Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBLACK OLIVE - ENTIRE DOCUMENT SET (SP1_REV 2) - 2017.01.04 BLACK OLIVE 110 E. OLIVE STREET BOZEMAN, MT 59715 Black & Olive, LLC Bozeman, MT SITE PLAN (SP1) REV 2 04 JANUARY 2017 BLACK OLIVE – TABLE OF CONTENTS (SP1) REV 2 DATE: January 04, 2017 Revised and/or new sheets indicated in RED Documentation index 1. Black Olive Site Plan Application 16432 - Comments 2. Black Olive #16-432, General Comments, Solid waste superintendent. 3. Black Olive Site Plan Application 16432 & Solid Waste – Formal Response 4. Project Narrative 5. Proposed building, Project Matrix 6. Proposed building, Signage calculation 7. Draft Lot Aggregation Survey 8. Draft Utility Easement 9. Car share agreement 10. Cash in-lie Appraisal 11. Document #2494829 12. ORDINANCE 896 FM7PG1534 13. Final Traffic Study Drawing Index Civil C0.1 CIVIL SPECIFICATIONS C1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1.1 CIVIL DEMO PLAN C1.2 CIVIL SITE PLAN C1.3 CIVIL GRADING PLAN C1.4 CIVIL SITE DETAILS C1.5 CIVIL DRAINAGE DETAILS Landscape L01.01 LANDSCAPE PLAN L02.01 IRRIGATION PLAN – GROUND LEVEL L03.01 LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION DETAILS Architecture A00.40 ACCESSIBILITY CODE REQUIREMENTS & PLANS A00.41 ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSIS AND DETAILS A00.42 ACCESSIBILITY DETAILS A00.43 ACCESSIBILITY DETAILS A00.44 ACCESSIBILITY DETAILS A00.90 VICINITY MAP A01.00 SITE PLAN A01.01 LEVEL 1 PLAN A01.02 LEVEL 2 PLAN A01.03 LEVEL 3 PLAN A01.04 LEVEL 4 PLAN A01.05 LEVEL 5 PLAN A02.01 ROOF LEVEL PLAN A03.01 NORTH & WEST ELEVATION A03.02 SOUTH & EAST ELEVATION A04.01 BUILDING SECTIONS Electrical E01.01 LIGHTING PHOTOMETRIC E02.01 LIGHTING DETAILS TO: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE FROM: BRIAN KRUEGER, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MANAGER SHAWN KOHTZ, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ENGINEER RE: BLACK OLIVE SITE PLAN APPLICATION 16432 DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2016 Project Description: A Site plan application for the demolition of the existing office building and the construction of a 56 unit apartment building and related site improvements that includes: 16 studio apartments, 24 one bedroom apartments, 16 two bedroom apartments, 35 parking spaces, 4 carshare vehicles. 1000 square feet of commercial space is proposed on the ground floor. The lots combined contain a total of .4407 acres. The site is located at 202 South Black Avenue. The legal description is as provided in the application and not provided here due to space constraints. Recommendation: Staff has found that the project does not comply with the requirements of Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code and is deeming the application inadequate for further review. Code corrections must be satisfied prior to a recommendation for approval. Section 2 - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Please note that these conditions are in addition to any required code provisions identified in this report. These conditions are specific to the development. 1. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law. Section 3 – REQUIRED CODE CORRECTIONS All references are to the Bozeman Municipal Code. 1. Section 38.10.050. C Yards. Minimum yards required for the B-3 district. The project does not meet yard requirements with the underlying lot configurations. The lots must be aggregated or otherwise configured through the applicable subdivision exemption review process in order to meet requirements. The final signed mylars must be provided to our office to satisfy this code requirement. The amendment plat may be filed following the Commission decision. 2. Section 38.10.050.C Yards Minimum yards required for the B-3 district are: 1. No minimum yards prescribed for the B-3 district except a seven-foot front yard shall be required on Mendenhall and Babcock Streets. A building awning extends across the property line and does not meet yard requirements. No encroachment permit is provided. 3. Section 38.23.060B Easements. Private utility easements. Private utilities include, but are not limited to, natural gas, electricity, telephone, cable and fiber optic lines. The developer shall provide private utility easements necessary to extend private utilities to the development, and to provide for the construction and maintenance of private utilities within the development. No signed utility easements are provided to accommodate the utility layout. The final signed utility easement must be provided to our office to satisfy this code requirement. Confirm that the private utility and storm drainage can exist in the same easement. There does not appear to be any consideration of the overhanging shed eave easement in the utility easement. Provide clarification from the easement holders that the two can coexist in the same space. Easements may be filed following the Commission decision. 4. Sec. 38.24.100.C Street Vision triangle. Driveways and Alleys. Driveways and alleys. At the intersection of each driveway or alley with a street, no fence, wall or planting in excess of 30 inches above the street centerline grade shall be permitted within a triangular area where corners are defined by two points on the right-of-way line, 15 feet on each side of the centerline of the driveway or alley and a point on centerline ten feet outside the right-of-way. Any driveway or alley wider than 30 feet curb to curb at the right-of-way line shall use the vision triangle standard for local streets when intersecting local, collector, or arterial streets. A local street vision triangle must be used for the East Olive Street driveway access as it exceeds 30 feet curb to curb. The vision triangle is shown incorrectly on plans. One on street parking space and a transformer encroaches into the vision triangle if applied per code. 5. Sec. 38.25.020.A Parking stall, aisle and driveway design. In any parking facility containing 20 or more parking spaces, a maximum of 25 percent of the provided parking spaces may be reduced in size for small cars, provided these spaces shall be clearly identified with a sign permanently affixed immediately in front of each space containing the notation, "Compacts Only." Compact sign locations and details provided for compact spaces do not meet code. Signs must be affixed immediately in front of each parking space. Plans show painted floor signs only. 6. Sec. 38.25.040.A.1.a(1) Number of parking spaces required. Residential Uses. One parking space for each 24 uninterrupted linear feet of available street frontage usable for on-street parking directly adjacent to a lot may be deducted from the total parking spaces required for a development. The number of on-street spaces calculated shall not exceed the number of dwellings on the lot. The width of drive accesses, designated nonparking areas, vision triangles, and similar circumstances shall not be considered to be available for the purpose of on-street parking space. One on street parking space is proposed within a vision triangle and is not allowed. 7. Sec. 38.25.040.A.1.b(3)-Car Sharing. . A car-sharing agreement meeting the criteria established by the planning director may be used to meet the required number of parking spaces. A car sharing agreement meeting the criteria established by the planning director is not provided. See and respond to each criteria in Administrative Policy No. 2016-01. 8. Sec. 38.27.020.E Residential site plans open space requirement. Site plans containing five or more dwelling units shall provide on-site open space for the use of the residents. The area to be provided is calculated only for those dwellings which do not have ground floor access to a landscaped rear yard. Open space shall be provided at a rate of 150 square feet per dwelling unit for dwellings with two or more bedrooms, and 100 square feet per dwelling unit for studio and one bedroom dwellings. All landscaped areas, public plazas or common green roof decks shall be considered a "commons" and be accessible to all residents of the site. The requirement may be met through the use of any of the following options. Options may be combined to satisfy the area requirement. The balcony dimensions do not meet standards as presented. Many dimensions are shown extending into the wall structure. 9. Sec. 38.27.030 Cash donation in-lieu of land dedication. C. Cash donation in-lieu of land dedication shall be equal to the fair market value of the amount of land that would have been dedicated. For the purpose of these regulations, the fair market value is the value of the unsubdivided, unimproved land after it has been annexed and given an urban zoning designation. The city intends to obtain the highest value for cash-in-lieu of park land that is allowable under state law. 1. It shall be the responsibility of the developer to provide an appraisal of the fair market value by a certified real estate appraiser of their choosing. The appraisal fee shall be the responsibility of the developer. 2. When a land value must be established for cash-in-lieu of land dedication to satisfy the requirements of section 38.27.020, and the value of the land in an unsubdivided, unimproved, but annexed and zoned condition can not reasonably be determined, the developer may provide an appraisal of residentially zoned property with a zoning designation that allows the density of dwellings proposed for development. 3. The appraisal provided for the purpose of section 38.27.030 shall be conducted not sooner than 90 days prior to the submittal of an application for final plat or final site plan approval. D. Where a cash donation has been accepted in-lieu of land dedication, the amount of cash donation shall be stated on the final plat or plan as appropriate. E. Where a cash donation has been accepted in-lieu of land dedication, the city shall record in the meeting minutes or other written decision why the dedication of land for parks and playgrounds was undesirable. No notation of the amount paid on the site plan has been provided. The payment may be provided following the Commission decision. 10. Sec. 38.41.080.A.2.G.7 requires that utility easements and their locations be shown on the site plan. Per ORD. 896 and site plan submittal requirements provide utility easement location in the vacated alley on the utility plans. 11. Section 38.25.025 applies to this project as the project includes ground floor structured parking. Section 38.25.025.B.1.b requires that parking garages that front onto streets shall provide a lining of retail, office, or residential use at the street level along the entire street frontage. The South Black Avenue frontage of the parking garage does not provide a lining of retail, office or residential use at the street level along the entire street frontage. 12. Engineering Comment. The finalized traffic impact study has a conclusion: “It is recommended that garage access be designed to allow sufficient sight distance on Olive Street similar to requirements for mid-block alley approaches.” The applicant’s engineer must provide a statement that the current design meets that recommendation. 13. Engineering Comment. The applicant will need to pay the cash-in-lieu (CIL) of water right requirement for the project. Brian Heaston analyzed that requirement, and a CIL payment of $35,640 must be paid by the applicant prior to site plan approval. 14. Engineering Comment. We are still waiting on an appropriate storm event to obtain sewer flow monitoring data in the downstream sewer main. At this point of the winter, it is unlikely we will obtain that data until spring unless we have a rain-on-snow event with warm weather conditions in the winter. I will discuss this item with the City Engineer and Public Works Director with respect to timing of this application. Future Impact Fees - Please note that future building permit applications will require payment of the required transportation, water, sewer and fire impact fees according to the City of Bozeman adopted impact fee schedule in place at the time of building permit issuance. If you desire an estimate of the required impact fees according to current rates please contact the Department of Community Development and/or visit www.bozeman.net. Note: During preparation of the staff report for future applications, additional conditions of approval may be recommended based on comments and recommendations provided by other applicable review agencies involved with the review of the project. MEMORANDUM ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TO: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE FROM: KEVIN HANDELIN, SOLID WASTE SUPERINTENDENT RE: Black Olive (16-432) DATE: December 12, 2016 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS None GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Owner is responsible for placing full trash dumpsters from the bottom of the thrash chute to the street level holding room located at the Olive Street side of the building. Dumpsters in the holding room will then be serviced by the waste provider. 2. There will be a roll-up door to access the trash holding room from the sidewalk off Olive Street. BLACK OLIVE – BLACK OLIVE SITE PLAN APPLICATION 16432 - RESPONSE DATE: January 04, 2017, Comments from: December 14, 2016 Building change overview: - Garage door, access point into parking lot added at the west elevation of S. Black Ave. - Balconies enlarged and dimensioned to face of finish to provide a min. 100 or 150 sqft. of open space. - Building awning at 2nd level entry along E. Olive St., does not cross property line. - COMPACT CAR PARKING ONLY signage has been indicated to be permanently affixed in front of compact parking stalls. - Car share program to be open to neighborhood members up to 150 people. - 20 parking spaces within the Bridger Park Downtown parking garage, 26 E. Mendenhall, will be rented at a (50%) reduced rate to BLACK OLIVE residents to entice them to park within a parking garage. This allows 56 total garage parking spaces for 56 units. 36 in BLACK OLIVE parking garage + 20 in the Bridger Park Downtown parking garage. - A non-required, self-imposed transitional setback, for properties transitioning from B-3/R-2 is shown on east/west elevations, at the south of the property. A 45 degree angled setback at 44’-0” above level 1 to respect the neighbors to the south, although setback is not required. Property design to respect properties to the south. Required Code Corrections: Section 38.10.050. C Yards. Minimum yards required for the B-3 district. The project does not meet yard requirements with the underlying lot configurations. The lots must be aggregated or otherwise configured through the applicable subdivision exemption review process in order to meet requirements. The final signed mylars must be provided to our office to satisfy this code requirement. The amendment plat may be filed following the Commission decision. a. Response: A lot aggregation survey has been submitted to the City. Final recording of the underlying lot aggregation survey will be filed upon City approval of this application. A draft of the aggregation survey has been provided previously. 2. Section 38.10.050.C Yards Minimum yards required for the B-3 district are: 1. No minimum yards prescribed for the B-3 district except a seven-foot front yard shall be required on Mendenhall and Babcock Streets. A building awning extends across the property line and does not meet yard requirements. No encroachment permit is provided. a. Response: Building awning held within Property Line. RE: Level 2 floor plan, 1/A01.02. 3. Section 38.23.060B Easements. Private utility easements. Private utilities include, but are not limited to, natural gas, electricity, telephone, cable and fiber optic lines. The developer shall provide private utility easements necessary to extend private utilities to the development, and to provide for the construction and maintenance of private utilities within the development. No signed utility easements are provided to accommodate the utility layout. The final signed utility easement must be provided to our office to satisfy this code requirement. Confirm that the private utility and storm drainage can exist in the same easement. There does not appear to be any consideration of the overhanging shed eave easement in the utility easement. Provide clarification from the easement holders that the two can coexist in the same space. Easements may be filed following the Commission decision. a. Response: Executed utility easements will be filed upon City approval of this application. A draft utility easement has been provided previously. 4. Sec. 38.24.100.C Street Vision triangle. Driveways and Alleys. Driveways and alleys. At the intersection of each driveway or alley with a street, no fence, wall or planting in excess of 30 inches above the street centerline grade shall be permitted within a triangular area where corners are defined by two points on the right-of-way line, 15 feet on each side of the centerline of the driveway or alley and a point on centerline ten feet outside the right-of-way. Any driveway or alley wider than 30 feet curb to curb at the right-of-way line shall use the vision triangle standard for local streets when intersecting local, collector, or arterial streets. A local street vision triangle must be used for the East olive Street driveway access as it exceeds 30 feet curb to curb. The vision triangle is shown incorrectly on plans. One on street parking space and a transformer encroaches into the vision triangle if applies per code. a. Response: The proposed garage driveway is 24’ wide. An 11’ wide trash access is located adjacent to the driveway. A vision triangle should not apply to a trash access since it is not a point of ingress or egress from the site, but only used to move trash bins in and out of building manually. A standard driveway/alley vision triangle is sufficient for the proposed driveway. 5. Sec. 38.25.020.A Parking stall, aisle and driveway design. In any parking facility containing 20 or more parking spaces, a maximum of 25 percent of the provided parking spaces may be reduced in size for small cars, provided these spaces shall be clearly identified with a sign permanently affixed immediately in front of each space containing the notation, "Compacts Only." Compact sign locations and details provided for compact spaces do not meet code. Signs must be affixed immediately in front of each parking space. Plans show painted floor signs only. a. Response: COMPACT PARKING ONLY, signs located at compact stalls will be permanently affixed in front of each stall. RE: A00.44, A01.01. Keynote: 10.2, ‘CONPACT CARE PARKING ONLY’ SIGN. PERMANENTLY AFFIXED IN FRONT OF COMPACT PARKING STALL. PROVIDE POST WHERE APPLICABLE. 6. Sec. 38.25.040.A.1.a (1) Number of parking spaces required. Residential Uses. One parking space for each 24 uninterrupted linear feet of available street frontage usable for on-street parking directly adjacent to a lot may be deducted from the total parking spaces required for a development. The number of on street spaces calculated shall not exceed the number of dwellings on the lot. The width of drive accesses, designated non parking areas, vision triangles, and similar circumstances shall not be considered to be available for the purpose of on-street parking space. One on street parking space is proposed within a vision triangle and is not allowed. a. Response: The on-street parking has been moved to the west 4’ to provide additional site distance. 7. Sec. 38.25.040.A.1.b (3)-Car Sharing. A car-sharing agreement meeting the criteria established by the planning director may be used to meet the required number of parking spaces. A car sharing agreement meeting the criteria established by the planning director is not provided. See and respond to each criteria in Administrative Policy No. 2016-01. a. Response: Car sharing policy No. 2016-01 and car titles will be provided after acceptance of this application, but prior to CO of the building. Car share signage to indicate parking spots added. RE: A00.44 & A01.01. The car sharing agreement has been previously provided. BLACK OLIVE is working with the City Legal Staff to create a long term agreement that meets the requirements set in the code. 8. Sec. 38.27.020.E Residential site plans open space requirement. Site plans containing five or more dwelling units shall provide on-site open space for the use of the residents. The area to be provided is calculated only for those dwellings which do not have ground floor access to a landscaped rear yard. Open space shall be provided at a rate of 150 square feet per dwelling unit for dwellings with two or more bedrooms, and 100 square feet per dwelling unit for studio and one bedroom dwellings. All landscaped areas, public plazas or common green roof decks shall be considered a "commons" and be accessible to all residents of the site. The requirement may be met through the use of any of the following options. Options may be combined to satisfy the area requirement. The balcony dimensions do not meet standards as presented. Many dimensions are shown extending into the wall structure. a. Response: Enlarged plans with dimensions from face of finish, for balconies have been provided along with balcony section indicating railing location. RE: A01.02 A01.05, 3/A04.01. All balconies have been dimensioned from face of finish on all floor plans. Confirmed all balconies are a minimum of 100 and 150 sqft. 9. Sec. 38.27.030 Cash donation in-lieu of land dedication. C. Cash donation in-lieu of land dedication shall be equal to the fair market value of the amount of land that would have been dedicated. For the purpose of these regulations, the fair market value is the value of the unsubdivided, unimproved land after it has been annexed and given an urban zoning designation. The city intends to obtain the highest value for cash-in-lieu of park land that is allowable under state law. 1. It shall be the responsibility of the developer to provide an appraisal of the fair market value by a certified real estate appraiser of their choosing. The appraisal fee shall be the responsibility of the developer. 2. When a land value must be established for cash-in-lieu of land dedication to satisfy the requirements of section 38.27.020, and the value of the land in an unsubdivided, unimproved, but annexed and zoned condition can not reasonably be determined, the developer may provide an appraisal of residentially zoned property with a zoning designation that allows the density of dwellings proposed for development. 3. The appraisal provided for the purpose of section 38.27.030 shall be conducted not sooner than 90 days prior to the submittal of an application for final plat or final site plan approval. D. Where a cash donation has been accepted in-lieu of land dedication, the amount of cash donation shall be stated on the final plat or plan as appropriate. E. Where a cash donation has been accepted in-lieu of land dedication, the city shall record in the meeting minutes or other written decision why the dedication of land for parks and playgrounds was undesirable. No notation of the amount paid on the site plan has been provided. The payment may be provided following the Commission decision. a. Response A park land appraisal has been provided. Parkland valuation: $1.23 / sqft. Project site required open space: 6912 sqft. The cash-in-lieu payment is determined to be $8,501.76. Valuation indicated on project matrix, submitted, and on SITE PLAN/ A01.00. Cash payment will be provided upon City approval of this application. Cash in lieu appraisal provided. 10. Sec. 38.41.080.A.2.G.7 Requires that utility easements and their locations be shown on the site plan/ Per ORD. 896 and site plan submittal requirements provide utility easement location in the vacated alley on the utility plan. a. Response: The utility easement created per ORD 896 is shown on the Civil site plan. 11. Section 38.25.025 applies to this project as the project includes ground floor structured parking. Section 38.25.025.B.1.b required that parking garages that front onto street shall provide a lining of retail, office, or residential use at the street level along the entire street frontage. The South Black Avenue frontage of the parking garage does not provide a lining of retail, office or residential use at the street level along the entire street frontage. a. Response: As an alternative to a lining of retail space, a new parking garage access has been added on the South Black Avenue frontage. This improves circulation through the parking garage and reduces traffic from the Olive Street entrance. All other building frontages have a retail, office, or service area lining the street frontage. Engineering Comments: Code Requirements Requiring Plan Corrections 12. The finalized traffic impact study has a conclusion: “it is recommended that garage access be designed to allow sufficient sight distance on Olive Street similar to requirements for mi-block alley approaches.” The applicant’s engineer must provide a statement that the current design meets that recommendation. a. Response: The traffic engineer has reviewed the access and their response will be provided. 13. The applicant will need to pay cash in-lieu (CIL) of water rights requirement for the project. Brian Heaston analyzed that requirement, and a CIL payment of $35,640 must be paid by the applicant prior to site plan approval. a. Response: The CIL payment amount is acceptable and will be paid upon City approval of this project. 14. We are still waiting on an appropriate storm event to obtain flow monitoring data in the downstream sewer main. At his point of the winter, it is unlikely we will obtain that data until spring unless we have a rain-on-snow event with warm weather conditions in the winter. I will discuss this item with the City Engineer and Public Works Director with respect to timing of this application. a. Response: The applicant will continue to work with Public Works to verify that adequate sewer capacity exists for the Black Olive building. Solid Waste recommended Conditions: General comments 1. Owner is responsible for placing full trash dumpster from the bottom of the trash chute to the streel level holding room located at the Olive Street side of the building. Dumpsters in the holding room will then be serviced by the waste provider. b. Response: Acknowledged. 2. There will be a roll-up door to access the trash holding room from the sidewalk off Olive Street. a. Response: Confirmed. PROJECT NARRATIVE Downtowns are evolving and after years of moving away from city centers, residents are returning in a pattern seen throughout the country. Our approved Downtown Improvements Plan accurately predicts this migration and prescribes ways to accommodate this evolution for the benefit of this community. Redevelopment is and will take place in many forms. Whole block projects are the exception, as smaller parcels are more likely to be the norm and will require forward thinking to assess the overall influence of each project towards the wider goals, plans and evolving urban patterns for downtown. This project site (202 S. Black Ave.) is located on the south east corner of S. Black Ave & E. Olive St., two blocks south of Main St. The property is designated “Community Core” in the growth policy and falls within the “South Village” Designation in the Downtown Improvement Plan. The site is zoned B-3 (Central Business District) which allows a mix of commercial and/or higher density (five or more attached units) residential apartments. This application proposes the redevelopment of the existing property into a 5 story building. 1st floor, parking garage, commercial space and residential lobby with floors 2-5 residential apartment. The building respectfully fits within the adjacent existing building mass with the 4 story apartment building across the street and the 80’ tall federal building caddy corner. The first floor sidewalks on Black Ave. & Olive St engage the street with tall expansive storefront windows giving transparency in and out of the building. With no setbacks required next to the adjacent B-3 zoned properties, setbacks are provided along the east and south sides. To be respectful to the south B- 3 zoned site, although it is not required, BLACK OLIVE is stepped back 45 degrees at 44’-0” above level 1 as required for B-3 properties adjacent to a residential zone. The South Village currently has a wide mix of conforming and non-conforming residential and commercial uses. The Downtown improvement plan states: “Numerous larger underutilized parcels in this area can be infilled with primary housing redevelopment… identified potential accommodations of as many as 500 units over five to fifteen years. An informal application was reviewed by the DRC on May 20, 2016. Comments from this review have been addressed and responded to within this (SP1) – REV 2, 01.04.2017 resubmittal. Comments have all been addressed to compliance within the code in this zoning district. Please refer to the following application material for more detailed discussions as well as the attached exhibits and drawing set for additional information. “The presence of significant housing is the most critical missing piece of Bozeman’s downtown, and for it to be vital and sustainable over time, housing should be developed in great numbers and varieties, at all price points, both rental and for-sale. This recommendation is a “cornerstone” of this plan. The very future of downtown is dependent upon the successful development of housing…” - Development Improvement Plan, Page 16 DOWNTOWN MAP Site VICINITY MAP Subject Property DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT PLAN MAP Subject Property DESIGN All streets and sidewalks in downtown should be designed to make the experience of pedestrians and bicyclists safe, comfortable and visually appealing… The scale and character of the historic core should be protected but other downtown districts should be able to accommodate contemporary development of greater height and density… Housing – for all income levels – should be encouraged by a variety of methods… - Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan, Pages 12-13 Black Olive’s design reflects its context, between the high density community core district with natural, strong materials and the lower density neighborhoods to the south with warmer materials respecting the buildings’ residential aspects with a human touch. The material palette provides connectivity and respectful contrast, between the different neighborhoods in Bozeman. The geometry of the building incorporates solids and voids, evoking a subtle abstraction of geological and other natural forms along the building facades. Mountains, rock formations and urban influences inspire a contrast-full, timeless color palette that reflects its setting. The prominent tall, flat roof draws a connection to the setting, in both the natural and urban context along Main St. Lightness and contrast of the finishes breaks the scale, while the glazed ground floor spaces engage the sidewalk in a pedestrian friendly manner connecting the exterior and interior. View from E. Olive Ave DESIGN GUIDELINES, SUBCHAPTER 4-B – GUIDELINES FOR THE B-3 COMMERCIAL CHARACTER AREA “Downtown Bozeman should be the location of buildings of greatest height and intensity in the community. The following guidelines apply to properties zoned B-3 (Central Business District) that serves as a transition between the Main Street Historic District and residentially zoned neighborhoods. Underdevelopment of this transitional zone is a major concern. The downtown district is planned for continued intensification over time with building additions as well as new construction replacing dilapidated and underutilized older structures on underdeveloped properties. Housing – for all income levels – should be encouraged by a variety of methods to support the continued economic viability of the Downtown Bozeman business district, which is broadly recognized as one of Bozeman’s strongest assets.” - NCOD Design Guidelines, Chapter 4-B A. Mass & Scale 1. Provide density to meet the goals and objectives of the Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan: With 56 total apartment units on .4407 acres, Black Olive has a FAR ratio of 2.99. As a mixed use building, the floor to floor height is 15’-0” with large storefront windows to engage the sidewalks. 2. Innovative development and diversity of design is encouraged: Black Olive incorporates a varied material palette of brick, panelized composite corrugated metal and wood siding to relate and contrast to the high density Community Core, B-3 zone and respect the lower density residential zones of Bozeman. The brick coursing reflects Bozeman’s Main Street history, while the wood siding gives the residential units a warm feel similar to the residential neighborhoods close to the site. The corrugated metal transitions between the dense urban area and lower density areas within Bozeman and blends well with the vernacular of the area. 3. A new building should exhibit clear order and comprehensive composite on all elevations: Black Olive’s hierarchy is composed with a strong, pedestrian friendly base and vertical elements that reflects the surrounding urban districts massing and scale. Secondary materials of metal/wood in combination with private unit balconies, provide solids and voids along the façade to break up the building along with providing great open spaces for the residents. 4. Building interface with residential zone properties: Black Olive’s site is not adjacent to residentially zoned properties, but provides a setback along the south and east elevations to provide a nice relief and respect to the adjacent properties. The south elevation steps back again from the 2- 5 floors above the 1st floor step back. RE: Floorplans and elevations. B. Building Quality 1. New buildings shall be designed to the level of permanence and quality appropriate for Downtown Bozeman: Black Olive’s strong and varied material palette of brick, corrugated metal and wood siding, reflects the urban, high density surroundings of downtown Bozeman. The strong and transparent pedestrian brick base of the building, relates to other strong, engaging buildings along Main Street, while also relating to the softer residential aspects of the community with wood siding to give the building a warm touch. 2. Sustainable methods and techniques shall be applied to building design but also integrated with site layout and infrastructure design: i. Insulation: Being in a colder winter climate zone, Black Olive uses continuous exterior rigid insulation to maximize building envelope efficiency. Continuous insulation covers the entire exterior wall and not just the spaces between studs, which fully bridges cold joints and gaps that are usually created in buildings without exterior continuous insulation. This technique provides long-term thermal performance and protection against air infiltration and moisture penetration – all while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This tight building envelope, reduces the mechanical system energy demand, which reduces greenhouse gas emissions. ii. Mechanical System: The apartment units ‘split system’ is commonly used for multi-family applications. It uses R410A refrigerant which is the most widely used refrigerant because R410A does not contain any chemicals that can damage ozone and less refrigerant is required in the system due to the high heat transfer capabilities of the R410A. Split systems are efficient at cooling, reduce energy usage, and meet the requirements of the International Energy Code. iii. Density: 56 units / .4407 acres allows for many people to live in the “Community Core” which reduces the need and use for cars in the area. iv. Car Share: 4 car share cars are provided which reduce the amount of cars required by residents. This reduces reducing carbon emissions as well as overall car traffic in the area. The car share program will be open to up to 100 neighborhood members. *(1) Data suggests that each car share can accommodate up to 40 members. Each member of the car share program can anticipate to save between $135 - $435 a month as well. v. *(2) A long-term study of City CarShare members found that 30 percent of households that joined sold a car; others delayed purchasing one. Transit use, bicycling, and walking also increased among members.[13] A study of driving behavior of members from major carsharing organizations found an average decline in 27% of annual vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) vi. The Bridger Park Downtown parking garage will be used to allow up to 20 spaces to be leased at a 50% reduced rate to entice BLACK OLIVE residence to park within the parking garage. This allows 56 total garage parked spaces within the BLACK OLIVE parking garage, 36 and the Bridger parking garage, 20. vii. 75% of the trees and shrubs will be drought tolerant. viii. Black Olive Building utilizes a storm water detention/irrigation reuse system to mitigate storm water impacts. The storm water detention system consists of a large underground tank located beneath the building that will collect building runoff. This system will reduce peak flows leaving the site as well as provide water for landscape irrigation. The detention tank captures the same volume as a green roof, but its design allows this water to supply landscape irrigation which lowers overall potable water demands of the site. The dual benefits of this system made this the best choice for sustainability. C. Building Roof Form 1. Use flat roof lines as the primary roof form: Black Olive’s flat roof design blends with the other B3 zoned buildings and allows for the mechanical equipment to be located on the roof. 2. Use of other roof forms: The primary vertical brick element, with flat roof extending above the main flat roof, reflects the other building roof forms of Main Street Bozeman. D. Site Design 1. Create strong connections between downtown’s sub-districts and between downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods: Black Olive’s street presence has at least 50% of the building’s façade located within 3’ of the property line to create a strong pedestrian street level presence and quality public landscaped areas along the buildings north façade. Along S. Black Ave. & E. Olive St., transparent windows make up 50% of the 1st floor façade to fully engage the street. 2. Public spaces should be made active through programming or utilizing opportunities with adjacent uses that promote vitality and safety: The 1st floor northwest corner has been programmed as “retail” with the opportunity for a small coffee shop to use the public plaza, activating the properties corner. This creates a very vibrant area for the community. E. Parking Facilities 1. Enclosed parking, integrated into individual new buildings as well as additions (if feasible), is preferred whenever possible to surface parking lots: Black Olive has an enclosed parking garage, located on the 1st floor, screened from the public with access from Black & Olive. 2. Shared parking structures are preferred to surface parking lots. A parking structure should be designed so that it creates a visually attractive and active street edge: The enclosed parking garage is internal to the building’s 1st floor allowing the retail, leasing and fitness to activate and engage the street edge. The car share program will be open to as many as 100 neighborhood members. *(1) Data suggests that each car share can accommodate up to 40 members. Each member of the car share program can anticipate to save between $135 - $435 a month as well. In the Bridger Park Downtown parking garage, up to 20 spaces will be leased at a 50% reduced rate to entice BLACK OLIVE This will allow a total of 56 parking garage parking stalls for 56 BLACK OLVIE units. 3. For residential projects, enclosed parking is preferred to surface parking lots: Enclosed 1st floor parking garage is designed to be screened from E Olive St. & S. Black Ave. F. Signs 1. Commercial and Mixed Use projects should include a variety of creative and clear signage: Black Olive’s main building signage, along E. Black St., provides a clear presence and acknowledgement for the building’s primary entrance. RE: North Elevation. Areas for future commercials signage, also identified on elevations. 2. Residential projects are encouraged to include building identification signage to add to Bozeman’s overall sense of place: The main Black Olive building identification signage prominently adds a sense of place to the building as a point of reference. 3. All signs should be developed with the overall context of the building and the area in mind. The placement or location of a sign is a critical factor in maintaining the order and integrity of a building. Consistent placement of signs according to building type, size, location and even building materials creates a visual pattern that enhances the streetscape experience: RE: North elevations for building identification signage. The building’s main identification signage does not over impose on the building or area, while providing a very prominent place recognition for the community. G. Street Patterns 1. Alleys: No alleys on site. 2. Streetscape: Detached street paving sidewalks are maintained to preserve the neighborhood’s design and continuity from adjacent sites, meeting at the corner of S. Black Ave & E. Olive St. 3. Planting strips: Existing planting strips are maintained to keep the existing design of the streetscape. 4. Pattern of street trees: Existing trees within planting strips along S. Black Ave. & E. Olive St. are to be preserved. H. Landscape Design 1. Preserve and maintain mature trees and significant vegetation that are a direct enhancement of the pedestrian streetscape environment: Existing trees on site will be preserved to maintain the pedestrian feel of the streetscape. i. RE: Sheets L01.01 for landscape design for entire site. 13 points are required for B-3 zoning, while 15 total points will be provided. I. Utilities and service areas 1. Orient service entrances, waste disposal areas and other similar uses toward service lanes away from major streets: The waste disposal, trash room is located adjacent to the parking garage entrance so all services are in one area. With no ally on site, the trash room is internal to the building, just off E. Olive St., screened from the publics’ view. 2. Position service areas to minimize conflicts with other abutting uses: Trash room is located next to garage entrance, away from other building uses to limit noise and programming conflicts within building. J. Site Furniture 1. Site furniture should be simple in character: Bike racks and quarried boulder seats are used as site furniture to engage and activate the streetscape. PARKLAND It is very unusual for development within any downtown to be charged a fee for parks. This is for several reasons. First, parkland is most usually needed on the outer edge of a community where families with children are settling. Downtowns do not typically attract that demographic and thus if development is charged such a fee, in a sense it is subsidizing edge development. This is contrary to planning principles involving infill. Second, downtowns usually already have, or are close to, existing parks with sufficient capacity for more use; rarely are entirely new parks needed. Finally, the people who live in, work in, and visit downtowns use public space differently. They tend to use the sidewalks, cafes and coffeehouses for relaxing, passive recreation and socializing. In some ways parks are superfluous. We recommend this fee be specifically dedicated to the downtown district and used as a funding source for the “green” strategies outlined in this plan; improving sidewalks, greening streets and alleys, creating small parks along Bozeman Creek, and creating or improving other public spaces and facilities within the downtown. - Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan, Page 39 Being a downtown infill residential project in the B3 Zoning district, parkland is proposed to be provided through cash-in-lieu as identified in 38.27.030. See PROJECT MATRIX for further parkland requirement breakdown. 6912 sqft of parkland required. OPEN SPACE Connections between indoor and outdoor spaces are integral to the overall design. Code requirement for open space, Sec. 38.27.020.E, “dwelling units which do not have ground floor access to a landscaped rear yard.” All units in Black Olive have an individual balcony with minimum size of 100 sqft for studios and 1-bedrooms and 150 sqft for all 2-bedrooms. LIGHTING Building entry lights provided at entrances to safely light building access points while limiting excessive light that will negatively impact the neighborhood. RE: Photometric Plan, Lighting details and light cut sheet. Fixture WS: (Lumiere, 303-W1-LEDB2) Wall mounted exterior light, located at building entrances. Fixture SD: (Halo, SLD6128xxWH) Ceiling mounted light, located a parking garage entrance. Fixture WS Fixture SD References: *(1) “Growth in Worldwide Carsharing, An International Comparison.” Susan A. Shaheen and Adam P. Cohen. http://tsrc.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/Worldwide%20Carsharing%20Growth%20- %20Shaheen.pdf *(2) “The Impact of Carsharing on Household Vehicle Ownership.” Elliot Martin and Susan Shaheen. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/7w58646d?query=Impact%20of%20Carsharing BLACK OLIVE – PROPOSED VS. MAX ENVELOPE CUBIC FT. DATE: January 04, 2017 Maximum envelope cubic ft on site: 1,260,000 cubic ft Propose cubic ft of building: 952,320 cubic ft Proposed building is only 75% Cubic ft of max envelope Cubic ft on site. project sections north-south section east-west section After Recording Return to: ___________________, LLC 20 North Tracy Ave. Bozeman, Montana 59715 PERPETUAL PRIVATE NON-EXCLUSIVE ACCESS AND ________________ UTILITY EASEMENT This Private Non-Exclusive Access and _____________ Easement Grant is entered into by Olive and Black, LLC, a Montana limited liability company, with address of 20 North Tracy, Bozeman, MT 59715 owner of Tract A of Amended Plat ______ of Block C of Black’s Addition to City of Bozeman, more particularly described below granted to ______________, with address of ____________, _______, ________ _________ granting an access and a ________________ easement more particularly described below. RECITALS WHEREAS, Olive and Black, LLC is the “Grantor” and owner of Tract A of Amended Plat ______ of Block C of Black’s Addition to the City of Bozeman, in Section 7, Township 2 South, Range 6 East, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana; and WHEREAS, Grantor desires to grant a private perpetual easement for access and _____________ over, across and under its property which will allow _______________, its successor and subsidiaries (Grantee) to install _________________ from the existing public street to the location for the soon to be constructed building. GRANT 1. The recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein; 2. Grantor does hereby grant, subject to the terms and conditions expressed herein, over, across and under Grantor’s Lot ___ of Block C of Black’s Addition to the City of Bozeman, in Section 7, Township 2 South, Range 6 East, P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana, a perpetual private access and ____________ easement in the location depicted on the attached Exhibit A, in the widths established therein. 3. Access to and for installation and maintenance shall be by existing roads whenever possible. Should access require use of non-road ways, the ground shall be returned to the same condition as prior to installation and maintenance. 4. The maintenance of the access and _______________ shall be the responsibility of the Grantor. Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that this grant of easement is non-exclusive in nature and Grantee undertakes the burden and obligation to locate the utility to be installed in compliance and conformance with all applicable rules, regulations and laws, local, state and federal. Page 2 of 3 Neither party may modify the size, scope or location of the easement without the prior written consent of both parties. The parties agree that this Declaration of Easement shall be governed by, construed and enforced in accordance with the law of the State of Montana. The rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall not terminate except by mutual agreement of the owners of record of the real property described herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto set its hand on the ___ day of ____________, 2016. GRANTOR: Olive and Black, LLC ____________________________________ BY: ______________________ STATE OF __________ ) : ss. County of __________ ) On this ____ day of _____________, 2016 me appeared ____________ as the ___________________ for Olive and Black, LLC to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of Olive and Black, LLC. (SEAL) __________________________________________ Notary Public for the State of _______________ Printed Name: _____________________________ Acceptance of Easement Grant - GRANTEE ______________________, its successor and subsidiaries, Grantee, does hereby accept the easement herein granted together with all terms and obligations. Upon acceptance, ________________, abandons, vacates and forever releases any prior or previously granted easement over, across and under said property in favor of the easement stated herein. [signature to follow] Page 3 of 3 GRANTEE: ____________________________________ BY: ______________________ STATE OF __________ ) : ss. County of __________ ) On this ____ day of _____________, 2016 me appeared ____________ as the ___________________ for __________________ to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of ____________________________. (SEAL) __________________________________________ Notary Public for the State of _______________ Printed Name: _____________________________ Andy Holloran Olive and Black LLC 20 North Tracy Avenue Bozeman, MT 59715 October 5, 2016 Dear Mr.Holloran, As per your request I have gathered some data to estimate a market value for your B-3 land on a per square foot basis with a legal description of: The North 20 feet of Lot 21, all of Lot 22, Dawes’ Subdivision of Block “C” of Black’s Addition to Bozeman, together with a strip of land 8 feet in width adjoining the east line of Lot 21 and Lot 22 being a portion of that alley vacated by Ordinance No. 896 recorded July 30, 1970 in Film Page 1534, along with a portion of land that is described as beginning at the Northwest corner of Block “C” of Black’s Addition to Bozeman, thence East along the South line of Olive Street 160 feet;thence South parallel with the East line of Black Avenue 60 feet; thence West parallel with the South line of Olive Street 160 feet; thence North along the East line of Black Avenue 60 feet to the place of beginning, Gallatin County, Montana. The West 40 feet of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Dawes Subdivision, a portion of Block “C” Black’s Addition to Bozeman, Montana, and Fractional Lot 17 of Lindley and Guy’s Addition to Bozeman, Montana, together with that strip of land 8 feet in width adjoining the west line of Lot 4 and a portion of Lot 3, being a portion of that alley vacated by Ordinance No. 896 recorded July 30, 1970 in Film 7, Page 1534, Gallatin County, Montana. The purpose of the estimate is for you to establish the market value for the City of Bozeman’s Cash in Lieu Parks Program.The valuation is not on your piece of land, but on what annexed speculative development land with a similar use would bring in the open market. The following sales have been used to estimate a value on a per square footage basis.Thus the compiled sales on the following pages are of sites that are speculative development land with somewhat similar characteristics when compared to the subject. Subject Site Sale 1 is almost identical to what the City has requested as far as similar zoning-use, annexation and future use.Sale 1 is an R-4 zoning, that is annexed into the City but is unimproved, water and sewer are available, but the offsite improvements are not complete. Based upon Sale 1 that just closed and is the most similar to the use proposed for your site, I would estimate the Cash in Lieu value at $1.23psf or $53,600 per acre. If I can be of further assistance,please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely Keith O’Reilly, MAI General Certified Appraiser State of Montana #400 4 RETURN DOCUMENT TO: AmericanLandTitleCompany t oV ch *Boze a T 0 2494829 Page:1 of 4 10/171201411:50:44AM Fee:$3000CharlotteMills-GallatinCount MT MISC IIIIllileIIIIIIIIIIIIAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlliiIIIIIIIIIIIIIII EASEMENT AGREEMENT THISE AGREElilENTisenteredintoasofthen ilyaf. ("BifectiveDate"),llyandamongWF WestoraHoldings,1.1.4aPennsylvanialimitedliabilitycompany ("Grantor"),andCharlesandAudrwyS.Cramwell('Grantees"and,togetherwithGrantor,thePartles"). RECITALSI A.SimultaneouslywiththeexecutionofthisAgreementGrantorissolitagtoGnmtaesapropertylocatedat 120EastOltreStreet.Boseman,MT 59715("Grantees'Propectf),moreparticulaziydescribedbelow: BLACKADI),507.TO25,R065,BLOCKC,ACRES0.103,E90'1.0751-2&I,1NDLBYAND GUYADD,PTOFLOTi7 ElillBITA 308.FAECEL 1 &TheEasementcreatedbythisAgreemeatistoensurethatthesalstingshedonGrantees'Propertythat encreachesontoGrantor'sadfacentlotdoesnotconstitutestrespassorunlawfulencroachment 'C,ThePartieslatendthatthisEasementshallinuretothebenefitofGranines'Propertyinperpetuityand shallconstituteacovenantrunningwiththelandbetweenGrantorandGrantees'respectiveproperties. NOW,THEREFOREblconsideradonofthecovenantscontainedhereinandforothergoodand valuableconsideration,thePartlesagreetothefollowing: L GrantorgrantstoGranteesanEasementtoallowtheroofeveandgutleroftheshedlocatedonGrantees' Propertytoencroachl2inchesontoadjacentlot,currentlyownedbyGrantor,moreparticularlydescribed below: BLACKADD,S R 6MLOPCK CMS.092,W40'L0151-4 2.SucheasementshallinuretothebenefitofownersofGrantees'Property,theirheirs,successors,and assignsinperpetuity. 3,NothinglathisEasementshallpreventGranteesfrommaintainlar,repatring.&apgradingtheexistingeve andantter,includingimprovementsoraspairstocomp withallapplicablesoninglaws.reguladaml,and requirements,solongassuchmaintenance,twpairs,andupgradesretnainwithintheII-inchencroachment grantedpursuanttothisEasementAgreementGrantorisnotresponsiblefbranymaintenanceorfuture costsassociatedwithorstammingkom theencreachfugshed. 4,intheeventtheencavachingshedisdestroyed,thisInsementshallbecomenullandvoid. ElWITNESSWHEREOF,thePartieshantohaveexecutedthisEhoementAgreementasoftheday andyearwrittenabove. WF WESTERN HOLDINGS,I.E.C CHARLESANDAUDREYS.CROMWELL aPenasylvanialimitedlfabilty Grantmas Grantor BY signature:- PrintName:()Aff,, 'PrintName:CharlesCromwell Title:*--- signatus: PrintName:AudreyCromwell STATE OF $6 1 /) COUNTY OF & es On lhis I day of ,20 beforeme,aNotaryPublicinandforsaidstate,personallyappeatedCharlesCromwell and Audrey Cromwell known lome tobe theperson(s)whose Name(s)is(are)subscribedtothewithin instrument,and acknowledgedtome thathe (sheorthey)executedthesame. KAAA J SCYPHERS 0,,a NotaryPubuc y'OT^n .1fortheStateofMontana (),5 Rosidinaat:NoteryPublic State.r Bozeman,Montana ResidingatMyCommissionExpires:COREDISS10BOctober18,2017 PrintedName: By*B.WeinerPresi Stateof } Countyof }ss. Thisinstrumentwas acknowledgedbefyMmen eth /S dayof , 20 personallyappearedBruceB.Wemer,known tome tobethepersonorpersonswhose name or names (is)(ere)subscribedtotheaboveinstrumentand acknowledgedtome that(he)() executedthesame on behalfofsaidLimitedLiabilityCompany InWitnessWhereot Ihavehereuntoset my hand and affixedmy NotarialSealtheday and yearfirstabovewritten. (NotarySeal)NotaryPublicfortheStateof MONIKACRAIG Residingat Saff)song, Commission#EE 104783 Commission expires: EXHIBIT "A" Parcel1 90 feetoffoftheentireEastandofLots1 and2 ofDawes Subdivision(PlatD-36)ofa portionofBlock"C"ofBlack'sAdditionand FractionalLot 17ofLindleyand Guy's AdditiontoBozeman,Montena,accordingtotheofficialplatthereofonfileandofzecord intheofliceoftheClerkand RecorderofGallatinCounty,Monians.[DeedReference: Fihn 49,page50] EXIIIB1T "B" Parcel2 The West 40 feetofLots1,2,3,and 4 Dawes Subdivision,A portionofBlock"C" Black'sAdditiontoBozeman,Montana,andFractionalLot 17ofLindleyand Guy'sAdditiontoBozemen,Montana,accordingtotheofficialplatthereofonfileandofrecord intheofficeoftheClarkand RecorderofGallatinCounty,Montana [DeedReference: Fihn 51,page 1604] TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY for BLACK OLIVE APARTMENTS Bozeman, Montana Prepared for HomeBase Montana Prepared by MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 North Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102             November 7, 2016  TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY for BLACK OLIVE APARTMENTS Bozeman, Montana Prepared for HomeBase Montana Prepared by MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 1300 North Transtech Way Billings, MT 59102             November 7, 2016  i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 SITE LOCATION & DESCRIPTION 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3 Streets & Intersections 3 Traffic Volumes 5 Capacity 8 TRIP GENERATION 10 TRIP DISTRIBUTION 13 TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT 14 IMPACTS 16 Existing Traffic Volumes 16 Capacity 19 Safety 19 Future Traffic Volumes 21 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 24 APPENDIX A – TRAFFIC VOLUMES APPENDIX B – CAPACITY CALCULATIONS ii LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1. Existing Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary 9 Table 2. Black Olive Apartments Development Trip Generation 10 Table 3. Existing Plus Peak Hour Site Traffic Capacity Analysis Summary 20 Table 4. Year 2031 Peak PM Hour Capacity Analysis Summary 23 LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1. Development Site Location in Downtown Bozeman 2 Figure 2. Noon Hour Traffic Counts September 2016 6 Figure 3. Peak PM Hour Traffic Counts September 2016 7 Figure 4. Site Generated Traffic Volume Assignment 15 Figure 5. Noon Hour Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic Volumes 17 Figure 6. Peak PM Hour Existing Plus Site Generated Traffic Volumes 18 Figure 7. Peak PM Hour Year 2031 Traffic Volume Projections 22 Black Olive Apartments   Traffic Impact Study     Black Olive Apartments TIS page 1 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY INTRODUCTION This report summarizes a traffic impact study (TIS) conducted for the proposed Black Olive Apartments development project in downtown Bozeman. Marvin & Associates was retained by Home Base Developers to provide the TIS as required by the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC). The primary purpose of this study was to address specific impacts of the new subdivision development on the existing street system within a defined area of influence and at the proposed site access. The TIS also provides recommendations regarding the mitigation of any identified impacts. Having reviewed the proposed Black Olive Apartments site plan, Marvin & Associates completed an extensive analysis of existing conditions, addressed trip generation, trip distribution and traffic assignment, and evaluated resulting intersection capacity and safety impacts, prior to making recommendations regarding impact mitigation. Methodologies and analysis procedures within this study employ the latest technology and nationally accepted standards for site development and transportation impact assessment. Because of the unique nature of this development and the CBD area in which it would be located, a number of assumptions and qualifications were required in trip generation estimates and traffic assignment analysis. Extensive research into the current literature provided a basis for many of the assumptions utilized within this study. Recommendations made within this report are based on accepted standards and the professional judgment of the author, with consideration of the traveling public’s interests as a primary objective. SITE LOCATION & DESCRIPTION The proposed site is located within downtown Bozeman in the southeast corner of the Black Avenue and Olive Street intersection. The site is currently occupied by a two story office building containing approximately 9,700 square feet floor area with 22 on-site parking spaces on the east and south sides of the building. Land uses surrounding the development site include residential buildings south and east of the development lot and an office building, housing City of Bozeman offices, in the southwest corner of the intersection. An apartment complex is located in the northeast corner of Olive and Black while a parking lot and drive-thru mail boxes for the Main Bozeman post office is located in the northwest corner. The site location with respect to the Downtown Bozeman street system is illustrated in Figure 1. Black Olive Apartments TIS page 2 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Black Olive Apartments TIS page 3 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY The Black Olive Apartments, as proposed, would be a five story building providing 56 living units on the top four stories with an enclosed 34 car parking garage on the ground level. A fitness center and 1,180 square foot coffee shop would also be located on the ground level. The fitness center would be used exclusively by the building residents, while the coffee shop would be open to the public. In addition to the 34 vehicle parking garage, three spaces on the west side of the building would be reserved for Car Sharing. Car Sharing would be an amenity provided only to the apartment residents. Vehicular access to the building’s garage would be provided from Olive Street, near the east end of the proposed building, approximately mid-block between Black and Bozeman Avenues. Additional parking for the building would be accommodated by on-street parking along Olive Street adjacent to the development property. Additional information pertinent to the development’s operation can be found within the Trip Generation section of this report. EXISTING CONDITIONS Streets & Intersections Development of Black Olive Apartments could possibly impact several area intersections within the immediate area of the development. In addition, the BMC requires that all intersections between collector and arterial street within a one-half mile radius of the development be evaluated for impacts. and roadways. Therefore, the following intersections were evaluated within the scope of this TIS: Willson Avenue (minor arterial) & Main Street (arterial) Willson Avenue & W Babcock Street (minor arterial) Willson Avenue & Olive Street (local street) Babcock Street & Black Avenue (local street) Olive Street & Black Avenue Mendenhall Street (minor arterial) & Rouse Avenue (arterial) Main Street & Rouse Avenue Babcock Street & Rouse Avenue Church Avenue (collector) & Main Street Black Olive Apartments TIS page 4 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Local street intersections were included in the study because they are at locations that would have the highest potential for traffic impacts. Of the nine study intersections, only three are currently controlled by stop signs on the north-south minor streets. The remaining six intersections are all controlled by traffic signals. All of the traffic signals appear to operate with a background signal cycle of 120 seconds. All of the signals on Main Street operate in semi-actuated modes with side street detection while the two signals on Willson and the signal at Mendenhall appear to operate with fixed time intervals. Main Street is approximately 63’ wide through the study area and carries four traffic lanes with parking on both sides. The intersection of Main Street and Rouse is the only intersection with more than two signal phases, which includes a southbound left-turn interval to accommodate the high left- turn traffic volumes. The street width on Babcock varies substantially throughout the study corridor and ranges from 39’ to 62’ from back of curb to back of curb. Babcock carries two eastbound traffic lanes with parking on both sides. Street and curb offsets at intersections, and parking conditions, create sight distance limitations at some stop controlled intersections. Mendenhall Street, which is approximately 41’ wide at its intersection with Rouse, carries two westbound lanes of traffic with parking on both sides of the street. North-south streets within the study area range in width from 31’ to 38’. Parking is limited to one side of the street, in most cases, due to the narrow street sections. Within the core study area, sidewalks are approximately 10’ to 12’ wide and abut building walls, as is typical of most downtown environments. The mixture of vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, delivery truck loading and unloading operations, and high parking utilization uniquely identifies the area as the CBD. In this area, the balance between mobility and access is greatly skewed toward access and slower operating speeds are not only expected, but encouraged. Black Olive Apartments TIS page 5 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Traffic Volumes Existing traffic volumes were determined by performing manual intersection counts at study area intersections during the noon and peak PM hour periods. The noon hour peak was used instead of the am hour period because electronic counters on numerous streets within the CBD area indicated that there is no definitive am peak hour, but there is a substantial peak during the noon hour which is typical of most urban CBD areas. Mio-vision traffic recorder cameras were used for all of the intersections on Main Street and at the intersection of Rouse Avenue and Mendenhall Street. Manual Counts were taken at all of the other study intersections. Due to some variation in count starting and ending periods at some of the intersections, mathematical adjustments were made using electronic count data collected during the same time period. Figure 2 summarizes the existing noon peak hour turning volumes and Figure 3 summaries the peak pm hour turning movement counts. High pedestrian crossing numbers can be seen at most study intersections. In addition to the peak hour intersection turning movement counts, electronic traffic counters were set on Black Avenue, south of Babcock Street, and on Olive Street, east of Black Avenue. Hourly traffic volume summaries for these counters can be found in Appendix A of this report. It was found that the peak hour for traffic on the street system usually occurs between 4:30 and 5:30 with approximately 9.5% of the average weekday traffic (AWT). The noon hour is the beginning of the afternoon peak with approximately 8.4% of AWT. The noon hour also has the highest combined pedestrian and bicycle volumes at most intersections during the day. Appendix A also contains bicycle traffic volumes for the noon and peak pm hour periods at each of the intersections. It was found that the two intersections on Black Avenue had the greatest number of bicyclists. At the Black & Olive intersection, 45 entered in the noon hour and 39 in the peak pm hour. At the Black & Babcock intersection, 43 entered in the noon hour and 57 in the peak pm hour. Black Olive Apartments TIS page 6 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Black Olive Apartments TIS page 7 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Black Olive Apartments TIS page 8 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Capacity Capacity calculations were conducted for the peak noon and pm hours at all of the study intersections (see Appendix B). Table 1, on the following page, summarizes the results of the capacity calculations for both the noon and pm peak hour periods. Measures in the table include control delay (seconds/vehicle), level of service (LOS), volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio, and 95% queue length. The calculation results showed that all approach movements at these intersections, with exception of two street approaches, currently operate at or above an acceptable LOS “C” during both peak hour study periods. The westbound approach at the Intersection of Olive Street and Willson Avenue operates at LOS “D” with 44.1 seconds delay per vehicle in the peak pm hour. The northbound and southbound Rouse Avenue approaches to Babcock Street operate at LOS “D” with average delays slightly above 25 seconds per vehicle in the peak pm hour. The observed operations at all of the study intersections appear to support the theoretical levels of service and calculated vehicle queues shown in Table 1. Black Olive Apartments TIS page 9 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LTR LTR L TR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)13.3 13.3 30.4 31.5 32.0 LOS B BCCC V/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.22 0.32 0.34 Queue Length (95%)65355 LTR LTR L TR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)16.3 17.1 30.5 28.7 30.0 LOS B BCCC V/C Ratio 0.36 0.41 0.38 0.35 0.42 Queue Length (95%)77666 LTR T R L T Control Delay (s/veh)24.1 17.5 16.6 16.4 17.6LOSC BBBB V/C Ratio 0.32 0.23 0.15 0.12 0.23 Queue Length (95%)6 6256LTR T R L T Control Delay (s/veh)23.8 19.0 17.1 17.5 18.1 LOS C BBBB V/C Ratio 0.30 0.34 0.19 0.19 0.27 Queue Length (95%)6 9336 LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)27.7 30.8 13.8 12.9 LOS CCBB V/C Ratio 0.08 0.29 0.34 0.26 Queue Length (95%)1465 LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)27.8 44.1 16.5 13.2 LOS CDBB V/C Ratio 0.08 0.73 0.51 0.29 Queue Length (95%)210115 Control Delay (s/veh)LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%) Control Delay (s/veh)LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%)LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)7.8 7.4 12.4 11.9 LOS A A BB V/C Ratio 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.27 Queue Length (95%)1012LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)8.0 7.5 14.9 16.8 LOS A A BC V/C Ratio 0.02 0.02 0.14 0.46 Queue Length (95%)1113 LTR L TR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)31.1 12.4 13.3 11.6 14.2LOSCBBBB V/C Ratio 0.41 0.18 0.29 0.12 0.36 Queue Length (95%)72727 LTR L TR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)34.6 13.4 14.5 12.7 15.2 LOS BBBBB V/C Ratio 0.60 0.24 0.39 0.20 0.43 Queue Length (95%)93849 LTR LTR LTR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)27.5 27.7 30.0 16.2 14.9 LOS CCCBB V/C Ratio 0.44 0.47 0.43 0.28 0.12 Queue Length (95%)68734 LTR LTR LTR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)28.4 29.3 33.1 17.5 15.6LOSCCCBB V/C Ratio 0.49 0.55 0.59 0.39 0.19 Queue Length (95%)9101054 Control Delay (s/veh)LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%) Control Delay (s/veh)LOSV/C Ratio Queue Length (95%)LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)12.9 13.5 30.7 27.5 LOS BBCC V/C Ratio 0.29 0.34 0.28 0.07 Queue Length (95%)6641LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)13.6 14.5 33.0 28.3 LOS BBCC V/C Ratio 0.35 0.42 0.40 0.13 Queue Length (95%)6852 One-Way Flow 13 TR LT 26.0 29.7 NA DD 0.25 0.51 Movement Group OVERALL Rouse Avenue & Main Street Noon Hour 26.0C 0.48 Movement Group Overall LOS Black Avenue & Olive Street Noon Hour B Movement Group Overall LOS Black Avenue & Olive Street Peak PM Hour B OVERALL 17.4B 0.32 Movement Group OVERALL Church Avenue & Main Street Peak PM Hour 17.1B 0.41 Church Avenue & Main Street Noon Hour OVERALL 27.4C 0.61 Overall LOS B Overall LOS C OVERALL 15.5B SB Movement Group Willson Avenue & Babcock Street Noon Hour Movement Group Movement Group Willson Avenue & Olive Street Noon Hour Movement Group Willson Avenue & Olive Street Peak PM Hour 1 17.2NAC 0.09 One-Way Flow TR Movement Group Rouse Avenue & Main Street Peak PM Hour Movement Group Movement Group Rouse Avenue & Mendenhall Street Noon Hour Movement Group Movement Group Rouse Avenue & Babcock Avenue Noon Hour Table 1. Existing Peak Hour Capacity Analysis Summary Movement Group Willson Avenue & Main Street Peak PM Hour Movement Group Willson Avenue & Main Street Noon Hour Willson Avenue & Babcock Street Peak PM Hour Intersection MOE EB WB NB One-Way Flow TR LT One-Way Flow TR LT 1 LT 12.5B 0.20 Rouse Avenue & Babcock Avenue Peak PM Hour Movement Group Intersection OVERALL 20.2C 0.27 OVERALL 20.1C C 0.59 OVERALL18.3B 0.33 OVERALL 20.9C 0.42 0.32 OVERALL 17.4B 0.32 OVERALL24.3 Overall LOS Black Avenue & Babcock Street Noon Hour 17.2 19.3NACCC 0.19 0.3112 Movement Group Overall LOS Black Avenue & Babcock Street Peak PM Hour 14.7 22.0 NA BCC 0.15 0.46 13 0.38 Movement Group OVERALL Rouse Avenue & Mendenhall Street Peak PM Hour 19.5B 0.49 Black Olive Apartments TIS page 10 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TRIP GENERATION Table 2 is a trip generation summary for the Black Olive Apartments development. Trip generation rates from ITE’s Trip Generation Report, 9th Edition were evaluated to determine the land use rates that would be most representative of the proposed development land uses. Within Table 2, trip generation rates and resulting trip projections for the average weekday and the am and pm peak hours for the development are noted. The proposed development, consisting of 56 apartment units and an 1,180 square foot coffee shop, would generate approximately 844 average weekday trips (AWT) with 93 in the am peak hour of the generator and 83 trips in the peak pm hour of adjacent street traffic. It should be noted that the ITE report does not provide a rate for the noon hour, but the peak am hour of the generator was used in the analysis of noon hour impacts. Thus, there is a possibility that noon hour impacts could be over-estimated within the study analysis. Table 2. Black Olive Apartments Development Trip Generation No. of Rate Total Total Total Units Units Rate Trips Rate Trips Enter Exit Rate Trips Enter Exit New Development Land Uses Code 220 Apartment 56 Apt. Unit 1 372 2 29 6 23 3 35 23 12 Code 936 Coffee/Donut Shop 1.18 1000 sf 4 472 5 64 33 31 6 48 24 24 844 933954 834736 Existing Land Use Trips Code 710 General Office Building 9.7 1000 sf 7 107 8 15 13 2 9 14 2 12 737 782652 694524 Trip Mode & Class Adjustments Pedestrian & Bike Modes Apartments 86 7 1 6 6 4 2 Coffee Shop 109 15 8 7 8 4 4 Internal Capture Within Structure 37 3 1 2 4 3 1 Passerby Traffic - Coffee Shop 130 18 9 9 14 7 7 362 431924 321814 375 35 7 28 37 27 10 1 - T = 6.65(X) 2 - T = 0.51 (20% enter) 3 - T = 0.62(X) (65% enter) 4 - T = 400(X) (Not Provided based on 10% PM) 5 - T = 54.21(X) (51% enter) 6 - T = 40.75(X) (50% enter) 7 - T = 11.03(X) 8 - T = 1.56(X) (88% enter) 9 - T = 1.49(X) (17% enter) Total Development Net Vehicular Trips = Peak AM HourAve. Weekday Peak PM Hour Total Potential Trips = Potential Trip Increase = Total Trip Mode and Class Reductions = Black Olive Apartments TIS page 11 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Since the proposed development will be replacing an existing office building, ITE Trip Generation Report rates were used to estimate the number of trips that could be associated with the existing office building. In this case, the office building would generate approximately 107 AWT with 15 in the am hour and 14 in the peak pm hour. Subtracting existing office building trips from the potential development trips results in the net potential trips of 737 AWT, with 78 trips in the am hour and 69 trips in the pm hour as shown in Table 2. Land use developments typically produce multi-modal trips that include pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips, in addition to other vehicular trips. When evaluating vehicular impacts, these non- vehicular and transit-related types of trips can often be considered negligible in terms of their potential impacts on site access points. The proposed development, being located within the CBD, which has numerous commercial, retail, entertainment, employment, and dining opportunities within a socially vibrant downtown area, would have enormous potential for alternate trip modes. That potential is magnified further by the relative proximity of the development to the CBD core. Estimates of alternate trip modes can be based on existing transportation modes in the immediate area and/or by examining trip distribution relative to pedestrian and bicycle attractions and mode travel times. For this study, mode split traffic data at two intersections adjacent to the site were collected and the relative proportions of trips by mode were calculated. It was determined that approximately 23% of AWT are pedestrians and bicycles with 30% in the am hour and 16% in the pm hour. This results in approximately 195 AWT (86 apartment trips and 109 coffee shop trips) with 22 in the am hour and 14 in the pm hour, as shown in Table 2. Trip generation potential can be further refined by determining the number of “new” external trips that would appear, as vehicular traffic, at development access points. It is common for developments containing multiple land uses and/or complementary facilities to have trip origins and destinations within the development site boundaries. These trips are part of the total trip generation number, but do not have origins or destinations external to the development site, and as such, do not have an impact on the traffic network external to the development. These types of trips are known as “Internal Capture Trips” (ICT). Because there would be a mix of residential developments and also employees at the coffee shop and the fitness center there is a definite possibility that ICT trips could occur within Black Olive Apartments TIS page 12 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY the confines of the building. The ITE Trip Generation Report provides data and methods to estimate ICT that were used for this study. The ICT methodology resulted in approximately 10% of the residential trips being ICT trips or approximately 37 AWT trips with 3 in the am hour and 4 in the pm hour. Once the number of external vehicle trips is determined, they can be further categorized as primary purpose, diverted link, or passerby purpose trips. Primary purpose trips are trips for which the development is a primary destination from any particular origin. Diverted link trips are trips made to a development as a secondary destination that must be diverted from a path between the origin and primary destination. Passerby trips are also trips made to a development as a secondary destination, but without a diversion from the primary trip path (i.e., a stop on the way home from work). Passerby trips do not represent “new” trips added to the adjacent street system. Thus, site generated passerby trips must be considered as new external trips (movements) at the site approach or approaches, but do not appear as new trips on the adjacent street system. For this development, passerby trips for vehicles could be applied to the coffee shop portion of the development. The ITE report does not have an extensive data base on coffee shops and passerby estimates are sketchy at best. Thus, an extensive literature search was conducted to quantify passerby estimates. From the number of studies accessed, it appeared that the range of passerby trips was between 40% and 89%. In an effort to be conservative, 40% of the external vehicular trips were considered to be passerby trips. This resulted in approximately 130 passerby AWT, with 18 in the am hour and 14 in the pm hour as shown in Table 2. Table 2 presents the final net number of vehicular trips that would be added to the street system within the CBD area of Bozeman. Subtracting the pedestrian and bicycle mode trips, the internal capture trips, and the passerby trips from the potential trip increase at this site results in 375 AWT, with 35 trips in the am (noon) hour and 37 in the pm hour. It should also be noted that because of parking conditions in the CBD area, the passerby trips would actually become pedestrian trips as persons accessing the coffee shop make their way from adjacent parking lots and on-street parking areas. This, would result in vehicle trips to the development site being less than shown in Table 1. Black Olive Apartments TIS page 13 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY One aspect of the site development that has not been quantified is the reduction in vehicular trips that could result from the Car Sharing feature being employed at this site. Three shared vehicles will be made available to the residents of the building. The shared vehicles have the potential to reduce vehicular trips even further. Car sharing is a relatively new phenomenon that has manifested itself by the emergence of a number of new on-line companies that have a vast number of subscribers in the United States, Canada, and Europe. A literature research revealed a number of non-technical studies touting the benefits of Car Sharing. One technical study for Car Sharing within major west coast cities, in particular Vancouver, BC indicated that the approximate reduction in vehicular trips associated with each shared car ranged from 3 to 11 trips. Since data for the development concept being proposed is not available, no reduction in vehicular trips could be applied, but the potential for far fewer vehicular trips than estimated in this study is a very real possibility. TRIP DISTRIBUTION There are various methods available for determining the directional distribution of trips to and from site developments. For developments within a large urbanized area, the TIS is best accomplished through the creation of a computerized transportation model of the urban street system, which includes the proposed development changes. When the creation of a model is not feasible, realistic estimates can be made by determining the distribution of existing traffic volumes on the surrounding street system. The existing distribution can then be applied to newly generated trips, with adjustments made based upon the likely trip origins and destinations associated with the particular development land use or uses. For the Black Olive Apartments development, a basic area of influence model was used. With potential for trip origins and destinations to be made throughout Bozeman and the entire regional area. Large polygon areas were plotted on aerial photos of the Bozeman urban area. The polygon boundaries were defined by direction of access on the entire street system. One of the polygons encompassed an area surrounding the development that represented prime trip attraction for bicycle and pedestrian travel modes. The boundaries of that polygon were based on a 1,400-foot radius, which is the maximum distance that pedestrians will walk, instead of using a motorized vehicle. Black Olive Apartments TIS page 14 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Approximate population and commercial densities were estimated within each of the polygon areas. The percentage densities of each polygon was calculated based on the entire study area and applied to street links accessing the site. A Gravity Equation using the inverse square of the travel time to the center of each polygon was applied to the densities and the relative percentage attraction was calculated. It was determined that approximately 50% of the trips would be attracted to the pedestrian/bicycle polygon. When applied to trip generation attributed to the residential portion of the development, it resulted in approximately 30% of total development trips which was approximately the same as the trip generation assumptions for pedestrian and bicycle modes. Distribution vehicular trips were then calculated by using the remaining polygons using the gravity model. The following vehicular trip distribution percentages were calculated: o North via Rouse Avenue 21% o Southwest via Willson Avenue 25% o West via Olive Street & Babcock Street 4% o West via Main Street 35% o East via Main Street 15% TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT The assignment of site traffic to the street system and site access points is dependent upon several factors. Two such factors are external directional distribution and localized operational site conditions such as one-way streets and intersection delays. Directional distribution proportions were determined in the trip distribution analysis to provide access traffic demand estimates. The distribution/assignment estimates represent traffic movements to and from the site that would occur depending on the directions of arrival or departure relative to the chosen access point. The combined calculation of demand and least time accessibility were used to estimate likely movement volumes at each individual intersection. Turning movements at each access point were then calculated through the application of trip distribution to development vehicular trip generation estimates. Black Olive Apartments TIS page 15 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Black Olive Apartments TIS page 16 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Figure 4 presents results of the vehicular and pedestrian traffic volume assignment analysis for average weekday traffic (AWT) and peak noon and pm hour subdivision development conditions. AWT volumes shown in Figure 4 indicate that Black Avenue north of Babcock Street would have the highest site generated traffic volumes at approximately 206 AWT. Site pedestrian traffic would be mostly concentrated at the intersections of Olive Street and Babcock Street with Black Avenue, while pedestrians would greatly disperse onto other streets at key intersections farther from the site. IMPACTS Existing Traffic Volumes Traffic volume impacts for site developments can often be quantified by determining the change in traffic volumes expected at various points within the surrounding network of roads and streets. Site traffic assignments give an indication of what volume of traffic could potentially be added to the street system during the average weekday (AWT). Yet in almost all cases, it is very difficult to determine AWT on any section of street to within 10% accuracy. Thus, impact analyses on streets with relative percentage increases less than 10% are not normally considered to be significant. In this case, the highest AWT impact on any street would be on Black Avenue north of Black Avenue where site generated traffic would be approximately 3% of existing traffic. While the percent change in AWT can be used to identify general locations where impacts could be significant, it is the volume changes during peak traffic flow periods that provide specific information on the type and location of impacts that could potentially occur. Figures 5 and 6 present the calculated existing plus site traffic volumes that would be associated with development of Black Olive Apartments. The intersection volumes shown in Figures 5 and 6 are used in capacity calculations to determine whether the additional traffic would have noticeable impacts on each intersection’s efficiency. Black Olive Apartments TIS page 17 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Black Olive Apartments TIS page 18 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Black Olive Apartments TIS page 19 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Capacity Table 3 presents capacity analysis results for potentially impacted intersections using existing plus development generated peak noon and pm hour traffic volumes. All of the potentially impacted intersections would remain at or above an acceptable LOS “C” except for the two intersection that have movements that operate at LOS “D”. In comparing Table 3 to Table 1, it can be seen that only minor changes in delay and v/c ratios would occur. Some of the vehicle queues would change with single vehicles increases in some lanes and single vehicle decreases in others. None of the intersections would have an overall intersection LOS less than “C”. Table 3 also presents the capacity results for the developments garage access midblock on Olive Street. The LOS for the garage access would be “B” with no more than a one vehicle queue on any approach. Safety In terms of accident potential at the study accesses and intersections, any increase in traffic would result in a commensurate increase in exposure, which has the potential to result in a higher number of total accidents at area intersections. However, it is unlikely that accident and/or severity rates would increase as a result of the additional demand created by site-generated traffic. . Black Olive Apartments TIS page 20 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LTR LTR L TR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)13.3 13.4 30.4 31.5 32.0LOSB BCCC V/C Ratio 0.32 0.33 0.22 0.32 0.34 Queue Length (95%)6 5354 LTR LTR L TR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)16.4 17.2 30.5 28.7 30.0 LOS B BCCC V/C Ratio 0.37 0.42 0.38 0.35 0.42 Queue Length (95%)5 8566LTR T R L T Control Delay (s/veh)24.1 17.5 16.6 16.4 17.6LOSCBBBB V/C Ratio 0.32 0.23 0.15 0.12 0.23 Queue Length (95%)66256 LTR T R L T Control Delay (s/veh)23.8 19.0 17.1 17.5 18.1 LOS CBBBB V/C Ratio 0.30 0.34 0.19 0.19 0.27 Queue Length (95%)69336LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)27.7 31.1 13.8 12.9LOSCCBB V/C Ratio 0.08 0.31 0.34 0.26 Queue Length (95%)1565 LTR LTR LTR LTRControl Delay (s/veh)27.8 44.6 16.7 13.2 LOS CDBB V/C Ratio 0.09 0.74 0.52 0.29 Queue Length (95%)210105 Control Delay (s/veh)LOSV/C Ratio Queue Length (95%) Control Delay (s/veh)LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%)LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)7.9 7.5 13.4 12.7 LOS A A BB V/C Ratio 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.29 Queue Length (95%)1012LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)8.1 7.6 16.2 18.6LOSAACC V/C Ratio 0.02 0.02 0.14 0.46 Queue Length (95%)1113 LTR L TR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)31.1 12.4 13.3 11.6 14.2 LOS CBBBB V/C Ratio 0.41 0.18 0.30 0.12 0.36 Queue Length (95%)72617LTR L TR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)34.6 13.5 14.6 12.8 15.3LOSCBBBB V/C Ratio 0.60 0.25 0.40 0.20 0.44 Queue Length (95%)93839 LTR LTR LTR L TRControl Delay (s/veh)27.5 27.7 30.1 16.2 14.9 LOS CCCBB V/C Ratio 0.44 0.47 0.44 0.28 0.12 Queue Length (95%)69734 LTR LTR LTR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)28.4 29.3 33.2 17.6 15.7 LOS CCCBBV/C Ratio 0.49 0.55 0.60 0.39 0.20 Queue Length (95%)10 10 9 4 4 Control Delay (s/veh)LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%) Control Delay (s/veh)LOSV/C Ratio Queue Length (95%)LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)12.9 13.5 30.7 27.5LOSBBCC V/C Ratio 0.29 0.34 0.28 0.07 Queue Length (95%)6741 LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)13.6 14.7 33.0 28.3 LOS BBCC V/C Ratio 0.35 0.43 0.40 0.13 Queue Length (95%)6752LLR Control Delay (s/veh)7.5 10.5LOSAB V/C Ratio 0.15 0.03 Queue Length (95%)01 LLR Control Delay (s/veh)7.6 11.9 LOS A B V/C Ratio 0.24 0.02 Queue Length (95%)01 Apartment Garage Access on Olive Street Noon B Movement Group Overall LOS Apartment Garage Access on Olive Street Noon B Movement Group Overall LOS Movement Group OVERALL Church Avenue & Main Street Peak PM Hour 17.1B 0.42 14Movement Group OVERALL Church Avenue & Main Street Noon Hour 15.5B 0.32 Movement Group One-Way Flow TR LT Overall LOS Rouse Avenue & Babcock Avenue Peak PM Hour 26.5 32.7NA D D C 0.25 0.55 Rouse Avenue & Babcock Avenue Noon Hour 17.5 13.0NA C B B 0.09 0.2111 Rouse Avenue & Main Street Peak PM Hour 27.4C 0.61 Movement Group One-Way Flow TR LT Overall LOS Movement Group OVERALL Rouse Avenue & Main Street Noon Hour 26.1C 0.49 Movement Group OVERALL Movement Group OVERALL Rouse Avenue & Mendenhall Street Peak PM Hour 19.5B 0.50 Movement Group OVERALL Rouse Avenue & Mendenhall Street Noon Hour 17.4B 0.38 13 Movement Group Overall LOS Black Avenue & Olive Street Peak PM Hour B Black Avenue & Olive Street Noon Hour B Black Avenue & Babcock Street Peak PM Hour C Movement Group Overall LOS 15.2 24.3NA C C 0.17 0.51 Willson Avenue & Main Street Noon Hour 18.3B 0.33 One-Way Flow TR LTMovement Group Overall LOS Black Avenue & Babcock Street Noon Hour 17.9 19.9 NA C C C Table 3. Existing Plus Peak Hour Site Traffic Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection MOE EB WB NB SB Intersection Movement Group OVERALL 0.25 0.33 12 Movement Group One-Way Flow TR LT Overall LOS Movement Group OVERALL Willson Avenue & Olive Street Peak PM Hour 24.6C 0.60 Willson Avenue & Olive Street Noon Hour 17.7B 0.33 Movement Group OVERALL Movement Group OVERALL Willson Avenue & Babcock Street Peak PM Hour 20.1C 0.32 Willson Avenue & Babcock Street Noon Hour 20.2C 0.27 Movement Group OVERALL Willson Avenue & Main Street Peak PM Hour 21.0C 0.42 Movement Group OVERALL Black Olive Apartments TIS page 21 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Future Traffic Volumes Because the development site is located near the center of the CBD which has fully occupied for many decades, the only significant changes in traffic would occur due to redevelopment of existing properties, increased densities, and land use changes. In 2003 and 2014, Marvin & Associates prepared a TIS for the Arts at City Center project in Downtown Bozeman. That study included extensive traffic counts at almost all downtown intersections as well and electronic counts on key streets. Eight of the nine intersections counts taken in 2016 were compared to year 2013 counts at the same intersections and it was determined that the net traffic growth over the past 13 years was approximately 1%, which is incredible considering all of the changes that have occurred in the CBD in the past 13 years. It appears that some of the growth has been absorbed by increases in pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Given these facts, it appears that future traffic projections based on historic records would be minimal. An assumption was made that an increase of 5% over the next 15-year period would not be unreasonable considering the past trends. Therefore, a 5% increase was applied to the peak pm hour traffic conditions for analysis of future (year 20131) conditions. Figure 7 presents the peak pm hour year 2031 traffic projections at the nine study intersections and at the development’s garage access on Olive Street. Future projections for the year 2031 peak noon hour were not completed since the peak pm hour existing plus site traffic conditions were the only conditions that resulted in any traffic movements operating at less than LOS “C”. Black Olive Apartments TIS page 22 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Black Olive Apartments TIS page 23 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Future Capacity Table 4 presents a summary of capacity calculations for future (year 2301) conditions based on the traffic volumes shown in Figure 7. In comparing Table 4 results to Table 3, it can be seen that same intersection approaches at Olive & Willson and at Rouse and Babcock would still be at a LOS less than “C”, except that the southbound approach to Babcock would be at LOS “E”. In addition, the southbound approach on Black Avenue at Babcock Street would operate at LOS “D” with 31.1 seconds of delay per vehicle. With respect to overall intersection LOS, none of the intersections would have a LOS less than “C”. The development garage access would still operate at LOS B” in the year 2031. LTR LTR L TR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)16.9 17.9 32.3 29.4 31.2 LOS BBCCC V/C Ratio 0.40 0.47 0.44 0.39 0.47 Queue Length (95%)7 8677 LTR T R L T Control Delay (s/veh)24.3 19.5 17.3 18.1 18.4 LOS C BBBB V/C Ratio 0.33 0.37 0.21 0.23 0.30 Queue Length (95%)6 11336 LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)27.9 48.8 17.5 13.5 LOS CDBB V/C Ratio 0.10 0.80 0.56 0.31 Queue Length (95%)211115 Control Delay (s/veh) LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%) LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)8.2 7.6 17.5 23.1 LOS AACC V/C Ratio 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.60 Queue Length (95%)1114 LTR L TR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)33.8 14.3 16.3 14.4 15.5 LOS CBBBB V/C Ratio 0.62 0.25 0.44 0.25 0.38 Queue Length (95%)11 39 57 LTR LTR LTR L TR Control Delay (s/veh)29.8 30.2 34.7 18.0 15.8 LOS CCCBB V/C Ratio 0.55 0.59 0.65 0.43 0.21 Queue Length (95%)8101055 Control Delay (s/veh) LOS V/C Ratio Queue Length (95%) LTR LTR LTR LTR Control Delay (s/veh)14.0 15.4 33.6 28.5 LOS BBCC V/C Ratio 0.38 0.48 0.42 0.14 Queue Length (95%)7962 LLR Control Delay (s/veh)7.6 12.4 LOS AB V/C Ratio 0.27 0.02 Queue Length (95%)01 Movement Group OVERALL Willson Avenue & Main Street Peak PM Hour 21.8C 0.47 Table 4. Year 2031 Peak PM Hour Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection MOE EB WB NB SB Intersection Willson Avenue & Olive Street Peak PM Hour 26.2C 0.65 Movement Group OVERALL Movement Group OVERALL Willson Avenue & Babcock Street Peak PM Hour 20.6C 0.35 Movement Group One-Way Flow TR LT Overall LOS Black Avenue & Babcock Street Peak PM Hour 16.4 31.1 NA C D C 0.20 0.61 Movement Group Overall LOS Black Avenue & Olive Street Peak PM Hour B 14 Rouse Avenue & Main Street Peak PM Hour 28.4C 0.66 Movement Group OVERALL Movement Group OVERALL Rouse Avenue & Mendenhall Street Peak PM Hour 20.4B 0.51 Movement Group One-Way Flow TR LT Overall LOS Rouse Avenue & Babcock Avenue Peak PM Hour 29.8 41.7 NA D E C 0.30 0.64 Movement Group OVERALL Church Avenue & Main Street Peak PM Hour 17.6B 0.46 24 Movement Group Overall LOS Apartment Garage Access on Olive Street Noon B Black Olive Apartments TIS page 24 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Analysis of trip generation estimates, traffic assignments, and capacity calculations show that the development of Black Olive Apartments would not have any appreciable impacts on traffic operations on the surrounding street system. Analysis of downtown intersections for year 2031 conditions indicate that none of the intersections would operate at less than an overall LOS “C”. From our analysis it appears that the development will provide an environment for traffic reduction commensurate with the current trends in the downtown area. The commercial facilities with the residential building and the Car Sharing concept would provide the atmosphere which would reduce motorized vehicular impacts appreciably. It is recommended that garage access be designed to allow sufficient sight distance on Olive Street similar to requirements for mid-block alley approaches. APPENDIX A Traffic Count Volumes Hour9/8/2016 9/9/2016 Average % of9/8/2016 9/9/2016 Average % of9/8/2016 9/9/2016 Average % ofBeginThursday Wednesday Weekday Weekday Thursday WednesdayWeekday Weekday Thursday Wednesday Weekday Weekday06 6 0.7% 19 19 0.8% 0 25 25 0.8%15 5 0.6% 25 25 1.0% 0 30 30 0.9%21 1 0.1% 15 15 0.6% 0 16 16 0.5%30 0 0.0% 3 3 0.1% 0 3 3 0.1%41 1 0.1% 2 2 0.1% 0 3 3 0.1%50 0 0.0% 1 1 0.0% 0 1 1 0.0%66 6 0.7% 21 21 0.9% 0 27 27 0.8%725 25 3.0% 68 68 2.8% 0 93 93 2.8%860 60 7.3% 121 121 4.9% 0 181 181 5.5%951 51 6.2% 119 119 4.8% 0 170 170 5.2%1041 41 5.0% 131 131 5.3% 0 172 172 5.2%1147 47 5.7% 156 156 6.4% 0 203 203 6.2%1260 60 7.3% 190 190 7.7% 0 250 250 7.6%1366 66 8.0% 208 208 8.5% 0 274 274 8.4%1455 71 63 7.6% 179 195 187 7.6% 234 266 250 7.6%1562 65 64 7.7% 193 201 197 8.0% 255 266 261 7.9%1685 77 81 9.8% 197 212 205 8.3% 282 289 286 8.7%17106 75 91 11.0% 226 234 230 9.4% 332 309 321 9.8%1854 64 59 7.2% 170 171 171 6.9% 224 235 230 7.0%1931 33 32 3.9% 115 136 126 5.1% 146 169 158 4.8%2017 25 21 2.5% 84 102 93 3.8% 101 127 114 3.5%2118 17 18 2.1% 64 77 71 2.9% 82 94 88 2.7%2211 20 16 1.9% 57 74 66 2.7% 68 94 81 2.5%2310 14 12 1.5% 29 37 33 1.3% 39 51 45 1.4%00000Total449 830 824 100.0% 1314 2518 2456 100.0% 1763 3348 3280 100.0%EASTBOUND WESTBOUND BOTH DIRECTIONSOLIVE STREET EAST OF BLACK AVENUE0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%10.0%12.0%0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223% AWTBegin HourHourly Variations0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%10.0%12.0%0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223% AWTBegin HourHourly Variations0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%6.0%7.0%8.0%9.0%10.0%01234567891011121314151617181920212223% AWTBegin HourHourly Variations Hour9/8/2016 9/9/2016 Average % of9/8/2016 9/9/2016 Average % of9/8/2016 9/9/2016 Average % ofBeginThursday Wednesday Weekday Weekday Thursday WednesdayWeekday Weekday Thursday Wednesday Weekday Weekday06 6 0.4% 2 2 0.3% 0 8 8 0.4%17 7 0.5% 2 2 0.3% 0 9 9 0.4%23 3 0.2% 2 2 0.3% 0 5 5 0.2%31 1 0.1% 1 1 0.1% 0 2 2 0.1%43 3 0.2% 1 1 0.1% 0 4 4 0.2%54 4 0.3% 4 4 0.5% 0 8 8 0.4%614 14 1.0% 15 15 1.9% 0 29 29 1.3%752 52 3.7% 26 26 3.3% 0 78 78 3.5%861 61 4.3% 47 47 6.0% 0 108 108 4.9%986 86 6.0% 41 41 5.2% 0 127 127 5.7%1089 89 6.3% 65 65 8.2% 0 154 154 7.0%11107 107 7.5% 63 63 8.0% 0 170 170 7.7%12126 126 8.9% 58 58 7.4% 0 184 184 8.3%13100 100 7.0% 70 70 8.9% 0 170 170 7.7%14114 114 8.0% 62 62 7.9% 0 176 176 8.0%15179 110 145 10.2% 52 68 60 7.6% 231 178 205 9.3%16158 104 131 9.2% 61 60 61 7.7% 219 164 192 8.7%17165 103 134 9.4% 64 76 70 8.9% 229 179 204 9.2%1878 65 72 5.0% 49 54 52 6.5% 127 119 123 5.6%1947 65 56 3.9% 36 28 32 4.1% 83 93 88 4.0%2041 56 49 3.4% 22 23 23 2.9% 63 79 71 3.2%2122 39 31 2.1% 16 13 15 1.8% 38 52 45 2.0%2210 30 20 1.4% 13 12 13 1.6% 23 42 33 1.5%239 17 13 0.9% 3 8 6 0.7% 12 25 19 0.8%400000Total709 1366 1422 100.0% 316 801 788 100.0% 1025 2163 2210 100.0%SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND BOTH DIRECTIONSBLACK AVENUE SOUTH OF BABCOCK STREET0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%6.0%7.0%8.0%9.0%10.0%0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223% AWTBegin HourHourly Variations0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%10.0%12.0%0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223% AWTBegin HourHourly Variations0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%6.0%7.0%8.0%9.0%10.0%01234567891011121314151617181920212223% AWTBegin HourHourly Variations 2016 EXISTING NOON HOUR BIKE COUNTS000MENDENHALL STREET00000 0000 0000 000000000020000 20000000 02000 0010 01 10 0111 0110 1143 1410 0100 00 30 03000000 0000000 20002031100 0 11 20 6 4000 0101 06000 00 40 00 02 0022 02106 0986 0620 02 60 09 80 06000 4202 0200 0 10 26 6 2036810 262 8 18 8020 49500 04 154 21364 08245 102562 44 90 112080 1228 8 10 516 15CHURCH AVEWillson & Olive Black & OliveWILLSON AVE BLACK AVE ROUSE AVEChurch & MainBABCOCK STREETWillson & Babcock Black & Babcock Rouse & BabcockRouse & MainRouse & MendenhallOLIVE STREETMAIN STREETWillson & Main 2016 EXISTING PM HOUR BIKE COUNTS000MENDENHALL STREET00010 0132 1320 020000006225102 110500 00 01000 0000 00 50 0500 0000 0072 5700 0000 00 20 020100 20 0105102 1162244362 2 19 24 3 3011 0154 1 1101 00 08 00 31 1331 03189 01761 1631 03 181 017 31 13011 0164 1 112 2 16 20 3 3436610 20010 713000 14214 1 1 17 5 1 0 330 12 14 33 18 11 2 1816 3 2 16 13 1 1 15084 2122512 61617 22CHURCH AVEWillson & Olive Black & OliveWILLSON AVE BLACK AVE ROUSE AVEChurch & MainBABCOCK STREETWillson & Babcock Black & Babcock Rouse & BabcockRouse & MainRouse & MendenhallOLIVE STREETMAIN STREETWillson & Main APPENDIX B-1 Existing Capacity Calculations HCM Analysis Summary Existing R MarvinNoon Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Main Noon Exist Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 LTR 3 27 0.97 0 442 0.97 1 79 0.97 0 38 0.97 0 474 0.97 1 21 0.97 0 72 0.97 0 125 0.97 0 42 0.97 0 21 0.97 0 119 0.97 0 29 0.97 0 20 73 0 0 --- 5 5 71 0 0 --- 5 5 110 0 0 --- 5 5 186 0 0 --- 5 Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 70.0 3.5 1.5 40.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1720 0.185 0.583 LTR 0.317 13.3 B 13.3 B WB * LTR 1699 0.187 0.583 LTR 0.320 13.3 B 13.3 B NB L 331 0.075 0.333 L 0.224 30.4 C 31.1 C TR 522 0.107 0.333 TR 0.320 31.5 C SB * LTR 498 0.114 0.333 LTR 0.341 32.0 C 32.0 C Intersection: Delay = 18.3sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.33 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.30SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing R MarvinNoon Main Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Main Noon Exist App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 5 / 6 14.3 0.0 All 14.3 0.0 WB LTR 4 / 5 15.8 0.0 All 15.8 0.0 NB L 2 / 3 2.7 0.0 TR 3 / 5 11.6 0.0 All 9.1 0.0 SB LTR 4 / 5 9.2 0.0 All 9.2 0.0 Intersect. 12.7 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 27 442 79 38 474 21 72 125 42 21 119 29 1 69 24 1 69 24 2 39 24 2 39 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing R MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Main PM Exist Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 LTR 3 20 0.95 0 457 0.95 1 100 0.95 0 49 0.95 0 534 0.95 1 22 0.95 0 130 0.95 0 166 0.95 0 40 0.95 0 26 0.95 0 187 0.95 0 23 0.95 0 20 60 0 0 --- 5 5 25 0 0 --- 5 5 86 0 0 --- 5 5 109 0 0 --- 5 Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 65.0 3.5 1.5 45.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1613 0.197 0.542 LTR 0.363 16.3 B 16.3 B WB * LTR 1529 0.224 0.542 LTR 0.413 17.1 B 17.1 B NB L 357 0.144 0.375 L 0.384 30.5 C 29.4 C TR 599 0.133 0.375 TR 0.354 28.7 C SB * LTR 579 0.157 0.375 LTR 0.420 30.0 C 30.0 C Intersection: Delay = 20.9sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.42 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.38SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing R MarvinPeak PM Main Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Main PM Exist App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 5 / 7 14.0 0.0 All 14.0 0.0 WB LTR 5 / 7 13.0 0.0 All 13.0 0.0 NB L 4 / 6 2.8 0.0 TR 3 / 6 14.6 0.0 All 9.8 0.0 SB LTR 5 / 6 9.5 0.0 All 9.5 0.0 Intersect. 12.0 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 20 457 100 49 534 22 130 166 40 26 187 23 1 64 24 1 64 24 2 44 24 2 44 24 HCM Analysis Summary ExistingR MarvinNoon Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Babcock St/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Babcock Noon Existing Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 0 0 2 1 2 1 LT 12.0 T 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 T 3 R 3 L 3 T 3 23 0.96 1 380 0.96 1 54 0.96 1 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 208 0.96 1 189 0.96 0 65 0.96 0 210 0.96 1 0 0.90 2 10 6 0 0 --- --- 0 33 0 0 --- --- 75 30 0 0 --- --- 0 5 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP TP LT 0 50.0 3.5 1.5 60.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB * LTR 1456 0.133 0.417 LTR 0.320 24.1 C 24.1 C NB T 941 0.115 0.500 T 0.231 17.5 B 17.2 B R 783 0.076 0.500 R 0.152 16.6 B SB L 553 0.062 0.500 L 0.123 16.4 B 17.3 B * T 941 0.116 0.500 T 0.233 17.6 B Intersection: Delay = 20.2sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.27 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.25SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results ExistingR MarvinNoon Babcock St/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Babcock Noon Existing App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 6 / 6 11.2 0.0 All 11.2 0.0 NB T 4 / 6 14.9 0.0 R 1 / 2 15.5 0.0 All 15.0 0.0 SB L 1 / 5 4.5 0.0 T 4 / 6 12.5 0.0 All 11.1 0.0 Intersect. 12.3 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 23 380 54 208 189 65 210 1 49 24 2 59 24 2 59 24 HCM Analysis Summary ExistingR MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Babcock St/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Babcock PM Existing Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 0 0 2 1 2 1 LT 12.0 T 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 T 3 R 3 L 3 T 3 32 0.95 1 345 0.95 1 51 0.95 1 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 299 0.95 1 217 0.95 0 85 0.95 0 242 0.95 1 0 0.90 2 20 8 0 0 --- --- 0 24 0 0 --- --- 75 32 0 0 --- --- 0 5 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP TP LT 0 50.0 3.5 1.5 60.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB * LTR 1459 0.123 0.417 LTR 0.295 23.8 C 23.8 C NB * T 941 0.167 0.500 T 0.335 19.0 B 18.4 B R 782 0.095 0.500 R 0.191 17.1 B SB L 466 0.096 0.500 L 0.191 17.5 B 17.9 B T 941 0.136 0.500 T 0.271 18.1 B Intersection: Delay = 20.1sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.32 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.29SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results ExistingR MarvinPeak PM Babcock St/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Babcock PM Existing App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 5 / 6 11.5 0.0 All 11.5 0.0 NB T 6 / 9 13.4 0.0 R 2 / 3 15.2 0.0 All 13.6 0.0 SB L 1 / 3 5.2 0.0 T 4 / 6 14.0 0.0 All 12.5 0.0 Intersect. 12.5 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 32 345 51 299 217 85 242 1 49 24 2 59 24 2 59 24 HCM Analysis Summary ExistingR MarvinNoon Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Olive Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: WIllson Olive Noon Existing Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 7 0.92 0 32 0.92 0 6 0.92 0 52 0.92 0 63 0.92 0 47 0.92 0 19 0.92 0 297 0.92 1 11 0.92 0 10 0.92 0 230 0.92 1 16 0.92 0 0 3 0 0 --- --- 20 6 0 0 --- --- 0 3 0 0 --- --- 0 7 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 40.0 3.5 1.5 70.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 596 0.028 0.333 LTR 0.084 27.7 C 27.7 C WB * LTR 541 0.095 0.333 LTR 0.285 30.8 C 30.8 C NB * LTR 1063 0.195 0.583 LTR 0.335 13.8 B 13.8 B SB LTR 1070 0.152 0.583 LTR 0.260 12.9 B 12.9 B Intersection: Delay = 17.4sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.32 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.29SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results ExistingR MarvinNoon Olive Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: WIllson Olive Noon Existing App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 1 / 1 9.9 0.0 All 9.9 0.0 WB LTR 4 / 4 11.2 0.0 All 11.2 0.0 NB LTR 5 / 6 13.6 0.0 All 13.6 0.0 SB LTR 4 / 5 14.4 0.0 All 14.4 0.0 Intersect. 13.0 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 7 32 6 52 63 47 19 297 11 10 230 16 1 39 24 1 39 24 2 69 24 2 69 24 HCM Analysis Summary ExistingR MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Olive Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: WIllson Olive PM Existing Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 5 0.91 0 33 0.91 0 10 0.91 0 156 0.91 0 143 0.91 0 69 0.91 0 31 0.91 0 437 0.91 1 17 0.91 0 5 0.91 0 265 0.91 1 14 0.91 0 0 2 0 0 --- --- 25 6 0 0 --- --- 0 18 0 0 --- --- 0 6 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 40.0 3.5 1.5 70.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 594 0.029 0.333 LTR 0.088 27.8 C 27.8 C WB * LTR 515 0.244 0.333 LTR 0.730 44.1 D 44.1 D NB * LTR 1051 0.296 0.583 LTR 0.507 16.5 B 16.5 B SB LTR 1083 0.168 0.583 LTR 0.287 13.2 B 13.2 B Intersection: Delay = 24.3sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.59 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.54SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results ExistingR MarvinPeak PM Olive Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: WIllson Olive PM Existing App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 1 / 2 10.9 0.0 All 10.9 0.0 WB LTR 9 / 10 8.3 0.0 All 8.3 0.0 NB LTR 9 / 11 11.5 0.0 All 11.5 0.0 SB LTR 4 / 5 15.4 0.0 All 15.4 0.0 Intersect. 10.8 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 5 33 10 156 143 69 31 437 17 5 265 14 1 39 24 1 39 24 2 69 24 2 69 24 HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Black & Babcock Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Babcock Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Black Avenue Time Analyzed Noon Existing Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR TR LT Volume (veh/h)59 500 57 49 15 16 88 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)340 70 115 Capacity 365 366 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.31 95% Queue Length 0.7 1.3 Control Delay (s/veh)17.2 19.3 Level of Service (LOS)C C Approach Delay (s/veh)17.2 Approach LOS C Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/22/2016 2:53:27 PM Black Babcock Noon Exist.xtw HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Black & Babcock Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Babcock Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Black Avenue Time Analyzed PM Existing Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR TR LT Volume (veh/h)46 548 55 21 38 43 116 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)356 65 177 Capacity 438 385 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.46 95% Queue Length 0.5 2.3 Control Delay (s/veh)14.7 22.0 Level of Service (LOS)B C Approach Delay (s/veh)14.7 Approach LOS B Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 12:54:34 PM Black Babcock PM Exist.xtw HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Black Ave & Olive St Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Olive Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Black Avenue Time Analyzed Noon Existing Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)25 57 3 10 158 25 11 20 10 6 32 136 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)27 11 45 191 Capacity 1334 1507 531 715 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.27 95% Queue Length 0.1 0.0 0.3 1.1 Control Delay (s/veh)7.8 7.4 12.4 11.9 Level of Service (LOS)A A B B Approach Delay (s/veh)2.4 0.4 12.4 11.9 Approach LOS B B Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/22/2016 2:48:41 PM Black Olive Noon Exist.xtw HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Black Ave & Olive St Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Olive Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Black Avenue Time Analyzed PM Existing Peak Hour Factor 0.87 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)20 96 3 23 236 33 6 38 9 19 63 138 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)23 26 61 253 Capacity 1212 1463 424 555 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.02 0.14 0.46 95% Queue Length 0.1 0.1 0.5 2.4 Control Delay (s/veh)8.0 7.5 14.9 16.8 Level of Service (LOS)A A B C Approach Delay (s/veh)1.5 0.7 14.9 16.8 Approach LOS B C Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 12:44:11 PM Black Olive PM Exist.xtw HCM Analysis Summary ExistingR MarvinNoon Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Mendenhall Rouse Noon Existing Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 0 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 LTR 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 5 0.96 1 194 0.96 1 63 0.96 1 91 0.96 1 299 0.96 1 10 0.96 1 64 0.96 1 263 0.96 1 135 0.96 1 0 11 0 0 --- --- 20 8 0 0 --- --- 0 10 0 0 --- --- 35 6 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP 0 40.0 3.5 1.5 70.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOS WB * LTR 608 0.138 0.333 LTR 0.414 31.1 C 31.1 C NB L 519 0.107 0.583 L 0.183 12.4 B 13.1 B TR 1091 0.172 0.583 TR 0.294 13.3 B SB L 566 0.069 0.583 L 0.118 11.6 B 13.8 B * TR 1048 0.210 0.583 TR 0.361 14.2 B Intersection: Delay = 17.4sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.38 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.35SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results ExistingR MarvinNoon Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Mendenhall Rouse Noon Existing App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in WB LTR 6 / 7 10.2 0.0 All 10.2 0.0 NB L 1 / 2 4.1 0.0 TR 4 / 7 16.4 0.0 All 14.3 0.0 SB L 1 / 2 8.2 0.0 TR 5 / 7 15.6 0.0 All 14.9 0.0 Intersect. 13.2 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 5 194 63 91 299 10 64 263 135 1 39 24 2 69 24 2 69 24 HCM Analysis Summary ExistingR MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Mendenhall Rouse PM Existing Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 0 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 LTR 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 12 0.89 1 210 0.89 1 126 0.89 1 98 0.89 1 365 0.89 1 14 0.89 1 85 0.89 1 330 0.89 1 122 0.89 1 0 22 0 0 --- --- 30 17 0 0 --- --- 0 5 0 0 --- --- 45 19 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP 0 40.0 3.5 1.5 70.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOS WB * LTR 591 0.201 0.333 LTR 0.604 34.6 C 34.6 C NB L 451 0.142 0.583 L 0.244 13.4 B 14.3 B TR 1090 0.228 0.583 TR 0.391 14.5 B SB L 478 0.117 0.583 L 0.201 12.7 B 14.8 B * TR 1062 0.252 0.583 TR 0.431 15.2 B Intersection: Delay = 19.5sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.49 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.45SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results ExistingR MarvinPeak PM Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Mendenhall Rouse PM Existing App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in WB LTR 8 / 9 9.0 0.0 All 9.0 0.0 NB L 1 / 3 6.3 0.0 TR 6 / 8 16.3 0.0 All 15.1 0.0 SB L 2 / 4 4.7 0.0 TR 7 / 9 15.6 0.0 All 13.7 0.0 Intersect. 12.5 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 12 210 126 98 365 14 85 330 122 1 39 24 2 69 24 2 69 24 HCM Analysis Summary ExistingR MarvinNoon Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Rouse Main Noon Existing Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LTR 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 66 0.94 1 326 0.94 1 28 0.94 0 10 0.94 0 445 0.94 1 153 0.94 1 39 0.94 0 179 0.94 1 28 0.94 1 150 0.94 1 53 0.94 0 57 0.94 1 5 80 0 0 --- --- 40 35 0 0 --- --- 5 155 0 0 --- --- 15 88 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 48.0 3.5 1.5 16.0 4.0 0.0 42.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 14.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1012 0.174 0.400 LTR 0.436 27.5 C 27.5 C WB * LTR 1298 0.186 0.400 LTR 0.465 27.7 C 27.7 C NB * LTR 598 0.149 0.350 LTR 0.426 30.0 C 30.0 C SB Lper 334 0.000 0.392 15.7 B * Lpro 238 0.090 0.133 L 0.280 16.2 B TR 881 0.059 0.517 TR 0.115 14.9 B Intersection: Delay = 26.0sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.48 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.42SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results ExistingR MarvinNoon Main Street/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Rouse Main Noon Existing App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 6 / 6 8.7 0.0 All 8.7 0.0 WB LTR 7 / 8 9.6 0.0 All 9.6 0.0 NB LTR 6 / 7 8.4 0.0 All 8.4 0.0 SB L 2 / 3 7.1 0.0 TR 2 / 4 18.0 0.0 All 14.5 0.0 Intersect. 9.6 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 66 326 28 10 445 153 39 179 28 150 53 57 1 47 24 1 47 24 2 16 04 3 41 24 3 41 24 HCM Analysis Summary ExistingR MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Rouse Main PM Existing Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LTR 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 49 0.87 1 371 0.87 1 27 0.87 0 8 0.87 0 486 0.87 1 169 0.87 1 37 0.87 0 256 0.87 1 27 0.87 1 171 0.87 1 103 0.87 0 65 0.87 1 5 75 0 0 --- --- 40 19 0 0 --- --- 5 100 0 0 --- --- 15 72 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 48.0 3.5 1.5 16.0 4.0 0.0 42.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 14.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1046 0.194 0.400 LTR 0.485 28.4 C 28.4 C WB * LTR 1306 0.219 0.400 LTR 0.548 29.3 C 29.3 C NB * LTR 609 0.208 0.350 LTR 0.594 33.1 C 33.1 C SB Lper 273 0.000 0.392 16.6 B * Lpro 238 0.110 0.133 L 0.386 17.5 B TR 918 0.099 0.517 TR 0.191 15.6 B Intersection: Delay = 27.4sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.61 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.54SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results ExistingR MarvinPeak PM Main Street/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Rouse Main PM Existing App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 6 / 9 8.9 0.0 All 8.9 0.0 WB LTR 9 / 10 9.2 0.0 All 9.2 0.0 NB LTR 8 / 10 8.4 0.0 All 8.4 0.0 SB L 3 / 5 5.5 0.0 TR 2 / 4 19.0 0.0 All 13.9 0.0 Intersect. 9.6 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 49 371 27 8 486 169 37 256 27 171 103 65 1 47 24 1 47 24 2 16 04 3 41 24 3 41 24 HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Rouse & Babcock Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Babcock Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Rouse Avenue Time Analyzed Noon Existing Peak Hour Factor 0.87 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR TR LT Volume (veh/h)211 282 17 20 4 55 49 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 0 0 1 0 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)405 28 119 Capacity 323 598 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.20 95% Queue Length 0.3 0.7 Control Delay (s/veh)17.2 12.5 Level of Service (LOS)C B Approach Delay (s/veh)17.2 Approach LOS C Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/22/2016 2:41:02 PM Rouse Babcock Noon Exist.xtw HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Rouse & Babcock Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Babcock Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Rouse Avenue Time Analyzed PM Existing Peak Hour Factor 0.87 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR TR LT Volume (veh/h)272 384 16 42 8 40 88 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 0 0 1 0 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)534 57 147 Capacity 227 289 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.51 95% Queue Length 1.0 2.7 Control Delay (s/veh)26.0 29.7 Level of Service (LOS)D D Approach Delay (s/veh)26.0 Approach LOS D Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/22/2016 2:44:21 PM Rouse Babcock PM Exist.xtw HCM Analysis Summary ExistingR MarvinNoon Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Church Ave09/22/2016Case: Church Main Noon Existing Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 21 0.93 0 445 0.93 1 39 0.93 0 28 0.93 0 540 0.93 1 29 0.93 0 48 0.93 0 55 0.93 0 38 0.93 0 6 0.93 0 12 0.93 0 17 0.93 0 5 24 0 0 --- --- 0 16 0 0 --- --- 5 72 0 0 --- --- 0 59 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 70.0 3.5 1.5 40.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1874 0.167 0.583 LTR 0.287 12.9 B 12.9 B WB * LTR 1876 0.200 0.583 LTR 0.342 13.5 B 13.5 B NB * LTR 527 0.092 0.333 LTR 0.277 30.7 C 30.7 C SB LTR 552 0.022 0.333 LTR 0.067 27.5 C 27.5 C Intersection: Delay = 15.5sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.32 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.29SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results ExistingR MarvinNoon Main Street/Church Ave09/22/2016Case: Church Main Noon Existing App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 4 / 6 15.3 0.0 All 15.3 0.0 WB LTR 5 / 6 13.1 0.0 All 13.1 0.0 NB LTR 3 / 4 12.8 0.0 All 12.8 0.0 SB LTR 1 / 1 10.9 0.0 All 10.9 0.0 Intersect. 13.8 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 21 445 39 28 540 29 48 55 38 6 12 17 1 69 24 1 69 24 2 39 24 2 39 24 HCM Analysis Summary ExistingR MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Church Ave09/22/2016Case: Church Main PM Existing Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 29 0.90 0 485 0.90 1 56 0.90 0 46 0.90 0 596 0.90 1 34 0.90 0 67 0.90 0 75 0.90 0 55 0.90 0 18 0.90 0 28 0.90 0 15 0.90 0 5 26 0 0 --- --- 5 11 0 0 --- --- 10 46 0 0 --- --- 0 42 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 70.0 3.5 1.5 40.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1811 0.202 0.583 LTR 0.347 13.6 B 13.6 B WB * LTR 1775 0.245 0.583 LTR 0.420 14.5 B 14.5 B NB * LTR 520 0.133 0.333 LTR 0.398 33.0 C 33.0 C SB LTR 538 0.042 0.333 LTR 0.126 28.3 C 28.3 C Intersection: Delay = 17.1sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.41 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.38SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results ExistingR MarvinPeak PM Main Street/Church Ave09/22/2016Case: Church Main PM Existing App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 5 / 6 15.0 0.0 All 15.0 0.0 WB LTR 6 / 8 14.0 0.0 All 14.0 0.0 NB LTR 4 / 5 10.6 0.0 All 10.6 0.0 SB LTR 2 / 2 8.9 0.0 All 8.9 0.0 Intersect. 13.5 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 29 485 56 46 596 34 67 75 55 18 28 15 1 69 24 1 69 24 2 39 24 2 39 24 APPENDIX B – 2 Existing Plus Site Capacity Calculations HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus Site TrafficR MarvinNoon Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Main Noon Exist Plus Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 LTR 3 27 0.97 0 444 0.97 1 79 0.97 0 38 0.97 0 484 0.97 1 21 0.97 0 72 0.97 0 125 0.97 0 42 0.97 0 21 0.97 0 119 0.97 0 29 0.97 0 20 73 0 0 --- 5 5 71 0 0 --- 5 5 110 0 0 --- 5 5 186 0 0 --- 5 Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 70.0 3.5 1.5 40.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1719 0.186 0.583 LTR 0.318 13.3 B 13.3 B WB * LTR 1701 0.190 0.583 LTR 0.326 13.4 B 13.4 B NB L 331 0.075 0.333 L 0.224 30.4 C 31.1 C TR 522 0.107 0.333 TR 0.320 31.5 C SB * LTR 498 0.114 0.333 LTR 0.341 32.0 C 32.0 C Intersection: Delay = 18.3sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.33 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.30SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus Site TrafficR MarvinNoon Main Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Main Noon Exist Plus App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 5 / 6 15.4 0.0 All 15.4 0.0 WB LTR 5 / 5 14.8 0.0 All 14.8 0.0 NB L 2 / 3 2.7 0.0 TR 3 / 5 11.4 0.0 All 9.0 0.0 SB LTR 4 / 4 9.3 0.0 All 9.3 0.0 Intersect. 12.8 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 27 444 79 38 484 21 72 125 42 21 119 29 1 69 24 1 69 24 2 39 24 2 39 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus SiteR MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Main PM Exist Plus Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 LTR 3 20 0.95 0 466 0.95 1 100 0.95 0 49 0.95 0 544 0.95 1 22 0.95 0 130 0.95 0 166 0.95 0 40 0.95 0 26 0.95 0 187 0.95 0 23 0.95 0 20 60 0 0 --- 5 5 25 0 0 --- 5 5 86 0 0 --- 5 5 109 0 0 --- 5 Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 65.0 3.5 1.5 45.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1613 0.200 0.542 LTR 0.369 16.4 B 16.4 B WB * LTR 1529 0.228 0.542 LTR 0.421 17.2 B 17.2 B NB L 357 0.144 0.375 L 0.384 30.5 C 29.4 C TR 599 0.133 0.375 TR 0.354 28.7 C SB * LTR 579 0.157 0.375 LTR 0.420 30.0 C 30.0 C Intersection: Delay = 21.0sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.42 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.39SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus SiteR MarvinPeak PM Main Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Main PM Exist Plus App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 5 / 5 15.1 0.0 All 15.1 0.0 WB LTR 6 / 8 12.2 0.0 All 12.2 0.0 NB L 4 / 5 2.9 0.0 TR 3 / 6 13.7 0.0 All 9.5 0.0 SB LTR 5 / 6 9.7 0.0 All 9.7 0.0 Intersect. 11.9 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 20 466 100 49 544 22 130 166 40 26 187 23 1 64 24 1 64 24 2 44 24 2 44 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus SiteR MarvinNoon Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Babcock St/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Babcock Noon Existing Plus Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 0 0 2 1 2 1 LT 12.0 T 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 T 3 R 3 L 3 T 3 23 0.96 1 380 0.96 1 54 0.96 1 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 208 0.96 1 189 0.96 0 65 0.96 0 210 0.96 1 0 0.90 2 10 6 0 0 --- --- 0 33 0 0 --- --- 75 30 0 0 --- --- 0 5 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP TP LT 0 50.0 3.5 1.5 60.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB * LTR 1456 0.133 0.417 LTR 0.320 24.1 C 24.1 C NB T 941 0.115 0.500 T 0.231 17.5 B 17.2 B R 783 0.076 0.500 R 0.152 16.6 B SB L 553 0.062 0.500 L 0.123 16.4 B 17.3 B * T 941 0.116 0.500 T 0.233 17.6 B Intersection: Delay = 20.2sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.27 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.25SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus SiteR MarvinNoon Babcock St/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Babcock Noon Existing Plus App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 6 / 6 11.2 0.0 All 11.2 0.0 NB T 4 / 6 14.9 0.0 R 1 / 2 15.5 0.0 All 15.0 0.0 SB L 1 / 5 4.5 0.0 T 4 / 6 12.5 0.0 All 11.1 0.0 Intersect. 12.3 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 23 380 54 208 189 65 210 1 49 24 2 59 24 2 59 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus SiteR MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Babcock St/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Babcock PM Existing Plus Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 0 0 2 1 2 1 LT 12.0 T 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 T 3 R 3 L 3 T 3 32 0.95 1 346 0.95 1 51 0.95 1 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 299 0.95 1 217 0.95 0 85 0.95 0 242 0.95 1 0 0.90 2 20 8 0 0 --- --- 0 24 0 0 --- --- 75 32 0 0 --- --- 0 5 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP TP LT 0 50.0 3.5 1.5 60.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB * LTR 1459 0.123 0.417 LTR 0.295 23.8 C 23.8 C NB * T 941 0.167 0.500 T 0.335 19.0 B 18.4 B R 782 0.095 0.500 R 0.191 17.1 B SB L 466 0.096 0.500 L 0.191 17.5 B 17.9 B T 941 0.136 0.500 T 0.271 18.1 B Intersection: Delay = 20.1sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.32 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.29SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus SiteR MarvinPeak PM Babcock St/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Babcock PM Existing Plus App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 5 / 6 11.4 0.0 All 11.4 0.0 NB T 6 / 9 12.2 0.0 R 2 / 3 16.3 0.0 All 12.6 0.0 SB L 1 / 3 5.2 0.0 T 4 / 6 14.0 0.0 All 12.5 0.0 Intersect. 12.1 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 32 346 51 299 217 85 242 1 49 24 2 59 24 2 59 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus SiteR MarvinNoon Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Olive Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: WIllson Olive Noon Existing Plus Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 7 0.92 0 32 0.92 0 6 0.92 0 59 0.92 0 64 0.92 0 47 0.92 0 19 0.92 0 297 0.92 1 13 0.92 0 10 0.92 0 230 0.92 1 16 0.92 0 0 3 0 0 --- --- 20 6 0 0 --- --- 0 3 0 0 --- --- 0 7 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 40.0 3.5 1.5 70.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 595 0.028 0.333 LTR 0.084 27.7 C 27.7 C WB * LTR 535 0.102 0.333 LTR 0.305 31.1 C 31.1 C NB * LTR 1062 0.197 0.583 LTR 0.337 13.8 B 13.8 B SB LTR 1070 0.152 0.583 LTR 0.260 12.9 B 12.9 B Intersection: Delay = 17.7sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.33 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.30SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus SiteR MarvinNoon Olive Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: WIllson Olive Noon Existing Plus App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 1 / 1 9.9 0.0 All 9.9 0.0 WB LTR 4 / 5 8.8 0.0 All 8.8 0.0 NB LTR 5 / 6 13.5 0.0 All 13.5 0.0 SB LTR 4 / 5 14.4 0.0 All 14.4 0.0 Intersect. 12.1 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 7 32 6 59 64 47 19 297 13 10 230 16 1 39 24 1 39 24 2 69 24 2 69 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus SiteR MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Olive Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: WIllson Olive PM Existing Plus Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 5 0.91 0 33 0.91 0 10 0.91 0 159 0.91 0 143 0.91 0 69 0.91 0 31 0.91 0 437 0.91 1 24 0.91 0 5 0.91 0 265 0.91 1 14 0.91 0 0 2 0 0 --- --- 25 6 0 0 --- --- 0 18 0 0 --- --- 0 6 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 40.0 3.5 1.5 70.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 594 0.029 0.333 LTR 0.088 27.8 C 27.8 C WB * LTR 514 0.247 0.333 LTR 0.739 44.6 D 44.6 D NB * LTR 1049 0.300 0.583 LTR 0.515 16.7 B 16.7 B SB LTR 1082 0.168 0.583 LTR 0.287 13.2 B 13.2 B Intersection: Delay = 24.6sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.60 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.55SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus SiteR MarvinPeak PM Olive Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: WIllson Olive PM Existing Plus App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 1 / 2 10.9 0.0 All 10.9 0.0 WB LTR 10 / 10 8.2 0.0 All 8.2 0.0 NB LTR 8 / 10 11.9 0.0 All 11.9 0.0 SB LTR 4 / 5 15.3 0.0 All 15.3 0.0 Intersect. 10.9 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 5 33 10 159 143 69 31 437 24 5 265 14 1 39 24 1 39 24 2 69 24 2 69 24 HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Black & Babcock Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Babcock Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Black Avenue Time Analyzed Noon Existing Plus Site Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR TR LT Volume (veh/h)59 500 57 59 25 16 90 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)340 92 117 Capacity 371 357 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.33 95% Queue Length 1.0 1.4 Control Delay (s/veh)17.9 19.9 Level of Service (LOS)C C Approach Delay (s/veh)17.9 Approach LOS C Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 12:25:43 PM Black Babcock Noon Exist Plus.xtw HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Black & Babcock Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Babcock Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Black Avenue Time Analyzed PM Existing Plus Site Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR TR LT Volume (veh/h)46 548 56 24 42 43 125 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)356 74 187 Capacity 426 369 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.51 95% Queue Length 0.6 2.7 Control Delay (s/veh)15.2 24.3 Level of Service (LOS)C C Approach Delay (s/veh)15.2 Approach LOS C Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 12:29:24 PM Black Babcock PM Exist Plus.xtw HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Black Ave & Olive St Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Olive Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Black Avenue Time Analyzed Noon Existing Plus Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)25 59 3 10 166 45 11 20 10 8 32 136 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)27 11 45 193 Capacity 1282 1462 474 659 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.29 95% Queue Length 0.1 0.0 0.3 1.2 Control Delay (s/veh)7.9 7.5 13.4 12.7 Level of Service (LOS)A A B B Approach Delay (s/veh)2.4 0.4 13.4 12.7 Approach LOS B B Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 12:33:13 PM Black Olive Noon Exist Plus.xtw HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Black Ave & Olive St Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Olive Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Black Avenue Time Analyzed PM Existing Plus Site Peak Hour Factor 0.87 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)20 103 3 23 239 40 6 38 9 20 63 138 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)23 26 61 254 Capacity 1183 1413 382 514 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.02 0.16 0.49 95% Queue Length 0.1 0.1 0.6 2.7 Control Delay (s/veh)8.1 7.6 16.2 18.6 Level of Service (LOS)A A C C Approach Delay (s/veh)1.4 0.7 16.2 18.6 Approach LOS C C Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 12:47:41 PM Black Olive PM Exist Plus.xtw HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus SiteR MarvinNoon Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Mendenhall Rouse Noon Existing Plus Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 0 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 LTR 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 5 0.96 1 194 0.96 1 63 0.96 1 91 0.96 1 305 0.96 1 10 0.96 1 64 0.96 1 265 0.96 1 135 0.96 1 0 11 0 0 --- --- 20 8 0 0 --- --- 0 10 0 0 --- --- 35 6 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP 0 40.0 3.5 1.5 70.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOS WB * LTR 608 0.138 0.333 LTR 0.414 31.1 C 31.1 C NB L 517 0.107 0.583 L 0.184 12.4 B 13.1 B TR 1091 0.175 0.583 TR 0.301 13.3 B SB L 560 0.070 0.583 L 0.120 11.6 B 13.8 B * TR 1048 0.212 0.583 TR 0.363 14.2 B Intersection: Delay = 17.4sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.38 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.35SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus SiteR MarvinNoon Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Mendenhall Rouse Noon Existing Plus App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in WB LTR 6 / 7 10.2 0.0 All 10.2 0.0 NB L 1 / 2 6.2 0.0 TR 5 / 6 15.2 0.0 All 14.2 0.0 SB L 1 / 1 8.3 0.0 TR 5 / 7 16.0 0.0 All 15.3 0.0 Intersect. 13.3 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 5 194 63 91 305 10 64 265 135 1 39 24 2 69 24 2 69 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus SiteR MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Mendenhall Rouse PM Existing Plus Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 0 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 LTR 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 12 0.89 1 210 0.89 1 126 0.89 1 98 0.89 1 367 0.89 1 14 0.89 1 85 0.89 1 336 0.89 1 122 0.89 1 0 22 0 0 --- --- 30 17 0 0 --- --- 0 5 0 0 --- --- 45 19 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP 0 40.0 3.5 1.5 70.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOS WB * LTR 591 0.201 0.333 LTR 0.604 34.6 C 34.6 C NB L 446 0.144 0.583 L 0.247 13.5 B 14.4 B TR 1090 0.229 0.583 TR 0.393 14.6 B SB L 477 0.118 0.583 L 0.201 12.8 B 14.9 B * TR 1062 0.255 0.583 TR 0.438 15.3 B Intersection: Delay = 19.5sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.50 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.46SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus SiteR MarvinPeak PM Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Mendenhall Rouse PM Existing Plus App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in WB LTR 8 / 9 9.0 0.0 All 9.0 0.0 NB L 1 / 3 6.1 0.0 TR 6 / 8 16.0 0.0 All 14.8 0.0 SB L 1 / 3 5.7 0.0 TR 7 / 9 15.4 0.0 All 14.0 0.0 Intersect. 12.5 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 12 210 126 98 367 14 85 336 122 1 39 24 2 69 24 2 69 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus SiteR MarvinNoon Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Rouse Main Noon Existing Plus Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LTR 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 66 0.94 1 326 0.94 1 28 0.94 0 10 0.94 0 445 0.94 1 153 0.94 1 39 0.94 0 185 0.94 1 28 0.94 1 150 0.94 1 55 0.94 0 57 0.94 1 5 80 0 0 --- --- 40 35 0 0 --- --- 5 155 0 0 --- --- 15 88 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 48.0 3.5 1.5 16.0 4.0 0.0 42.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 14.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1012 0.174 0.400 LTR 0.436 27.5 C 27.5 C WB * LTR 1298 0.186 0.400 LTR 0.465 27.7 C 27.7 C NB * LTR 600 0.153 0.350 LTR 0.437 30.1 C 30.1 C SB Lper 330 0.000 0.392 15.7 B * Lpro 238 0.090 0.133 L 0.282 16.2 B TR 884 0.061 0.517 TR 0.118 14.9 B Intersection: Delay = 26.1sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.49 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.43SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus SiteR MarvinNoon Main Street/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Rouse Main Noon Existing Plus App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 6 / 6 9.2 0.0 All 9.2 0.0 WB LTR 7 / 9 10.5 0.0 All 10.5 0.0 NB LTR 6 / 7 9.6 0.0 All 9.6 0.0 SB L 2 / 3 7.9 0.0 TR 2 / 4 17.6 0.0 All 14.9 0.0 Intersect. 10.4 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 66 326 28 10 445 153 39 185 28 150 55 57 1 47 24 1 47 24 2 16 04 3 41 24 3 41 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus SiteR MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Rouse Main PM Existing Plus Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LTR 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 49 0.87 1 371 0.87 1 27 0.87 0 8 0.87 0 486 0.87 1 169 0.87 1 37 0.87 0 258 0.87 1 27 0.87 1 171 0.87 1 109 0.87 0 65 0.87 1 5 75 0 0 --- --- 40 19 0 0 --- --- 5 100 0 0 --- --- 15 72 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 48.0 3.5 1.5 16.0 4.0 0.0 42.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 14.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1046 0.194 0.400 LTR 0.485 28.4 C 28.4 C WB * LTR 1306 0.219 0.400 LTR 0.548 29.3 C 29.3 C NB * LTR 609 0.210 0.350 LTR 0.599 33.2 C 33.2 C SB Lper 271 0.000 0.392 16.7 B * Lpro 238 0.110 0.133 L 0.387 17.6 B TR 920 0.102 0.517 TR 0.198 15.7 B Intersection: Delay = 27.4sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.61 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.54SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus SiteR MarvinPeak PM Main Street/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Rouse Main PM Existing Plus App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 6 / 10 8.6 0.0 All 8.6 0.0 WB LTR 9 / 10 9.1 0.0 All 9.1 0.0 NB LTR 8 / 9 8.7 0.0 All 8.7 0.0 SB L 3 / 4 7.2 0.0 TR 3 / 4 17.3 0.0 All 14.6 0.0 Intersect. 9.6 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 49 371 27 8 486 169 37 258 27 171 109 65 1 47 24 1 47 24 2 16 04 3 41 24 3 41 24 HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Rouse & Babcock Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Babcock Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Rouse Avenue Time Analyzed Noon Existing Plus Peak Hour Factor 0.87 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR TR LT Volume (veh/h)217 286 17 20 4 55 51 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 0 0 1 0 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)414 28 122 Capacity 316 569 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.21 95% Queue Length 0.3 0.8 Control Delay (s/veh)17.5 13.0 Level of Service (LOS)C B Approach Delay (s/veh)17.5 Approach LOS C Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 12:50:13 PM Rouse Babcock Noon Exist Plus.xtw HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Rouse & Babcock Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Babcock Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Rouse Avenue Time Analyzed PM Existing Plus Peak Hour Factor 0.87 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR TR LT Volume (veh/h)274 390 16 42 8 40 94 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 0 0 1 0 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)539 57 154 Capacity 224 279 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.55 95% Queue Length 1.0 3.1 Control Delay (s/veh)26.5 32.7 Level of Service (LOS)D D Approach Delay (s/veh)26.5 Approach LOS D Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 12:52:35 PM Rouse Babcock PM Exist Plus.xtw HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus SiteR MarvinNoon Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Church Ave09/22/2016Case: Church Main Noon Existing Plus Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 21 0.93 0 445 0.93 1 39 0.93 0 29 0.93 0 540 0.93 1 29 0.93 0 48 0.93 0 55 0.93 0 38 0.93 0 6 0.93 0 12 0.93 0 17 0.93 0 5 24 0 0 --- --- 0 16 0 0 --- --- 5 72 0 0 --- --- 0 59 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 70.0 3.5 1.5 40.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1874 0.167 0.583 LTR 0.287 12.9 B 12.9 B WB * LTR 1872 0.200 0.583 LTR 0.343 13.5 B 13.5 B NB * LTR 527 0.092 0.333 LTR 0.277 30.7 C 30.7 C SB LTR 552 0.022 0.333 LTR 0.067 27.5 C 27.5 C Intersection: Delay = 15.5sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.32 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.29SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus SiteR MarvinNoon Main Street/Church Ave09/22/2016Case: Church Main Noon Existing Plus App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 4 / 6 15.9 0.0 All 15.9 0.0 WB LTR 6 / 7 13.3 0.0 All 13.3 0.0 NB LTR 3 / 4 12.2 0.0 All 12.2 0.0 SB LTR 1 / 1 10.8 0.0 All 10.8 0.0 Intersect. 14.0 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 21 445 39 29 540 29 48 55 38 6 12 17 1 69 24 1 69 24 2 39 24 2 39 24 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus SiteR MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Church Ave09/22/2016Case: Church Main PM Existing Plus Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 29 0.90 0 485 0.90 1 56 0.90 0 50 0.90 0 596 0.90 1 34 0.90 0 67 0.90 0 75 0.90 0 55 0.90 0 18 0.90 0 28 0.90 0 15 0.90 0 5 26 0 0 --- --- 5 11 0 0 --- --- 10 46 0 0 --- --- 0 42 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 70.0 3.5 1.5 40.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1810 0.202 0.583 LTR 0.347 13.6 B 13.6 B WB * LTR 1752 0.250 0.583 LTR 0.428 14.7 B 14.7 B NB * LTR 520 0.133 0.333 LTR 0.398 33.0 C 33.0 C SB LTR 538 0.042 0.333 LTR 0.126 28.3 C 28.3 C Intersection: Delay = 17.1sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.42 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.38SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus SiteR MarvinPeak PM Main Street/Church Ave09/22/2016Case: Church Main PM Existing Plus App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 5 / 6 14.7 0.0 All 14.7 0.0 WB LTR 6 / 7 13.5 0.0 All 13.5 0.0 NB LTR 4 / 5 11.0 0.0 All 11.0 0.0 SB LTR 2 / 2 9.0 0.0 All 9.0 0.0 Intersect. 13.3 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 29 485 56 50 596 34 67 75 55 18 28 15 1 69 24 1 69 24 2 39 24 2 39 24 HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Apartment Accees Olive Agency/Co.Marvin& Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/26/2016 East/West Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Aprtment Access Time Analyzed Noon Existing Plus Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Aprtments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration TR LT LR Volume (veh/h)73 4 3 193 20 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)215 23 Capacity 1472 672 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.03 95% Queue Length 0.0 0.1 Control Delay (s/veh)7.5 10.5 Level of Service (LOS)A B Approach Delay (s/veh)0.1 10.5 Approach LOS B Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 3:30:54 PM Apartment Access Olive Noon Exist Plus.xtw HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Apartment Accees Olive Agency/Co.Marvin& Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/26/2016 East/West Street Analysis Year 2016 North/South Street Aprtment Access Time Analyzed Peak PM Existing Plus Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Aprtments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration TR LT LR Volume (veh/h)124 17 10 292 10 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)332 12 Capacity 1387 532 v/c Ratio 0.24 0.02 95% Queue Length 0.0 0.1 Control Delay (s/veh)7.6 11.9 Level of Service (LOS)A B Approach Delay (s/veh)0.3 11.9 Approach LOS B Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 3:32:54 PM Apartment Access Olive PM Exist Plus.xtw APPENDIX B-3 Future Capacity Calculations HCM Analysis Summary Year 2031R MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Main PM Future Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 LTR 3 22 0.95 0 512 0.95 1 110 0.95 0 54 0.95 0 598 0.95 1 24 0.95 0 143 0.95 0 182 0.95 0 44 0.95 0 29 0.95 0 205 0.95 0 26 0.95 0 30 66 0 0 --- 5 5 28 0 0 --- 5 5 94 0 0 --- 5 5 119 0 0 --- 5 Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 65.0 3.5 1.5 45.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1606 0.218 0.542 LTR 0.402 16.9 B 16.9 B WB * LTR 1506 0.254 0.542 LTR 0.469 17.9 B 17.9 B NB L 340 0.166 0.375 L 0.444 32.3 C 30.5 C TR 598 0.146 0.375 TR 0.390 29.4 C SB * LTR 574 0.176 0.375 LTR 0.469 31.2 C 31.2 C Intersection: Delay = 21.8sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.47 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.43SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Year 2031R MarvinPeak PM Main Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Main PM Future App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 6 / 7 12.3 0.0 All 12.3 0.0 WB LTR 7 / 8 11.6 0.0 All 11.6 0.0 NB L 3 / 6 3.6 0.0 TR 5 / 7 12.4 0.0 All 9.6 0.0 SB LTR 5 / 7 9.0 0.0 All 9.0 0.0 Intersect. 11.0 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 22 512 110 54 598 24 143 182 44 29 205 26 1 64 24 1 64 24 2 44 24 2 44 24 HCM Analysis Summary Year 2031R MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Babcock St/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Babcock PM Future Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 0 0 2 1 2 1 LT 12.0 T 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 T 3 R 3 L 3 T 3 35 0.95 1 390 0.95 1 56 0.95 1 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 329 0.95 1 238 0.95 0 94 0.95 0 264 0.95 1 0 0.90 2 25 8 0 0 --- --- 0 26 0 0 --- --- 85 35 0 0 --- --- 0 5 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP TP LT 0 50.0 3.5 1.5 60.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB * LTR 1461 0.137 0.417 LTR 0.329 24.3 C 24.3 C NB * T 941 0.184 0.500 T 0.368 19.5 B 18.8 B R 781 0.103 0.500 R 0.206 17.3 B SB L 439 0.113 0.500 L 0.226 18.1 B 18.3 B T 941 0.148 0.500 T 0.295 18.4 B Intersection: Delay = 20.6sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.35 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.32SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Year 2031R MarvinPeak PM Babcock St/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: Willson Babcock PM Future App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 5 / 6 11.6 0.0 All 11.6 0.0 NB T 7 / 11 13.4 0.0 R 2 / 3 14.2 0.0 All 13.5 0.0 SB L 2 / 3 3.9 0.0 T 5 / 6 14.7 0.0 All 12.4 0.0 Intersect. 12.5 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 35 390 56 329 238 94 264 1 49 24 2 59 24 2 59 24 HCM Analysis Summary Year 2031R MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Olive Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: WIllson Olive PM Future Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 6 0.92 0 36 0.92 0 11 0.92 0 175 0.92 0 157 0.92 0 76 0.92 0 34 0.92 0 480 0.92 1 26 0.92 0 6 0.92 0 291 0.92 1 15 0.92 0 0 2 0 0 --- --- 30 6 0 0 --- --- 5 20 0 0 --- --- 0 6 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 40.0 3.5 1.5 70.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 585 0.033 0.333 LTR 0.099 27.9 C 27.9 C WB * LTR 513 0.267 0.333 LTR 0.801 48.8 D 48.8 D NB * LTR 1047 0.324 0.583 LTR 0.556 17.5 B 17.5 B SB LTR 1078 0.183 0.583 LTR 0.314 13.5 B 13.5 B Intersection: Delay = 26.2sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.65 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.59SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Year 2031R MarvinPeak PM Olive Street/Willson Ave09/22/2016Case: WIllson Olive PM Future App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 2 / 2 8.3 0.0 All 8.3 0.0 WB LTR 10 / 11 8.3 0.0 All 8.3 0.0 NB LTR 9 / 11 12.2 0.0 All 12.2 0.0 SB LTR 5 / 5 15.0 0.0 All 15.0 0.0 Intersect. 10.9 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 6 36 11 175 157 76 34 480 26 6 291 15 1 39 24 1 39 24 2 69 24 2 69 24 HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Black & Babcock Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Babcock Street Analysis Year 2031 North/South Street Black Avenue Time Analyzed Peak PM Future Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR TR LT Volume (veh/h)50 602 61 26 46 47 137 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)386 80 203 Capacity 396 334 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.61 95% Queue Length 0.7 3.8 Control Delay (s/veh)16.4 31.1 Level of Service (LOS)C D Approach Delay (s/veh)16.4 Approach LOS C Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 3:48:46 PM Black Babcock PM Future.xtw HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Black Ave & Olive St Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Olive Street Analysis Year 2031 North/South Street Black Avenue Time Analyzed Peak PM Future Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)22 113 3 25 262 44 7 42 10 32 69 161 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)24 28 66 292 Capacity 1161 1400 354 485 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.60 95% Queue Length 0.1 0.1 0.7 3.9 Control Delay (s/veh)8.2 7.6 17.5 23.1 Level of Service (LOS)A A C C Approach Delay (s/veh)1.4 0.8 17.5 23.1 Approach LOS C C Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 3:52:54 PM Black Olive PM Future.xtw HCM Analysis Summary Year 2031R MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Mendenhall Rouse PM Future Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 0 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 LTR 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 L 3 TR 3 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 0 0.90 2 13 0.90 1 231 0.90 1 138 0.90 1 108 0.90 1 403 0.90 1 15 0.90 1 92 0.90 1 269 0.90 1 134 0.90 1 0 24 0 0 --- --- 35 19 0 0 --- --- 0 5 0 0 --- --- 50 21 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP 0 42.0 3.5 1.5 68.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOS WB * LTR 621 0.217 0.350 LTR 0.620 33.8 C 33.8 C NB L 484 0.141 0.567 L 0.248 14.3 B 15.9 B * TR 1059 0.249 0.567 TR 0.439 16.3 B SB L 426 0.136 0.567 L 0.239 14.4 B 15.3 B TR 1022 0.217 0.567 TR 0.384 15.5 B Intersection: Delay = 20.4sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.51 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.47SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Year 2031R MarvinPeak PM Mendenhall St/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Mendenhall Rouse PM Future App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in WB LTR 10 / 11 9.0 0.0 All 9.0 0.0 NB L 1 / 3 6.8 0.0 TR 8 / 9 13.0 0.0 All 12.5 0.0 SB L 2 / 5 3.6 0.0 TR 5 / 7 16.6 0.0 All 13.5 0.0 Intersect. 11.6 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 13 231 138 108 403 15 92 269 134 1 41 24 2 67 24 2 67 24 HCM Analysis Summary Year 2031R MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Rouse Main PM Future Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LTR 12.0 L 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 L 3 TR 3 54 0.89 1 404 0.89 1 30 0.89 0 9 0.89 0 534 0.89 1 186 0.89 1 41 0.89 0 283 0.89 1 30 0.89 1 188 0.89 1 120 0.89 0 72 0.89 1 5 83 0 0 --- --- 45 21 0 0 --- --- 5 110 0 0 --- --- 20 79 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 48.0 3.5 1.5 16.0 4.0 0.0 42.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 14.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 995 0.218 0.400 LTR 0.546 29.8 C 29.8 C WB * LTR 1303 0.236 0.400 LTR 0.589 30.2 C 30.2 C NB * LTR 606 0.226 0.350 LTR 0.647 34.7 C 34.7 C SB Lper 257 0.000 0.392 16.9 B * Lpro 238 0.118 0.133 L 0.426 18.0 B TR 921 0.108 0.517 TR 0.210 15.8 B Intersection: Delay = 28.4sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.66 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.58SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Year 2031R MarvinPeak PM Main Street/Rouse Ave09/22/2016Case: Rouse Main PM Future App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 7 / 8 8.7 0.0 All 8.7 0.0 WB LTR 9 / 10 9.3 0.0 All 9.3 0.0 NB LTR 8 / 10 8.9 0.0 All 8.9 0.0 SB L 3 / 5 5.9 0.0 TR 3 / 5 18.9 0.0 All 14.5 0.0 Intersect. 9.7 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 54 404 30 9 534 186 41 283 30 188 120 72 1 47 24 1 47 24 2 16 04 3 41 24 3 41 24 HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Rouse & Babcock Agency/Co.Marvin & Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/22/2016 East/West Street Babcock Street Analysis Year 2031 North/South Street Rouse Avenue Time Analyzed PM Future Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Apartments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR TR LT Volume (veh/h)301 428 18 46 9 44 103 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 0 0 1 0 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)572 61 163 Capacity 205 253 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.64 95% Queue Length 1.2 4.0 Control Delay (s/veh)29.8 41.7 Level of Service (LOS)D E Approach Delay (s/veh)29.8 Approach LOS D Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 3:56:17 PM Rouse Babcock PM Future.xtw HCM Analysis Summary Year 2031R MarvinPeak PM Analysis Duration: 15 mins.Main Street/Church Ave09/22/2016Case: Church Main PM Future Area Type: Non CBD Lanes Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Approach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB WB NB SB 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South LTRLTRLTRLTRData Movement Volume (vph) PHF % Heavy Vehicles Lane Groups Arrival Type RTOR Vol (vph) Peds/Hour % Grade Buses/Hour Parkers/Hour (Left|Right) LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 LTR 3 32 0.90 0 533 0.90 1 47 0.90 0 55 0.90 0 655 0.90 1 37 0.90 0 74 0.90 0 83 0.90 0 60 0.90 0 20 0.90 0 31 0.90 0 17 0.90 0 5 29 0 0 --- --- 5 12 0 0 --- --- 20 50 0 0 --- --- 0 46 0 0 --- --- Signal Settings: Operational Analysis Cycle Length: Lost Time Per Cycle: Phase: EB WB NB SB Green Yellow All Red 12345678Ped Only LTP LTP LTP LTP 0 70.0 3.5 1.5 40.0 3.5 1.5 Pretimed 120.0 Sec 10.0 Sec Capacity Analysis Results Approach: App Group Lane Cap(vph)v/sRatio g/CRatio LaneGroup v/cRatio Delay(sec/veh) LOS Delay(sec/veh) LOSEB LTR 1784 0.221 0.583 LTR 0.378 14.0 B 14.0 B WB * LTR 1729 0.278 0.583 LTR 0.477 15.4 B 15.4 B NB * LTR 515 0.141 0.333 LTR 0.423 33.6 C 33.6 C SB LTR 533 0.047 0.333 LTR 0.141 28.5 C 28.5 C Intersection: Delay = 17.6sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.46 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.42SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Year 2031R MarvinPeak PM Main Street/Church Ave09/22/2016Case: Church Main PM Future App Group Lane (veh)Avg/MaxPer LaneQueues (mph)SpeedAverage Period)(% of PeakWorst LaneSpillback in EB LTR 6 / 7 12.9 0.0 All 12.9 0.0 WB LTR 7 / 9 12.1 0.0 All 12.1 0.0 NB LTR 5 / 6 9.3 0.0 All 9.3 0.0 SB LTR 2 / 2 9.3 0.0 All 9.3 0.0 Intersect. 11.8 SIG/Cinema v3.08 Marvin & Associates Page 2 32 533 47 55 655 37 74 83 60 20 31 17 1 69 24 1 69 24 2 39 24 2 39 24 HCS 2010 Two-Way Stop Control Summary Report General Information Site Information Analyst R Marvin Intersection Apartment Accees Olive Agency/Co.Marvin& Associates Jurisdiction City of Bozeman Date Performed 9/26/2016 East/West Street Analysis Year 2031 North/South Street Aprtment Access Time Analyzed Peak PM Future Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Black Olive Aprtments Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration TR LT LR Volume (veh/h)136 17 10 321 10 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type Undivided Median Storage Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate (veh/h)364 12 Capacity 1372 502 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.02 95% Queue Length 0.0 0.1 Control Delay (s/veh)7.6 12.4 Level of Service (LOS)A B Approach Delay (s/veh)0.3 12.4 Approach LOS B Copyright © 2016 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ TWSC Version 6.80 Generated: 9/26/2016 3:36:14 PM Apartment Access Olive PM Year 2031.xtw