The URL can be used to link to this page

McLinder Sub Traffic Impact StudySawtooth Village Subdon jr' Idaho Thompson4!�ngineers Traffic and Civil Inc. 181 East 50th St Garden City, ID 83714 (208) 484-4410 Thompson Engineers Traffic and -Civil - Me. 'Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................... Introduction.................................................................. Proposed Development ................................................. StudyArea.................................................................. Intersection Analysis .................................................... Conclusions................................................................. INTRODUCTION........................................................... PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ........................................ STUDY AREA CONDITIONS ........................................ StudyArea................................................................... LandUse...................................................................... STUDYPERIOD............................................................. BuildOut Year............................................................. Horizon Year................................................................ EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................... Traffic Volumes........................................................... RoadSystem................................................................ System Improvements.................................................. PROJECTED TRAFFIC ................................................... Background Traffic ...................................................... Off Site Traffic............................................................. DailyTraffic................................................................. Trip Generation............................................................ Trip Distribution........................................................... SiteTraffic................................................................... TotalTraffic................................................................. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ..................................................... Capacity Analysis and Level of Service — ..................... Intersection Analysis .................................................... RoadwayAnalysis........................................................ SiteAccess................................................................... Site Circulation............................................................. TurnLanes................................................................... DISCUSSIONS................................................................ Roadway Improvements ............................................... Required Due to Existing Traffic Conditions ............ Required Due to Background Traffic Conditions ...... Required Due to Total Traffic Conditions ................. Preservation of Right -of -Way ....................................... Mitigation..................................................................... CONCLUSIONS.............................................................. -affic ifTtpacf stuc. v` Sawtooth Developme'at, M€ ndiKan, Idpho ........................................................ ..................................................... 5 ........................................................ 5 ..................................................... 8 .............................................. 8 ........................I ............ I ... I ....... 8 .............................................. ......................... 24 .............................................. 25 '� a tot off e Y) #ct Study Engineers sawk,c{I lA e(«Pw nt ttleridiaot Idaho Trak and Civil Waists of i obles Tables I - Daily Traffic Counts...................................................................................................8 Tables 2A - 2C Daily Trip Generation Calculation....................................................................11 Table 3A - AM Peale Hour Intersection Analysis Summary .......................................................20 Table 3B - PM Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Summary ........................................................2 t Table 4 - Roadway Segment Analysis.......................................................................................22 List of Ffgures Figure1 Project Location............................................................................................................3 Figure 2 Preliminary Site Plan.....................................................................................................4 Figure 3A, Existing AM Peale Hour Conditions...........................................................................6 Figure 3B, Existing PM Peak Hour Conditions............................................................................7 Figure 4A- Background Traffic, 2020 AM Peak Hour.................................................................9 Figure 413- Background Traffic, 2020 PM Peak Hour................................................................10 Figure 5 - Site Traffic Distribution ............ ....................... -...... ................................................. 12 Figure 6A Site Traffic, AM Peak Hour......................................................................................13 Figure 6B Site Traffic, PM Peak Hour.......................................................................................14 Figure 6C Site Traffic, AM Peak Hour Access Points................................................................15 Figure 6D Site Traffic, PM Peak Hour Access Points................................................................15 Figure 7A, Total Traffic, 2020, AM Peak Hour.........................................................................16 Figure 7B, Total Traffic, 2020, PM Peak Hour... - . .... ..................... ................ -- ..... ............... 17 Figure 7C Total Traffic, 2020, AM Peak Hour Access Points....................................................18 Figure 7D Total Traffic, 2020, PM Peak Hour Access Points.....................................................18 Figure 8 - ACHD Right Turn Lane Analysis............................................................................23 !Ya'.'iF`fic Impact 'Study Thompson Engineers ` awrooth Development, Meridian, Idaho TraKrc and Civil , N � lnc. —•- �^ EXE!,: O !, v... �'TIVE tlF 94.i e,>yk aa;,. ad,4Yl SuisrarWRARY Thompson Engineers, Inc. has been retained to prepare a traffic impact study for the proposed Sawtooth Village Development in Meridian, Idaho, approximately as shown in Figure 1. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the potential traffic impacts resulting from the project and make recommendations for mitigation of the impacts. The study is prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Ada County Highway District. Proposed Development The project is a multi use development including approximately 88 multifamily dwelling units, and 53,000 SF of specialty retail. The final site plan was not finalized at the time of this report. The site is expected to access the transportation system via two accesses on Linder Road and two accesses on McMillan Road Study Area The area of influence is anticipated to be Ada County, Idaho, including the City of Meridian. The primary impacts will be along McMillan Road and Linder Road. The study area will include the intersections of Linder Road and McMillan Road, Meridian Road and McMillan Road, and Linder Road and Ustick Road. The site is within the City of Meridian and is currently partially vacant. Existing zoning and land uses are for mixed use. Intersection Analysis All intersections in the study will operate at an acceptable level of service. The following tables summarize the HCS calculations: Table 3A - LOS Summary AM Peak Hour Conditions 2013 2020 Existing Background Total v/c Delay s/v LOS vlc Delay stv LOS v/c Delay s/v LOS McMillan and Linder 17.5 B 17.9 B 17.9 B McMillan and Meridian 16.1 B 17.4 B 17.5 B Linder and Ustick 16.5 B 16.6 B 16.6 B Linder and Coppercloud 12.4 B 13.5 B 13.5 B Table 3B - LOS Summary PM Peak Hour Conditions 2013 2020 Existing Background Total v/c Delay s/v I LOS v/c Delay stv LOS v/c Delay s/v LOS McMillan and Linder 16.7 B 17.9 B 18.2 6 McMillan and Meridian 22.2 C 26.5 C 28.9 C Linder and Ustick 16.5 B 17.2 B 17.4 B Linder and Coppercloud 14.2 B 16.2 C 17.6 C C:IU.verslDanlDocinventslTEllprojects113-06Smvtootli Vil1ogelDocsWmvtoo1h TlSdoc Page I of 25 lreehfic irr, r -1 Study Thompson0 Engineers . JaStaIc3Eft � i�s2t,Idaho dCil lncrra�y °°m.——�..^...,. ...^�-.— °^..^,..�.w,,;--,.,....., ,^-,m^�. ,.- -a•w=-- ,.a.,..w.-..u..—�-""___. Conclusions Below are the findings of this report: Based on the trip generation methods recommended in the Trip Generation Manual, the site will generate 2353 trips per day of which 38 trips will occur during the AM peak hour and 152 trips will occur during the PM peak hour. IF The site will access the transportation system via Linder Road and McMillan Road via three deeded approaches and one public approach. The intersection of McMillan Road and Linder Road will operate at acceptable levels of service under background and total traffic conditions in build out year. The critical peak hour is in the PM peak hour. The intersection of McMillan Road and Meridian Road will operate at acceptable levels of service under background and total traffic conditions in build out year. The critical peak hour is in the PM peak hour. The intersection of Ustick Road and Linder Road will operate at acceptable levels of service under background and total traffic conditions in build out year. The critical peak hour is in the PM peak hour. The intersection of Linder Road and Coppercloud Road will operate at acceptable levels of service under background and total traffic conditions in the build out year. The critical peak hour is in the PM peak hour. The site access points are anticipated to operate at acceptable levels of service. The two access points closest to the intersection of Linder and McMillan will be restricted to right -in and right -out movements. The proposed site plan provides good internal circulation via an internal commercial roadway. Linder Road will operate at an acceptable level of service in the horizon year under background traffic and total traffic conditions. '. McMillan Road will operate at an unacceptable level of service in the horizon year under both background traffic and total traffic conditions. Mitigation measures include the construction of a center left turn lane. This mitigation measure is infeasible because there is limited ROW that is out of control of the Sawtooth development, the mitigation measure is required for background traffic conditions, and the mitigation measure is onerous compared to the impact from site traffic. C:IUserslDonlDommientslTEllprofectsg3-06Snwtootli VillagelDocs&wtooth TIS.doc Page 2 of 25 rnact ._ };ims+c'tud y Thompson Engineers Sawtooth rev�,I >xFrrffrtur�r, iubMr Tral€c and Civil C. IThompson Engineers, Inc. has been retained to prepare a traffic impact study for the proposed Sawtooth Village Development in Meridian, UCTION Idaho, approximately as shown in Figure 1. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the potential traffic impacts resulting from the project and make recoimnendations for mitigation of the impacts. In particular, the scope of the study includes the following: I', Trip Generation of the proposed development Trip distribution and traffic assignment of the site generated traffic The capacity of the transportation system to support the development. Intersection treatment of the site access points. Figure 1 Project Location C:IUseislDati0octavetttslTEhptnjects113-06Sa}vtooth t?llageOD swalvtooth TISdoc Page 3 of 25 Thompson Engineers -. sawtooth Deyplo lit t?t, ri rkw� Idaho Traffic antl Civil, - Inc. The project is a multi use development including approximately 88 PROPOSED multifamily dwelling units, and 53,000 SF of specialty retail. The DEVELOPMENT final site plan was not finalized at the time of this report. A preliminary site plan is shown in Figure 2. The site is expected to access the transportation system via two accesses on Linder Road and two accesses on McMillan Road. Figure 2 Preliminary Site Plan McMillan Road er' taft Pad 1 HoWelff C:• UseslDanlDocunienrslTEllpi-ojectsU3-06Smrtootli VillagelDocs4Smntooth TIS.doc Page 4 of 25 7raffic linpa;f Sta (dy _ThompsonEngineers , t+dtvthe)`7t{7 f7t; �JeiFX,t3277f��; Meridian, Idaho TrafficTrac and Civil Inc.-- _ _Study Area STUDY AREA The area of influence is anticipated to be Ada County, Idaho, CONDITIONS IONS including the City of Meridian. The primary impacts will be along McMillan Road and Linder Road. The study area will include the intersections of Linder Road and McMillan Road, Meridian Road and McMillan Road, and Linder Road and Ustick Road. The site is within the City of Meridian and is currently partially vacant. Existing zoning and land uses are for mixed use. Build€ t Year STUD" PERIOD The Build out Year for this project is assumed to be 2020 to --------- correspond with COMPASS data. The actual build out of the site will depend on market conditions mud project implementation. Horizon Year 2030 was selected as the horizon year, in accordance with the requirements of the Ada. County Highway District. Traffic Volumes EXISTING CONDITIONS AM and PM Traffic counts were obtained at the intersections in the study area the week of July 15, 2013. Existing AM Peak Hour traffic --- --- — volumes are shown in Figure 3A. Existing PM Peak Hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3B. Road System Linder Road is classified as a principal arterial road by COMPASS. In the vicinity of this project, it has two through lanes in each direction, bike lanes and a center left turn Iane. Lanes are approximately 12 feet wide. It has curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway. There is one paved access to the site on Linder Road and a partially improved public approach on the south edge of the site. It has a posted speed of 35 MPH in front of the project. McMillan Road is classified as a minor arterial road by COMPASS. In the vicinity of this project, it has one through lane in each direction, four foot wide shoulders and a center left turn lane. Lanes are approximately 12 feet wide. It has curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway. There are two paved accesses to the site on Linder Road. It has a posted speed of 35 MPH in front of the project. The intersection of Linder Road and McMillan Road is signalized. C:IUseislDanlDocunrentsiTEIlprojects113-06Sawtootli MillagelDms&lvtooth TIS.doc Page 5 of 25 i<af'fu Impact Study Thompson Engineers aJ, Moth Developro.ent, Meridian, Idaho Figure 3A, Existing AM Peak Hour Conditions ( 45 255 "`' 147 74 151 4 73 26 13 242. ; Man ument St 32 222 98' 75 57N cl tat 294 1� 2N 87 21� ` 26 W�Ramshrook-St iE McMillan d 24 �J 355 Sit 43 23 39 t iIW 1Nrte Sands i7r I Red Rock"- , i I U Whtle- ISands.Dr _. V Vrgat Basin i,yr I' Ir E Kai6bah Tr€ I Alpin dr; - McFnkaan W-Yoselnile Di .Si W Anton iQf a M E Wstoir 9h 5 � carr,y t i{ W AsMAh O Ii �I �� E Masks 'w As61sy Dr a _.. i+_ ro E Wasfiakie AshhY f)r - S, � Gyt'fd � i., i 5r,€II'e� F a7 .a i G2§4ld�ilG _ U _ E UsOck Ad " �W P.rkainnp: St 'I C:IUseislDanlDocnrnentslTEllprojectsV3-06Satntootlt VillogelDocslSmitooth TIS.doc Page of 25 Tra,Ffic IMIJX.,ict Study Thompson Engineers_ ho Sawtooth Doveloprifent, Meridiin, Ida ira—iFfe-a—mi6vil '4 --in—c'. Figure 3B, Existing PM Peak Hour Conditions 65 366 106 , ��= 192 if i if 37 126 62 W Rairp birook St 19 503 i 94 7' j F an Rd 78 if if 262 1 � I LJ (?:� 33 27 Y _ 40 377 M 91-1 1 38 16884 1), Dt' E 1 9 W 60 291 U �lM Fj 63 309 0�-48 38,-3 Iso 1w Parkstone -51 I If 33 Tu if Ustick Rd if C:1Uset-sDatilDoctitiietitsITHIlpi,ojoets113-06Saiptootli Villageoslsaivtootll TIS.doc Page 7 of 25 I r`affdC it773C'1F. ct StudyThompson ! ng------ 3 ;wf /ft Del&�taprrton' Meridian Idaho Traffic and Civil , Inc. - - -- —^K -- System Improvements At this time, there are no other projects fimded in this area by ACRD, Idaho Transportation Department, or the development community that will improve the capacity of the transportation system or change traffic patterns. Improvements to Linder Road are included in the 20 year capital improvement program by ACRD. Background Traffic PROJECTED TRAFFIC Future traffic is obtained by expanding the existing traffic volumes by a growth factor. Growth rates in Ada County have been very low -- -- - --- or even negative for the past seven years. Nationally, even though the economy has grown, vehicle miles of travel has not. Growth rates are expected to be very low in the next few years, so a low growth rate should be assumed. A growth factor of 2.0% per year is used. Background AM Peak Hour traffic for build out year is shown in Figure 4A. Background PM Peak Hour traffic for the build out year is shown in Figure 4B. Horizon year traffic projections should be viewed with caution. Due to the effects of a compounding growth rate over time, even low growth rates can have significant impacts. Review of horizon year analysis should be limited to future right-of-way preservation, and additional planning issues. OffSite Traffic The Eagle Island Market Place is partially developed at the time of this report, including the anchor store of Fred Meyer. The Foxtail and Ashbury residential developments are in the approval process. Traffic from these developments will be added to the study. The Arch Rock Terrace subdivision is currently under construction south of the site. The Sawtooth project will connect Arch Rock Street to Cobblefield St., allowing access to both Linder Road and McMillan Road for this development. Traffic from this development will be added to the background traffic. Daily Traffic Daily traffic counts were obtained on Liner and McMillan Roads. Average daily traffic volumes on impacted streets are shown in Table 1. Tables 1 — Daily Traffic Counts Roadway Segment Location Date I ADT Directional PM Peak Directional AM Peak Linder Rd S, of McMillan 7/15-16/13 10,350 454 690 McMillan Rd W. of Linder 7/15-16/13 3,710 502 363 C:IUserslDanlDoctrmerrtslTEllpmjectsl13-06Snwtootli Pillagu Do Swmvtooth TlS.doc Page 8 of 25 I I 'raffic Impact 'Study ThompsonEngineers saw'tomhf i o eelop "Oe fi retry, Icfa,c Trac 8nd Q1vi1 lnc. ffi-�-u -- -- (-62 293 173 IQL3 233 28 t'� r w39,1 - >;� i 3i CD 0 ,2e3 113 �3 BL -: Anion St C. I 331E E* ",t260 1010 24 1 16 107 91 1 43 233 W Rarp„bi.ok S 3 E 'Milian Rd in.4r � � I Serial" E Usli( i C:IUsersV)aii0ocainentslTEllpi•ojecisl13-06Smvtooth VillagelDoesLSmvtooth TIS.doc page 9 of 25 7 ipur:: LIr _ BL -: Anion St C. I E--Moske I E washat(w I ASMY of 1 ii . rs Patk 14 i -s@Y O SctYkas Fad, � 4 � G a s E Usli( i C:IUsersV)aii0ocainentslTEllpi•ojecisl13-06Smvtooth VillagelDoesLSmvtooth TIS.doc page 9 of 25 1Traffic and Civil 1affic li-ripact Stuqy Thompson Engineers Q oth Developown' "4 - . — jnc. Sawto h4p�ldian. IcJphc Figure 4B– Background Traffic 2020 PM Peak Hour 63 420 122 221 90 3f r way- AG 4.,;3 70H 57 C� 43 144 I II 71 ,w RaTIshraek St I Jt 2811, 33 C ds Dr e A� Dr 334 101 �lw� 72 iw Parks�.lnr. St 355 55 440 172 rani 'a 4W I 18111 74 C:IUsei-sDctitDocii))ietitsITEIlpi,ojects113-06Soii,tootli PllqgeDocslsmvfoofll TIS.doc Page 10 of 25 Thompson Engineers Engineers Sawtooth Oevpicapment', ntadch n, lctaho Trek and Civil $„� Inc. - - �•• Trip negation Site trip generation is estimated using the procedures recommended in the latest edition of the Trip Generation Manual (8`h edition), published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, in the absence of site-specific data. The site trip generation is obtained by applying the trips generation rates obtained from the Manual for each category of land use within the development. Table 2 shows the trip generation of the site. Pass by rates are estimated from data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Tables 2A - 2C Daily Trip Generation Calculation Table 2A - Summary of Trip Generation Average Weekday Driveway Volumes ITE Code Land Use No. Units 24 hr 2 -Way Pass By Rate Total Rate Num Capture .....Total Enter Apartments 88 DU 6.6 5800% 0 tatellum221 DU 580 914 Specialty Retail 50.0 TSF 44 32 221620% 443 6% 2 31 .....1773 Total t2.0%1 2796 18 2353 Table 2B - Summary of Trip Generation Average Weekday PM Peak Hour Dhoomay Volumes HE Code Land Use No Units Enter Pass By Capture Enter Exit Rate Total Pass By Capture Rate Num Exit Total Total DU Rale Num Rale Num Total 221 Apartments 88 DU t196 0% 0 6% 2 31 0.20 18 t2.0%1 60°b 0 18 '49 853 Specially Retail 50 TSF 32 25% 15 4 1 3't 44 1.52 76 Ebl 59 .103 Total 93 15 75 94 15 77 152 Table 2C - Summary of Trlp Generation Average Weekday AM Peak Hour Driveway Volumes ITE Land Use Code No. Units Enter Pass By Capture Enter Exit Rate Total Pass ByECaplu,,eExit Rate Num Total Total Rale TotalRate Num Rate Num Total 221 Apartments 88 DU 0.10 9 0% 0 10% 1 8 0.36 32 845 0 30 38853 Specially Retail 50 TSF 0.00 0 60% 0 15% 0 0 000 0 60°b 0 0 -0. Total 9 0 8 32 0 30 ' 38 C:IUseislDaii0ocuntentsl7EApl•oject5173-06Sarptootit PillagelDoes&wtoothTIS.doc Page I of 25 Thompson Engineers SaVA00117 Oe"rotur7m W, Meridian, /thio Trip Distribution In order to determine impacts, the trips generated by the site must be distributed to destinations throughout Ada County and assigned to the transportation system. Based on current travel patterns, the modal split is negligible, so all trips are assigned to vehicles, and the vehicles are assigned to the roadway system. The distribution for this development is based on information obtained from COMPASS and current travel patterns. The site traffic distribution for the development is shown in Figure S. Figure 5 ® Site Traffic Distribution i Red Rock I �-:Hawasupa4 Rabah-Tr Haalpin Dr i I I I 1 I I IW Patkstinnv fit C:1UserslDmtlDocunteutslTEllpiojectsll3-06Sointoodi VillagelDocslSawfoolli TIS.doc Page 12 of 25 Thompson Engineers &3vutctsil+ De'volopmer"f wknidlha 'I, Idaho Tvaffc and Ciwf � lnc. -- - -� Site Traffic Site traffic is distributed at each intersection in accordance with this distribution and assignment. Figure 6A shows the distribution of site generated traffic for AM peak hour traffic condition. Figure 6B shows the distribution of site generated traffic for PM peak hour conditions. Figure 6A Site Traffic, AM Peak H®ur 0 2 0 m q WWI Rd Ii I) J ror Antool. Dr , -m E - Vall!V o s'J Ashby z — w Agnwa o J >� E 4 a AANY or iEC 0 6 0 a0 dlvrs Park wF r rr- Jii �I f I _. ... __ _ ._ ..... EUstlcl W PerkI C:IUseiwlDanlDocementslTEllyrojectsll3-06SowtoothVillageDoeswawfoothTlSdoc Page 13 of 25 Rack- Traffic lyppaet Study Thompson Engineers ,Sawtooth Deyeibtpvner 7i, tyJrDr-Ch''84"' io,,hc Fiaure 6B Site Traffic, PM Peak Hour a 5 d � aa4 D C9 h r 4 °W RamabrboKSt i 400 ��a ,4 C F hil'Milian. Rd 7 0 0 i It Red Rock f-iavasupaG: E Kaibab Tra i E Hl�lp!n dr C 8i I E Anton St Cu 'I ad ad �i 1lII ! E-fdloskii E Washakie i E Gam` G35sld� D ClUsez'slDanlDoclnueirtslTE7lprojeets113-06Satrtootli PillagelDocsWatrtoodlTIS.doc Page 14 of 25 3 16,'- WaY W Loretta W Oita :..,� i W '"cle Sands Dr lyt Great Basin iDr W Monulnenl 'St to n W Yasamite Di ii I i I I W Ashby �Dr >j w W Ashton Ot, I w I (� (} �I I I 0 n o t iW Psrksinnc qt i 11 ,4 C F hil'Milian. Rd 7 0 0 i It Red Rock f-iavasupaG: E Kaibab Tra i E Hl�lp!n dr C 8i I E Anton St Cu 'I ad ad �i 1lII ! E-fdloskii E Washakie i E Gam` G35sld� D ClUsez'slDanlDoclnueirtslTE7lprojeets113-06Satrtootli PillagelDocsWatrtoodlTIS.doc Page 14 of 25 Up Study yrr `ff tr Pp Thompson Engineers 3,2,,h=tooth; Deva k,,jarr�ent t i ridian, ldai;aoI Traffic antl Civil _�Inc. - - - - Figure 6C Site Traffic, AM Peak Hour Access Points 6 0 2 Figure 6D Site Traffic, PM Peak Hour Access Points C:IUserslDaii Docnn,entslTEllpt,ojects113-06Soivtoolli VillagelDoesWalptooth TIS.doc Page 15 Of 25 Traffir Unpacl Sate"y Thompson Engineers Sawtooth Development, Meridian O aho ....i.._._ �-ro Traffic and Civd - Inc. Total Traffic The site traffic is then added to the background traffic as determined above. Figure 7A shows the total traffic at each intersection for AM peak hour conditions. Figure 7B shows the total traffic at each intersection for PM peak hour traffic conditions for the build out year of 2020. Ficture 7A, Total Traffic, 2020, AM Peak Hour \n'A27 62 294 1d4 f` ff 7e�(�� IJ jl - -_ 28I' �''R 137 tel, '.. 11 5 17 1117 41 � 45 242 ��RaipsbiooR S[ ,j(y Elan _fjd. _ 37 V.. QILJI? i PT 37 268 113 1 \InM a� x21:4 cs 17 262 100 wv�r{��ooes� H C:1Use:slDmilDocnn+entsITEIlprojeers173-06Sarvtootli VillagelDocswmvtooth TIS.doc Page 16 of 25 Study rtc impactThompson Engineers Jce(:if Development, Miri%/ar), Idaho T. and Civil Inc. - Fiaure 7B, Total Traffic, 2020, PM Peak Flour 53 435 12; 225 a 254 go � 1455 34 p ' 0 1413 7,r Iwayr I� II CCf� tulnenl St -- 47 144 71 137 513 tai; #5 � �zs I 38 r 45 W lmi $ian4;iDr J � F -V 1 _ m c Seif7vrsP rk '7 34, _1ffi'l fl �la'a� n tsra 3531?� I ` j 461 17'2 ll W Par�Cs�drle_St `I II C:IUserslDmi DoctnwenaslTEIlp,ojecis113-06Smr7oollr PilingelDocs&IIloolh TlSdoc Page 17 of 25 Thompson Engineers Truffi€ Impact `study _ Sawtooth isF'+lC�{(jWtk7t'ilr;.Tet,Cdfc?€"7 t(;vl7u Traffic and Civil Inc. �•�-°-- �-�– Figure X Total Traffic, 2020, AM Peak Hour Access Points 44: 33E 424 ,, a Mcawin-Rd u..yh ...>. 20 s e9 1 f — r CD 71 C79 .Eo — — — I Q 15 .418 S �� Figure 7D Total Traffic. 2020, PM Peak Hour Access Points 6AS 765 �E>.t�1 �` nRd IVI 0 40 43 600 11 C: lUseislDmj Dohme�itslTEllpt,ojects113-06Sativtocth Yillage. DocstSmvrooth 77S.doc Page 18 of 25 Thompson Engineers Sawtoorh Deve�loprnenl, fJ ddian, idahot iraNic and Civil ,..._ �-wlnc. •- TRAFFIC Capacity nl x n Leben e' ANALYSIS Service Capacity analysis was performed using the Highway Capacity m---- - ----- Software (HCS), based on the 2010 edition of the Highway Capacity Manual. Level of service for both stop controlled intersections and signalized intersections are based on the average delay of vehicles traveling through the intersection. For stop -controlled intersections, the average delay incurred by the minor movements is used to determine the level of service. Copies of the calculations are included in the appendix of this report. Both AM and PM peak hour volumes are analyzed in the report. Table 3A shows the AM peak hour intersection. Table 3B shows the PM peak intersection analysis. Intersection nalysi' All of the intersections under study are anticipated to function at an acceptable LOS through total AM and total PM peak hour traffic conditions in the build out year of 2020. The intersection of Linder and McMillan Road and Linder and Ustick Road have recently been widened in anticipation of future traffic. No improvements are needed to these intersections. The intersection of Meridian Road and McMillan Road has left turn lanes on all four approaches and right tun lanes on the north and south approaches. No improvements are need to these intersections. C:• Uset-s DanlDocanierttslTEhprojects113-06Saistootli NllagelDocslsmrtooth TIS.doc Page 19 of 25 r r'affic frnplact lUdy' Thompson Engineers vooth Deveiopine vt, Meridiao, Idaho Traffic and Civil Table 3A ® AM Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Summary Table 3A - LOS Summary 2013 2020 Existing Back round Total AM Peak Hour Conditions v/c Delay s/v LOS v/c Delay s/v LOS v/c Delay s/v LOS McMillan and Linder 17.5 B 17.9 B 17.9 B EB Approach 12.6 B 14.1 B 14.2 B Left 0.08 10.1 B 0.16 11.0 6 0.13 11.1 B Through 0.25 13.6 B 0.32 15.6 B 0.66 '15.7 B Right 0.04 11.8 B 0.06 131 B 0.11 13.2 B WB Approach 15.1 B 18.7 B 19.1 B Left 0.05 11.1 B 0.07 12.6 B 0.07 12.7 B Through 0.13 13.0 B 0.17 15.2 B 0.17 15.3 B Right 0.41 16.5 B 0.54 20.9 C 0.48 21.3 C NB Approach 21.3 C 20.6 C 20.5 C Left 0.03 15.4 6 0.04 14.5 B 0.04 14.5 B Through 0.58 21.7 C 0.60 21.0 C 0,52 21.0 C Right 0.25 20.1 C 0.26 19.2 B 0.21 19.2 B SB Approach 17.9 B 16.8 B 16.7 B Left 0.43 15.3 B 0.48 14.3 B 0.40 14.2 B Through 0.38 19.4 B 0.39 18.3 B 0.26 18.2 B Right 0.15 18.3 B 0.15 17.1 B 0.04 17.0 B McMillan and Meridian 16.1 B 17.4 B 17.5 B EB Approach 12.8 B 15.6 B 16.0 B Left 0.13 13.5 B 0.15 13.5 B 0.20 14.3 B Through 0.54 12.7 B 0.64 15.7 B 0.66 16.2 B WB Approach 10.5 B 11.8 B 11.9 B Left 0.17 14.4 B 0.19 14.3 B 0.16 13.5 B Through 0.33 10.0 B 0.40 11.5 B 0.41 11.8 B NB Approach 24.8 C 24.3 C 24.3 C Left 0.08 19.6 B 0.08 19.0 B 0.08 19.0 B Through 0.55 25.8 C 0.57 25.4 C 0.57 25.3 C Right 0.42 25.2 C 0.44 24.6 C 0.44 24.6 C SB Approach 23.3 C 22.5 C 22.5 C Left 0.27 20.5 C 0.30 19.7 B 0.30 19.7 B Through 0.52 25.6 C 0.52 24.8 C 0.52 24.8 C Right 0.09 23.7 C 0.09 22.8 C 0.10 22.8 C Linder and Ustick 16.5 B 16.6 B 16.6 B EB Approach 11.1 A 12.3 A 12.4 B Left 0.09 8.7 B 0.12 9.4 B 0.12 9.5 B Through 0.24 11.6 B 0.29 12.9 B 0.30 13.0 B Right 0.04 10.3 B 0.05 11.2 B 0.05 11.3 B WB Approach 10.5 B 11.5 B 11.6 B Left 0.11 8.6 A 0.14 9.4 A 0.14 9.5 B Through 0.15 10.8 B 0.18 11.9 B 0.18 12.0 B Right 0.14 11.0 B 0.17 12.2 B 0.17 12.2 B NB Approach 22.5 C 22.1 C 22.0 B Left 0.05 17.2 B 0.05 16.6 B 0.05 16.5 A Through 0.47 22.8 C 0.50 22.4 C 0.50 22.3 B Right 0.40 22.7 C 0.43 22.2 C 0.43 22.2 B SB Approach 21.3 C 20.3 C 20.2 B Left 0.30 17.9 B 0.34 17.0 B 0.34 16.9 A Through 0.46 22.5 C 0.47 21.7 C 0.48 21.7 B Right 0.34 22.1 C 0.15 20.2 C 0.15 20.1 6 Linder and Coppercloud 12.4 B 13.5 B 13.5 B North Site Entrance 9.8 A East Site Entrance 12.6 B West Site Entrance 11.5 B C. IUsevslDnnlDocimientslTBl1prajects113-06Smvtooth VilfagelDoes&wtooth TlSdoc Page 20 of 25 Thompsan Engineers D -a fir Impact Study Traffic and ,Samooth Devei i.YYFtl r,," Mee l liar, fP.?eah'o Table 3B - PM Peak Hour Intersection Analysis Summary Table 3B - LOS Summary 2013 2020 PM Peak Hour Conditions Existing Background Total v/c Delay s/v LOS vlc Delay s/v LOS We Delays/vj Delays/vLOS McMillan and Linder 16.7 B 17.9 B 18.2 B EB Approach 15.1 B 17.7 B 18.3 B Left 0.21 12.3 B 0.28 13.8 B 0.26 14.0 B Through 0.32 16.9 B 0.43 20.3 C 0.46 21.1 C Right 0.77 14.4 B 0.10 16.2 B 0.12 16.6 B WB Approach 1T2 B 21.4 C 22.4 C Left 0.27 11.2 B 0.33 12.1 B 0.34 12.4 B Through 0.49 18.5 B 0.62 23.2 C 0.64 24.0 C Right 0.51 19.6 B 0.65 25.4 C 0.68 26.9 C NB Approach 17.1 B 16.5 8 16.4 B Left 0.11 12.4 B 0.13 11.8 B 0.13 11.7 B Through 0.56 17.8 B 0.59 17.2 B 0.60 17.1 B Right 0.20 18.1 B 0.21 15.4 B 0.22 15.2 B SB Approach 16.6 B 15.9 B 15.7 B Left 0.29 13.1 B 0.34 12.5 8 0.35 12.3 B Through 0.54 17.7 B 0.57 17.0 B 0.57 16.8 B Right 0.18 16.0 B 0.19 15.2 B 0.19 14.9 B McMillan and Meridian 22.2 C 26.5 C 28.9 C EB Approach 12.5 B 14.2 B 17.9 B Left 0.20 20.1 C 0.22 20.0 C 0.25 20.0 C Through 0.35 11.7 B 0.42 13.7 B 0.46 14.4 B WB Approach 19.2 B 28.2 C 33.4 C Left 0.61 21.6 C 0.68 21.6 C 0.68 21.6 C Through 0.74 18.8 B 0.88 29.2 C 0.93 35.1 D NB Approach 33.7 C 32.6 C 32.6 C Left 0.16 27.6 C 0.18 26.6 C 0.19 26.6 C Through 0.69 35.5 D 0.71 34.6 C 0.71 34.5 C Right 0.33 32.6 C 0.34 31.5 C 0.34 31.4 C SB Approach 28.3 C 31.1 C 31.1 C Left 0.29 28.5 C 0.33 27.5 C 0.33 27.5 C Through 0.55 34.1. C 0.56 33.1 C 0.56 33.1 C Right 0.19 31.7 C 0.20 30.5 C 0.22 30.6 C Linder and Ustick 16.5 B 17.2 B 17.4 B EB Approach 14.2 B 16.1 B 169.2 B Left 0.17 11.2 B 0.17 12.4 B 0.22 12.5 B Through 0.32 14.9 B 0.41 16.9 B 0.41 17.1 B Right 0.08 13.2 B 0.10 14.5 B 0.1 14.7 B WB Approach 14.2 B 15.5 B 16.1 B Left 0.26 10.4 B 0.32 11.0 B 0.33 11.3 B Through 0.42 15.0 B 0.50 16.6 B 0.52 17.2 B Right 0.30 14.8 B 0.36 13.6 B 0.38 16.9 B NB Approach 16.6 8 19.3 B 19.3 B Left 0.13 14.2 B 0.15 13.7 B 0.15 13.6 B Through 0.61 20.2 C 0.65 20.0 C 0.66 20.0 C Right 0.54 20.0 B 0.57 19.5 B 0.56 19.3 B SB Approach 18.3 B 17.7 B 17.7 B Left 0.28 15.0 B 0.32 14.6 B 0.32 14.5 B Through 0.47 19.3 B 0.19 18.7 B 0.5 18.7 B Right 0.18 18.0 B 0.19 17.3 B 0.19 17.1 B Linder and Coppercloud 14.2 B 16.2 C 17.6 C North Site Entrance 10.5 B East Site Entrance 22.6 C West Site Entrance I I I13.5 1 B C:VUseislDai)DocunientslTEl�pr•ojects113-06SaivlootliVillagelDocs&nwoolhTlSdoc Page 21 of 25 T fat, c 1F1ap act .Study Thompsonn engineers Sa':wtrvoth Devr-�lopment, Pyle < fdianl d ahv Thompson Traffic and Civil Inc. - Roadway nalysi Roadway segments are analyzed under horizon year peak hour traffic in accordance with Table 2 of the ACRD Development Policy Manual. The results are shown in Table 4, Table 4 — Roadway Segment Analysis Roadway Existing Background Lanes Site Total LOS McMillan 502 650 2 35 685 E Linder 454 540 3 20 560 Better than D As a two lane minor arterial, McMillan Road will operate at LOS E under background traffic conditions. It will operate at LOS E with site traffic. As a three lane principal arterial, Linder Road will operate at LOS D or better under all future traffic conditions. Site Access The developer is proposing access from existing deeded approaches on Linder Road and McMillan Road, and from Coppercloud Road, and existing public road. The northern most approach on Linder Road and the western most approach on McMillan Road will be restricted to right -in and right -out movements. All access points will operate at an acceptable level of service. The site plan provides an internal circulation road which will serve all of the commercial lots and the multi family dwelling emits. This roadway should be designed as a local commercial roadway. All internal roadways are private roads and should have volumes below volumes recommended for local comrnercial roadway maximums. Turn Lanes Both Linder Road and McMillan Road have a center left turn lane. No addition turn lane is required. Right turn lanes are not warranted at the entrances to the site based on the ACRD turn lane requirements. Analysis is shown in Figure 8 C:IUseislDmrlDocronerrtslTEApiojects113-06Snwtoodr VillageVDocs&ii,tooth TIS.doe Page 22 of 25 raf,rc / pact Study Thompson _ Engineers_ Sawtooth Development, Meridian. Fdahc: i fW entt Civil �� Inc. ^-•�- - - Figure 8 — ACHD Right Turn Lane Analysis D +v west 7 o wa Tin jug '6' nr lam dds.-u�,a vm�-nf cam: �rcm:a �t.Enm DISCUSSIONS Ro Improvements ent Required Due; to Existing traffic Condition: All intersections and roadways function at an acceptable level of service under existing traffic conditions. No improvements are required. Required Due, to Background Traffic Conditions All of the intersections and roadways function at an acceptable level of service under background traffic conditions. No improvements are required. Required Due to Total Traffie Conditions Under total AM and total PM peak hour traffic conditions in the build out year of 2017, all intersections under study will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service without capacity improvements. Site access points will operate at an acceptable level of service. Preservation of Right -of -Way Horizon year traffic analysis should be reviewed for preservation of right-of-way. Based on this analysis, Linder will not require additional lanes for future capacity. Additional ROW should not be required from the site. C:IUseislDa;) DopovenislTEIlprojecls113-06Smntoodi Villagev)ocsLsawfoolh TIS.doc Page 23 of 25 lio km+ s={o,rxn,b Irrn7 {20 knh Md Fro Lan Jn $Smjh ie tc nl pperdoud - 7 o wa Tin jug '6' nr lam dds.-u�,a vm�-nf cam: �rcm:a �t.Enm DISCUSSIONS Ro Improvements ent Required Due; to Existing traffic Condition: All intersections and roadways function at an acceptable level of service under existing traffic conditions. No improvements are required. Required Due, to Background Traffic Conditions All of the intersections and roadways function at an acceptable level of service under background traffic conditions. No improvements are required. Required Due to Total Traffie Conditions Under total AM and total PM peak hour traffic conditions in the build out year of 2017, all intersections under study will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service without capacity improvements. Site access points will operate at an acceptable level of service. Preservation of Right -of -Way Horizon year traffic analysis should be reviewed for preservation of right-of-way. Based on this analysis, Linder will not require additional lanes for future capacity. Additional ROW should not be required from the site. C:IUseislDa;) DopovenislTEIlprojecls113-06Smntoodi Villagev)ocsLsawfoolh TIS.doc Page 23 of 25 Thompson Engineerssavvrai£tc ltn`o act Stat y 'onrratfrc Crvir !»c.- _ :°°u-"„^.�......��.•.,^-�-•�^- .-•^•-.�Develo- McMillan Road will need to be widened to three lanes between Meridian Road and Linder Road. There is currently three lanes on McMillan Road along the project frontage. Additional right-of-way along McMillan Road will not be required from this project. Zom All of the intersections will operate at an acceptable level of service in the build out year. None of the intersections in the study require mitigation. Linder Road will operate at an acceptable level of service in the horizon year and will not require mitigation. McMillan Road will operate below an acceptable level of service in the horizon year both with and without site traffic. In order to bring this to an acceptable level of service (LOS D), a center left turn lane would need to be constructed from east of the project to Meridian Road. However, this work would go beyond reasonable mitigation measures for the following reasons: The construction of a center left turn lane would be required for mitigation of firture growth, not just for site traffic. With a center left turn lane, for both background traffic and total traffic conditions, the roadway segment would operate at LOS D or better and would not require mitigation. k None of the roadway segment requiring improvements fronts the project, The developer of this subdivision does not have control over any ROW. P, On the south side of this segment of McMillan Road is bordered by a canal which will prevent any widening to the south. ff The north side of this segment of McMillan Road has a significant portion of the roadway with only 25 feet of right-of-way, which is not enough room to add a center left tum lane, shoulder, ditch and other roadway features. The construction of almost 5000 feet of center left turn lane is disproportionate with the impacts from the development, and would be an undue burden on this development. An aerial photo showing the limitations is included in the appendix of this report, C:IUserslDmi DoeemietitslTEllprojectsg3-06Satvtooth VillageOD ASmvtooth TIS.doc Page 24 of 25 t'rof'r, f ipacr Stud) Thompson Engineers 11o4wtoo>ttt 11&vok)p n ot. hd rich m, ldaho 7raflrc and Civd �-� m��Tlnc. °� --^-^•�� - ^�--� -- - This study identifies transportation impacts associated with the 44 �CONCLUSIONS proposed Sawtooth Development in Meridian, Idaho. The development is a mixed use development. Below are the findings of this report: Based on the trip generation methods recommended in the Trip Generation Manual, the site will generate 2353 trips per day of which 38 trips will occur during the AM peak hour and 152 trips will occur during the PM peak hour. The site will access the transportation system via Linder Road and McMillan Road via three deeded approaches and one public approach. The intersection of McMillan Road and Linder Road will operate at acceptable levels of service under background and total traffic conditions in build out year. The critical peak hour is in the PM peak hour. '' The intersection of McMillan Road and Meridian Road will operate at acceptable levels of service under background and total traffic conditions in build out year. The critical peak hour is in the PM peak hour. The intersection of Ustick Road and Linder Road will operate at acceptable levels of service under background and total traffic conditions in build out year. The critical peak hour is in the PM peak hour. The intersection of Linder Road and Coppercloud Road will operate at acceptable levels of service under background mid total traffic conditions in the build out year. The critical peals hour is in the PM peak hour. The site access points are anticipated to operate at acceptable levels of service. The two access points closest to the intersection of Linder and McMillan will be restricted to right -in and right -out movements. The proposed site plan provides good internal circulation via an internal commercial roadway. Linder Road will operate at au acceptable level of service in the horizon year under background traffic and total traffic conditions. ff McMillan Road will operate at an unacceptable level of service in the horizon year under both background traffic and total traffic conditions. Mitigation measures include the constriction of a center left turn lane. This mitigation measure is infeasible because there is limited ROW that is out of control of the Sav%looth development, the mitigation measure is required for background traffic conditions, and the mitigation measure is onerous compared to the impact from site traffic. C:IUseralDarrlDocrmrentslTEllprojectrll3-06Saietootli Village0ocs1sawtooth TlSdoc Page 25 of 25 rretfic linpact Studv Thompson Engineers Sav,�tooffi Dolm!aompnf� P/e'ddli,31" /dafj,r APPENDIX Traffic Counis N a O 1- (~O N � o O a o z W Q W ZZ w a A luLU w v a o N N a N Y C) 1� ^/ 4L �. = M 'WN 4b Z z❑ ZLU ® J P E O O w99�0 OO wO x ® 651 �® 8� Z Z 6 6 6 6L 0 w F- O, 0 ii 8 L 7 O II In —:- II LL Zm rG' 2 f V lP a pdI- 670 U'. ®^ N OZa cq ZIYd � J V f9 F m r -- a O 1- (~O N � o O o z W ® ZZ w a A luLU w v a N N a N Y C) 1� ^/ 4L �. = M 'WN 4b Z z❑ ZLU E O O w99�0 OO wO x ® 651 �® 8� Z Z 6 6 6 6L 0 w F- O, 0 ii 8 L 7 O II In —:- II LL Zm rG' 2 f V lP a pdI- a ®^ � J V f9 F m r LLA ® IX IX V M N v In I Z ®LY _ z O M o o O O [a F MMM m I I N I I II a W mn J O N N m0 K b Z 2 0 0 S TW'04 G O m a O 1- Q Q Q Q Q Q Q o m -to m I� rrri4i ni o6 Q -� M =000n > Z 5 O mcomr m h N W � (~O N N O z ZZ w a A luLU w v vm N N M N Y C) 1� ^/ 4L �. = M 'WN 4b Z z❑ ZLU E O O w99�0 OO wO x ® 651 �® 8� Z Z (O W D '7 6 6 6L 0 w F- O, 0 ii LL. Q Q Q Q Q Q Q o m -to m I� rrri4i ni o6 Q -� M =000n > Z 5 O mcomr m h N W � (~O N N O Jvloov N N M N pdI- x O fY M d V M Z _ O M Ij) O O F MMM m a w J O N N m0 K b 2 O O m = F-N O = u7M NM N N m M Q Q Q Q M 4Or cY W of W o� d O w a w r= C Q Q Q Q O O N O 10 w U3a � O O T C f6 (O W N z r W N 2 w La N ® � w w w 1E W z cs W (S N n O a � cn d N �g ci s(n�xa Is z� n n P`4 u sV u a ti�a o©(a O x® ug1 C z ww3�9 0U LL LL F- 4L 0Q w U3a � O O T C f6 (O W N J r a �jw 2 O W r N O M w n V CO W M (O W N z r W N 2 w La W d ® ¢ ¢ w w w 1E W z al®- W W N z Q Q cn N �g s(n�xa r a �jw 2 O W r N O M w n V CO W M (O W N M W N r W N 2 �LU La W d ® p� v4i a+ h w 1E W z al®- W W N z N �g s(n�xa z z� n M r 0 ®® w 0 0 o©(a O x® ug1 C z ww3�9 0U LL LL F- 4L 0Q r a �jw 2 O W r N O M w n V CO W M (O W N M W N r W N 010� N M �LU La <(:�E W N M W W z n M r c F- O mh O ITS n N W Wrnrr� u] N N W y r r z N J LU _ m�ca0o�ni`�°ti u 4-H W CO W U Z A 7 (fl r N N -i NN O co M N M W 01 MY M V O O W M W S H V t[1 (O W ( V VJ LJ h O I -In 0) C\1 O c� N zr N �2 co rOlf)OONN n l W V N N N M M V V Ol i� M W W to O V M r M Z 7 m N N V N WV OV 0 O (or corn In w w w w� W MM W rnrtrn �' r O ..1 to (O (D In M V a w N N N W moi' ry ® r N N r r D O m M N I r N h^ O V M CO (O _ O Z� roM .tM u� p lr) o m O O r M V 0 co 6o W 6o m 0 O 7 O LL w ti < < z O p p o co:)o O r M V U. nr CO :�E7E:2'�F ;:F 0 v)o w pmp Loo M V O M V O W W W W O u L w d w F � F a¢¢caaaa c O O47 � ON C LL a co,I.() r M V CcO) ) V I�-: r r r W 6] 66 66 a �LU <(:�E W N M W W O J M r c F- O �' W Wrnrr� V W W W y r r z J _ m�ca0o�ni`�°ti u (fl r N N -i NN NN co M N M W 01 2 O I -In 0) C\1 O N zr N �2 N N n l O O V M r M 7 0 O (or corn In w w� r O to (O (D In M V ® (D O Till D O m M N I r N h^ N V M CO (O O Z� roM .tM u� p lr) o m O O r M V 0 co 6o W 6o m 0 O 7 w LL w ti < < O p p o co:)o O r M V U. nr CO r ^ M O 6 0 0 0 n n n Para °'n 0 m 0 Is m 09 O e o d o ®_ N pq a O� 0 Is m 09 O e o d o ®_ N pq a i z W , W ® Q ln$ W O O WI � - It (O ❑ (/y 0 Ul Q � W ® WI � - I�N 0 Ul u% vg CY) 61 r w g=va �*zzoz m® ®® w® 0® w w b®® J M R N M M M M( O �z fnw�-) ou LL U( F- 0- (2U I�N M O r CY) 61 r J M M N M M M M( O ]fL 44 l) CO�rn m W M N N CO r M N 0 [® F- w N O 1,- 03 O err t W M O M1 N r W (AMd' T(,)JCoq d0 N r CEJ N 33 f0 W cY M W .- N W hi M S M N d' N N 3 O Moles. -N m �- rN T CV M r4 OC) W O 1010 ® N. M W r CO M M O (s (- W (D (D (D W (D CTJ _$ J N N W M A fp M N �r f� 0 F� 0 (0 aIL mD- a-n_ma- (j W O N O W O to O V� r M O M d O Y eF � iri ifi to ifi (O Ll � V W 6 6 W N � ,�aR,'RRRL� �a�aaaa.a_a Wo , Cl) 't 0 ®0 er, C Le.. 44i 4 466 6 W $ i/ \ % m }o}o§o} � G — \-� — - \ | \ (\b( }§} mt-7>mmo�mo.. \■\a/RSSLLSER n me 00 ime w 0 d Z 11J w La" l� ® d CL0) LU MMILMOO-MLLM 0 0 =1 ( N b N 0 M O N O tl- (b � Pn � d'4Ntn in if1 (tl N N M® LLIems+ d1 10�1 r W P ® m Q c cG M M N M M M 0 M 002 002 0 0 RE R a W n ro N � �aa� N :DD J D ® W ®� 0 g O O O Q5 ® 0 w :(D,® 00 ® ® LU QP -M H:Or M� O11 A ti ,,. C w(13 0W N Wil' d' `n' if) tin N 6 toa ten. 0> 93 N N Lli n u Z S T N' N N( N N a a o.� N d'rLo�O °-c0d re-.- 0 cm 0. w 3:M c7 M N vet N EL r o .2 0 ry m �2 NLL r rN r n u co c co oo w M Uf q w 4 r - LU m 0 oa m W hd. U�1 c0 (MO (M9 00 g;^ II II II w w® � � i H Gn S M Z'r � d' U7 Y r aeVa a (� �✓ N N N W d (O N N n O O im' M (O M co V V M M M I, M N 'H' M M c me 00 ime w MMM d M N M O N O r M '5' O L{1 LO LO (i1 aaa_a U1 O L() O r Mq "A 9 et et d* LO 0 d Z 11J w La" ® d CL0) LU MMILMOO-MLLM 0 0 =1 ( N b N 0 M O N O tl- (b � Pn � d'4Ntn in if1 (tl p LLIems+ ry�j i o MMM d M N M O N O r M '5' O L{1 LO LO (i1 aaa_a U1 O L() O r Mq "A 9 et et d* LO d 2 w La" ® w i'LU Lu p LLIems+ ry�j i ® W P ® m Q cG 002 002 0 0 RE R a �aa� N :DD J D ® W ®� 0 0 OL(J®l�Otfl OLf1 ® 0 w :(D,® 00 ® ® LU QP -M H:Or M� 0 6S ii wA. 0W Wil' d' `n' if) tin N 6 MMM d M N M O N O r M '5' O L{1 LO LO (i1 aaa_a U1 O L() O r Mq "A 9 et et d* LO M P9 Z Q� a IR o o 0 o Ca 0 ® a d �. .. .. iIJ W 2 b if n ro n � r ro x � z C ®_ M u 1� II t9 ° N E W 6Y Z P X9 Z 4 N= � a W = � j ® Cd ® co W 00 0 0 W ® !6 0 i W D- I-- > 1-0 M U J P9 Z Q a o , 0 �W ® a d �. .. .. iIJ W 2 b if n a n LO r 9 x co z � M U J P9 Z Q O Q r r e N , U J P9 Z Q 0 W , �W ® a d �. .. .. iIJ W 2 b z O O a ® ®La LO r 9 x co z W Q 0 �W ® �. .. .. iIJ W 2 b � a Im e ® ®La LO r 9 x co z � M qua az W Pri vJ n p oa :) ® a ® ® Cd ® co W 00 0 0 W ® !6 0 QJ ® W W W D- 0 0 �W a � r LO r fo M M 4 0-1 1-0 h- M m co t• m M N '•'i' Lfl Lf) z 6 rn r rn 04 M W sfl C4 - r N CN N M M NN O N" r O 0 r r N � 9 m � a r� f11 L000 0) co s� -j N N M N N Q' h 4+ f0 M (4 O F e0 m 0 O M -t N N M at of N � v W ® N O a] N M m O rr I- D 09 W b O r O (b n.aaan.ct 0 N O m O N O Fz d' O M V O �t M LO Ln VJ f0 6� 0 u G aLij < c F � 0-0-0.dLL 0.. � ® W O r M C 11 d• � Ln Lfl LU LtJ � ■ Nq4`I, T N z N c N O U LU tYJ CJ W ® 0 LLI P 0 o V)2 O Y O p � � V � Q r o a l I N rA su�wm�D®M0 Q� c®d � W ('tel n ro Q1 E2 z VP w3; x 0 o e a., O F O O N 0 II II it C � b co M U N r N M r ■ Nq4`I, T N z N c N O U LU tYJ CJ ■ Nq4`I, T N z N c N C�y q Q B LU tYJ CJ W ® LLI P P V)2 a `�: ® O p � � V � Q LU o a l I N rA su�wm�D®M0 c®d � OO"0®®®®W®W® ('tel 0 til h�djo��p I.. M 11l p� r i d 3 j T N r N c N C�y q Q B ON NN tYJ CJ LU ® LLI P P a `�: ® n�: {w� !m ® � V � Q LU 6d f— N � su�wm�D®M0 c®d p OO"0®®®®W®W® ('tel UJW z VP w3; x 0 o !, 0 I-. b a., (7 U 0 til h�djo��p I.. M 11l p� r i d 3 j T N r N c N w G6 r ON NN tYJ CJ M cl V N ('tel M 4t N F b co M U N r N M r r M W r ul 0 M O r� J" M f~ 0 (O w 0 u7 (b f^^ U1 ul 1JJ J's,NN MwU(b cry N u LIl d' (D M V Ol P 6J M F, M M d' M M M moi' M O r M O p M aaaaaaad V o In O (A O N O �,.Mef O TM eP0 It ({l p�q V � C C a. a. LL fl M CL (L IL m rn (V lc1pl(D M N N N M Os N r r (r a.daa T M It O 4l Lf) 6 6 2 2:2 G da.aa r CO Q 4 4 N z O U ti r O b d if if if CL ® a a nz I c RA Pvim (� W o n r LLL LL dco Lu o O p � ® n CO �_ 't 1 v � X® k 5p®n0 e ® d ® fA �a 0 o ® u WI ® m 0 8 ® LL }0 LU CL U` 4/ I c RA Pvim (� W o n r LLL J W LL dco Lu o O p � ® n CO �_ b 6G ® �_ b 6G X® k 5p®n0 e ® d ® fA �a 0 o ® u WI ® m 0 8 ® LL }0 LU CL U` iA y mm==M� 1 I U i ir1728 L; J1<2, 1. Sf._ loM'It -! i31 !N1 1A i ra.' 1 1 mm==M� 1 I _ ri 11 ,+ } 77 m >, az s zo = ,+ } 77 m >, f, .tY ,is;• i .3 tr i %t i,`:. 3.5.. 7 co e Ii�tE ik L�1' Pk.g:. m.5 :II>Gi p?!'c-n tU:-_ is. 3.5.. 7 co e p?!'c-n is. ks IA I'S I_ e x Xl v-1 m _ )1 & ) §\\k «m�M Lu M 8 ow / m A 2 PM Peak Hour Calculations General Information Intersection Information d -t - Agency Thompson Engineers Duration, h X0.25 iti Analyst D. Thompson J Analysis Date 18/14/2013 Area Type ,Other Jurisdiction 1ACHD j Time Period ,PM Peak Hour PHF 0.90 Intersection Linder McMillan Analysis Year 2013 Existing Analysis Period 1> 7:00 File Name PM Linder McMillan 2013 X.xus - Project Description jSawtooth Village "u'-, iJE Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement ..... L! T R :, L TR _ L T s R L T ', R '...._. m Deand(v),veh/h ,- 78 i 133 27-. 126 �. 21 7_ Ira? 40 377 61 _. 106 366 55 1 Signal Information I Cycle, s j 52.0 Reference Phase_ + 2 i i Offset, s ) 0 Reference Point Begin P 9 Uncoordinated No l Simult. Gap ENV I On Green yellow 1.1 }142 3.0 1 e5.0-- V12.2 13 i "- ;0.0 ' -L I .._ _ 2 3.D _. 0.0 ( 0 3 0 _ 0 0 Force Mode } Fixed = Simult. Gap N/S On , Red J 1.0 10.0 p 1.0 )1.0 1.6 ; 0.0 iJ�`r'2��}Yjm IJ,AA 1�'e �:'5...1+.{1 Lti�_ .. l.• '0 Laa1�F�u _ G.jt'ip9+r3� Tinier Results EBL j E8T WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL. EBT Assigned Phase 5 1 2 1 ' 6 3 8 7 -4 Case Number 3 1.1 3.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 s 3.0 } Phase Duration, s 7.6 18.2 8.6 j 19.3 9.0 16.2 9.0 13/. Change Period, (Y+R.), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4 O 4.0 4 O 4 0 4.0 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s? 5.1 0.0 5.1 0.0 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 Queue Clearance Time (gs), s 4.0 5A 3.0 8.0 +8 7 8 .Green Extension Time (ge), s 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.1 1-.2 Phase Call Probability 0.71 } 0.87 1,00 1.00 1.00 1 0o t Max Out Probability 0.25 i 066 y 1 00 0.49 1.00 ; 0.47 S .�.3'C.. i.0 Ung � 1.4 `•.,lift i � s ,t, ' u{. 8 d ,j7rt, `r § .tt ham.., ,11 dry.{ 5.1��i% 3}. Ii,):,. ,i,x. ' .. Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T 1 R L T j R L ( T f2 Assigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h - 87 148 ; 30 - 140 F 241 .' 213 `_ 44 410 ` 68 118 j 407 ,. 61 y . Adjusted Saturation Flaw Rate (s), veh/hlln 1603 ` 1683 i 1426 1603 ; 1683 1426 _ 1603 i 1602 1426 1603 , 1602 ; .1426 Queue Service Time (gs), s 2.0 3.6 0.8 3.1 t 6.1 1 6.5 1.0 &0 2.0 2.8 i 5.8 1:8 Cycle Queue Clearance Time (g.), s 2 0 t 3.6 0.8 a 31 ' 6.1 1 6.5 1.0 G 0 2.0 2.8 5.8 j 1,8 s Capacity (c), veh/h 414 , 460 h 390 I 528 495 419 406 749 333 401 749 333 Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) 0.209 ! 0.321 f 0 077 0.265 ; 0,488 - '0.509 , 0.709 , 0.559 0 203 " Q294 ' 0 543 3 183 Available Capacity lb.), veh/h 638 460 390 720 495 419 406 ` '1109 494 ' 432 1109 494 s Back of Queue (Q), veh/In (50th percentile) 0.6 1A 03 0,9 2,5 2.3 0.3 1,9 t 06 %_ 0.8 19 l 05 Overflow Queue (Q3), veh/In a 0.0 ; 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 i 0,0 0.0 t 0.0 0.0 j Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) 0.07 t 0.07 0.01 0.11 . 0.12 0,29 ` 0.04 ` O, t0 ; 0.07 . 0.04 's 0,09 0,06 ; Uniform Delay (dr), slveh '12,2't ; 15 1 14.0 11.1 } 15.1 115.2 ' 12.3 ' 17.6 16.0 13.0 } 17.5 j 16.0 Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh j 0.1 ) 1.8 014 0.1 + 3.4 j 4A 0.0 + 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 QO 0.0 0.0 _ 0.0 1 0.0 '; 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 12.3 t 16.9E 14.4 ; 11.2 j 18.5 i 19.6. 12.4. -17.8 1& 1 13.1 17 7 16 D t Level of Service (LOS) B; B t B B i B [- B B B i 6 B B I3 - -- Approach Delay, s/veh /LOS r 15.1 B 17-2 ; 8 17 1 B 16.6 B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 16.7 B Multimodal Results EB WB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 29 C 2.9 C 2.4 Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.9 A 1 5 A 0.9 �p, rlph.-! r9 JnG:-r �l,�ir!u;iN A:I :ndlFl :erect 0_ ,� {1[-;U,"�.-Fi��tersln�,Fei NB SB B2.4 B A 1.0 A General Information Intersection Information " Agency Thompson Engineers Duration, h 0.25t, Analyst D. Thompson I Analysis Date 8/14/2013 1, Area Type Other Jurisdiction ACHD ; Time Period PM Peak Hour PHF Ago _I Intersection Linder McMillan Analysis Year 2020 Background i Analysis Period !1> 7:00 r File Name PM Linder McMillan 2020 BK xus Project Description Sawtooth Village r Demand Information EB•+ WB NB SB _ Approach Movement L+ T R L! T i R L+ T R L T I R Demand (v), veh/h 90 i 153 31 145 249 921 46 433 70 122 s 420 03 1 Signal Information v- ' t ' rl' ° Cycle, s 52.0 Reference Phase c 2 Offset, s 0 Reference Point Begin Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap EIVU On i Green /yellow, 13.8 1.5 12 3 _ ' 5.0 0 1 ;13.3 i 3.0 0.0 { 3 0 3 0 . 0.0 3.0. Force Mode Fixed Simult reap NIS On ' Red 1 00 0 11.0 1fl 0.0 ? 1 0 Timer Results EBL EST VIBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SB' 1 Assigned Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 ( 4 Case Number 1.1 3.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 j 3.0 Phase Duration, s 7.8 !_. 16.3 9.3 17.8 ' 9.0 17.3 9.1 j 17.4 Change Period, (Y+Rq), s 4,0 40 4.0 4.0 4.0 4 0 4 0 4.0 MaxAllow Headway (MAH), s 5.1 0.0 5.1 0.0 5.1 5.1 ! 5.1 1;.1 Queue Clearance Time (gs), s 44 5.7 _ 3.1 8.8 5.1 8 6 ; Green Extension Time (ge),_s s- 0.2 )_ 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.4 i 0.o t '1.6 i Phase Call Probability 0.76 0 90 } i '1 00 # '1 00 1.00 1.00 Max Out Probability 0,94 i IOD 1.00 t 0.62 1.00 0.59 j , Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB l i Approach Movement L T R L? T; R L, T R; L 1 T F2 L Assigned Movement ? 5 2 12 1 6 ) 16 3 8 ( 18 7 _ 4 14_ Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 100 170 j 34 161 277 I( 246 51 481 j 78 136 467 i 70 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s'), veh/hon - 1603 1683 1426 1603 1683 1426 1603 ; 1602 1426 1603 1602 i 1426 Queue Service Time (ge), s 2.4 4.5 1.0 3.7 7.5 7.9 1.1 i 6.8 i 2.2 I 3.1 6.6 ! 2.0 Cycle Queue Clearance Time (ge), s_ 2.4 4.5 1.0 : 3.7 7.5 ! 7.9 1.1 6.8 2.2 i 3.1 6.6 1 2.0 ' Capacity (c), veh/h 363 i _; 397 j 336 •. 481 j 446 378 407 817 364 403 826 368 j Volume to -Capacity Ratio (X a 0.276 ' 0.429 ; 0 102,,0,335'0,620 , 0,650 0.126 0.589 D 214 0.337 , 0 565 0.190 Available Capacity (ce), vehlh p 541 397 336 612 446 -E 378 j 407 1101 } 490 429 1109 494 - - _ 1 Back of Queue (Q), vehlln (50th percentile) 0.7 t9 0,3 1.1 3,3 0.9 ! 0.3 J 2.2 1 0.6 0.9 2.1 '•. 0.6 Overflow Queue (Qs), vehlln 0.0 ' 0.0 0.0 ! 0.0 0.0 t 0.0 0.0 F 0.0 { 0.0 '' 0.0 i 0.0 0.0 Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) 0.09. 0.09 0 02 0.14 p 0.17 j 0.11 - 0.04 i 0.11 j 0.08 0.05 0 '11 0.07 i Uniform Delay (di),s/veh 136 16.9 156 120 168 170 11.7 + 170 153 12.3 ; 16.8 ( 15.1_ i + Incremental Delay (dz), s/veh 0.2 3.4 0.6 0.2 6.4 1 8.4 0.1 0,3 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 0.1 Initial Queue Delay (da), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 ; 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0 o y 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 4. Control Delay (d), slveh 13.8 20.3 16.2 12. I 23.2 k 25.4 - 11.8 17.2 f 15A 12.5 17.0 = 15.2 Level of Service (LOS) _ -- B + C B G.. C. - 8 B B " B_ i B _. Approach Delay, s/veh I LOS 17.7 B _.B 21,1 C 16.5 B 15.9 B i Intersection Delay, s/veh I LOS 17.9 B ,,: Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB LOS Sc_...-._ I LOS Pedestrian ore _. 2.9 , C _. 2 9 1 �' r C r 2.4 ( B ! 2.4 _B P _ _ Bicycle LOS Score I LOS 1.0 A 1.6 A 1.0 A 1.0 A v +; •+n,n,, i,r.tSl,:r�+ ru .r;. ,d ,�cio-:+r_-+�v,r,�„n,=.-.-i �FnPrar=�ertstr�rri�.t�,.<usrni , HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary I 1 t�1 t',;iy ts.r S d 1 e. t 3i fitt° t( y r General Information I Intersection Information d 4 -' t Agency Thompson Engineers Duration, h 0.25 4� Analyst D. Thompson Analysis Date 8/14/2013 € Area Type iOther f ' Jurisdiction ACHD ) Time Period rPM Peak Hour ; PHF 0.90 Intersection Linder McMillan f Analysis Year 2020 Total Analysis Period 1> 7:00 _ 1 File Name pPM Linder McMillan 2020 Tot.xus Project Description Sawtooth Village � • ryNB Demand Information EB S WB z SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T z R Demand (v), veh/h ,' 00 '158 34 145 i 249 225 49 448 72 126 435 03 q,r 'i'•t; r ar '•ir..i Signal Information Cycle, s 52.0 Reference Phase 2 a� J.' ;. Offset, s 0 , Reference Point Begin Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap EM/ ' On 1 Green 3.8 ; Yellow f 3.0 1.5 -O.b 11.9 3.0 i 5.0 0.2 13.0 0.0 13.5 ; 3.0 - € -- Force Mode ` Fixed Simult. Gap NIS On Red 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 p 0.0 i 1 0 tlt a {is. i tr. ut, asci rt , rrr i I ..�71;� ,tri " Timer Results 1 EBL ; EBT WBL i WBT NBL NBT SBL SBl Assigned Phase 5 1 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Case Number 1.1 3.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 9.0 Phase Duration, s 7.8 15.9 9.4 ; 17.4 9.0 17 5 9.2 17.7 Change Period, (Y+Rq), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 ;' 40 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 5.1 0.0 5.1 0.0 5.1 5.1 5.1 ;i,1 Queue Clearance Time (gs), s 4.4 j 5.7 3.2 91 5.2 8.8 Green Extension Time (ge), s 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 Z66 Phase Call Probability 0.76 0.90 , 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Max Out Probability 1.00 1.00 i 1.00 s 0.66 1.00 i 0.62 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement - - - L T f R L T i R L T R � • L j T i R Assigned Movement •_--5 2 '.. 12 I 6 `, 16 3 8 78 7 + 4 14 Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 100 i 176 38 161 277 250 54 498 ! 80 t 140 j 483 70 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s),. veh/h/In ; 1603 • 1683 j 1426 1603 1683 1426 1603 1602 ! 1426 1603 ; 1602 1426 Queue Service Time (gs}, s 2.4 1 4.7 ; 1.1 3.7 7 6 ; 8 2 1.2 j 7.1 j 23 3.2 y 6.6 j 2.0 - _.. Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gq), s 2.4 1 L7 ¢ 1.1 3-7 i 7.6 8.2 1 1.2 1 7.1 2.3 3.2 j 6.8 2.0 Capacity (c), veh/h i 356 1 386 j 327 467 1435 369 407 833 371 ' 403 846 { 377 j _ Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) ; 0.281 ; 0.455 0 116 0.345 , 0.636 t 0.678 0,134 ; 0.597, 0 216 , 0.347 j 0.571 0.186 Available Capacity (ce), veh/h _" 524 386 j 327 568 435 i 369.407 - 1096 488 428 i 1109 f 494 _ __- Back of Queue (Q), veh/ln (50th percentile) 0,8 2.0 0A 1.1 3.3 y 33 0.4 23 07 0.9 i 2.2 j 06 Overflow Queue (Q3), veh/In ' 0.0 i 0.0 j 0.0 0.0 ' 0.0 _� 0.0 0.0 o.0 •, 0.0 QO 0.0 0.0 , Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) 0.09 , 0.10 0.02 0.14 0.17 `, 041 . 0.04 0.11 0.08 0.05 0.11 j 0.07 Uniform Delay (di), s/veh 13.9 , 17.2 F 15.9 '12.2: 17A i 1 7 3 11.6 ' 16.0 " 15.) 12.1 i 16.6 _ 14.8 e Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 r 18 + 0.7 0.2 i 6.9 i 9.6 0.1 , 0-3 ! 01 0.2 02 i 0.'1 Initial Queue Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ) 0.0 ' 0.0 0 0 0.0 • 0.0 S 0.0 ; 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 14 0 1 21.1 16 .6 12.4 i 24.0 26.9 11.7 17.1 15.2 12.3 168 14 9 Level of Service (LOS) BC? B B C C 1 B i B j B B j B 1, B Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 18.3 B 22.4 C 16.4 B 15.7 B Intersection Delay,_s/veh / LOS _ 18.2 B , „'art€r StrY.: ,�r ,r�. ,. t¢"' ,;. ?.; c . r'. , S.1 tn�t1 •.'. ,; .., ,. �.'_ _ Multimodal Results EB WB NB sB Pedestrian LOS Score LOS P.9 } _._ C 2.9 C 2.4 B 2.4 E B Bicycle LOS Score/ LOS 1.0 A 1,6 A 1.0 A 1.1 A it*M:,univQ iry";Fix! i, +1', Ir'r` � "*i. ,� `iNn�,r •,.. _,a2�4 rTinn ?s Gr ¢. a,nd; iyip �� k i3: laa HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results General Information i Intersection Information ' Agency Thompson Engineers WB Duration, h y0.25 Analyst D. Thompson Analysis Date 8/14/2013 ; Area Type !Other Jurisdiction ACHD Time Period ;PM Peak Hour PHF X0.90 y " Intersection Meridian McMillan , Analysis Year 2013 Exist ! Analysis Period ;1> 7:00 I File Name FM Meridian McMillan 2.013 X.xus 27 ) Proiect Description Sawtooth Village 503 119 38 ! .: Demand Information EB WB NB S6 Approach Movement L T R L i T R L T R L T R - - Demand (v) veh/h 27 252 31 94 503 119 38 156 64 62 125 37 ol Signal nal Informati �0 Cycle, s 850 R_eference Phase 2 fsot, s 0 Reference Pont Be9 iO Green16 - .+ 12:8 0.0 - ,- Uncoordinated No Simult Gap ENV On l 3. 0.0 "3 3 030t .0 Force. Made Fixed Simult Gap N/S On Red 1.0 rO.0 ;1 0 A.0 1.0 ; 0.0 t Timer Results EBL EBT WBL ; WB f NBL NBT SBL E Bl Assigned Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 9 7 % 4 Case Number 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 J 3.0 Phase Duration, s 6.550.6 8.0 52 7 9.0 i 16.8 9.0 16.8 Change Period, (Y+R�), s 4 0 4 0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 5.1 0.0 5.1 0.0 5.1 5.1 5.16.1 Queue Clearance Time(g,), s 2 7 4.2 3.8 10.4 5.0 8.5 _ Green Extension Time (ge), s 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 2.4 j Phase Call Probability 0,51 0.92 1.00 '1.00 1.00 1.00 Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00 i 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 '. Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T( R L T R L? -7 T I R li Assigned Movement - _- 5 2- 12 1 6 16 :; 3 8 13 4 14 Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 30 314 104 691 ' 42 176 71 69 139 i 41 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/In 1603 11651 1603 ; 1627 i '1603 • 1683 1426: 1603 ^ 1683 j '1426_ Queue Service Time (g.4), s 0.7 9.0 22 26.6 1.8 8.4 3.8 3.0 1 6.5 2.1 i Cycle Queue Clearance Time (g4, s 0.7 9.0 2.2 1 26.8 1.8 i 8.4 i 3.8 3.0 6,5 2.1 Capacity (c), veh/h 150 906 171 932 269 253 1215 138 253 215 _ Volume to Capacity Ratio (X) 0.199 - 0.347 • 0.611 0,742 ": 0.157 0.693 '0,331 0.290 0,548 '0192 i Available Capacity (c.), veh/h 635 906 , 617 i 932 269 713 604 . 238 713 604 Back of Queue (Q) veh/In (501h percentile) 0.3 3.2 1.2 9,8 0.7 3.4 1.3 1.1 2.6 ( 0.7 I Overflow Queue (Qs), veh/In 00 0.0 0.0 j 0.0 0.0 0.0 { 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ; a Queue Storage Ratio (RQ (50th percentile) 0.04 0,16 0.15 ^ 0.49 i 0.09 $ 0.17 { 0.16 • 0.06 0.13 0.09 Uniform Delay (dr), s/veh 19.9 ; 10.7 20.3 13.5 ( 27.5 34.2 `. 32,3 28.2 33.4 1 31.6 Y .Incremental Delay (d'), s/veh 0.2 1A1.3 5 3 0.1 13 0 3 0.2 07 0.2 Initial Queue Delay (de), s/veh 0.0 0..0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 ) 0.0 0.0 ` Control Delay (d), s/veh 20.1 111 21 6 '18.8 f 27.6 35.5 . 3Z6 28.5 34.1 31.7 j ; Level of Service (LOS)- C B '.. C B C , D - C _-- C. ,' C i C { Approach Delay, s/veh ! LOS12.5 t B 19.2 r 0 33.7 i C 32,2 G Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 22.2 C . t .. '41" =5; Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB ! Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.4 4 B 2.4 B 2.3 B 1 2.3 8 ( Bicycle LOS Score I LOS 1 1 A 1 8 A 1.0 A 0.9 A illl"No. ncraterb A' -in o ;,ri'sd[ i'iei HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information EBL Intersection Information Agency Thompson Engineers NBL I i Duration, h 0.25 Analyst D. Thompson p Analysis Date 8!14!2013 Area Type ;Other Jurisdiction ACHD } Time Period PM Peak Hour PHF 0.90 Intersection; Meridian McMillan Analysis Year 2020 BK Analysis Period 11> 7:00 {, File Name PM Meridian McMillan 2020 BK.xus j Project Description Sawtooth Village 4.0 1.1 'Demand Information EB we NB SB Approach Movement L ` T R L( T R L T R L T R Demand (v), veh/h 31 289 36 108 j 578 137 ', 44 181 74 71 1+1 1 43 Signal Information I I II Cycle, s 85.0 Reference Phase 2,o- f Offset, s 0 �, Reference Point Begin . Green J'2.8 2.1 44 7 5.6 14.3 0.0 l� Uncoordinated' No Simult Gap EM/ I On yellow 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 10.0 Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S- On Red 11.0 i 0.0 11.0 1.0 1.0 i 0.0 + Timer Results EBL EBT WBL W13T NBL I NBT ;j SBL SBT Assigned Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 ' Case Number 1.1 4.0 1.1 4.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 ; 3.0 Phase Duration, s 6.8 48.7 8.950.9 9.0 18.3 9.D i 1B Change Period, (Y+R ), s 4 0 40 4.0 40 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 5.1 _- 0.0 5.1 0.0 5.1 5.1 5.1 :{.1 Queue Clearance Time (gs),-s 2.8 4.7 4.1 11.6 5.4 9.4 Green Extension Time (ge), s 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 2.8 Phase Call Probability 0.56 0.94 1.00 , 1.00 L00 1 00 Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00 1.00 1, 0.00 1.00 0,00 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB .. _ Approach Movement }.. , L • T I R L I T R L T I. R L i T R ._. ._ ._ Assigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 ; 14 I Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 34 361 120 ' 794 49 201 82 79 1 160 48 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/hlln 1603 1650 1603 1627 ; 1603 , 1683 1426 1603 16831426 Queue Service Time (gs), s 0.8 11.3 j 2.7 36.4 � 2.1 � 9.6 4,3 3.4 7.4 j 2.4 j Cycle Queue Clearance Time (ga), s0.8 (11.3 } 2.7 i 36.4 } 2.1 9.6 4.3 3.4 t 7.4 2.4 1 Capacity (c), veh/h 153 869 ;I 177 897 j 275 284 241 241 284 241 Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) : 0.225 ' 0,416 0.677 F 0.885 0.178.0,708 0 342 i 0.328 = 0.563 ;: 0,198 Available Capacity (ca), vehlh G04 869 587 897 275 713 604 ' 241 713 i 604 1 Back of Queue (0), veh/In (50th percentile) D.3 4.1 r 1 3 14.7 Q8 3.9 i 1 5 1 3 , 10 00 fi Overflow Queue (Qs), vehlln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 i 0.0 ( 0.0 Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) i 0.04.0 21 i 0.16 ` 0,74 0.10 t 0.19 } 0.18 0.06 0.15 j a 10 Uniform Delay (d ), s/veh 19.7 ' 12.2 ' 20.0:16.7 26.,5 33.3 s 31.2 27.2 32.4 30.4 Incremental Delay (d.) sNeh 0.3 ! 1.5 ' 1 7 12-5 l 0.1 • 1.2 03 0.3 0.7 01 Initial Queue Delay (da) s/veh i 0.0 0.0 0.0 f 0.0 0.0 , 0.0 ' 0.0 0.0 0.0 , 0.0 Control Delay (d),s/veh - 20.0 • 13.7 i. 21.6 , 292 26.6 346 31.5 27.5 33.1 .' 30.5 - Level of Service (LOS) ` C = • B C C s 1 C C i C C C '. C z Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS . 14.2 B 26.2 C 32.6 ;. C , . 31.1 _ C Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 26.5 C Multimodal Results EB VVB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS ( 2.4 B 2.4 B 2.3 B 2.3 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 11 A 2.0 A 1.0 A 1 0 A t =rv'rh"'�.ii lrpl+F'r �, .tNori� ,vlG ... ._ �:I ?• 70'W u. '.'-dr=r�; Va,. iau t:.--^ C:nirr.td�6VdRU", _rlcr=,, PP= General Information Intersection Information Agency Thompson Engineers Duration, h 0.25 Analyst D. Thompson Analysis Date 8/14/2013 Area Type Other Jurisdiction ACHD Time Period PM Peak Hour PHF 0.90 Intersection 'Meridian McMillan ? Analysis Year 2020 Total Analysis Period j1> 7:00 File Name ,PM Meridian McMillan 2020 TOTxus Project Description Village {Sawtooth Demand Information EB WB NB SB ' Approach Movement _ L T R ` L 1 T' R L T R i L I T I� Remand (v) veh/h - 36 323 38 108 611 137 46 , 181 743 71 144 47 51 Signal Information 800 Reference Offset, s Reference Point ; Begin 9 Uncoordinated, No Simult. Gap EMI On - Green Y Ilow 3.1 1 9 ; 3.0 0.0 - 44.7 3.0 ; 5.0 r 14.4 0.0 3 0 3 0 {0.0 Force Mode Fixed Simult Gap N/S - On Red ,1.0 0.0 11.0 ;1.0 1 0 OA t s .'l Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBf SBI E1131- 8TAssigned AssignedPhase- 5 ; 2 1 6 - 3 8 7 0 4 j Case Number 1.1 1 40 1.1 4.0 1.1 i 3.D 1.1 3.0 Phase Duration, s7.1 ( 48.7 8.9 50.6 9.0 18.4 9.0 18.4 t Change Period, (Y+R,), s _ - _ ',.� 4.0 i 4.0 4.0 4.0 ..-.4 0 40 ,±.. 4.0 4.0 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 5,1 0.0 5.1 ! 0.0 5.1 5.1 5.1 ; 6.1 Queue Clearance Time (gs), a 3.0 4.7 4.2 11.6 t 5A 9.4 Green Extension Time (g®), s 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 1 2.8 Phase Call Probabilily 0 61 094 1.00 'I 00 1,00 1A0 _ Max Out Probability 0.00 ; 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.000.00 . Movement Group Results EB WB NB ', SB Approach Movement L T RL T R L _..3 T R ' L i T R Assigned Movement -..._- - " : 5 2 12 1 .: 6 16 8 18._7 4 i., 14 i Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 40 j 401 t 120� 831 ) 51 + 201 1 82 ; 79 F 160 f 52 !Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), vehlh/In 1603 -1652 1(303 ' 1629 l 1603 ' 1683 i 1426 1603 1683: 1426 Queue Service Time (gs), s 1.0 12.9 t 2.7 + 40.0 2.2 9.6 4.3 3.4 7.4 2.7 { Cycle Queue Clearance Time (g�), s 1.0 12.9 i 2 7 40.0 22 , 9.6 1 4.3 3.4 7.4 2.7 j 3 Capacity (c), veh/h 158 869 178 893 I 275 285 - 241 , 241 285-- ! -_ Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) ;. 0.253 0.462 ; . ° 0.675 , 0 931 ' 0.186 0 707 10 341 0.327 `s 0.562 -.2,11 0.217 Available Capacity (ce), veh/h 602 ' 869 1 587 + 893 ` 275. 713 ; 604 241 + 713 'i 604 Back Of 50th percentile) Queue (Q), vehAhlln 0 4 4.7 1 3 . 17,2 ; 0.8 39 d 1 5 1.3 3.0 0.9 Overflow o.o 0.0 " 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 o D D o.o o.o o.o Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) 0.05 0.24 ! 0.16 , 0 87 0.10 ` 0,19 ! 0 18 S 0-06 0.15 0.11 - Uniform Delay (dr), s/veh..-. _ - 19 7 12.6 199 , 17.7 26.5 333 1 31.1 27.2 32.4 { 30.5-i Incremental Delay (d;), s/veh : &3 1.8, I r 17.4 [. 0.1 12 .. 0,3 0.3 0,6 D.2 ' Initial Queue Delay (ds), s/veh i 0.0 ; 0.0 0.0 i 0.0 ? 0.0 0 0 > 0 0 0.0 , 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 20.0 14.4 21.6 1 35.1 ! 26.6 ; 34.5 31 4 27.5 33.1 30.6 Level of Service (LOS) C 1 _ B s C p D j C C; C C C j C Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 14.0 ; B 33.4 C 3Z6 C 31.1 C Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS , 28.9 C I .1., Multimodal Results ED VVB IVB SB 1 Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.4 B 2.4 B ; - 2.3 ; B 2.3 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.2 A 21 B 1 0 A 1,0 A Iq7, °r:^, 1!ni`a ,n+.Flu• '';1�.`..':'I. =:n""+� �Ii:,%u NP• rt�.1/..,";itn, F.h, G � -a.-d. 8:1 fEUI_S.'1'i>r�1'lVl HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information j Intersection Information ' 4 -1" Agency IThompson Engineers f Duration, h 0.25 Analyst P. Thompson_ i Analysis Date 8/14/2013 Area Type ;Other j Jurisdiction ,ACRD ; Time Period 'PM Peak Hour j PHF 0.90 Intersection Linder Ustick Analysis Year 2013 Exist j Analysis Period 1> 7:00 j= ; -. Fife Name PM Linder Ustick 2013 X.xus i Project Description ''Sawtooth Village Demand Information EB P WB NB "_, SB Approach Movement - L T R L( T R° L s T; R LI T j I2 Demand (v), veh/h 63 309 33 118 420 i 136 48 383 150 88 291 EO , P=tix .rtl {Y4544t 4r �+.. _+ , '. +{"y YU..�i a, `q4 5 tv { x + t, ;= .}.r F Signal Information Cycle, s ; 56.0 1 Reference Phase 2 Offset, s 0 . Reference Point Begin Uncoordinated No Simult. Ga ENV On ,i P ._ { Green 13.3 1.1 �Yellowj3.0 0.0 18.5 15.0 12.1 10.0 130 X30 30 I r, Force Mode ; Fixed Simult Gap NIS 1 On . Red ,1 .0 0 0 _ [0.0 1.q ! 1.0 i,.0 Timer Results EBL FBT WBL t WBT 4 NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Case Number 1.1 ( 3.0 1 1.1 ; 3.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 5.0 j Phase Duration, s 7.3 22.5 8.4 23.6 9.0 ; 16.1 9.0 ( 19.1 Change Period, (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4,0 4,0 4 0 4,0 4,0 4.0 4.0 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s i 5.1 0.0 5.1 0.0 5.1 5.1 51 5.1 ; . Queue Clearance Time (gs), s 3-6 4.9 33 67 45 E-9 Green Extension Time (ge), s 0.1 0.0 0.2 ( 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 4.0 i Phase Call Probability 0_C16 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 Max Out Probability ' 0.84 1 ? 1.00 ! 1_.00 0._74 1.00 f 057 } Movement Group Results ` EB WB NB SB Approach-- Movement L, T R L T R L T R L j T I, R i Assigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 70 ! 343 37 I' 131 i 467 1 151 53 ( 426 °; 167 - 98 323 i 56 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/In 1603 1602 , 1426, 1603 ° 1602 4 1426 '1603 1 1602 ; 1426 1603 1602: 1426 Queue Service Time (ga), s 1.6 4.5 1 1.0 2.9 6.2 4.3 1.3 f 6.7 5.8 2.5 7 4.9 1 8 Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gq), s 1 6 j 4.5 { 1.0 2.9 s 6.2 1 4.3 1.3 j 6.7 { 5.8 2-5 4-9 1 1.8 . Capacity (c), vehlh 417 t 1058 i 471 506 ( 1120 y 498 401 0^94 s o^09 362 j 694 +; 309 j Volume -to Capacity Ratio (X) 0. 168 i 0.324 0.078`0.259 4 0,417 :0,303 , 0A 33 ; 0 614 '0,540 0276 ' 0A66 3.180 3 Available Capacity (ce), veh/h 576 1058 �. 471 635 ? 1120 1 498 401 1 916 408 < 352 [ 916 ;--408 i Back of Queue (Q), vehlin (50th percentile) j 0.5 , 1.5 0.3 O.8 2.1 I 1.4 0.4 2.3 j. 1.8 0.8 1.6 ! 0.5 Overflow Queue (Q3), veh/In 0.0 j 0.0 0.0 0-0 i 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 i 0.0 0.0 Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) 0.06 0.08 0.02 0.11 a 0.11 i 018 4 0.05 0.11 0.22 K 0.04 - 0.08 ;. 0.07 ! Uniform Delay (di), sAteh 11.2 `. 14.1 12.9 r 10.3 13.9 1 U.3 14.2 f 19.8 19.6 14.8 19.1 17.9 j Incremental Delay (dz), s/veh 0.1 r 0.8 0.3 0.1 ' 'L1 ; 1.6 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0,1 Initial Queue Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 1 0.0 j 0.0 0.0 00 0 0 0.0 t 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), IB2� 1`B9 1B2 1B r 1B0 j 14B8 14B2 2C2 : 2C0 iB0 ig3 118.0 LepvpelofService(LOS)h t i Approach Delay, s/veh /LOS 14 B 14 2 B 19.6 B 18 3 B intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS A 16.5 B I - Multimodal Results EB WB 1 NB SB j Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.9 j C 2.9 1 C 2.9 ( C 2.9C d Bicycle LOS Score / LOS_ 0.9 A 1.1 A - 1 1) i A o.9 A CICS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency iThompson Engineers Duration, h 0.25 Analyst D. Thompson i Analysis Date 8/14/2013 Area Type Other Y_ JurisdictionACHD ; Time Period 'PM Peak Hour PHF ,0.90. Intersection Linder Ustick Analysis Year 2020 Background Analysis Period ,1> 7:00 File Name ;PM Linder Ustick 2020 BK.xus j 0.0 j 0.0 I 1�77J Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L 1 T R L; T R L i T R L? T' R Demand (v), vehlh 57 355 38 136 482 1166. 55 440 172. 101 334 57 Signal Information Cycle, s 56.0 Reference Phase 3 2� 15.0 (Offset, s ). 0 ;Reference Point Begin Uncoordinated] No Simult Gap ENV On ; Green 13.1 : Yellow 3.0 1 9 0.0 ! 16 9 ; 3 0 i 13.1 ; 3.0 3.0 j 0.0 j 0.0 I 1�77J s1 � I Force Mode Fixed Simult Gap N/S On Red , 1.0 0.0 l 1.0 11.0 1.0 ; 0.0 ., Timer Results EBL EBT VVBL WBT NBL NBT SBL % SBT Assigned Phase 5 j- 2 1 - 6 3 ' 8 -7 i 4 Case Number 1.1 3.0 1.1 i 3.0 „ 1.1 3.0 1.1 u 3L 0 Phase Duration, s 7.1 20.9 9.0 22.7 9.0 17.1 9.0 f 17.1 I Change Period, (Y+Rq), s 4.0 40 4.0 413 4.0 4.0 40 0 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 5.1 y 0.0 5.1 0.0 5.1 { 5.1 5.1 5,1 Queue Clearance Time (gs), s 3.5 I 5.4 3.5 f 9,7 4.8 7.6 Green Extension Time (ge), s 0.1 j 0.0 0.1 { 0.0 0.0 ; 3.4 0.0 t 4.3 Phase Call Probability 0.63 0.90 j 1.00 , 1.00 1.00 1 OC Max Out Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 s 0.87 1.00 i 0169 Movement Group Results_ EB WB NB SB 1 Approach Movement L T R L+ T R L T R L i T S F2 `Assigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 1 16 3 ` 8 I 18 , 7 i 4 14 ' Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 63 1394 42 151 1 536 j 173 r 61 ; 489 191 112 's 371 I_ 63 j Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), vehlhlln 1603 1602: 1426 `. 1603 1602 1426 1603 , 1602 i 1426 1603 1602 1426 j Queue Service Time (gs), s 1.5 5.5 ! 1.2 3.4 ; 7.5 5.2 1.5 7.7 6.6 2.8 j 5.6 2.0 Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gs), s 1.5 5.5 1.2 3.4 7.5 5.2 1.5 7.7 t 6.6 2.8 5.6 j 2.0 Capacity (c), veh/h 368 i 965 430 466 i 1071 j 477 401 753 335 346 753 335 Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) i 0.172 p 0,409 0 0.098 ; 0.324 , 0.500 0 364 , 0.152 f 0,650 } 0 571 ', 0.324 0.493 _ 3 189 1 1 Available Capacity (ca), veh/h 503 965 j 430 548 1 1071 j 477 401 916 408 346 916 408 Backof Queue (Q), veh/In (50th peroe ntile) 0.5 - 1 9 i 04 '1.0 2,6 f 11 0,5 , 26 '. 2,0 0.9 1.9 06 1 Overflow Queue (Q3), veh/In 0.0 0.0 j 0.0 0.0 q 0.0 ' 0.0 0.0 , 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 0 0 ! 00 Queue Storage Ratio (R(D) (50th percentile) 0.06 0.10 0,02 0.12 0,13 0.22 { 0.06 013 `: 0,25 0.017 ; 009 0.07 f Uniform Delay (dr), s/veh 12.4s 15.6 14.1 10.9 i 14.9 ! 14.1 13.6 ( 19.3 18.9 144 18.5 17.2 i Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0A t 1.3 0 5 0.1 1.7 ; 2.1 0.1 0.0 0,6 0.2 0.2 01 ' Initial Queue Dela (d3), s/veh Y 0.0 0.0 i 0.0 0.0 j 00 R 0.0 `i 0.0 t 0.0 i 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh ,`. 12A 16.9 14.5 11.0 16.6 16 3) _13.7: 20.0 19.5 14.6 18.7 17.3 Level of Service (LOS)B B B B B 3 6 B B B B- B B Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 16 1 B 155 B ;. 19.3 B 17.7 B j Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 17.2 B Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.9 i C 2.9 ; C 2.9 C 2.9 C Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 119 A 12 A 1.1 A 0.9 A ,r;d f,". Ih,i.,.., iir�;r ;i..i ,.•_,•. �' 11 "),W,., .51 V=,. •.vo,i^,! <:.1 „dr�7 'id Ult'.. r, -:.. ,., HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary EB Wo NB SB L T I R L T R 1 General Information T R Intersection Information 4 1 1. Agency ,Thompson Engineers 5 2 Duration. h 1 6 16 3 8 18 f 7 i 4 y 14 50.25 394F 42 Analyst D. Thompson J Analysis Date 8/14/2013 Area Type 61 t 'Other 191 112 Jurisdiction !ACHD Time Period 'PM Peak Hour PHF 1002 j0.90 'I 1602 Intersection Linder Ustick Analysis Year 2020 Total Analysis Period ;1> 7:00 1602 1426 iI File Name IPM Linder Ustick 2020 TOT.xus 5.5 i 1.2 3.4 7.6 5.2 1.5 I Project Description jSawtooth Village 6.6 2.8 5.8 2.0 1.9 5.6 Demand Information EB 7.6 WB I 1.5 I NB 6.6 SB Approach Movement L j T R L i T R L: T j R L T y IR Demand (v), veh/h 72 355 38 136 482 1513 55 451 172 101 346 y 67 t0. 100 0.321 0.517 A Or 153: 0,657 Signal Information Cycle s 56.0 ,Reference Phase 1 2 r 0,504 j 0.187 488 -% 4� 424538 11037461 Offset Is Begin 399 916 408 0'163 916 408 0.6 1,9 ordinatedi 0 imult. Gap EIVV n edSimutt. Yellow 30 00 3, 0 30 :30coUn 0Force 2,0 0.9 1.9 0.6 0.0 I 0.0 Mode FiGap N/S On Red 0.0 �-0.0 ;(.0 1.0 10 tO.0 J j 00 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.07 4V t" "'A 't 0.13 1 O 13 022 0.06 0,13 0.25 Timer Results EBL EST WBI_ F 1,AJBT NBL NBT SBL SB Assigned Phase 5 1 2 1 6 3 8 7 j 4 yr Case Number 1.1 1 3.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 3.0 'Phase Duration, a 7.6 20.6 9.0 22.1 9.0 1 17.3 6.0 17.3 Change Period, (Y+R�), s 4.0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4,0 4 0 11.6 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 5.1 0.0 5.1 0.0 5.1 6.1 5.1 5.1 Queue Clearance Time (g�), s 3.9 i 5.4 B 3.5 9.9 4.8 7.8 Green Extension Time (g.), s 0.1 0.0 L m o.0 1 0.0 3.4 0.0 4.3 Phase Cali Probability 0.71 0 90 �r 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0c) Max Out Probability 1.00 f 1.00 1.00 r 0.90 1.00 0,71 Movement Group Results Approach esultsApproach Movement Assigned Movement Adjusted - Flow Rate M, veh/h Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/In Queue Service Time (ga), s Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gc), s Capacity (c), veh/h Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) Available Capacity (ca), veh/h Back of Queue (Q), veh/in (50th percentile) Overflow Queue (Q3), veh/In Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (60th percentile) Uniform Delay (di), s/veh Incremental Delay sNeh Initial Queue Delay (J3)1_ s[veh Control Delay (d), sNeh Level of Service (LOS) Approach Delay, s1veh / LOS Intersection De I lay. - s/veh iLOS Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score LOS 2.9 C 2.9 C 2.9 J C 2.9 C Bicycle LOS Scoru/ LOS 0.9 A 12 A Irl A 00 A EB Wo NB SB L T I R L T R 1 L T R L T i R 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 f 7 i 4 y 14 80 394F 42 151 536 j 173 61 t 501 191 112 384 63 1.603 1002 1426 1603 1602 14.26 1603 1602 1426 1603 1602 1426 1.9 5.5 i 1.2 3.4 7.6 5.2 1.5 I 7.9.1, 6.6 2.8 5.8 2.0 1.9 5.6 1.2 t.3.4 7.6 5 1 .2 1.5 I 7.9 6.6 2.8 5.6 f 2.0 370 953 424 463 X10371 461 399 763 339 345 763 j 339 0216! 0,414 t0. 100 0.321 0.517 0. -076 Or 153: 0,657 0.563 '0,325 r 0,504 j 0.187 488 953, 424538 11037461 399 916 408 345 916 408 0.6 1,9 0.4 1.0 2.6 1.8 0.5 27 2,0 0.9 1.9 0.6 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 0,0 j 00 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.07 0.10 1 002 0.13 1 O 13 022 0.06 0,13 0.25 005 0.10 0.07 12.4 1 15.8 1 14.2 11.2 1 15.4 14.6 13.5 19.3 18.8 14.3 18.5 i ITO 0.1 13 0.5 0.2 '18 23 0.1 08 05 0.2 0.2 I O.1 0.0 i 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 r 0.0 0.0 0_0 0.0 0.0 t 0.0 125 17.1 147 11.3 172 (_169 13.6 20.0 i 193 14,5 18.7 17.1 B B B B B A B B C B = B B B 16.2 8 161 y B 19.3 B 17.7 B 17.4 B Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score LOS 2.9 C 2.9 C 2.9 J C 2.9 C Bicycle LOS Scoru/ LOS 0.9 A 12 A Irl A 00 A iwo-way atop uontrol rage i of t I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY I lGeneral Information iSite Information D nnivc4 fl Thmm�enn In}crcer4inn ! inrlar and (:nnnaminuA Copyright 02010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Vemlon 0.0 Generated: 6/14/2013 4:45 PM file:///C:/Users/Dan/AnpData/Local/Temp/U2k9E,4E.tmp 8/14/2013 r wv-way atup wntrut ragn r or r I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY I Information Analyst D. Thompson Intersection jUnder and Coo e_rcloud genc /Co. Thom son Engineers, Inc. urisdiction CHD Date Performed 7/25/2013 nalysis Year 11 020 Background Analysis Time Period M Peak Hour Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 1 ct Description Sawtooth West Street: Copperclom ,ection Orientation: Noitt isle Volumes and Ad L T R L T R Volume veh/h 43 527 5 6 476 87 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 _ 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 47 veh/h 585 5 6 528 96 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- _ — 0 — — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized Westbound 0 1 1 1 0 Configuration L T I TR I L T TR Ustream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 70 0 40 2 0 4 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 0.90 77 0.90 0 0.90 44 0.90 2 0.90 0 0.90 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (e7o) 0 0 Flared Approach N _ N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 6 1 0 Configuration L TR LTR May, Queue Length, and Level of Service %pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR L TR (veh/h) 47 6 6 77 44 (m) (veh/h) 967 995 500 324 733 /c 0.05 0.01 0.01 024 0.06 95% queue length 0.15 0.02 1 0.04 0.91 0.19 ontrof Delay (s/veh) 8.9 8.6 1 12.319.5 10.2 LOS A A B m C 8 Approach Delay (s/veh) 12.3 R 16.2 pproach LOS B C Copyright 02010 University or Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM version 5.6 Generated: 81412013 4:46 PM file:///C:/Users/Daii/Ai)vData/Local/Temp/u2kl O65.tmt) 8/14/2013 Iwo -way 3wp k.untrol TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Slte Information rage I or t Analyst ID. Thompson Intersection Linder and Coopercloud Agency/Co. Thompson Engineers, Inc. Jurisdiction ACHD Date Performed 7/26/2013 Analysis Year 20.20 Background Anal sis Time Period PM Peak Hour R ,1-mv,I# e ra Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T_ R L T R Volume veh/h 43 600 11 15 505 87 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 -lourlyFlow Rate, HFR veh/h 47 666 12 16 561 96 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 - -- 0 - -- Median Type Two Way Leff Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T TR -Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 70 0 40 16 0 8 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 77 0 44 17 0 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L TR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR L TR (vehlh) 47 16 25 77 44 C (m)(veh/h) 940 923 329 291 718 /c 0.05 0.02 0.06 0.26 0.06 queue length 0.16 0.05 0.25 1 '1.04 0.20 C5% ontrol Delay (slveh) 9.0 9.0 16.8 1 21.8 10.3 LOS A A C C B Approach Delay (s/veh) 16.8 17.6 Approach LOS C C Copyright©2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 8114/2013 4AE file:///C:/Users/Dan/AnUData/Local/Teino/u2ic4l37.tmp 8/14/2013 I Iwo -way atop Uou1T01 rage t 01 > TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY ---- — lGeneral Information ISite Information Analyst ID. Thompson Intersection RIRO and Coopercloud Agency/Co. IThompson Engineers, Inc. Jurisdiction ACHD Date Performed 7125/2013 Analysis Year 2020 Total Anal sis Time Period PM Peak Hour T R Volumes and Movement 1 1 2 3 45 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 678 5 520 Peal( -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 0 753 5 0 577 0 Percent HeavyVehicles 0 -- -- 0 — -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration T TR T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 12 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 13 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 _ 0 0 1 onfiguration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound F_astbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 117 11 12 Lane Configuration R (veh/h) i3 C (m) (veh/h) 672 /c 0.02 95% queue length 0,06 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.5 LOS B Approach Delay (s/veh) — 10.5 Approach LOS B Copyright 82010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved fiI e:///C:/Users/Dau/AUpData/Local/Temp/u2k8008.ttntp HCS+TM Version 5.0 Generated: 8/1412013 4: 8/14/2013 Iwo -way atop i,ontrot TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL, SUMMARY General Information Site Information rage I oI I Analyst D. Thompson Intersection Full McMillan Access Agenc /Co. Thom son Engineers,ti Jurisdiction CND Date Performed 7/25/2013 Analysis Year 2D20 Tofal Analysis Time Period M Peak Hour _ 0 HP 122k-Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90_ 0.90 0.90 0.90 _ 0 720 2 6 850 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 _ -- -- 0 — _ Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR U stream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 14 11 12 L T R L T R volume (veh/h) 9 0 0 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 10 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR 4 (veh/h) 0- 6 10 0 C (m) (veh/h) 797 889 2,15 vlc 0.00 0.01 0.05 95% queue length 0.00 0.02 0.15 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.5 9.1 22,6 LOS A A C Approach Delay s/veh) 22.6 Approach LOS C Copyrfght®2010 Unlvmlty of Florida, All Rights Reserved fi I e:///C:/Users/Dan/At)DData/Local/Tema/u2k 1129.tmp HCS+TI"i Verslon 5.6 Generated: 8/14/2013 4:4 8/14/2013 Iwo -way atop �,ontroi rage I of 1 Volume (veh/h) 0 0 20 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 0 0 22 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (e7a) 0 V/0 0 0.05 Flared Approach N 35% queue length N 0.16 Storage n 0 y Control Delay (s/veh) 0 1 13.5 IRT Channelized I I 1 0 1 1 1 0 Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 .4 7 8 9 10 -11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR (veh/h) 0 0 22 0 (m) (veh/h) 1636 907 444 V/0 0.00 0.00 0.05 35% queue length 0.00 0.00 0.16 n Control Delay (s/veh) 7.2 9.0 1 13.5 LOS A A B Approach Delay (s/veh) pproach LOS 13.5 8 Copyright 02010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS*TM Version 5.6 Generated: 8/14/2013 4:48 PM fil e:///C:[Users/Dan/AppData/Local/Temp/Li2k6l28.tmp 8/14/2013 AM Peak Hour Calculations HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results General Information EB Intersection Information Agency Thompson Engineers J Duration, h ;0,25 Analyst D. Thompson Analysis Date ;8/14/2013 [Area Type ;Other Jurisdiction ACHD j Time Period tAM Peal( Hour { PHF `10.90 ntersection Linder Analysis Year2013 Existing a Analysis Period j1> 7:00 File Name IAM Linder McMillan 2013 X.xus A 1 Project Description Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L i T R - L T R L T t R i L t T i R _._ Demand (v1. veh/h 45 147 24 ' 26 „ 73 ` 194 '13 342 } 67 151 255 45 Signal Information Cycle s 1 60.0 ; Reference Phase i 2 Offset, s 0 Reference Point i Begin Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap ENV On Force Mode ; Fixed ` Simult. Gap N/S ! On Timer Results Assigned Phase Case Number Phase Duration, s Change Period, (Y*RS), s Max Allow Headway (MAH), s Queue Clearance Time (gs), s Green Extension Time (ga), s Phase Call Probability Max Out Probability Movement Group Results Approach Movement - Assigned Movement Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/IB Queue Service Time (gs), s Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gs), s Capacity (c), veh/h Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) Available Capacity (ca), veh/h Back of Queue (Q), veh-An (50th percentile) Overflow Queue (Q3) veh/ln Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) Uniform Delay (da), s/v -h Incremental Delay (dz), s/veh Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh Control Delay (d), s/veh Level of Service (LOS) Approach Delay, s/veh (LOS Intersection Delay. s/veh / LOS 0.9 11.7 i12.4 10.0 3.0 EBL EB EBT ? WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL ( S3T 2.9 C 52 A 1 6_ 3 A 8 7 1 _. 1.1 3.0 3 1.1 f 3.0 1.1 3.0 j 1.1 ! 3.0 - 6.8 i 27.0 5.9 ! 26.1 9.0 y 16A 10.7 s 18.1 i 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4 0 4.0 40 5.1 l 0.0 5.1 0.0 5.1 5.1 5.1 I 5.1 3.1 ,- ;.. 2 [ ?_.4 x 8.4 6.6 6.5 0.1 i 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 ( 4.0 0.1 I 4.5 0.57 0.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000.00 k 0.00 i 0.24 1 1.00 1 0.12 Af.'' t EB WB NB SB L i T R L T R Li T i R I T_!.R i 5, 2 12 1 6 !: 16 ' 3 8 18 ' 7 4 J 14 50 163 27 i 29 i 81 J 216 14 l 380 { 74 168 ' z 283 j 50 1603 ; 1683 i 1426 ; 1603 , 1683-1420 1603 f 1602 , 1426 ' 1603 j 1602 1426 1.1 4.0 i 0.7 0.7 1.9 6.7 0.4 6A 2.6 4.6 1 4.5 ( 1.7 i 1.1 4.0 # 07 1 0.7 19 3 67 0.4 6.4 4.6 4.51.7 f... 562 646 'y 547 i 552 620 i 526 422 661 296 I 9 2 ' 51 334 0.0890253n0049a0D62}0.13104100034'05756.253;0428,0.377 0.150; 859 i 646 547 873 620 ! 526 609 ' 1138 1.507 i 427 + 1228 ( 547 , 0.3 I L5 02 ;, 02 07 3..2.2 01 ( 22 08 15 1.5 ,-..0o i 0.0 0.0 ati 00 0.0 D.D D.o o0 00 0.0 o.o 0.o __ 0.04 007 001 0.03 004 028 _ 0.02 011 010 i 0.07 0.08 0.06 s 10.11126 116 11.1 12.6;141 -24 15.3�21.4i19.9 115.0; 19.3; 182 f 0.0 i 09 02 ; 0.0 i 0.4 r 0.0 , 03 02 0.3 0A 0.1 o.0 t 00 _ 00 0.0 00 �. 0.0 0.0 0.0 } 0.0 0.0 0.0 i 1 I..00 10.1 13.6 11.8 H` '11.1 ! 13.0 1 16.5 15.4 + 21.7 20.1 15.3 194 18.3 -' 12.6 B 15.1 B 21.3 C 17.9 B 17.5 B_ _ Multimodal Results Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS Bicycle LOS Score / LOS IN Univll'e Itl' o° I'loiirb All R1glll '.. W: 5 ;10 10 n. r -d •Pi.�Vol ;inneAt EB 2.4 WB 0.0 2.9 ; C 2.9 C A 1.0 A -0.9 W: 5 ;10 10 n. r -d •Pi.�Vol ;inneAt ('sI J'. i..1_ �l7;S1 �U11 x ;.:95 N71 NB 2.4 B 0.0 A ('sI J'. i..1_ �l7;S1 �U11 x ;.:95 N71 SB 2.4 13 ('sI J'. i..1_ �l7;S1 �U11 x ;.:95 N71 HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results General Information I EB 1 Intersection Information Agency Thompson Engineers NBT i Duration, h 0.25 Analyst :D. Thompson Analysis Date 8/14/2013 1 Area Type ;Other Jurisdiction 'ACHD Time Period AM Peal(Hour f PHF 10.90 ' Intersection Linder Analysis Year 2020 Background Analysis Period '1> 7:00 j File Name AM Linder McMillan 2020 BK.xus 30 84 Demand Information I EB WBL WBT NBL WB NBT SBL NB 56 5 Approach Movement 2 L T R L T, 1 R L! i T 1 R } L i T? R Demand (v), veh/h 3.0 75 , 169 28 30 84 223 15 , 393 77 173 j 293 p 52 Signal Information Cycles ) 60.0 i Reference Phase ; 2 25.1 6.14 23.5 9.0 t4 1 I. Offset, s 0 Uncoordinated) No i Reference Point 1 Simult. Gap ENV i Begin ; Green j 2.1 On ;yellow 13.0, 1.6 0.0 119.5 30 i 5.0 3.0 i2.1 00 13.6 j3-' 40 R Force Mode , Fixed Simult Gap NIS On Red 11.0 i:0.0 1.0 1'LQ 0.0 (1.0 f 5.1 Timer Results Assigned Phase Case Number Phase Duration, s Change Period, (Y+Rc), s Max Allow Headway (MAH), s Queue Clearance Time (gs), s Green Extension Time (ge), s Phase Call Probability Max Out Probability `. Movement Group Results `Approach Movement Assigned Movement Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/in Queue Service Time (gs), s f Cycle Queue Clearance Time (g�), s-. ( Capacity (c), veh/h Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) i Available Capacity (ca), veh/h Back of Queue_ (67), veh/In (50th percentile) Overflow Queue (Q3) veh/In Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) Uniform Delay (da) sNeh Incremental Delay (d2, s/veh Initial Queue Delay (ds), s/veh r Control Delay (d), s/veh 'Level of Service (LOS) Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS Intersection Delav, sNeh / LOS Multimodal Results Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS Bicycle LOS Score / LOS (� .r„s, �t,f O1?! lJ1JW,r.flhy of 19n, � 111;R; r„ vd EBL I EBT ? WBL WBT NBL ', NBT SBL I SBT 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 1.1 j 3.0 1.1 3-0 1.1 3.0 3 1.1 3.0 i 7.8 25.1 6.14 23.5 9.0 17.6 11-1 -- ; 1R8 40 40 4.0 4.0 40 40 4.0 4.0 5.1 - �, 0.0 5.1 - r 0.05.1 5.1 5.1 �_ 5.1 3.9 28 4._24 93 7.0 0.2 ( 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.1 5.1 075 043 - 100 100 I= 'I.00 j 0.08 0.01 _- 0.00 _ 0.37 1.00 j 0.1fi ) _ u QNB EB WBS° SB L 1 T R L '; T 1 R L T R i L I T R 5. 2 12 1 6 16 3 6 18 7 1 4 ,'. 14 83 188 f 31 ! 33 93 ` 248 17 1 437 i 86 e 192 326 56 ; 1603 , 1683 , 1426 1603 , 1683 1 1426 1603 , 1602 1426 1603. 1602 } 1426 i 1.9 ± 4.9 0.9 0.8 2.4 i 8.5 0.4 7.3 3.0 5.0 5.0 1.9 1 1.9 4.9 f 0.9 0.8 2.4 8.5 0.4 t 7.3 ' 3.05.0 5.0 t 1.9 516 592 1 502 493 547_( 463 434 j 728 324 403 y 841 374 1 i y 0.161 0.317 ; D 062 0.068 0.171 , 0 535 ` 0.038 , 0.600 '0.264 . 0.476 0 387 0.154 745 592 502 763 547 463 621 , 1115 496 427 1228 5,47 0.6 1.9 0.3 '(13 -0.0 0.9 3 0 0.1 2.5 s 0.9 1.6 , 1,7 0.6' o.0 - 0.0 I 0.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! ao i 0.0 ; 0.0 - 0.0- i 0.07 0.09 0.01 : 0.03 0.05 ` 0.38 0.02 r 0.13 ' 0.11 1 0.08: 0.08 0.07 11.0 14.2 112.9'12.6+14.5 165 145'20.7;19.1 ! 13.9; 182 i 17.0;, 01 1.4 02 ' 0.0 0.7 44 _ ,r 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.00.0� 0.0 00 , 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.17 3 11.0 15.6 13.1 12.6 ; 15.2 20.9 145 ; 21.019.2 14.3 183 1Z1. B, B B 8, B C B i C._--,_ B B d B i 13 ; 14.1 ', B 187 B 206 C ...16.8 'L.. B... I 17.9 .. _-i_. B '7(t s ry # """W", -(I EB WB NB SB 2.9 C 2.9 i C 2.4 B 2.4 ; B LO A 11 A 0.9 A 1.0 A HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary .,,i..i �r,er'�,.+ r!.jEtk tX� j'Al �` �i ', ,`��; in"tt •sir er .±�,t[,r ry ter ,l i`i i i } General Information Intersection Information Agency Thompson Engineers Duration, h :0.25 Analyst ID. Thompson_ i Analysis Date 8/14/2013 j Area Type !Other Jurisdiction !ACHD I Time Period AM Peak Hour PHF j0.90 I Intersection ;Linder Analysis Year 2020 Totalj Analysis Pei -led 11> 7:00 1 File Name SAM Linder McMillan 2020 TOTxus - Demand Information EBT WBL t WBT EBWB 1 NOT SBL 1. :3BT NO i SB 1 Approach Movement 3 L I T R L} T j R j L i T i RL( T R Demand (v) veh/h 75 170. 28 ) 30 j 85 j 227 ! 18 397 81 174 1 294 1 52 tit +j 5" r y ' , +'I rt '+. P' tr)„t (.m ds.?: f " s�' t + t ,1'•r. ' 9.0 Signal Information 17.7 11.1 ,S ,I j '9.9 vx r ,r1 {' .,i Cycle, s 1,60 0 ; Reference Phase j 2 40 40 1- 40 4.0 , 40 4.0 4.0 5.1 Offset, s 0 - +-- - - Reference Point BeginI- k _ Green 2.1 1.6 j19.4 �5.0 5.1 5.1 21. 28 2.5 Uncoordinated No [Force Mode ? Fixed �� Simult. Gap EM/ Simult. GaD N/S On On Yellow ! 3.0 i Red 11.0 0.0 0.0 ; 3.0 11.0 ) 3.0 11.0 D D ad 13.0 _11.0 _ 4.3 1 a Timer Results Assigned Phase Case Number Phase Duration, s Change Period (Y+Rc), s Max Allow Headway (MAH), s Queue Clearance Time (g,,), s Green Extension Time ill s Phase Call Probability Max Out Probability Movement Group Results Approach Movement Assigned Movement Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/In k Queue Service Time (ga), s i Cycle Queue Clearance Time (g,;), s Capacity (c), veh/h Volume to Capacity Ratio (<) Available Capacity (ca), vehlh Back of Queue (Q), veh/In (50th percentile) ! Overflow Queue (Q3), veh/In Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) Uniform Delay (dr) stveh Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh Initial Queue Delay (ds), s/veh Control Delay (d), s/veh _ Level of Service (LOS) Approach Delay, s/veh 1 LOS Intersection Delay. s/veh / LOS EBL j EBT WBL t WBT =` NBI_ 1 NOT SBL 1. :3BT 5 i 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 1.7 j 3.0 1.1 ! 3,0 1.1 3.0 1.1 3.0 7.8 l- 25.0 6.1 t 23.4 9.0 17.7 11.1 '9.9 4.0 40 40 1- 40 4.0 40 4.0 4.0 5.1 0.0 5,1 j 0.0 5.1 { 5.1 5.1 5.1 21. 28 2.5 94 7.1 7.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 - - 0.0 0.0 ---1 4.3 1 0.1 5.2 0.75 ;. 0.43 ;-.... Do 1,00 1.00 j 06 0.09- 0.01 ? 0.00 f 0.38 .! 1.00 (1.19 • +t'. t ,' `1 �,s �+ �;: , yt 3 4u t .1St + ,. .. EB WB NB., .. L p T! R I L l T' R L T i R L T R 5 # 2 12 1 6 16 3 p 8 j 18`.,. 7 4 '14 i 83 z 189 31 33 1 94 252 120 1 441 90 ' 193 327 } 58 1603 1 1683 1426 i 1603 i 1683 i 1426 ' '1603 = 1602 c 1426 1603 1602 1,126 1.9 t 4.9 09 ` 0.8 i 2.48.7 0.5 7.4 i 3.1 5 1 5 U ' 1.9 1.9 4.9 0.9 0.8 2.4 8.7 0.5 ; 7.4 j 31 5.1 5.0 r 1.9 i 514 ! 589_! 499 j 490 544-f 461, 435 1733 ! 326 4_04 i 847 4 377 f 0.162 110.321 0.062 ,, 0.068 , 0.1740 547 0.046 0.602.` 0.276 0.479 , 0.386 0.153 i 738 569 499,', 757 _ 544 j 461 622 1,114 496 y 426 ' 1228 547 06 I 19 0.3 0.3 = 09 i 31 0.2 25 09 1;1.6 1.7 �,� Cl 0.0 F 0.0 00 0.0 0.o q 0.0 0.0 0.0 { 0.0 OA 0.0 j 0.0 i 0.07 ! 0.09 0.01 0.03 ! 0.05 t 0.39. 0,02 , 0.13 ' 0,12 0.08 0.08 0.07 i 11.1 i14.3t1340127)14.6116.7 14.4 20.7 +19.0 `t 13.9 18.1 16.9' 0.1 1.4 = 0.2 t. 0.0 i 07 46 OA 0.3 ± 0.2 0.3 01 0,1 0.0 0.0 t 0.0 0.0 0.0 i 0.0 0.0 0.o 'i 0 0 ao ac =, q0 111 E 15.7 , 132 ' 127 15.3 i 213 , 14.5 ! 210 19.2 14.2 182 17.0 B; B _14.2 ..-.. B B BC B '; C? B B B i B r B -.-19.1 , ..-B t.. 20.5 _..,C ,16.7 i_ B 17.9 B Multimodal Results Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS Bicycle LOS Score /LOS 'f ieh'yr;a,lnF+er,ir!t4FRIo�, .i1#ILn-.!P,iv ....yE-i NI3 SB 1 2.4 'I B 2.4 B _09 --.A -. f0 -.....A s EB 2.9 C 10 _. A NI3 SB 1 2.4 'I B 2.4 B _09 --.A -. f0 -.....A s VVB 2.9 C _. 1 A NI3 SB 1 2.4 'I B 2.4 B _09 --.A -. f0 -.....A s HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results General Information Agency Engineers Intersection Information Duration, h j i ! ; ,Thompson ;0.25 ` Analyst D. Thompson Analysis Date 8/14/2013 j Area Type Other Jurisdiction ACHD Time Period AM Peak Hour ? PHF 10.90 d Intersection Meridian Jvk� MttQ_A,�N % Analysis Year e2013 Existing ; Analysis Period il> 7:00 Begin + Green File Name, AM Meridia of �^-W X.xus 30 0 (5.0 71 1 k Project Description Ilsawtooth Village f ' r` Uncoordinated( No ;i Simult. Gap EM/ On Yellow 3.0 0.0 ; 3.0 [3.0 3.0 f Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement '. L T - R L i T R L I T j R L ( T i R Demand (v), veh/h 24 355 43 '; 26 ? 208 i 39 1 23 1. 99 64 79 93 f 14 Signal Information Cycle s 60.0 Reference Phase 2 z� io Offset, s 0 Reference Point Begin + Green ? 1 8 0.1 30 0 (5.0 71 .0 f Uncoordinated( No ;i Simult. Gap EM/ On Yellow 3.0 0.0 ; 3.0 [3.0 3.0 (0.0 ° Force Mode Fixed SiMUlt. Gap N/S On':._Red 1.0.._ , 0 0 ' 1 0 ' 1.0 1.0 10.0 1- 5' i1 'f I t (dt � f � h I I, { t .+�1 ) t 1 e t•.i rt i t7 r YiW Timer Results EBLj EBT WBL WBT NBL 'r NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8_ 74 i Case Number 1.1 { 4.0 1.1 4.0 1 1 , 3.0 + 1.1 3.0 li Phase Duration, s 5.8 i 34.0 5.9 's 34.1 9 0 s 11.1 I 9,0 £ 11.1 ' ,Change Period, (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4 0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4 0 F 40 4.0 Max Allow Headway (MAN), s 5.1 0.0 5.1 0.0 51 t 5.1 51 :i.1 Queue Clearance Time (g,,). s 2.5 2.5 2.8 5.7 4.8 5.5 Green Extension Time (ge), s 0.1 i 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.1 1.4 Phase Call Probability 0 3t5 j 0.38 f 1.00 i 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ _ Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 1.00 '0.01 i Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB i Approach Movement L T R L T! R L y T n R L j T R E `Assigned Movement 5 2_ 12 1 6 16 3 ) 8 i 18 j 7 1 4_ 14 _ Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 27 442 29 t 274 a 26 110 r 71 1 88 t 103 16 { Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/In 1603 1661 i . 1603 , 1637 1603 ; 1683 1426 1603 i 1683 3.1426 Queue Service Time (gs), s 0.5 y 11.0 i 0.5 i 6.0 0.8 - 3.7 j 2.8 i., 2.8 i 3.5. j_ 0.6 i Cycle Queue Clearance Time (go), s 0.5 ' 11.0 i 0.6 6.0 0.8 j 3.7 28 2.8 d 3.5 j 0.6 - i' Capacity (c), vehlh 205 825 171 821 331 ( 199 169 322 i 199 �.. 1139 Volume -to -Capacity Ratio QQ Q 130 ` 0_536 0.'169 , 0.3341 0.077 0.552 ) O 421 ' 0.272 0.519 r &092' I Available Capacity (ca) veh/h 715 825 j 679 821518 645 547 402 i 645 547 i Back of Queue (Q), veh/In (50th percentile) 0.1 3.7 - 0,2 I 2 0 0.3 1 4 j 0,9 1.0 1.3 j 0.2 4 Overflow Queue (Qa), veh/In 0.0 ( 0.0 ; 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 s 0.0 0.0 0.0 ` Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) 0.02 - 0.19 0.02 - 0.10 0.03 ' 0.07 I 0 11 0.05 0.07 0.02 Uniform Delay (dr), s/veh 13.4 ` 10.3 i 14.2 8,9 y 19.5 25.0 i 24.5 20.4 24.8 2:5.6 G, Incremental Delay (dp), s/veh 0.1 2.5 ( 0,2 1.1 ( 0.0 0.9 '. 0.6 0.2 I 0.8 0.1 Initial Queue Delay (da), s/veh 1, 0.0 0,0 0.0 , 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 _ _ I , Control Delay (d), sNeh 13.5 12.7 14.4 10A ( 19.6 ; 75 8 252 20.5: 2_5,6 ); 23,7 Level of Service B B y B B t B. { C CC I C J. C _(LOS) _ _ i ' Approach Delay, slveh / LOS 12.8 B 10.5 B 24.8 C 23.3 C Intersection Delay,, s/veh / LOS_ 16.1 B "Ail Multimodal Results ; E13 WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.4 j 13 2.4 B 2.3 a B 2.3 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1,3 A 1,0 A 0 8 A 0.8 A 0,V'! r i nt`Lvr,1 t11 rt:t 11. Nn-. k10 (. e4., r'. -,i . cnu P. i,, 1 _r1 PIA i A HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results General Information EB. j Intersection Information d Agency {Thompson Engineers NB i Duration, h 0.25 Analyst D. Thompson Analysis Date 8/14/2013 i Area Type Other Jurisdiction ACHD Time Period AM Peak Hour f PHF ,0.90 ' Intersection Meridian } Analysis Year 2020 Background 'Analysis Period U 7:00 File Name 'AM Meridian McMillan 2020 BK.xus 26 '; 114 Demand Information EB. WB NB SB _._ Approach Movement L: T R I... L T i P, L T R L. T R; Demand (v), veh/h 26 408 49 < 30 239 45 26 '; 114 74 91 107 '16 yx a 01, i , }. •t,. e F n ! .13 " Signal Information Cycle, s ; 60.0 Reference Phase 1 Cycle, 2 a u ' -q � Offset, s D :Reference Point1 Begin Green Uncoordinated( No Simult. Gap E/VV On i Yellow; (2.0 0.1 3_0.. 9.0;0.0 128.8 15.0_ "0.2 I3 D 0.0 17.9 j 30 n Force Mode f Fixed Shnult Gap N/S On :Red 1.0 0.0 (1 0 _ 1.0 0.0 1:6 �_>> 4 7, _ �•Q n ur., , r e • , v. Lai , t rd ,. Timer Results ; EBL ; EBT WBL ! WBT NBL NBT SBL SB'r Assigned Phase 5 2 1 { 6 3 8 7 4 & Case Number 1.1 4.0 1.1 ! 4.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 3.0 Phase Duration, s 6.0 32 8 6.1 J 32.9 90 11.9 9.2 12.'I Change Period, (Y+Rq), s 4.0 4 0 4 0 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Allow Headway (MAN), s 5.1 ' 0.0 5.1 p 0.0 5.1 5.1 5.1 :i.1 Queue Clearance Time (g5), s . 2.6 26 " 2.9 6,2 5.1 15.9 ' Green Extension Time (ge), s 0A 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.7 ;I 0.1 1.7 Phase Call Probability t` 0.40 ; 0.43 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0() Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 ; 1.00 q 0.01 `:h •kn :.t k,> tr7• YIi� it J t S � Fi .s L n Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB • I Approach Movement L T R L y T 'i R L T; R L ` T R _ _ Assigned Movement 5 2_ 12 I 6 '• 16 3 6 18 7 4 ? 14 i Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 31 508 i 33 316 29 t 127 ': 82 1 101 1 119 j 18 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/hAn 1603 i '1651 1603 - 1636 1603 1683 i 1426 ; 1603 , 1683 :` 1426 Queue Serv(ce Time (gs), s 0.6 ' 13.9 1 0.6 7.4 j 0.9 4.2 3.2 j p 3.9 0.7 E _ Cycle Queue Clearance Time (go), s 0.6 .- 13.9 i 0.6 7.4 0.9 42 [ 3.2 ' _3.1 3.1 3.9 ) 0.7 y Capacity (c), vehlh 210 791 j 177 i 787 341 ' 221 j 187 331 ( 228 193 1 Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) . 0.148 = 0 642 , 0 188 ; 0.401: '•. 0.085 0,573 0,439 # 0.305 0.522 0.092 Available Capacity (ce), veh/h 687 791 ( 651 787 528 t 639 i 541 ; 405 645 j 547 Back of Queue (0), vehlln (50th percentile) -- - 0 2 5.0 ` O2 2.5 + 0 3 6 i '1.0 - '1.1 1 5 02 Overflow Queue Qs), vehlln - (-I- 0.0 0.0 � � 0.0 - - • 0.0 ! 0.0 d 0.0 1 � 0.0 � - - 0.0 0.0 F- �- 0.0 1 Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) s+ 0.02 0.25 j 0.02 0.13 ;. 0.04 0.08 i 0-13 , 0.05 0.07 i 0.03 _- Uniform Delay (di), s/veh 13.4 11.7 i 14.1 10.0 1 19.0 ( 24.5 24.0 19.5 ( 24.1 3 22.7 Incremental Delay (d2) s/veh 0.1 ' 4.0 ( 0.2 1.5 QO 0.9 ; 0 6 0.2 0.7 1 0.1 ! I Initial Queue Delay (da), s/veh 0.0 i 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 13.5 15.7 14.3 11.5 i 19.0 25.4 246 :` 19.7 24.8 22.8 Level of Service LOS B B' B B l B C C B C f Approach Delay, slveh /LOS15.6 B 1.1.8 B 24 3 G 22.5 C Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 17.4 B e)a.{ r6i , *d �, iOt.< .. ,. Multimodal Results EB �� WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS_ 2 4 B 2.4 B 2.3 B 2, 3 B Bicycle LOS Score ! LOS 1.4 A 1-1 A 0.9 A 0.9 A ';n klyd.° )Ol<'-[ZpiVFJ",IIJ CifIOFI'�1 ,lel rnlhh _-:'Yi'ii Y +2LI j�'". y„qi t_-l':4=,!>xd HICS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information ° d r 4 Agency Thompson Engineers Duration, h X0.25 Analyst D. Thompson Analysis Date 8/14!2013 ;Area Type Other _ I` 17 Jurisdiction ACRD Time Period AM Peak Hour PHF 0.90 ( ' Intersection iMaridian Analysis Year 2020 Total I Analysis Poled A> 7:00 { File Name AM Meridian McMillan 2020 Tot.xus I •' ` Project Description Sawtooth Village `* ' 31 Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L ) T R ; L y T R L i T j R L T R Demand (v), veh/h `, 32 i 420 49 30 i 242: 45 °--26 114 74 91 107 17 _ ., c Signal Information Cycle, s f 60.0 Reference Phase i 2 Offset, s 0 Reference Point Uncoordinated No Simult Ga EM/ -_" Z.. __. p _.--- J, Begin Green 2.1 0 1 On Yellow!3.0 00 28 6 ;_.30 5 0 0.2 ,3.0 0.0 i 7.9 (3.0t pit 1 Force Mode Fixed Snrwlt Gap NiS On ^Red + 1.0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 �1 0 ,." ..iii : :„ � •`gP r Timer Results FHL EBT W8L WBT NBL NBT SBL ° SB t 'Assigned Phase 5 2 1 6 3 j 8 7 j 4 f Case Number 1.1 4.0 1.1z 4.0 1.1 f 3.0 1.1 ; 3.0 _ I Phase Duration, s 6.2 32.7 6.1 j 32.6 90 1 11.99 ; 12.1 _ .0, ,2 Change Period, (Y+Re), s 4.0 4,0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4 4,6 4.0 i Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 5.1 i., _ 0.0 5.1 0.0 5.1 5.1 5.1 a I Queue Clearance Time s _ 2.7 .; 2.6 2A 6,2 1 5 1 5.9 Green Extension Time (ge), s 0.1 + 0.0 01 4 0.0 0.0 ; 1.7 0.1 j 1.7 Phase Call Probability 0.45 0.43 1 o0 1.00 1.00 1.00 Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00 ? 0.01 1 0.02 y 1.00 0.01 . Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T; R L T R L' T R L T R Assigned Movement •, 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 4 14 d Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h _ 36 521 ; _ 33 319 f. ! 29 127 ;- 82 101 119 j 19 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/In : 1603 1652 • 16031 1637 t 1603 1683 =_ 1426 1603 i 1683 } 1426 I I Queue Service Time (gs), s 0.7 114.4 ! 06 '' 7.6 `: 0.9 3.1 3.9 0.7 ! Cycle Queue Clearance Time (g,-), s 0.7 % 14.4 0.6 } 7.6 0.9 S 4-2 3.2 ? 3.1 3.9 j 0.7 Capacity v hh 8 I 193 Volume-to-CapacityRatro 0.8 0,658 . 2 -- 0. 0.408 0.573 0 4'0.305 0.5 2 �: 0,098 Available Capacity (ca), veh/h 651 792 f 681 782 ' 528 " 639 541 405 y 645 i 547 ' Back of Queue (Q), veh/In (50th percentile) 0,2 5.2 0.2 2.6 0.3 1.6 t 10 1.1 i 1.5 f 0.2 t Overflow Queue (Q3), vehlin 0 0 0.0 0.0 t 0.0i 0.0 0.0 i, 0.0 0.0 4 0.0 i 0.0 Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) 0.02 ` 0-26 '• 0.02 ` 0.13 ,` " 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.05 0,07 f 0.03 Uniform Delay (dr), s/veh 1 14 11.9 13 4 j 10 2 19.0 , 24. 5.24 0 ! 19.5 v 24.1 ?2 7 - - Incremental Delay (d), s/veh 0.2 4.3 - 0.1 E 1.6 - 0.0 09 0 6 0.2 0,7 ! 0.1 Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 j` 0.0 j 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 i 0.0 Control Delay (d), sNeh _ 14.3 = 16.2 - 13.5 ` 11.8 i 19.0 25,3 y 24.6 19.7 24.8 t 22.8 '- • Level of Service (LOS) BB '. B j B B j C R C a B_. C �- C i Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS _ 96.0 B ' 11.9 j B 24.3 + C I 22 5 C } Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 17.5B { • , �r -s..t7 Multimodal Results EB \ EB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score I LOS J B 2.4 ; B 2.3 B i 2.3 i B 'Bicycle LOS Sco e /LOS _Z4 1,4 ;. --- A 1-1 ;. A 0.9 A�... 0 9 A .ii4'oi RuY:d„al ..Yd,I.1, ,ri ip �;yr., ; rc„ r, t'! C"tI"'t'-d.8"1 'WO 3 !fl, .F -JIM HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Agency Thompson Engineers Analyst D. Thompson I Analysis Date 8/14/2013 ' Jurisdiction ACHD I Time Period 'AM Pealc Hour . - Intersection Linder Ustick Analysis Year 2013 Exist File Name AM Linder Ustick 2013X.xus Intersection Information Duration, h 0.25 Area Type ,Other PHF ;0.90 Analysis Period 11> 7:00 Demand Information ', EB } WB i NB SB L T 1 R L; T R 5 ' 2 1 Approach Movement L" T R L IT j R L 1 T R L T R Demand (v), veh/h 52 , 294 21 57 185 75 15 1 22687 98 229 75 1602 j1426 83 # 1.2 6 3.9 ( y 1.3 Signal Information 4 Cycle, s i 60.0 Reference Phase_; 2 l 1.2 i V� ; G 1.3 ! 2.1 626 , be Offset, s 0 Reference Point ' Begin Uncoordinated! No Simult. Gap ENV On ; Green 13.1 Yellow 1 3.0 , 0 2 0 0 125.4 ;5.0 ; 0.3 j 3.0 3.0 D 0 ;10.1 3.0 0 241 10 039 ' - i 0.151 10, 137 �, 1354 } ' I 961 1363 Farce Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S I On ' Red } 1 0 0 0 1.0 ;1 D 0 0 1 0 w 08 a6 0.0 r 0.0 i 0.0 kv, i 0.0 0.0 0.04 0.01 0.05 004. ! .FI. 8.7 111 .102+ 00 8.6 "108`,105 :Timer Results EBL EBT W13L $ VVBT " NBL NBT SBL 5B1 Assigned Phase 5 l 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 11.6 103 ( 8.6 ; 10.8 110 AB -B Case Number 1.1 3.0 ; 1.1 3.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 ; 8.0 ,Phase Duration, s 7.1 i 29.4 7.3 ; 29.5 9,0 ) 14.1 9.3 14.4 22.5 22 1 B - -C B...1 _ Change Period, (Y+R�), s +0 4 0 40 4.0 4.0 40 4.0 z,.0 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s _ 5.1 0.0 5 1 0.0 5.1 5.1 5.1 } 6 1 ; Queue Clearance Time (gs), s 3.2 3.3 2.5 62 5.2 6_3 Green Extension Time (ge), s 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.1 &8 Phase Call Probability 0.62 065 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00_. Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 1.00 0.09 j Movement Group Results Approach Movement Assigned Movement Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/In Queue Service Time (94, s Cycle Queue Clearance Time (g�), s Capacity (c), veh/h Volume -to Capacity Ratio (hq Available Capacity (w), veh/h Back of Queue (Q), veh/In (50th percentile)- Overflow Queue (Qs), veh/In Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) Uniform Delay (dr), s/veih Incremental Delay (d�), s/veh Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh Control Delay (d), s/veh Level of Service (LOS) Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS Intersection Delay. s/veh / LOS Multimodal Results EB WB NB 513 Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.9 I C 2.9 1 C 2.9 ; C 2.9 i C Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.8 A 0.8 A 0.8 .4 0.9 A pNitlh�'•t(�y'1 U7dprl':It, �, Flmb.i ��i .�'?r. .�,.,�t F ''r; a' yn rtGe;' nrsfl I i:Il l 448 ,,., `"1 EB UVB L T 1 R L; T R 5 ' 2 1 12 1. 6 16 58 327 23 63 206 83 .-1603 1802 1428 , 1603 1602 j1426 83 # 1.2 6 3.9 ( 0.6 1.3 24 i 21 1.2 i 3.9 06 1.3 2.4 2.1 626 , 1354 i 603 577 .i j 1363 1 607 0.092: 0 241 10 039 ' 0.'110 i 0.151 10, 137 1014 1354 } 603 961 1363 607 0.3 1.3 i 02 - 0.4 w 08 a6 0.0 r 0.0 i 0.0 0.0 i 0.0 0.0 0.04 0.06r 0.01 0.05 004. ! 008 8.7 111 .102+ 00 8.6 "108`,105 0.0 0,0 , 04 }_ 01 0.0 02 05 0.0 0.0 00 y 0.0 ' 0.0 + 0.0 8.7 r 11.6 103 ( 8.6 ; 10.8 110 AB -B B I A- B j-- B 11.1 10.5 ( B -. 16.5 .. 17.9 Multimodal Results EB WB NB 513 Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.9 I C 2.9 1 C 2.9 ; C 2.9 i C Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.8 A 0.8 A 0.8 .4 0.9 A pNitlh�'•t(�y'1 U7dprl':It, �, Flmb.i ��i .�'?r. .�,.,�t F ''r; a' yn rtGe;' nrsfl I i:Il l 448 ,,., `"1 NB SB L T R L y T F2 3 8 18 7; 4 14 i 17 251 97 109 254 ;- 83 # 1603 ' 1602 ('1426 1603 1602 1426 0,5 4.2 3.6 3.2_, 4.3 ;. 3.1 05 42 36 32 4.3 i41 t t 360 537 239 363- 555 !'247 0.046 ? 0.467 10,404,1 0.300 :0.459 ; 0.038 547 1211 539 434 P 1228 $ 547 0.2 15 f 11 1.'I 15 10 0.0 00 00 0.0 $ 0.0 j 0.0 0.02007 •014 0.05' 00810.12? 17.1 °226;22317.7122.3'21.8': 0.0 02 -. 04 0.2 , 02 1..03 00 0.0 y 0.0 0.0.E 0.0 0.0 17.2 2Z8 22.7 17.9 22.5 22 1 B C -C B...1 C C 22.5 C 21.3 C Multimodal Results EB WB NB 513 Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.9 I C 2.9 1 C 2.9 ; C 2.9 i C Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.8 A 0.8 A 0.8 .4 0.9 A pNitlh�'•t(�y'1 U7dprl':It, �, Flmb.i ��i .�'?r. .�,.,�t F ''r; a' yn rtGe;' nrsfl I i:Il l 448 ,,., `"1 KINW-Will _ General Information j intersection information Agency Thompson Engineers Duration, h 0.25 i Analyst JD, Thompson Analysis Date 8/14/2013 Area Type t ;Other - jurisdiction 4ACHD j Time Period .AM Peak Hour j PHF j0.90 i Intersection Linder Ustick Analysis Year 2020 Background I Analysis Period H> 7:00 z `_ File Name 'AM Linder Ustick 2020 Background.xus Project Description Sawtooth Village I ' Demand Information EB we NB SB Approach Movement 1 L T R ° L 1 T I R„ L T R L{ T i R Demand (v) veh/h 60 : 338 24 66 213 86 17 ± 260 p 100 113 1 263 i 37 Signal information Cycle, s i 60.0 Reference Phase ; 2 Offset, s 0 Reference Point + Begin Green 13.4 0.2 1.239 (5.0 07 _._;109 l! Uncoordinated] No ' SImIIIL Gap E/W j On iyellowj 3.0 O.D ? 3 0 (3.0 D 0 ; - . Force Mode . Fixed Sin -11-11t. Gap N/S On Red 1.0 10.0 ¢ 1.0 ItAO 1.0 _ , Timer Results; EBL EBT WBL 1 VVBT NBL NBT SBL -3BT Assigned Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 j 4 Case Number 1.1 3.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 j 3.0 1 Phase Duration, s 7.4 27.9 7.5 28.0 9.0 ; 14.9 9.7 15.6 Change Period, (Y+R.), s 4.0 40 4 0 _ _ .-- 40 40 4D 4.0 ; 40 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 5.1 0.0 5.1 0.0 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 Queue Clearance Time _ (g,), s ; 3.4 3.6 ;- ; 2.5 6.9 5.6 i 5 -El Green Extension Time (ga), s 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.1 41 Phase Call Probabddy - 0.67 0.71 _ 1.00 1 00 100 `. '.00 Max Out Probability 0.00 j 0.00 ! 0.00 i 0.13 1.00 0.11 'Movement Group Results EB WB NB •• SB Approach Movement L TRL j T: R L T r R L+ T R Assigned Movement 5 r 2 '12 1 6; 16 3 1 8; 18 7 ! 4 14 Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 67 y 376 27 73 J 237 j 96 19 i 289 t 111 126 i 292 41 i Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/In 1603 ; 1602 = 1426 1603 ', 1602 1426 1603 , 1602 1426 - 1603 1602 1.426 i Queue Service Time (ga), s 1.4 4.8 0.7 1.6 2.9 2.6 0.5 ! 4.9 4.2 3.6 4.9 1.4 Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gc), s 1.4 1 4.8 i 0.7 [ 1,6 ( 2.9 ± 2.60.5 i 4.9 4.2 j 3.6 r 4.9 4 Capacity (c), veh/h 582 i 1275 j 568 528 1 1285 ' 572 3721580 ± 258 372 619 276 V011me-to Capacity Ratio 0.115 10294 i 0.047 : 0.139 0 184 ' 0 167 ' 0.051 ; 0.498 ; 0.430, ,0337 , 0A72 0 149 Available Capacity ca , veh/h 930 12/5 ' 568 872 1285 { 572 559 1 1189 529 433 ! 1228 C47 _YO - - +, Back of Queue (Q), veh/In (50th_ percentile) 0.4 j 1.6- i D 2 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.2 1.7 s 13 12 t _ 1.7 OA Overflow Queue (Q), veh/In 'i 0.0 i 0.0 - f 0.0 0.0 0.0 y 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! 0.0 0.0 O.0 0.0 Queue Storage Ratio (R Q) (50th percentile) 0.0 5 E 0.08 001 0.06 i 0.05 10.10 0.02 0.09 ? 0.16 , 0.06 0.08 0,06 Uniform Delay (di), s/veh 9.4 ! 12.3 11.1 9.4 11.6 ? 11.5 16.6 22-1 21.8 ° 168 21.5 20.1 _. Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.3 1 0.2. O.D 0.3 ? 0.6 0.0 0.2 ! 0.4 9 0.2 f 0.2 0.1 Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 !, 0.0 0.0 j 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! 0.0 D.0 Control Delay (ed), s/veh 9.4 12.9 11 2 9.4 11.9 , 12.2 ' 16 6 ' 22.4 j 22.2 17.0 21.7 202 Level of Service (LOS) A R B B A i B( B' B C C B C C Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 12 3 { B 11 5 i B 22.1 C 20.3 - C Intersection Delay, s/veh! LOS 16.6 B Multimodal Results EB VVB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score I LOS 2.9 l C 2.9 C 2.9 C 2.9 I C Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0,9 A 0.8 A 0.0 A 0,9 A 1 tigi G' l] -i" Ip,i-, _,.yh•ni l±., i i h":+nt, -.._ :.,� 'in e'p IH" .., I, ai;uvi l3?1 i,'_ rt�cb. 0/, r. l,l:>. ,-,, . ( HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information i Agency Thompson Engineers ! Duration, h 0.25 Analyst D. Thompson :Analysis Date 8/14/2013 Area Type Other Jurisdiction `ACHD j Time Period SAM Peal(Hour i PHF X0.90 Intersection "Linder Ustick Analysis Year ,2020 Total Analysis Period H> 7:00 File Name AM Linder Ustick 2020 Total.xus Offset, s 0 Reference Point i Begin h- t Green I Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap ENV l On Yellow Demand Information Approach Movement Demand (v), veh/h EB WB L I T_ R L T I R' 'i 60 338 24 66 213 86 NB i_ SB L T! R L i T R 17 262 100 ', 113 €. 268 '- W Signal Information Cycle, s t 60.0 Reference Phase 2 ` Offset, s 0 Reference Point i Begin h- t Green I Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap ENV l On Yellow 13.4 13.0 02 0.0 _238 3 0 I 16.0 13.0 p07 i 0.0 310.9 � 8.0 [I Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On . Red .1 .0 D.0 1.0 i 1.0 0 0 1 0 __ t :• v t ItS. _Timer Results EBL ( EBT WBL WBT i NBL NBT SBL 56'1 Assigned Phase 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Case Number 1.1 } 3.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 3.0 1.1 5.0 Phase Duration, s 7.4 27.8 7.5 28.0 9.0 i 14.9 9.7 i 15.7 y Change Period, (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4,0 4.0 Max Allow Headway MAH,s 5.1 I 0.0 1 5.1 0.0 5.1 51 5.1 5.1 Queue Clearance Time (gs), Is 3.4 3,6 2,5 $ 6,9 5.6 7A Green Extension Time (ga), s 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.0 _ - 0.1 ; 4.1 Phase Call Probability 0,67 0.71 ', 1.00 1 00 1.00 ' 1 06 Max Out Probability 0.00 r 0.00 i 0.00 0.13 -1.00 0 12 MovementGroupResults EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T; R L i T R L T R L € T R Assigned Movement 5 2 12 1 6 16 3 8 18 7 1 4y 14 Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 67 376 r 27 73 237 ? 96 19 291 111 126 ) 298 41 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/In 1603 1602 1426 1003 , 1602 1426 1603 1602 1426 1693 1 1602 1426 Queue Service Time (gs), s 1.4 t 4.8 0.7 'I.6 29 26 - 0.5 4,9 4.1 3.6 5.0 1.4 f Cycle Queue Clearance Time (g,,), s 1.4 r 4.8 I 0.7 i 1.6 ; 2.9 ! 2.6 0.5 4.9 4 1 3.6 5.0 1.4 ) Capacity (c), veh/h 580 1271 j 566 527 y 1281 1570 371 , 584 260 373 623 j 277 i Volwne to Capacity Ratio (X) 0.116 0.295 - 0.047 - 0 '139 0.1185 (0.168 -10.051 , 0.498 0.427 0.337 I 0.478 0 746 : Available Capacity (ca), veh/h 927 ; 1271 ' 566 869 , 1281 i 570 - 558 1190 529 433 ; 1228 1 547 Back of Queue (Q), veh/In (50th percentile) , _ 0.4 1.6 02 0.5 0.9 0 8 02 1 7 1 3 ! L2 11 j 04 Overflow Queue (Qe), veh/In 0.0 ) 0.0 0 0 0.0 s 0.0 j 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ? 0.0 0.0 ti Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) 0.05 ' 0.08 ' 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.10 ` 0.02.0 09 0 16 ' 0.06. 409 ` 0A6 Uniform Delay (I s/veh 9.4 12.4 11.1 :; 9.4 ' 11.7 1 11.6 16.5 ` 22,11 ; 218 16.7 i 21.5E 20.0 Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 ; 0.6 , 02 t 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 42 0.4 0.2 ` 02 ! 0 1 Initial Queue Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 i 0_0 0.0 a0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 i 0.0 ,; 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh _ 9.5 } _� '13.0 g 1113 9.5 12,0 12,2 16.5 223 `, 22.2 16.9 i 21.7 20.1 Level of Service (LOS) A B B A B S B B C E C B C j C' Approach Delay, s/veh l LOS 12.4 % B 11.6 B 22.0 C 20.2 C Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 16.6 B j `,ttrrt Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score [LOS 2.9 ? C 2.9 C 2.9 C 2.9 C j Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 09 A 0.8 A 0,8 A it 0.9 A !h hr P { ; I lniy� •dry r"Ilufi t P!i l rrf�t L, .�t'nr„1. t ., 5 9p10'* -: [, lir, yinn C.d l "r � r, ac, t1. itf �4 O l +idh!>., 'P, Iwo -way Scop wrnrof .rage i vi i TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst D. Thom son Intersection Linder andCoopercloud Agenc /Co, Thompson Engineers, Inc. _ Jurisdiction CHD _ Date Performed 7/2572013 Analysis Year 2013 Existing Analysis Time Period M Peak Hour Project Description Sawtooth Village EastlWestStreet: Co perdoud orth/South Street: LinderRcad Intersection Orientation: North-South tud Period hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Ma'or Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume veh/h 22 400 1 1 323 16 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR vehLh 24 444 1 1 358 20 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — 0 — -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane _ RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 onfiguration L T TR L T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 62 0 34 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 68 0 37 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration L TR LTR Dela , Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR L TR (vehlh) 24 1 0 68 37 '(m)(veh/h) 1192 1126 465 858 V/0 0.02 0.00 0.15 0.04 5% queue length 0.06 0.00 0.51 0.14 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.1 8.2 14.1 1 9.4 LOS A A 8 A Approach Delay (s/veh) 12.4 Approach LOS 8 Copyright® 2010 University of Fiorlda, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 8/14/2013 4:43 PM file:///C:[Users/Dan/Api)Data/Local/Temp/u2kFE4F.tmp 8/14/2013 iwo-way 3rop uoniroi rage i ur r TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information ISIte Information ®� Sawtooth Peak -Hour Factor, PHF D. Thompson ntersection Linderand Coo ercloud Co, Thom son En ineers, Inc, urisdiction ACRD formed r 7/25/2013 nalysis Year 020Background TimePeriod JAMPeak Hour 0 — Median Type Sawtooth Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 1 0.90 1 0_.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h) 27 510 4 3 412 23 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0I _ 71 0 — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 4 0 0 5 0 Lanes 1 1 2 1 0 F 1 0 Copyright® 2010 University or Florida, All Rights Reserved fi l eJ//C J[Jsers/Dan/AooData/Local/Temt)/u2kA8F2.tmp HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 8114/2613 4:4 8/14/2013 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 71 0 39 4 0 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR vehlh 78 0 43 4 0 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N I N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L TR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR L TR (vehlh) 27 3 9 76 43 C (m) (veh/h) 1135 1062 525 417 627 V/c 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.19 0,05 95% queue length 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.68 0.16 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.2 8.4 1 12.0 1 1 15.6 9.6 LOS A A 8 C A Approach Delay (s/veh) 12.0 13.5 Approach LOS B B Copyright® 2010 University or Florida, All Rights Reserved fi l eJ//C J[Jsers/Dan/AooData/Local/Temt)/u2kA8F2.tmp HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 8114/2613 4:4 8/14/2013 iwu-way OLOP wnuur rage 1 01 1 Copyright02010 University or Florida, TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Year 2020 Total Analyst D. Thompson Intersection Linder and Coopercloud Agenc /Co. Thompson Engineers, Inc. Jurisdiction CHD Date Performed _ 7/25/2013 Analysis Project Description Sawtooth Village EastANest Street: Coppercloud Orth/South Street: Linder Road ntersection Orientation: North-South tudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Ma'or Street Northbound _ Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 25 418 6 4 0 21 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90_ 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 27 464 6 4 0 23 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- — 0 — -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T TR U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 71 0 39 9 0 7 Peal( -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 78 0 43 10 0 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration L TR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR L TR (veh/h) 27 4 17 76 43 C (m)(veh/h) 1605 1102 548 613 1074 Ic 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.13 0.04 95% queue length 0.05 0.01 0.10 0.43 0.13 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 8.3 11.8 11.7 8.5 LOS A A B B A pproach Delay (slveh) 11.8 10.6 pproach LOS B B Copyright02010 University or Florida, Year 2020 Total Analysis Time Period M Peak Hour All Rights Reserved fi le:/I/C:/Users/Dan/AuUData/Local/T'emn/u21cD90.tmu HCS+TM Version S.G Generated: 8/74/2073 4:4 i wo- way 3[op control rage ruri 9 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL. SUMMARY I Analyst D. Thompson Intersection RIRO and Coopercloud Agency/Co. Thompson Engineers, Inc. urisdiction CHD Date Performed 7/25/2093 Analysis Year 020 Total Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Copyright 02010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 6/14/2013 4:47 PM fi (e:///C:/Users/Dan/Aj)i)Data/Locat/Teint)/u2k54B l .tm i) 8/14/2013 Iwo -way acup k,onlzul TWO-VVAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information ISite Information AnalystD. Thompson Intersection Full McMillan Access Agency/Co. Thompson Engineers, Inc. Jurisdiction ACHD Date Pi 0.90 2020 Total Analysis Time Period LAM Peak Hoerr 0.90 Sawtooth Volume (veh/h) 0 1 443 2 6 1 336 1 0 Peal( -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h) 0 492 2 6 373 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles— 0 0 Peal< -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h Median Type 0.90 0 0.90 21 Two Way Left Turn Lane 0.90 0 RT Channelized 0.90 0 0 0 0 Lanes I 1 1 0 1 1 0 Copyright® 2010 University or Florida, All Rights Reserved fi 1 e:///C:/Users/Daii/Avt)Data/Local/Teinp/U2k9208.tmp NCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 8/14/2013 4:4� 1 8/14/2013 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 9 0 19 0 0 0 Peal< -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 0.90 10 0.90 0 0.90 21 0.90 0 0.90 0 0.90 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (°/a) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR (veh/h) 0 6 34 0 (m)(veh/h) 1197 1080 504 lc 0.00 0.01 0.06 95% queue length 1 0.00 1 0.02 0.20 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.0 8.4 1 12.6 LOS A A B pproach Delay (s/veh) 12.6 [Approach LOS 8 Copyright® 2010 University or Florida, All Rights Reserved fi 1 e:///C:/Users/Daii/Avt)Data/Local/Teinp/U2k9208.tmp NCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 8/14/2013 4:4� 1 8/14/2013 > W(J-way 3wp �,enlaul rage 1 of f TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY general information Site Information Copyright ® 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved fiCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 8/14/2013 4:48 PM file:///C:/Users/Dan/Ai)pData/Local/Teinp/u2k3545.tmp 8/14/2013