
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
4.6
32.9
15.5
43.8
8
43.8
2
45.5
35.3
6
a
Effective Green, g (s)
5.6
33.9
16.5
44.8
44.8
46.5
36.3
33.8
28.6
_ Actuated g/C Ratio
0.05
0.31
0.15
0.41
0.41
0.43
0.33
35.8
29.6
Clearance Time (s)
5.0
5.0
"
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
0.33
0.27
Vehicle Extension (s)
2 0
2 0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
-
91
638
268
766
651
288
1135
2.0
2.0
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm:'"
0.02 c0.27
c0.15
0.28
c0.08
0.22
213 492
0.01 c0.23
v/c Ratio
_ Uniform Delay, d1
0.46
50.2
0.87
0.97
0.68
0.04
0.09
0.20
0.66
0.67
0.07
0.26
0.85
Progression Factor.
1.00
35.4
1.00
45.9
26.2
19.6
23.5
312
25 9
37.6
Incremental Delay, d2
1.3
12.0
1.00
45.1
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1 00
Delay (s)
51.5
47.4
91.0
2.0
28.2
0.0
19.6
4.1
27.6
1 2
0.2
13 0
Level of Service
D
D
F
32.3
26.2
50.6
Approach Delay (s)
47.7
C
B
C
Approach LOS
D
44.9
31 .4
47.8
intiersie,eiJor `
D
C
D
HCM Average Control Delay Ouuom�41.5
5
HCM Level of Service
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.85
D
71
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
108.9
Sum of lost
time (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
85.5%
ICU
Level of Service
16.0
Analysis Period (min)
15
E
- c Critical Lane Group
Ustick/Locust Grove 9/5/2007 2010 PM No Build
J-U-B Engineers, Inc. Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
- HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Ustick & Locust Grove
9/5/2007
*
Wil
."�
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Lane Width
1900 1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
190 0
12
Total Lost time (s) 4.0
16 12
4.0
12
12
12
12
12 12
1912
12
Lane Util. Factor 1.00
1.00
4.0
1.00
4.0
1.00
4.0
1.00
4.0
4.0
.0
4.0
4.0
.0
Frt 1.00
Flt Protected
0.96
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.95
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.98
0.95
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770
1.00
2021
0.95
1770
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Flt Permitted 0.95
1.00
0.95
1863
1.00
1583
1770
3359
1770
1834
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770
2021
1770
1863
1.00
1583
0.13
243
1.00
0.27
1.00
- Volume (vph) 140
412 165
278
304
110
52
3359
340
500 04
834
141,
Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
175
0.92
47
Adj. Flow (vph) 152
448 179
302
330
120
57
0.92
370
0.92
0.92 0.92
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
11 0
0
0
190
109
447
51
- Lane Group Flow (vph) 152
616 0
302
330
76
44
0
56
0
Turn Type Prot
Prot
57
504 0 109
495
0
Protected Phases 7
4
Perm pm+pt
+
pm pt
- Permitted Phases
3
8
5
2
1
6
Actuated Green, G (s) 12.2
Effective Green, g (s) 13.2
35.1
36.1
15.2
38.1
8
38.1
2
35.4
29.7
6
38.4
31.2
_ Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12
0.34
16.2
0.15
39.1
39.1
37.4
30.7
32.2
Clearance Time (s) 5.0
5.0
5.0
0.36
5.0
0.36
0.35
0.29
0.38 0.38
0.30
Vehicle Extension (s) 2 0
2 0
2.0
2.0
5.0
2.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.
. 0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 218
681
267
680
577
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 c0.30 c0.17 c0.18
180
0.02
962
0.15
287
551
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.03
c0.27
v/c Ratio 0.70
- Uniform Delay, d1 45.1
0.90
1.13
0.49
0.03
0.08
0.09
0.32
0.52
0.11
0.38
0.90
Progression Factor 1.00
33.9
1.00
45.5
1.00
26.3
22.2
26.1
32.1
23.0
35.9
Incremental Delay, d2 7.6
15.1
95.1
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Delay (s) 52.7
49.0 140.6
0.2
26.5
0.0
22.3
0.4
26.5
0 2
32.4
16.8
Level of Service D
D
F
C
3.3
23.3
52.7
Approach Delay (s)
49.7
C
C
C
C
D
Approach LOS
D
71.6
31.8
47.4
E
.<. .:.
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
51.2
HCM Level
of Service fill
D
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
0,89
107.2
Sum of lost
time (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
89.1 %
ICU
Level of Service
16.0
Analysis Period (min)
15
E
- c Critical Lane Group
Ustick/Locust Grove 9/5/2007 2010 AM With Site
- J-U-B Engineers, Inc.
Synchro 6 Report
Pagel
- HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Ustick & Locust
Grove
9/5/2007
Lane Configurations
Ideal Flow v h I
(p p)
Lane Width
1900
1 0 1900
1900
1 900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
12
4.0
16 12
4.0
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
1900
12
1900
12
Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
4.0
1.00
4.0
1.00
4.0
1.00
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Frt
Fit Protected
1.00
0.95
0.97
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.95
0.96
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.97
_ Satd. Flow (prot)
1770
1.00
2049
0.95
0-95
1.00
1.00
0.95
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Fit Permitted
0.95
1.00
0.95
1863
1500
1770
1809
Satd. Flow (perm)
1770
2049
1770
1.00
1863
1.00
1583
0.13
1.00
0.21
1.00
Volume (vph)
33
417 101
238
482
130
239
175
3407
357
13277
Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
554
184
77
Adj. Flow (vph)
36
453 110
259
524
141
190
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
7 0
0
602
200
62
355
84
_
Lane Group Flow (vph)
36
556 0
259
0
524
75
0
26
0
0
7
Turn Type
Prot
Prot
Prot
66 190
776
0
2
432
0
Protected Phases
7
4
Perm
pm+pt
pm+pt
Permitted Phases
3
8
5
2
1
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
4.4
5.4
33.1
15.4
44.1
8
44.1
2
46.3
35.9
6
34.7
29.3
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.05
34.1
0.31
16.4
0.15
45.1
45.1
47.3
36.9
36.7
30.3
Clearance Time (s)
5.0
5.0
5.0
0.41
0.41
0.43
0.34
0.33
0.28
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
87
636
264
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
_ v/s Ratio Prot
0.02 c0.27
c0.15
765
0.28
650 284
1145
213 499
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.08
0.23
0.02
c0.24
v/c Ratio
_ Uniform Delay, d1
0.41
50.7
0.87
0.98
0.68
0.04
0.10
0.21
0.67
0.68
0.08
0.29
0.87
Progression Factor
1.00
35.8
1.00
46.5
26.5
19.9
23.7
31.3
25.9
37.8
Incremental Delay, d2
1.2
12.4
1.00
49.8
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Delay s
_ y ()
Level of Service
51.8
48.2
96.3
2.0
28.6
0.0
19.9
4.8
28.2
1.3
32.6
0.3
26.2
14.1
51.9
Approach Delay (s)
D
D
48.4
F
C
B
C
C
C
D
Approach LOS
D
46.2
31
48.7
D
HCM Average Control Delay
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
42.3
HCM
Level
of Service
p
_ Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection
0.86
109.8
Sum of lost
time (s)
Capacity Utilization
86.2%
ICU
Level of Service
16.0
Analysis Period (min)
15
E
- c Critical Lane Group
Ustick/Locust Grove 9/5/2007 2010 PM with Site
_ J-U-B Engineers, Inc.
Synchro 6 Report
Pagel
_ HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Ustick & Locust
Grove
9/5/2007
*
Movement
Lane Configurations
EBL
'�
EBT EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
- Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Lane Width
1900
T
1900 1900
1900
t
1900
F
1900
,
1900
t
1900
1900
1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
12
4.0
16 12
4.0
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
1900
12
_ Lane Util. Factor
1.00
1.00
4.0
1.00
4.0
1.00
4.0
1.00
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Frt
1.00
0.97
1.00
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
0.95
0.96
1.00
0.95
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
0.95
1795
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
0.97
1.00
_
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
1770
1863
1583
1770
3407
1770
3438
Satd. Flow (perm)
1770
2049
0.95
1770
1.00
1863
1.00
0.28
1.00
0.18
1.00
Volume (vph)
33
417 101
238
482
1583
527
3407
30
357
3438
- Peak -hour factor, PHF
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92
0.92
130
0.92
175
0.92
554
184
Adj. Flow (vph)
36
453 110
259
524
141
190
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
7 0
0
602
200
62
355
84
_ Lane Group Flow (vph)
36
556 0
259
0
524
71
0
28
0
0
19
0
Turn Type
Prot
70
190
774
0
62
420
0
Protected Phases
7
4
Prot
Perm pm+pt
m+
P pt
Permitted Phases
3
8
5
2
1
6
Actuated Green, G (s)
4.2
32.1
15.5
43.4
8
43.4
2
37.8
27.4
6
Effective Green, g (s)
5.2
33.1
16.5
44.4
44.4
38.8
28.4
27.0
21.6
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.05
0.33
0.16
0.44
0.44
0.39
0.28
29.0
22.6
- Clearance Time (s)
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
0.29
0.23
Vehicle Extension (s)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
92
676
291
824
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
- v/s Ratio Prot
0.02 c0.27
c0.15
0.28
700 355
964
187
774
v/s Ratio Perm
c0.07
c0.23
0.02
0.12
v/c Ratio
0.3
0.89
0.64
0.04
0.10
0.14
0.54
0.80
0.07
_ Uniform Delay, d1
46.1
31.0 1.0
41.1
21.7
16.3
22.0
33.4
0.33
0.54
Progression Factor
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
27.1
34.3
Incremental Delay, d2
1.0
7.6
26.2
1.2
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Delay (s)
47.1
38.6
67.3
22.9
0.0 0.8
16.4 22.8
4.6
38.0
0.5
- Level of Service
D
D
E
27.5
4.4
34.8
Approach Delay (s)
39.1
34.4
B
C
D
C
C
Approach LOS
D
35.1
33.9
Intersection Summary
D .
G
HCM Average Control Delay
35.5
HCM Level of Service .
HCM Volume to Capacity ratio
0.82
D
_ Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection
100.4
Sum of lost
time (s)
Capacity Utilization
80.0%
ICU
Level of Service
16.0
Analysis Period (min)
15
D
_ c Critical Lane Group
U5[1crvLocust Grove 9/5/2007 2010 PM with Site Plus SB Lane
J-U-B Engineers, Inc.
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1f
J-U-B Staff
J-U-B Engineers, Inc.
250 S Beechwood Ave
#201
' Boise, ID. 83709
Phone: 2083767330
Fax:
E-Mail: it_purchaser@jub.com
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL(TWSC) ANALYSIS
Analyst: J Rosenlund
Agency/Co.: JUB Engineers Inc
Date Performed: 9/4/2007
Analysis Time Period: AM Peak
Intersection:
Jurisdiction: ACHD/Meridian
Units: U. S. Customary
.. Analysis Year: 2010
Project ID: Chalet Marseilles Sub
East/West Street: E. Monet Street
North/South Street: Locust Grove Road
Intersection Orientation: NS
Study period
(hrs): 0.25
Vehicle Volumes
Major Street Movements 1
and
Adjustments
2
3
4 5
6
L T
R
L T
R
Volume 12 381
430
5
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
Peak-15 Minute Volume 3 95
108
1
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 12 381
430
5
Percent Heavy Vehicles 0
Median Type/Storage Undivided
/
RT Channelized?
,.., Lanes 1 1
1
0
Configuration L T
Upstream Signal? No
TR
No
-' Minor Street Movements 7 8
9
10 11
12
L T
R
L T
R
— Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
18 0
36
Peak-15 Minute Volume
1.00 1.00
1.00
_ Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
4 0
9
Percent Heavy Vehicles
18 0
36
Percent Grade (%) 0
0 0
0
Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage
—
0/
RT Channelized?
No
Lanes
Configuration
0 1
0
_
LTR
Pedestrian Volumes
Movements
and
Adjustments
13 14
15
16
Flow (ped/hr) 0
0
0
0
Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0
Walking Speed (ft/sec) 4.0 12.0
4'0 4.0 4.0
Percent Blockage
0 0 0 0
Upstream Signal Data
Prog. Sat Arrival Green Cycle Pro _. Flow Flow Type Time Length Speed vph vh tosSignal
psec sec mph P feet
S2 Left -Turn
Through
S5 Left -Turn
Through
Worksheet 3-Data for Computing Effect of Delay to Major Street Vehicles
Movement 5
Shared In volume, major th vehicles: Movement 2
Shared In volume, major rt vehicles:
Sat flow rate, major th vehicles:
Sat flow rate, major rt vehicles:
Number of major street through lanes:
Worksheet 4-Critical Gap and Follow-up Time Calculation
Critical Gap Calculation
Movement 1 4
L L L 8 R 10 11 12
L T R
t (c,base) 4.1
t(v) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.1 6.5 6.2
P(hv) 0 1.00 1.00 1.00
t (c, g) 0 0 0
Grade/100 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.10
0.00
t(3,lt) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
t(c,T): 1-stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00
2-stage 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
t(c) 1-stage 4.1 1.00 1.00 0.00
2-stage 6.4 6.5 6.2
Follow -Up Time Calculations
Movement 1 4
L L 7 8 9 10 L 11 12
T R L R
t(f,base) 2.20 T
t(V) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
P (HV) 0
t (f) 2.2 0 0 0
3.5 4.0 3.3
_ Worksheet 5-Effect of Upstream Signals
Computation 1-Queue Clearance Time at Upstream Signal
_ Movement 2 Movement 5
V(t) V(l,prot) V(t) V(l,prot)
V prog