Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 - Traffic Impact Study - Cattail Creek Ph 3 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CATTAIL CREEK SUBDIVISION PHASE 3 BOZEMAN, MONTANA PREPARED FOR SANDAN, L.L.C. PREPARED BY ROBER, R. z, NIA, VIN ' MARVIN & ASSOCIATES , 36° - 1260 S. 32nd Street W. �,$ Billings, MT 59102 Nq� , May 11, 2004 Professional Traffic Operations Engineer#259 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 SITE LOCATION & DESCRIPTION 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3 Streets & Intersections 3 Traffic Volumes 5 Traffic Operations 8 Speeds 8 Accidents 8 TRIP GENERATION 10 TRIP DISTRIBUTION 12 TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT 13 IMPACTS 16 Traffic Volumes 16 Traffic Operations 18 Safety 18 IMPACT MITIGATION & RECOMMENDATIONS 18 APPENDIX A— TRAFFIC VOLUMES APPENDIX B — CAPACITY CALCULATIONS APPENDIX C — SPOT SPEED STUDIES APPENDIX D — COLLISION DIAGRAM LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1. Existing (2004) Capacity Analysis Summary 9 Table 2. Cattail Creek Phase 3 Trip Generation Summary 10 Table 3. Cattail Creek Phase 3 Trip Mode & Classification Summary 12 Table 4. Existing (2004) Plus Site Capacity Analysis Summary 19 ii LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1. Development Site Location 2 Figure 2. Existing (2004) Traffic Volumes 7 Figure 3. Trip Distribution Percentages 14 Figure 4. Site-Generated Traffic Assignment 15 Figure 5. Existing (2004) Plus Site Development Traffic Volumes 17 lll INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the findings of a traffic impact study (TIS) completed for the proposed Cattail Creek Phase III development located north of Bozeman, MT, between the Gallatin Center Subdivision and Davis Lane. Marvin & Associates was retained by Sandan, LLC to provide the TIS per the requirement of City of Bozeman ordinances pertaining to land use developments, which have the potential to impact traffic operations on the surrounding street system. The primary purpose of the study was to address specific impacts of the new development with regard to street system access and circulation, and to then provide recommendations regarding the mitigation of any identified impacts. Having reviewed the proposed land use development plan, Marvin & Associates completed an extensive analysis of existing conditions, addressed trip generation, trip distribution, and traffic assignment, and evaluated safety and capacity impacts, before making recommendations regarding the mitigation of those impacts. The study methodology and analysis procedures used in this study employed the most contemporary of analysis techniques, referencing only nationally accepted standards in the areas of site development and transportation impact assessment. Recommendations made within this report are based upon those standards and the professional judgment of the author. SITE LOCATION & DESCRIPTION The proposed development site for this subdivision is located on the northern fringe of Bozeman, southwest of the N. 19th Avenue/Interstate 90 interchange. The property is bounded on the north by Hulbert Road; on the south by prospective Cattail Creek Phases I and II properties; to the west by Davis Lane; and to the east by the property which contains Costco (see Figure 1). Marvin &Associates Page 1 "r !FY CF1'T Fq 9p CATTAIL CREEK SUBDIVISION PHASE III / gsTgr F G 90 LU I 7 10 n O COSTCO will { '��''�c •_-+ WINUOATE I Jr CATRON ST i CATRON STREET R—W+m _ F TARGET N 11 ft It t BURKE STREET SAVANNAH STREET GALLATIN CENTER CATTAIL STREET """' J cAr•raL srrteer LU 'a F- LU N J Q t7 BAXTER LANE JL Figure 1. Development Site Location Marvin &Associates Page 2 The existing property currently consists of mostly undeveloped farm land. The prospective Cattail Creek Phase III development plan would propose the construction of approximately 40 single family detached housing units, 159 apartments, and several office buildings, built both independently and in an office park type environment. Access to the proposed Phase III development properties would be achieved primarily by way of the approaches of Catron Street and Hulbert Road to Davis Lane and the extension of Catron Street east to Valley Center Road. Other accesses would be provided through the connection of local subdivision streets to various arterials, collectors, and other local streets. Figure 1 illustrates the proposed street layout for the subdivision, as well as the surrounding street network. EXISTING CONDITIONS Streets &Intersections Adjacent and potentially impacted existing public streets include: N. 19th Avenue, Davis Lane, Valley Center Road, Burke Street, Max Street, Cattail Street, and Catron Street. The junctions of Valley Center Road with Catron Street and N. 19th Avenue, Catron Street with Max Street, and N. 19th with Burke Street have the greatest potential for impact. N. 191h Avenue is a principal arterial, which extends approximately eight miles to the south from its intersection with Valley Center Road and approximately one- half mile to the north of that intersection. N. 19th is scheduled for reconstruction in the very near future and, once reconstructed, will be approximately 78' wide through the corridor adjacent to the project site, with a raised median, two thru lanes, dedicated turn lanes at each intersection, and two six foot shoulders. Separate bike/pedestrian paths will parallel the roadway along its length. The Marvin &Associates Page 3 intersection of N. 19tn Avenue with Valley Center Road is signalized and will be reconstructed to provide dual left-turn lanes on the northbound approach. Valley Center Road is an east-west oriented principal arterial roadway, which extends from N. 19tn Avenue to Thorpe Road, approximately eight miles to the west. The stretch of Valley Center Road between the extension of N. 27tn Avenue and N. 19tn Avenue is scheduled to be reconstructed along with N. 19tn The reconstructed portion of Valley Center Road will be approximately 86' wide at its intersection with N. 19tn Avenue and will provide dedicated left and right turn lanes at various intersections. Burke Street is an east-west oriented local commercial access street which extends west from N. 19tn Avenue to the Gallatin Center complex parking lot. At its intersection with N. 19tn Street, eastbound left-turn movements onto N. 19tn are prohibited by way of right turn channelization. As such, the intersection currently accommodates only eastbound-right turns, northbound left-turns, and southbound right-turns. Catron Street is a local commercial street with a variable pavement width. At its intersection with Valley Center Road, Catron has a paved width of approximately 44 feet and provides exclusive left and right turn lanes on the approach. Catron Street serves as the primary access to Costco, a discount big box warehouse store, and the Wingate Hotel. It also serves to access several stores in the Gallatin Subdivision. As a part of Cattail Creek Phase I & II construction, Catron Street was extended west of the Max Street intersection, and it currently connects Valley Center Road to N. 27tn Street and Davis Lane. The intersection of Catron with Max Street is currently two-way, stop-controlled and was originally designed as a T-intersection, without the northbound leg. Although it was redesigned to accommodate Max Street, the intersection, whose westbound Marvin &Associates Pane 4 approach was originally designed with separate thru and right-turn lanes, was never re-marked with a four-legged configuration. As such, it is likely that most motorists currently make the westbound left turn from the thru-marked lane. Davis Lane is a north-south oriented principal arterial that currently extends from Valley Center Road south to Baxter lane. The route is currently graveled, and it varies in width from 20' to 24'. Phase III development plans call for the construction of Hulbert Road, which would provide a second connection between N. 27th Avenue and Davis Lane, at the northern boundary of Phase III construction. Cattail Street extends west from its intersection with N. 19th Avenue, intersects with N. 27th Avenue, and continues to its intersection with Davis Lane. Cattail Street was recently constructed and is waiting to be opened pending the conversion of the N. 19th intersection from a two-way stop controlled configuration to a signalized intersection, in conjunction with the N. 19th Avenue reconstruction project. Max Street is a local commercial street within the Gallatin Center Subdivision. It serves as a north-south oriented connector between Catron Street and Burke Street. Traffic Volumes Twenty four hour automatic traffic counts were taken in March and October of 2002 on Valley Center Road, N 19th Avenue, and on Catron Street. Counters were also placed on Baxter Lane and Davis Lane in April of 2004. However, Davis was closed for construction at the time, near the Baxter Lane end, and as such, volume counts for Davis Lane were lower than normal. Also, intersection counts for the Davis Lane intersections were not made due to said road closures. Marvin &Associates Page 5 In general, the counts provided hourly variations, which were used to determine peak hours and provide base volumes for turning movement projections. Summaries of the counts can be found be Appendix "A" of this report. The highest hour volume for the majority of study area streets was between 4:30 and 5:30 p.m. The peak pm hour volume comprised approximately 8.0% of average daily traffic (ADT) on N. 19th Avenue, and approximately 9.5% on Valley Center Road. During this same hour, traffic on Catron Street also peaked at approximately 9.8% of ADT. Figure 2, on the following page, presents year 2004 peak p.m. peak hour turning movement volumes at all street intersections within the study area and Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes (AADT) calculated from the recording count stations. These peak hour volumes were calculated from turning movement counts taken on various days between September 2002 and February 2003. Raw count data was adjusted according to factors for daily and monthly variations to represent existing design hour volumes. The turning movement volumes were then balanced along the corridor. Note that the projected volumes were based upon those from the N. 19th Avenue & Valley Center Road SID, but were augmented so as to model the inclusion of the extension of Cattail Street west from its intersection with N. 19th Avenue. Pedestrian activity was insubstantial at all of the project intersections and therefore was not indicated on the turning movement diagrams. Bicycle traffic was also counted during the manual counts and was found to be substantially less than 1% of all traffic. Heavy truck traffic along N. 19th Avenue averaged approximately 4% of ADT. Along Valley Center Road, heavy truck traffic was approximately 1% of ADT or less. Marvin &Associates Page 6 185 4SDO 16`� 255 25 2 M 3 u� O Peak PM Hour(Typ) Ln LO ADT (TYp) /41j. 195 . F9sT 25 \ 20 F9 l0 L9 9T 0 CF'Fp o 50 / 265 13050 32 0 1 I 5 50205 255 190 155—/ 30 ) I 5—— — 5 38 0 12—/ -165 290—\ /---10 25— —25 60-1 �25 320 I 5 1 i r >a 725 5 5575 �O � L 9 j 15 5 w _ `Rc OEI 5 Cn ' f� .. ' im _ ' p a t• '/- ✓ COSTCO O 32 4 :� O CATRON ST 9, coo CATRON STREET 1400 5200 - - - - _ TARGET H O 65685 �\ L_J - 4900 00 J 190� \ SAVANNAH STREET + i- - — GALLATIN BURKE STREET p 1 1050 CENTER O 235 rj � ... O N J�4000 CATTAIL STREET )�CATTAIL STREET LU x r- m z 865�.,'\ O CD 100 10 Ln Jl � LO N 80 110� L30 / 25 � 35 5— --5 Uj J � 95�1 { ��' 5 Z 3 17 75� '*— 60 70 I 'S g I 20— —40 1255 5 \ 31 110 /�75 0 45 —60 110 40 1130 1500 BAXTER LANE 3800 Figure 2. Existing (2004) Traffic Volumes �— Marvin &Associates Page 7 Traffic Operations Table 1 (page 9) presents a summary of existing pm peak hour capacity calculation results for principal intersections in the project area. Signalized intersection capacity calculations were performed for the intersections of Valley Center Road, Cattail Street, and Baxter Road with N. 19th Avenue using the Sig/Cinema 2000 software package. Although the Cattail Street intersection is not currently signalized, it is expected that the conversion to signalization will occur prior to the completion of Cattail Creek Phase III development. Unsignalized intersection capacities were evaluated using HCS 2000 software. Measures of effectiveness (MOEs) in Table 1 include average delay, level of service (LOS), v/c ratio, and maximum vehicle queues per lane. Capacity calculations revealed that all intersection approaches and individual approach movements currently operate at or above an acceptable LOS "C" under p.m. peak hour conditions. Observations during the peak hour period indicate that capacity calculation results accurately represent actual conditions. Capacity calculation worksheets for existing and impacted conditions can be found in Appendix B of this report. Speeds Appendix C contains a spot speed summary conducted for eastbound and westbound traffic on Valley Center Road, approximately 500' west of the Catron Street intersection. The study indicated that 85th percentile speeds were 54 mph for the eastbound travel direction and 51 mph westbound. Speeds in other primary corridors surrounding the project site are consistent with the operational conditions of urban arterials, collectors, and local streets. Accidents MDT provided N. 19th Avenue corridor accident statistics for the period of time between October 1, 1999 and September 30, 2002. During that three-year Marvin &Associates Page 8 Table 1. Existing(2004)Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection MOE NS SB EB WB Lane Desl adon L TR L T R LT R LT R .A19th Ave. Average Dela (s 5 20. 12.8 29.9 20.7 18.8 19.7 12.9 17.2 17.2 and LOS C B C C B B B B E3 Valley Center Rd V/CRa a 0.40 0.49 0.35 0.52 0.20 0.45 0.23 0.04 0.05 `x QueuelLone vehs 5 6 3 5 2 5 3 1 1 Line Des1 nation L TR L T R L TR L TR A'.191h Ave = Vera e:Dela s 11.1 14.5 17.5 26.2 5.6 16.4 16.0 32.8 33.3 mid , i ric B B B C A B B C C Cattail St. V/C Ratio 0.20 0.72 0.11 0.79 0.08 0.20 0.12 0.05 0.19 Max QueuafLane vehs 1 9 3 9 1 3 2 1 1 - `Lane'Desl nation L TR L TR - L TR L TR A7.19th Ave 7 Avers a Dela (s) 6.5 15.4 6.9 11.9 - 21.5 20.4 21.6 19.9 and LOS A B A B C C C 6 Baxter Rd VIC Ratio 0.28 1 0.74 0.11 0.53 0.28 0,24 0.29 0.20 Max QueuelLane vehs 4 8 2 6 3 3 2 2 Lane Dell nation= L - - R A'.19th.4ve• Average Dela s 11.2 - - 13.9 and LOS B B Burke St. V/C Ratio 0.30 - - 0.33 Max ueuetLane ehs 2 1 - - 2 :•Lane Desi nation L - LR i allay Center Rd Avers a Delay s 8.2 13.4 and LOS A B Catron St V/C Rath 0.15 1 0.43 Max' ueue/Lane vehs 1 - 3 Lane Desl nation LTF2 - LTR - LTR - LT Cah•on St Average Delay s 10.8 15.0 - - 7.6 - 7.5 mid LOS B C A - A Max St. V/C Ratio 0.19 - 1 0.43 0.01 - 0.02 "UwiPueue/Lane vehs 1 - 3 Lane Dell nation LTK - - TR LT Davis Ln• Avers a Delay s 7.3 - 10.7 11.5 and LOS A B B Valley Center Rd !`i V/C Ratio 0.02 0.25 0.33 ak' ueuelL ne vehs 1 - - 1 2 Lane Desl nation - - - DavisLn• Avers e'Dela s - and LOS - Hulbert Rd V/C Ratio - - - Wax QueyelLene vehs Lane Deslanadon LR Dmwis Ln• iAverarie Delay s - - 8.6 - and LOS - - A - Catron St. V/C Ratio 0.01 Max QueuelLane vehs 1 - period, there were a total of 37 accidents on N. 19th Avenue with 26 injury accidents producing 32 injuries. There were no fatal accidents. The calculated accident rate within the project limits was 1.95 per million vehicles miles of travel. Thirteen of the 37 accidents occurred at the intersection of N 19th and Valley Center Road (see Appendix D for collision diagram). Only 4 accidents occurred at non-intersection locations. Fourteen accidents on N 19th at the Valley Center intersection were equally split between left-turn and rear-end accidents. Along N. 19th Avenue, there were fourteen rear end accidents, eight angle-type, and Marvin &Associates Page 9 seven left-turn, while the remaining accidents were split between sideswipes, head-ons and others. Nine accidents occurred during hours of darkness. The calculated nighttime accident rate was 1.58 per million vehicle miles, which significantly is less than the total accident rate. Eighty-four percent of the accidents occurred on dry roads and ninety-two percent occurred in clear or cloudy weather conditions. TRIP GENERATION Table 2 below presents trip generation estimates for Phase III of the Cattail Creek development. The estimates are based upon the current development plan, which intends for the construction of residential, manufacturing, and office- type structures. Rates and total trips are shown for the average weekday and for the peak p.m. hour. Trip generation rates were taken from the ITE Trip Generation Report, 7th Edition. Independent variable unit values, such as building size, were provided by the developer. Trip generation report land use codes 210, 220, 710, and 770, representing single family detached housing, apartments, general office buildings, and business parks, respectively, were used to predict generation rates for the proposed development structures. The total projected additional average weekday trips (AWT) figure was found to be 3082. During the p.m. peak period, 393 total additional trips were projected, with approximately 36% entering (143 trips) and 64% exiting (250 trips). Table 2. Cattail Creek Phase 3 Trip Generation Summary Averse Weekday Peak AM Hour Peak PM Hour Total Total Total Land Use Number Units Rate Trips Rate Trips Enter Exit Rate Trips Enter Exit PHASE 3 Code 210-Single Family Detached Housing 40 DUs 1' 448 2' 37 9 28 3' 47 30 17 Code 220-Apartments 159 DUs 4- 1106 5' 82 16 68 6' 105 68 37 Code 710-General Office Buildings 32.9 1000 ffe 7' 567 8' 77 68 9 9' 116 20 96 Code 770-Business Park 7.4 acres 1 10' 961 11' 95 81 14 12' 125 25 100 Phase 3 Totals 3082 291 174 .117 393 143 250 'i OfT)-0A2 LMX)*2.71 R T-0.701X)*8.43 '3 LnM-090 LMX1*0.53 '4 T-6A1())+150.35 '5 T-0.4900+3.73 TT-0.55(X)+17.65 7 LnM-a 77 Ln(X)+3.65 '8 T-0.80 Ln(X)+155 '9 T-1.12QQ+78.81 -10 T-156.81()g-199.38 M1 T-20.99(X)-60.60 '12 T-16.82(X)+0.57 Marvin &Associates Page 10 Not all of these trips would be vehicular, nor would all of the trips result in new traffic on the street system. Thus, it is important to have a thorough knowledge of all types of trips in order to properly evaluate traffic impacts. At this point, it can be assumed that transit would not play a substantial role in modal trip exchange and as such, few trips would likely be attributable to transit. A segment of new trips could likely be attributed to pedestrians and bicycle traffic. Said modes of transportation would be significant primarily during the late spring, summer, and early fall months of the calendar year. For the purposes of this analysis, a conservative estimate of approximately 2% of all trips was used to account for transit, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic. Trip generation potential is further refined by determining the number of "nevV' external trips that would appear as vehicular traffic at the development access points. Because Phase III development would incorporate both residential and industrial/office land uses, trip interchange amongst complementary land uses would likely occur. It is common that for developments, which are built adjacent to complementary facilities, a portion of the trips to and from those facilities are captured internally. 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 of the traffic network external to the development. Said trips are known as "Internal Capture Trips" (ICT). The ITE Trip Generation Handbook contains information regarding procedures for estimating ICT. It was determined that for Phase III of the Cattail Creek development, approximately 10% of site-generated trips would be internally captured within the development. As such, 302 average weekday trips and 39 p.m. peak hour trips were withdrawn from the site-generated traffic applied to the external system. The resulting number of net external trips was 2718 for the average weekday and 346 during the p.m. peak hour. Marvin &Associates Page 11 An additional consideration must be made for trips made by motorists with alternative primary destinations. Such diverted trips are known as "passerby trips" and must me removed from external trip generation projections prior to application to the traffic stream because they do not represent new trips in the system. The ITE Trip Generation Report provides methods for estimating passerby trips for a variety of facilities. In this case, because Cattail Creek Phase III development would not include any significant passerby attractors, such as retail shops or restaurants, passerby trips were considered negligible. Table 3 below illustrates estimates of gross generated trips, ped/bike trips, internal capture trips, passerby trips, and the net "new" trip totals for the average weekday, a.m. peak hour, and p.m. peak hour. Table 3. Cattail Creek Phase 3 Trip Mode&Classification Summary Time Period Total Ped/Bike Net Veh. IC Net Ext. Passerby Net New Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips PHASE 3 Average Weekday 3082 62 3020 302 2718 0 2718 Peak AM Hour 291 6 285 29 256 0 256 Peak PM Hour 393 8 385 39 346 0 U6 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 task 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, small-scale developments like this one can be handled easily by referencing the distribution of existing traffic volumes on the surrounding street system. However, in this case, Marvin & Associates had, for a previous project, created a regional QRS II micro-model, which included the project site and relevant surrounding street system. As such, the change in the distribution of traffic was extracted from the model through the alteration of demographic information for the subdivision. Figure 3, on page 14, shows a graphical summary of the directional trip Marvin &Associates �^ Page 12 distribution provided by the QRS II model. It was found that approximately 40% of all site-generated trips would originate from or be destined for the region south and east of the project site, by way of N. 19th Avenue. Another 5% could be attributed to the region south of the project site by way of Davis Lane. From the north, approximately 28% of trips would have origins and destinations along N. 19th Avenue, while 5% and 10%, respectively, could be attributed to Valley Center Road and Davis Lane to the north and west. Finally, 2% of incoming and outgoing trips could be attributed to the stretch of Cattail Street, which lies east of N. 19th Avenue, and the remaining 10% would result from trip exchange between Cattail and the Gallatin Center subdivision. TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Assignment of site traffic to the street system and site access points is dependent upon several factors. Two such factors are directional distribution and operational site conditions, both of which were discussed in previous sections. Distribution proportions are used to provide traffic access demand estimates. The estimates represent traffic movements to and from the site that would occur if street operations and internal site circulation had no effect on the direction of arrival or departure, other than in relation to the chosen access point. A traffic distribution model provides an unconstrained estimate of directional travel demand that can be further refined by calculating potential travel times within the sites and ingress and egress points. The combined calculation of demand and least time accessibility are then used to estimate likely movement volumes at each individual access point. Figure 4, on page 15, illustrates the results of average weekday trip site- generated trip assignment. The highest site traffic volumes would occur along the stretch of Catron Street, which connects the Cattail Creek subdivision to the Gallatin Center subdivision. Figure 4 also presents the results of p.m. peak hour site-generated trip assignment at key intersections. Turning movement traffic Mawin &Associates Pace 13 100/01 "r 4ry cFryrF9 9p �TF L 90 � r gI _ _�- N — `� 5% cosrco � -- 35°/ 30% '28% i II I �;J CATRON ST IYI� i. CATRON STREETLit- �• - -- "-4 �, . t. ✓VASE H t��;. BURKE STREET SAVANNAH STREET -_ �'! "'^r L a� �- `�L Lit �•-Q - GALLATIN CENTER — t ' 23016 0 CATTAIL STREET - I cnrrna S7FlCR w w Q rn Z 40% 5% w Z 5 Ln 0 1% 4% 4--10-- BAXTER LANE Figure 3. Trip Distribution Percentages Marvin &Associates Page 14 9 \ t � 17 � t 2� Cclll Peak PM Hour(Typ) N AWT (TYp) %y 6\ 3 90 I9 ` qrF 1 12 l �15 23 CFI 11 66 39 1 I � 50--/ 7 5 16 74— 43 1 40—\ ;-2 16 1 I 12 23 3 L 8 3 y Coll l` ~. ... COSTCO 5 1 -, { CATRON ST CATRON STREET f,- _ ? �.__,; 1415 950 "4 TARGET F 5 23 \ o - aoe w,wos 465 `° '�A I( BURKE STREET 37-1 SAVANNAH STREET '•_�- GALLATIN 1 1 CENTER O \ 16 28 r.. 00 -� J625 CATTAIL STREET — � r J CATTAIL STREET w Z Z w Q 2 z 53 C3 71 M O T— 12 835 4-- —3 35� z 9 \- 2 11 g Il 2 -- — 2 1932 rn \ ---5 10 � 0 4 49 30 105 BAXTER LANE 105 Figure 4. Site Generated Traffic Assignment �— Marvin &Associates Palge 15 volumes were calculated through the application of primary and passerby distributions to full development Phase III vehicular trip generation totals. Not shown in Figure 4 are movements that would likely result from trip exchange between the Cattail Creek and Gallatin Center subdivisions. IMPACTS Traffic Volumes Traffic volume impacts for site developments can be quantified simply by determining the change in traffic volumes expected at various points within the surrounding network of 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 the percent change in AWT can only be used to identify general locations where impacts could be significant, as opposed to the time frame. It is the determination of volume changes during peak traffic flow periods that provides specific information on the type and location of impacts that could potentially occur. In almost all cases, it is very difficult to determine ADT 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 critical. Figure 5, on page 17, illustrates the assignment of full development site traffic to the surrounding street system and the relative volumes that would result if the development existed today for Phase III of the Cattail Creek development. Several area street sections were projected to be significantly (by more than 10%) influenced by site development traffic, including Davis Lane (increases of up to 49%), Catron Street (increases up to 101%), and Cattail Street (increases up to 16%). Figure 5 also illustrates existing plus site traffic ADTs and percentage increases along key area corridors. Marvin &Associates Pacre 16 185 24") �S�OI2o `, —,, 255 i f 42 3 5 Peak PM Hour (Typ) N 44,. 195 00 1A RST 31\ \ 23 9II bq qTF 90 1 I i \ -- <�FyC 61 I/ 15362 32 /-815 �,L 9 1� 265 ) 50 1 ( 5 1205 9p 321 229 205-/ 30 + 5— _- 5 45 5 12-/ `-165 306--\ /-10 25— —25 `rSLa 1 60 (/-25 �� 336 5 c 737 5 5575 G 23 9I w [ i ( � . 9 —�� �" COSTCO � c 45 5 r i` ---- -- r1O /�`�y n...a. J` CATRON ST CATRON STREET tl I - -, 2815[�101%] 150[18%] �o _ Lq jl TARGET 5� %] oO�° 70 708 BURKE STREET 227--,, ` SAVANNAH STREET - —' GALLATIN 1 1078 CENTER o 251 00 N 4625116%] 1 CATTAIL STREET - j�` {{ I CATTAIL STREET LU Z w Q 4625[16%] m % Increase ° Z 10791810 o � N Exist.+Site ADT CD J LO Ln 122-/ \-30 n 25 89 40 N 5 —8 JJ � 130� �5 z 5 26 \ 75 -/ 62 89 ' ( g 22— ---43 1287 �' 120 75 N 1 � ( 40 > 6� 0 45— ^60 114 40 1179 1605[7%] BAXTER LANE 3905[3%] Figure 5. Existing (2004) Plus Site Traffic Volumes Marvin X Associates Page 17 Traffic Operations Table 4, on the following page, presents a summary of existing year (2004) capacity calculation results for key area intersections with site-generated traffic included in the analysis. MOEs again included average delay, level of service (LOS), v/c ratio, and maximum vehicle queue per lane. Calculation results showed that the addition of site-generated traffic would not bring about any substantial degradation in operational efficiency for any of the principal area intersections. The intersection of Catron Street with Max Street would realize the largest increase in entering volume, but would continue to operate in an acceptable manner in terms of operational efficiency. Again, calculations were made under the assumption that the westbound approach of the Catron Street/Max Street intersection allows for left and thru movements in one lane and right turns in the other. Safety The addition of Phase III site-generated traffic to the network of streets and intersections surrounding the Cattail Creek development would not have a measurable effect on safety at those locations. Although an increase in traffic volumes would inherently augment accident exposure, said increase would not be dramatic enough to significantly degrade safety. IMPACT MITIGATION & RECOMMENDATIONS As it is currently proposed, the development of Phase III of the Cattail Creek subdivision would not significantly alter area traffic patterns as a result of the addition of site-generated trips to existing volumes. All of the existing principal area intersections would continue to operate in an acceptable manner. Volume projections for this development fall within the reasonable boundaries of the development assumptions made for the North 19th Avenue & Valley Center Road SID reconstruction project. Thus, future operations, with site-generated traffic, should go as planned in the SID report. Therefore, no significant volume impacts could be attributed to Cattail Creek Phase III development. Marvin &Associates Page 18 Table 4. Existing(2004)Plus Site Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection MOE NB 8B EB WB Lane Designation L TR L T R LT R LT R . 19thdve. Avera eDeM s 22.4 14.5 29.9 20.9 19.0 19.3 11.7 15.7 15.8 and LOS C B C C B B B B B Valley Center Rd V/C Ratio 0.47 0.54 0.35 0.53 0.23 0.53 0.23 0.03 0.04 .Max QueuelLane vehs A 6 2 5 2 6 2 1 1 Lane Deli nation L TR L T R L TR L TR .19th:wc. Avera a Dele s 11.7 14.9 17.5 28.5 5.6 16.6 16.3 32.8 33.4 cmd LOS B B B C A B B C C Cattail St. VIC Ratio 0.26 0.74 0.11 0.84 0.09 0.22 0.16 0.05 0.21 Max QueuelLane vehs 4 10 2 1 10 1 3 3 1 1 "Lane Desi nation L TR L TR - L TR L TR -119th,4 Averacie Delay(s) 7.4 16.2 7.4 12.6 21.7 20.7 21.6 20.0 and LOS A B A B C C C B BaxterRd VIC Ratio 0.31 0.77 0.13 0.59 0.29 0.26 0.29 0.21 Max ueue/Lane vehs 3 8 2 7 3 2 3 3 Lane Designation L - - - - R ,\ 19th Ave. Averacie Dela s 11.6 - 15.1 and LOS B - C Burke St. VIC Ratio 0.33 - 0.40 Max ueuetLane vehs 2 - 2 Lane Deskc1nation L LR 1 allev Center Rd ..Avers a Delay(s) 8.4 - 16.3 and LOS A - C - Catron St. VIC Ratio 0.18 - 0.56 ;Max QuedelLane vehs) 1 - 4 Lane Designation LTR LTR LTR - LT Catron St. Average Delay s 13.0 21.3 - 7.7 - 7.7 - nnd LOS B C - A - A Max St. VIC Ratio 0.27 - 0.56 0.01 - 0.02 MaxQueue/Lane vehs 2 4 `Lane Designation LTR TR LT DavisLn. Average Dela s 7.3 11.1 1 2.1 and LOS A B B Valley Center Rd VIC Ratlo 0.03 Maz OueuelLane vehs 1 2 2 Lane Designation - - - LR DavisLn Average Dela s 8.7 and LOS - A, Hulbert Rd VIC Ratio - 0.02 - Max QueuelLane(vehs 1 Lane Des! nation - LR - Davis Ln. Avers- a Delay s - - 8.7 mid LOS A Catron St. WC Ratio - 0.02 Mar QueuelLarre vehs 1 In terms of safety, the addition of site generated traffic should not have a significantly adverse affect at any of the studied intersections. Pavement markings at the intersection of Catron and Max should be updated, so as to be consistent with the operational movements allowed there. The current markings have the potential to create confusion at the intersection, which could result in a compromise in safety. Malvin &Associates Page 19 From the foregoing analysis, it is concluded that the development of Phase III of the Cattail Creek Subdivision would not significantly affect operational efficiency or safety in any of the corridors or at any of the intersections surrounding the project site. However, it is recommended that action be taken to appropriately resolve the aforementioned pavement marking issue at the intersection of Catron Street and Max Street, prior to the conclusion of development. Marvin &Associates Page 20 APPENDIX A—TRAFFIC VOLUMES Marvin &Associates N. IN venue Bozeman N of Deadmans ;rthbound Hour 10/17/02 10/18/02 Avg. % of Begin THU FRI Weekday Weekday 1 31 31 0.3% 2 21 21 0.2% 3 21 21 0.2% 4 52 52 0.5% 5 105 105 1.0% 6 188 188 1.8% 7 345 345 3.3% 8 387 387 3.7% 9 429 429 4.1% 10 585 585 5.6% 11 690 690 6.6% 12 711 711 6.8% 13 648 648 6.2% 14 711 711 6.8% 15 794 794 7.6% 16 826 826 7.9% 17 1003 1003 9.6% 18 721 721 6.9% 19 617 617 5.9% 20 585 585 5.6% 21 523 523 5.0% 22 240 240 2.3% 23 136 136 1.3% 24 84 84 0.8% Total 6240 4212 10452 100.0% GRAPH 14%- 13% --------- -------- _------------------- 12%- ------------------- --- ----------------- _11%- --------------------- - - --- --- ----- M0% -------------------------------- - _ O9% -------------------------- ----------- 8/o p 7% ------------------------ ------------ 0 Weekday (D ---------------- - ---- U ° - --- a) 3%----------- , --- -- �- --------- --- f 0% Hours of the Day N. 19th Avem 3ozeman N of Deadmans Sout ound Hour 10/17/02 10/18/02 Avg. % of Begin THU FRI Weekday Weekday 1 26 26 0.2% 2 39 39 0.3% 3 13 13 0.1% 4 39 39 0.3% 5 116 116 0.9% 6 334 334 2.6% 7 1029 1029 8.0% 8 1055 1055 8.2% 9 746 746 5.8% 10 913 913 7.1% 11 939 939 7.3% 12 965 965 7.5% 13 759 759 5.9% 14 887 887 6.9% 15 926 926 7.2% 16 810 810 6.3% 17 849 849 6.6% 18 707 707 5.5% 19 592 592 4.6% 20 424 424 3.3% 21 347 347 2.7% 22 180 180 1.4% 23 116 116 0.9% 24 51 51 0.4% Total 5891 6971 12862 100.0% RAP H 14% 13% -------------------------------------- 12% -------------------------------------- M10%-------- - - ---- O9% ----------------------------------------- 8% --------- -------------- ----- Y,. O 7% --------- - --- -------------- M Weekday 5% --------- - ---------- O 3% - ------ 2% --------r. 'l i l 1% ------- - 2Y -- 0% l Hours of the Day N. 19th Avenue —azeman N of Deadmans NB & S_ Hour 10/17/02 10/18/02 Avg. % of Begin THU FRI Weekday Weekday 1 57 57 0.2% 2 59 59 0.3% 3 34 34 0.1% 4 91 91 0.4% 5 220 220 0.9% 6 523 523 2.2% 7 1374 1374 5.9% 8 1441 1441 6.2% 9 1175 1175 5.0% 10 1499 1499 6.4% 11 1629 1629 7.0% 12 1675 1675 7.2% 13 1407 1407 6.0% 14 1598 1598 6.9% 15 1720 1720 7.4% 16 1636 1636 7.0% 17 1852 1852 7.9% 18 1429 1429 6.1% 19 1208 1208 5.2% 20 1010 1010 4.3% 21 870 870 3.7% 22 420 420 1.8% 23 252 252 1.1% 24 135 135 0.6% Total 12131 11183 23314 100% Day Factor= 1.16 Month Factor= 1 ADT= 20098 GRAPH 14% 13% ------------- ---------------------------------- _12% ----------------------------------------------- M11% ------------------------------------------------ �10% ----------------- ------------------------------ 10 9% ----------------------------------------------- 8% ------------------------------- -------------- `0 7% -----. --- .:: -------------- 6% --------- --- ------------ 5% ------------r' :, ---------- (L) o s r,, — — -------- -----"------'`" is IHI 1% -------- — 0% - r :g� 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 Hours of the Day Valley Center Rd. - W. of Catron Eastbound Hour 03/25/02 03/26/02 Avg. % of Begin MON TUE Weekday Weekday 1 5 5 0.2% 2 3 3 0.1% 3 8 8 0.3% 4 11 11 0.4% 5 60 60 2.2% 6 171 171 6.3% 7 424 424 15.7% 8 239 239 8.9% 9 146 146 5.4% 10 144 144 519% 11 144 144 5.3% 12 189 168 179 6.6% 13 164 161 163 6.0% 14 167 150 159 5.9% 15 125 125 4.6% 16 165 165 6.1% 17 153 153 5.7% 18 137 137 5.1% 19 77 77 2.9% 20 64 64 2.4% 21 42 42 1.6% 22 32 32 1.2% 23 27 27 1.0% 24 24 24 0.9% Total 1366 1834 2701 100% Valley Center Rd. - West.of Catron Eastbound 16% 14% ------------ --- --------- -a2% ------------ ------------------------------------- �I0% ------------- ------------ 8% ------------ ---------------------------------- , 6% --------- - j ------ ,--- ------------- --- 2°/ ----- 05 1 2 3 4 5 0 7 8 9 101112131415151718192021222324 Hours of the Day Valley Center Rd. -W. of Catron Westbound Hour 03/26/02 03/26/02 Avg. % of Begin MON TUE Weekday Weekday 1 6 6 0.2% 2 3 3 0.1% 3 2 2 0.1% 4 5 5 0.2% 5 27 27 1.0% 6 51 51 1.8% 7 70 70 2.5% 8 119 119 4.2% 9 95 95 3.4% 10 103 103 3.7% 11 146 146 5.2% 12 179 207 193 6.9% 13 149 175 162 5.8% 14 205 206 206 7.3% 15 251 251 9.0% 16 328 328 11.7% 17 375 375 13.4% 18 231 231 8.2% 19 149 149 5.3% 20 128 128 4.6% 21 76 76 2.7% 22 46 46 1.6% 23 16 16 0.6% 24 14 14 0.5% Total 2147 1215 2802 v �100% Valley Center Rd. - West of Catron Westbound 16°r° 14%- -------- -------------- -- �2% ----------------------'`> ---- ------ -- �I0% ----- -------------- ------------------------ F w !: N F; -> •, i :< IZ2%- ------------;- ------ 0FIR m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112131415161718192021222324 Hours of the Day Catron Street South of Valley Center Northbound Hour 03/25/02 03/26/02 Avg. % of Begin MON TUE Weekday Weekday 1 0 0 0.0% 2 0 0 0.0% 3 3 3 0.1% 4 7 7 0.3% 5 15 15 0.6% 6 28 28 1.1% 7 106 106 4.2% 8 '61 61 2.4% 9 59 59 2.4% 10 127 127 5.1% 11 205 205 8.2% 12 200 253 227 9.0% 13 241 225 233 9.3% 14 237 164 201 8.0% 15 233 233 9.3% 16 262 262 10.5% 17 244 244 9.7% 18 198 198 7.9% 19 156 156 6.2% 20 86 86 3.4% 21 36 36 1.4% 22 11 11 0.4% 23 5 5 0.2% 24 4 4 0.2% Total 1913 1253 2506 100% Catron Street Northbound (Ul2% --------------- - - - -------------------------------- 4- (IO% -------------------------/-----,• ----- ---------- -------- ;; ------ ------- ----------- 0 f ' r $04 : 0% f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161716192021222324 Hours of the Day Catron Street South of Valley Center Southbound Hour 03/25/02 03/26/02 Avg. % of Begin MON TUE Weekday Weekday 1 1 1 0.0% 2 0 0 0.0% 3 12 12 0.6% 4 19 19 0.9% 5 21 21 1.0% 6 65 65 3.2% 7 33 33 1.6% 8 37 37 1.8% 9 87 87 4.3% 10 184 184 9.1% 11 189 189 9.3% 12 185 205 195 9.6% 13 182 175 179 8.8% 14 186 147 167 8.2% 15 160 160 7.9% 16 189 189 9.3% 17 215 215 10.6% 18 126 126 6.2% 19 86 86 4.2% 20 32 32 1.6% 21 16 16 0.8% 22 11 11 0.5% 23 2 2 0.1% 24 3 3 0.1% Total 1393 1175 2028 100% Catron Street Southbound 16% �-- - 14% ---------------- ------------------------------------ �2% ------------------------------------ q0% ---------------- ------------'; ------ ------- s. 6%--------------------- ----------- >; t , N 2% -------- ` ---- j ---------- 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324 Hours of the Day Baxter Lane -100 ft. East of Davis Lane Eastbound Hour 4/15/2004 0:00 4/16/2004 0:00 Avg. % of Begin THU FRI Weekday Weekday 1 0 0 0.0% 2 0 0 0.0% 3 1 1 0.1% 4 1 1 0.1% 5 3 3 0.4% 6 17 17 2.5% 7 61 61 8.8% 8 59 59 8.5% 9 43 43 6.2% 10 36 36 5.2% 11 68 68 9.8% 12 46 45 46 6.6% 13 37 49 43 6.2% 14 39 53 46 6.6% 15 66 70 68 9.8% 16 49 63 56 8.1% 17 59 45 52 7.5% 18 36 36 5.2% 19 24 24 3.5% 20 17 17 2.5% 21 8 8 1.2% 22 5 5 0.7% 23 2 2 0.3% 24 2 2 0.3% Total 390 614 694 100% 12.0% - 10.0% L - _ _ _, ....-•---•....................... .................... 8.0% _ - ........... .................. ---------- ----- --- - 6.0% ---------------------- - .. ...... -• . -- . - -- 4.0% ...... - - ...... . .. . . .. 2.0% ..-. ..... 0.0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Baxter Lane-100 ft. East of Davis Lane Westbound Hour 4/16/2004 0:00 4/16/2004 0:00 Avg. %of Begin THU FRI Weekday Weekday 1 0 0 0.0% 2 0 0 0.0% 3 2 2 0.3% 4 1 1 0.1% 5 1 1 0.1% 6 21 21 3.1% 7 50 50 7.4% 8 67 67 9.9% 9 33 33 4.9% 10 36 36 5.3% 11 49 49 7.2% 12 60 67 64 9.4% 13 40 57 49 7.2% 14 44 53 49 7.2% 15 48 54 51 7.5% 16 67 64 66 9.7% 17 41 52 47 6.9% 18 34 34 5.0% 19 27 27 4.0% 20 15 15 2.2% 21 10 10 1.5% 22 5 5 0.7% 23 2 2 0.3% 24 0 0 0.0% Total 393 607 677 100% 12.0% 10.0% . ...................... --- ................ - - - - ......................... ...... 8.0% ........................... ................. ................ ......................................... 6.0% ............................ ........ .................................... 4.0% ----- ----------------------- . . -- ......................... 2.0% ......................... . .. .. .. ....-......_........ 0.0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Baxter Lane —100 ft. East of Davis Lane Both Directions Hour 4/15/2004 0:00 4/16/2004 0:00 Avg. % of Begin THU FRI Weekday Weekday 1 0 0 0.0% 2 0 0 0.0% 3 3 3 0.2% 4 2 2 0.1% 5 4 4 0.3% 6 38 38 2.8% 7 111 111 8.1% 8 126 126 9.2% 9 76 76 5.6% 10 72 72 5.3% 11 117 117 8.6% 12 106 113 109 8.0% 13 77 100 89 6.5% 14 83 99 91 6.7% 15 114 122 118 8.7% 16 116 120 118 8.7% 17 100 104 102 7.5% 18 70 70 5.1% 19 51 51 3.7% 20 32 32 2.3% 21 18 18 1.3% 22 10 10 0.7% 23 4 4 0.3% 24 2 2 0.1% Total 783 1207 1363 100% 12.0% 10.0% ------•------------------------••-----------------•------.---------- - ----- -- ------ ........ 8.0% .............................. . .......... • ........... .. ..--................................... H 4- 6.0% C U L- 4.0% . . . . . . . . . . ............................. CL 2.0% --------------------•- ........ 0.0% - L�Fo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hours of the Day Davis Lane-100 ft. S. of Valley Center Northbound Hour 4/15/2004 0:00 4/16/2004 0:00 Avg. %of Begin THU FRI Weekday Weekday 1 0 0 0.0% 2 0 0 0.0% 3 1 1 0.7% 4 1 1 0.7% 5 1 1 0.7% 6 1 1 0.7% 7 4 4 2.8% 8 0 0 0.0% 9 1 1 0.7% 10 5 5 3.5% 11 15 15 10.6% 12 32 32 22.6% 13 7 27 17 12.0% 14 20 33 27 18.7% 15 11 18 15 10.2% 16 13 8 11 7.4% 17 7 7 4.9% 18 4 4 2.8% 19 1 1 0.7% 20 0 0 0.0% 21 0 0 0.0% 22 0 0 0.0% 23 0 0 0.0% 24 0 0 0.0% Total 63 147 142 100% 25.0% 20.0% ........................................................ ................................................ 15.0% ...................................................... ...... ............................................. 10.0% -------------------------•-------------------I----- - - - -•----•-- -•------------ 5.0% .. ................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Davis Lane -100 ft. S. of Valley Center Southbound Hour 4/15/2004 0:00 4/16/2004 0:00 Avg. % of Begin THU FRI Weekday Weekday 1 1 1 0.7% 2 0 0 0.0% 3 0 0 0.0% 4 0 0 0.0% 5 0 0 0.0% 6 4 4 2.8% 7 5 5 3.5% 8 0 0 0.0% 9 5 5 3.5% 10 6 6 4.2% 11 2 2 1.4% 12 33 33 22.8% 13 8 39 24 16.3% 14 31 41 36 24.9% 15 17 17 17 11.8% 16 6 2 4 2.8% 17 5 5 3.5% 18 2 2 1.4% 19 0 0 0.0% 20 1 1 0.7% 21 0 0 0.0% 22 0 0 0.0% 23 0 0 0.0% 24 0 0 0.0% Total 70 155 145 100% 25.0% 20.0% -----------.................................................. ...... .................... .............................. 15.0% ....................................................�... 10.0% ........................................................ ... • . . .............................. 5.0% ..............................---------------------------.. .._...._.... 0.0% - A-L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Davis Lane —100 ft. S. of Valley Center Both Directions Hour 4/15/2004 0:00 4/16/2004 0:00 Avg. % of Begin THU FRI Weekday Weekday 1 1 1 0.4% 2 0 0 0.0% 3 1 1 0.4% 4 1 1 0.4% 5 1 1 0.4% 6 5 5 1.8% 7 9 9 3.3% 8 0 0 0.0% 9 6 6 2.2% 10 11 11 4.0% 11 17 17 6.2% 12 65 65 23.8% 13 15 51 33 12.0% 14 51 69 60 22.0% 15 28 35 32 11.5% 16 19 12 16 5.7% 17 12 5 9 3.1% 18 6 6 2.2% 19 1 1 0.4% 20 1 1 0.4% 21 0 0 0.0% 22 0 0 0.0% 23 0 0 0.0% 24 0 0 0.0% Total 133 289 273 100% 25.0% -- - - - - 20.0% _ _ .-. - ..................................... O O 4- C (0j 10.0% ..................................................... .....----------. ...... W ^L^,, C�L 5.0% ............................................... .......... .................. 0.0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hours of the Day APPENDIX B — CAPACITY CALCULATIONS Marvin &Associates HCM Analysis Summary Existing Conditions VALLEY CENTER/N 19TH AV��'T'ype:Non CBD R MARVIN 3/15/03 Analysis Duration: 15 mins. PEAK PM HOUR Case: VC EXISTING 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 2 1 LT 12.0 R 12.0 WB 2 2 LT 12.0 R 12.0 NB 4 2 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 SB 4 2 L 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 East West North South Data L T R L T R L T R L T R Movement Volume v h 155 5 290 10 5 30 320 725 5 35 450 130 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 %Heavy Vehicles 1 0 I 1 0 4 1 3 0 4 3 1 Lane Groups LI' R LT R L TR L T R Arrival Type 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 RTOR Vol v h 150 10 0 50 Peds/Hour 0 0 0 0 %Grade 0 0 0 0 Buses/Hour 0 0 0 0 Parkers/Hour(LeftlRight) --- --- I -- -- --- -- --- Signal Settings:Actuated Operational Analysis Cycle Length: 65.0 Sec Lost Time Per Cycle: 14.0 Sec Phase: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ped Only EB LTP R WB LTR NB L LTP TP SB L TP Green 18.0 4.0 8.0 17.0 0 Yellowl All Red 1 3.3 1.7 1 4.0 0.0 4.0 1 0.0 1 3.5 1.5 Capacity Analysis Results A roach: Lane tCap v/s g/C Lane v/c Delay Delay clveh EB * LT 0.124 0.277 LT 0.447 19.7 B 16.5 B R 640 0.092 0.400 R 0.230 12.9 B WB LT 439 0.010 0.277 LT 0.036 17.2 B 17.2 B R 430 0.014 0.277 R 0.049 17.2 B NB L 854 0.097 0.246 L 0.395 20.5 C 15.2 B * TR 1563 0.219 0.446 TR 0.491 12.8 B SB * L 107 0.021 0.062 L 0.346 29.9 C 21.0 C T 917 0.135 0.262 T 0.517 20.7 C R 418 0.053 0.262 R 0.201 18.8 B Intersection:Delay= 17.1 sec/veh Int.LOS=B Xc 0.46 *Critical Lane Group 2:(v/s)Crit= 0.36 SIG/Cinema v3.03 Page I NETSIM Summary Results Existing Conditions VALLEY CENTER/N 19TH AVENUE R MARVIN 3/15/03 PEAK PM HOUR Case: VC EXISTING Queues Spillback in LAv9 er Lane Average Worst Lane Lane /Max Speed (%of Peak 450 App Group (veh) (mph) Period) 130 135 EB LT 3 / 5 12.2 0.0 _ �-- 30 R 2/ 3 20.7 0.0 5 All 16.0 0.0 10 L --------------------------------- - ..... .. - 'z—' WB LT 1 / 1 11.9 0.0 .................................. R 0/ 1 23.3 0.0 155 All 15.9 0.0 290 I I NB L 3 / 5 11.5 0.0 , TR 4/ 6 14.6 0.0 1 320 15 725 All 13.4 0.0 SB L 1 / 3 5.1 0.0 1 2 3 a I ' L «'i T 1 3 / 5 12.8 0.0 . R 1 / 2 18.6 0.0 18.--+ y 3 2 411 4 0 8 '� 4 0 16 ��� 4 2 All 12.5 0.0 Intersect. 13.6 SIG/Cinema 0.03 Page 2 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Conditions DEADMANS GULCH/N 19TH AAdFea Type: Non CBD R MARVIN 03/15/2003 Analysis Duration: 15 rn PEAK PM HOUR Case: DEADMANS EXISTING 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 2 1 L 12.0 TR 1 12.0 WB 2 1 L 12.0 TR 12.0 NB 3 2 L 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 SB 4 2 L 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 East West North South Data L T R L T R L T R L T R Movement Volume v h 110 5 95 5 5 30 70 1255 5 10 865 100 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 %Flea Vehicles 1 0 1 l 0 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 Lane Groups L TR L TR L TR L T R Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 RTOR Vol ph 35 15 0 20 Peds/Hour 0 0 0 0 9/6 Grade 0 0 0 0 Buses/Hour 0 0 0 0 Parkers/Hour(LeftlRight) -- --- --- --- --- """ --' --- Signal Settings: etimed Operational Analysis Cycle Length: 75.0 Sec Lost Time Per Cycle.12.0 Sec Phase: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ped Only EB LTP LTP WB LTP NB LTP LTP SB R LTP Green 18.0 5.1 11.0 24.9 0 Yellowl All Red 1 4.0 0.0 2.31 1.7 4.0 0.0 2.3 1.7 Capacity Analysis Results A roach: Lane Cap v/s g/C Lane v/c Delay Delay Anp Group (yph) Ratio Ratio Group Ratio (sec/veh) 1.0S--1 EB L er 154 U00 0.121 16.3 B * L ro 429 0.065 0.240 L 0.199 16.4 B TR 585 0.042 0.361 TR 0.116 16.0 B WB L 100 0.003 0.068 L 0.050 32.8 C 33.2 C * TR 113 0.013 0.068 TR 0.186 33.3 C NB L er 100 0.000 0.385 14.3 B L ro 262 0.041 0.147 L 0.204 11.1 B * TR 1846 0.382 0.532 TR 0.718 14.5 B SB L 100 0.036 0.332 L 0.110 17.5 B 24.4 C T 1152 0.262 0.332 T 0.791 26.2 C R 1000 0.053 0.625 R 0.084 5.6 A Intersection:Delay= 18.5 sec/veh Int.LOS=B Xc 0.55 *Critical Lane Group 2:(v/s)Crit= 0.46 SIG/Cinema v3.03 Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Conditions DEADMANS GLTLCH/N 19TH AVE 7 R MARVIN 03/15/2003 PEAK PM HOUR Case: DEADMANS EXISTING Queues Spillback in Per Lane Average Worst Lane Lane Avg/Max Speed (% of Peak 865 App Group (veh) (mph) Period) 100 10 EB L 2/ 3 12.0 0.0 TR 1 / 2 22.4 0.0 L 30 ll 5 All 14.8 0.0 �— 5 . .L WB L 0/ 1 8.0 0.0 ..................................... TR 1 / 1 12.8 0.0 �. 110 7 ` � 5 All 10.9 0.0 95 NB L 1 / 1 14.5 0.0 TR 7/ 9 14.5 0.0 1 70 15 1255 All 14.5 0.0 SB L 1 / 3 3.9 0.0 1 2 3 4 T 6/ 9 11.8 0.0 ""r R I / 1 22.7 0.0 18 4 0 5 2 2 11 11:4 4 0 25 1: 2 2 All 11.7 0.0 Intersect. 13.2 SIG/Cinema v3.03 Page 2 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Conditions BAXTER/N 19TH AVE Area Type:Non CBD R MARVIN 03/15/2003 Analysis Duration: 15 mins. PEAK PM Case: BAXTER EXISTING Lanes Geometry:Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) A roach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB 2 1 L 12.0 TR 12.0 WB 2 1 L 12.0 TR 12.0 NB 3 2 L 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 SB 3 2 L 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South Data L T R L T R L T R L T R Movement Volume v h 75 20 110 75 40 60 110 1130 40 35 810 25 P F 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.9 I5 %Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 Lane Groups L TR L TR L TR L TR Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vol v h 50 30 15 10 Peds/Hour 0 0 0 0 %Grade 0 0 0 0 Buses/Hour 0 0 0 0 Parkers/Hour(LeftlRight) --- - -- --- -- - - - Signal Settings:Pretimed Operational Analysis Cycle Length: 57.2 Sec Lost Time Per Cycle:12.0 Sec Phase: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ped Only EB LTP WB LTP NB L LTP SB L LTP Green 12.0 6.2 27.0 0 Yellow All Red 2.3 1.7 4.0 0.0 2.3 1.7 MLMO Ca a itV Anal sis Results A roach: Lane Ca v/s g/C Lane We Delay Delay p EB L 280 0.059 0.210 L 0.282 21.5 C 20.9 C 1'11 350 0.050 0.210 TR 0.240 20.4 C WB * L 277 0.060 0.210 L 0.285 21.6 C 20.7 C TR 369 0.042 0.210 TR 0.201 19.9 B NB L er 222 0.000 0.542 14.6 B * L ro 194 0.065 0.108 L 0.279 6.5 A * TR 1633 0.351 0.472 TR 0.744 15.4 B SB L er 132 0.000 0.542 11.7 B L ro 194 0.021 0.108 L 0.113 6.9 A TR 1634 0.251 0.472 TR 0.532 11.9 B Intersection:Delay= 14.4 sec/veh Int.LOS=B X=0.60 *Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit=0.48 SIG/Cinema v3.03 Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Conditions BAXTER/N 19TH AVE R MARVIN 03/15/2003 PEAK PM Case: BARTER EXISTING Queues Spillback in Per Lane Average Worst Lane Lane Avg/Max Speed (%of Peak 810 App Group (veh) (mph) Period) 25 135 EB L 2 / 3 8.2 0.0 1 t� TR 1 / 3 18.0 0.0 t— 60 — 40 All 14.0 0.0 1 ; r— 75 WB L 1 / 2 8.6 0.0 ------------------- TR 1 / 2 17.0 0.0 �► Zo All 14.5 0.0 110 —Z NB L 2/ 4 11.4 0.0 TR 51 8 15.1 0.0 1 1101 40 1130 All 14.9 0.0 SB L 0/ 2 16.8 0.0 1 2 3 TR 3 / 6 17.6 0.0 om.. 12 1 + 2 2 6 4 0 27 2 2 All 17.6 0.0 Intersect. 15.6 SIG/Cinema v3.03 Page 2 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of l TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst D.J. Clark Intersection Agency/Co. Marvin &Associates Jurisdiction Date Performed 411412004 nalysis Year 2004 (Existing) nal sis Time Period PM Peak Project Description Eas'.West Street: Burke Street North/South Street: N. 19th Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 235 1050 0 0 685 65 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 247 1 1105 1 0 0 721 66 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — 0 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration L T T TR lJ stream Signal 0 1 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 0 0 190 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 1 200 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 1 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 Configuration I I I I R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SIB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 _ane Configuration L R v (vph) 247 200 (m) (vph) 827 605 ✓/c 0.30 0.33 95% queue length 1.26 1.44 :,ontrol Delay 11.2 13.9 LOS B B approach Delay - 13.9 kpproach LOS -- — B Rights Reserved CS2006TM Copyright CU 2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c Version 4.1d Ile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\dj_2\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k29.tmp 4/14/2004 Cwo-Way Stop Control Page 1 of l TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information g_galyst D.J. Clark Intersection ency/Co. Marvin &Associates urisdiction ate Performed 411412004 nalysis Year 2004 (Existing) Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project Description East/West Street: Catron Street North/South Street: VaHey Center Road Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs): 0.25 [Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound vlovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R [volume 190 265 0 0 195 25 :leak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.— 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 -burly Flow Rate, HFR 200 1 278 1 0 0 1 205 26 Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 -- - 0 _ -- vledian Type Raised curb :RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 0 2 0 :�onfi uration L T T TR J stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound vlovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R o l u me 0 0 0 50 0 255 'eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 sourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 0 10 52 1 0 1 268 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 0 2 0 4 3ercent Grade (%) 0 0 :tared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 panes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR )elay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach NB SIB Westbound Eastbound "Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 -ane Configuration L LR (vph) 200 320 (m) (vph) 1319 744 lc 0.15 0.43 95% queue length 0.53 2.17 ,ontrol Delay 8.2 13.4 t_OS A B approach Delay -- -- 13.4 approach LOS - B Rights Reserved M00drM Copyright CU 2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.R Version 4.ld l e:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\dj_2\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k3 C.tmp 4/14/2004 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of l TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst D.J. Clark Intersection Agency/Co. Marvin &Associates Jurisdiction Date Performed 411412004 Analysis Year 2004 (Existing) Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project Description EastA/Vest Street: Catron Street North/South Street: Max Street Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound (Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 12 25 60 25 25 165 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 12 26 1 63 26 26 173 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 — 4 Median type Undivided IRT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R U stream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 55 75 205 50 5 [Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 5 57 76 215 52 1 5 (Proportion of heavy 0 3 0 0 3 0 vehicles, PHv !Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LT LTR LTR Volume, v (vph) 12 26 140 272 Capacity, cm (vph) 1373 1494 756 629 v/c ratio 0.01 0.02 0.19 0.43 Queue length (95%) 0.03 0.05 0.68 2.18 control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 7.5 10.8 15.0 LOS A A B C approach delay (s/veh) — 10.8 15.0 approach LOS — B C f[CS2000TM Copyright(D 2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c ile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\dj_2\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k5.tmp 4/29/2004 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of l TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst D.J. Clark Intersection Agency/Co. Marvin & Associates JurJsdiction Date Performed 411412004 Analysis Year 2004(Existing) Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project Description EastA'Vest Street: Valley Center Road North/South Street: Davis Lane Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 25 0 3 0 0 0 (Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0,95 1Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 26 0 3 0 1 0 0 (Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 — — 0 (Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 'Configuration LTR LR ,Upstream Signal 0 1 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 2 255 0 0 185 15 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 1 268 1 0 0 194 15 [Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 4 (Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 I-anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LT TR ✓ (vph) 26 270 209 31 (m) (vph) 1610 825 840 ✓/c 0,02 0.33 0.25 95% queue length 0.05 1.43 0.98 control Delay 7.3 11.5 10.7 LOS A B B '\pproach Delay — — 11.5 10.7 \pproach LOS — — B B Rights Reserved CS2000TM Copyright Q 2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.R Version 4.Id 1 e://C:\Documents%20and%20S ettings\dj_2\Local%20S ettings\Temp\u2k7.tmp 4/15/2004 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst D.J. Clark Intersection Agency/Co. Marvin &Associates Jurisdiction Date Performed 411412004 Analysis Year 2004(Existing) Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project Description EastNl/est Street: Hulbert Road North/South Street: Davis Lane Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 [vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound IMovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R 'Volume 0 38 0 0 20 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 IHourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 40 0 0 21 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — IMedian Type Undivided IRT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR TR ,Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 (Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N [Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SIB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LR ✓ (vph) 0 C (m) (vph) Ic 95% queue length Control Delay LOS approach Delay — — approach LOS — — Rights Reserved CS2000T"' Copyright©2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.Ic Version 4.Id le:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\dj_2\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k48.tmp 4/14/2004 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of l r- TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY 'General Information Site Information nalyst D.J. Clark Intersection Agency/Co. Marvin &Associates Jurisdiction iDate Performed 411412004 Analysis Year 2004(Existing) Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project Description East/West Street: Catron Street North/South Street: Davis Lane Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound (Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 0 32 4 0 15 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 33 4 0 15 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — -- 0 — -- (Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR TR U stream Signal 0 1 0 (Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R dolume 5 0 6 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 1 0 1 6 0 1 0 1 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 (Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service 4pproach NB SIB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 _ane Configuration LR (vph) 11 (m) (vph) 1002 v/c 0.01 95% queue length 0.03 :ontrol Delay 8.6 LOS A approach Delay — — 8.6 kpproach LOS — A Rights Reserved CS2000TM Copyright©2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c Version 4.Id le://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\dj_2\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k42.tmp 4/14/2004 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus Site Conditions VALLEY CENTER/N 19TH AVFAIFUFrype: Non CBD R MARVIN 3/15/03 Analysis Duration: 15 mins. PEAK PM HOUR Case: VCEXIS--2 Lanes Geometry:Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) Avvroach Outbound Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB 2 1 LT 12.0 R 12.0 WB 2 2 LT 12.0 R 12.0 NB 4 2 L 12.0 L 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 SB 4 2 L 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 East West North South Data L T R L T R L T R L T R Movement Volume v h 205 5 306 10 5 30 336 737 5 35 462 153 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 %Heavy Vehicles 1 0 1 1 0 4 1 3 0 4 3 1 Lane Groups LT R LT R L TR L T R Arrival Tye 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vol(vph) 155 10 0 60 Peds/Hour 0 0 0 0 %Grade 0 0 0 0 Buses/Hour 0 0 0 0 Parkers/Hour(Le$lRight) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Signal Settings:Actuated Operational Analysis Cycle Length: 65.0 Sec Lost Time Per Cycle: 14.0 Sec Phase: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ped Only EB LTP R WB LTR NB L LTP TP SB L TP Green 20.0 4.0 6.0 17.0 0 Yellowl All Red 1 3.3 1.7 4.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 3.5 1.5 Capacity Analysis Results Approach: Lane Cap v/s g/C Lane v/c Delay Delay EB Los * LT 417 0.163 0.308 LT 0.530 19.3 B 16.1 B R 689 0.099 0.431 R 0.231 11.7 B WB LT 484 0.010 0.308 LT 0.033 15.7 B 15.8 B R 478 0.014 0.308 R 0.044 15.8 B NB L 747 0.102 0.215 L 0.474 22.4 C 17.0 B * TR 1455 0.223 0.416 TR 0.537 14.5 B SB * L 107 0.021 0.062 L 0.346 29.9 C 21.1 C T 917 0.139 0.262 T 0.530 20.9 C R 418 0.061 0.262 R 0.234 19.0 B Intersection:Delay= 18.0 sec/veh Int.LOS=B Xc 0.52 *Critical Lane Group :K(v/s)Crit=0.41 SIG/Cinema v3.03 Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus Site Conditions VALLEY CENTER/N 19TH AVENUE R MARVIN 3/15/03 PEAK PM HOUR Case: VCEXIS---2 Queues Spillback in Per Lane Average Worst Lane Lane Avg/Max Speed (%of Peak 462 App Group (veh) (mph) Period) 153135 4 EB LT 4/ 6 12.0 0.0 t— 30 R 2/ 2 22.1 0.0 5 All 15.8 0.0 l , l , 10 .................................. .................................. WB LT 1 / 1 15.0 0.0 R 0/ 1 18.9 0.0 205 h ;� t tj► All 16.8 0.0 5 I I 306 NB L 3 / 4 11.4 0.0 TR 4/ 6 15.2 0.0 1 336 1 5 737 All 13.6 0.0 SB L 1 / 2 6.6 0.0 1 2 3 4 T 3 / 5 13.1 0.0 -•-.' t— L 1 R 1 / 2 20.4 0.0 20 + + 3 2 4 4 0 6 '� 4 0 16 I; 4 2 All 13.2 0.0 Intersect. 14.0 SIG/Cinema v3.03 Page 2 HCM Analysis Summary Existing Plus Site Conditions DEADMANS GULCH/N 19TH AA!Fea Type: Non CBD R MARVIN 03/15/2003 Analysis Duration: 15 mins. PEAK PM HOUR Case: DEADN4ANS EXISTING PLUS SITE 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 2 1 L 12.0 TR 12.0 WB 2 1 L 12.0 TR 12.0 NB 3 2 L 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 SB_L 4 2 L 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 East West North South Data L T R L T R L T R L T R Movement Volume h) 122 9 130 5 8 30 89 1287 5 10 918 107 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 %Heavy Vehicles 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 Lane Groups L TR L TR L TR L T R Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vol h 50 15 0 20 Peds/Hour 0 0 0 0 %Grade 0 0 0 0 Buses/Hour 0 0 0 0 Parkers/Hour(Le$lRight) --- --- --- Signal Settings:Pretimed Operational Analysis Cycle Length: 75.0 Sec Lost Time Per Cycle:12.0 Sec Phase: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ped Only EB LTP LTP WB LTP NB LTP LTP SB R LTP Green 18.0 5.1 1 11.0 1 24.9 0 Yellowl All Red 1 4.0 1 0.0 2.3 1 1.7 1 4.01 0.01 2.3 1 1.7 Capacity Analysis Results Approach: Lane Cap v/s g/C Lane v/c Delay Delay R (see/veh) Ins C EB L er 152 0.000 0.121 16.4 B * L ro 429 0.072 0.240 L 0.220 16.6 B TR 588 0.057 0.361 TR 0.158 16.3 B WB L 100 0.003 0.068 L 0.050 32.8 C 33.3 C * TR 115 0.014 0.068 TR 0.209 33.4 C NB L er 100 0.000 0.385 14.7 B L ro 262 0.053 0.147 L 0.260 11.7 B * TR 1846 0.392 0.532 TR 0.737 14.9 B SB L 100 0.036 0.332 L 0.110 17.5 B 26.4 C T 1152 0.278 0.332 T 0.839 28.5 C R 1000 0.058 0.625 R 0.092 5.6 A Intersection:Delay= 19.5 sec/veh Int.LOS=B Xc 0.57 *Critical Lane Group 2(v/s)Crit=0.48 SIG/Cinema v3.03 Page 1 NETSIM. Summary Results Existing Plus Site Conditions DEADMANS GULCH/N 19TH AVE R MARVIN 03/15/2003 PEAK PM HOUR Case: DEADMANS EXISTING PLUS SITE Queues Spillback in Per Lane Average Worst Lane Lane Avg/Max Speed (%of Peak 918 App Group (veh) (mph) Period) 107 110 EB L 2 / 3 12.4 0.0 + TR 2 / 3 18.2 0.0 L 30 g All 14.5 0.0 11 5 fi- WB L 0/ 1 7.1 0.0 ............................... TR 1 / 1 15.5 0.0 122 I i 9 I All 11.8 0.0 130 —z NB L 2 / 4 9.5 0.0 TR 7/ 10 14.7 0.0 t 89 15 1287 All 14.3 0.0 SB L 1 / 2 5.3 0.0 1 2 3 4 T 7/ 10 11.4 0.0 R 1 / 1 23.1 0.0 18 4 0 5 2 2 11 I' 4 0 25 2 2 All 11.5 0.0 Intersect. 13.1 SIG/Cinema v3.03 Page 2 HCM Analysis Summary �j Existing Plus Site Conditions BAXTER/N 19TH AVE Area Type:Non CBD R MARVIN 03/15/2003 Analysis Duration: 15 mins. PEAK PM Case: BAXTER EXISTING PLUS SITE 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 2 1 L 12.0 TR 12.0 WB 2 1 L 12.0 TR 12.0 NB 3 2 L 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 SB 1 3 2 L 12.0 T 1 12.0 TR 12.0 East West North South Data L T R L T R L T R L T R Movement Volume v h 78 22 120 75 42 62 114 1176 40 40 890 28 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 %Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 Lane Groups L TR L TR I L TR L TR Arrival Type 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vol h 55 30 15 10 Peds/Hour 0 0 0 0 %Grade 0 0 0 0 Buses/Hour 0 0 0 0 Parkers/Hour(LeftIRight) --- -- --- I I "' I --- Signal Settings:Pretimed Operational Analysis Cycle Length: 57.2 Sec Lost Time Per Cycle:12.0 Sec Phase: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ped Only EB LTP WB LTP NB L LTP SB L LTP Green 12.0 6.2 27.0 0 Yellowl All Red 2.3 1.7 4.0 0.0 2.3 1.7 Capacity Analysis Results A roach: Lane Cap v/s g/C Lane v/c Delay Delay RatioRatio Group EB * L 279 0.062 0.210 L 0.294 21.7 C 21.2 C TR 350 0.054 0.210 TR 0.260 20.7 C WB L 275 0.060 0.210 L 0.287 21.6 C 20.8 C TR 369 0.044 0.210 TR 0.211 20.0 B NB L er 190 0.000 0.542 15.4 B * L ro 194 0.067 0.108 L 0.313 7.4 A * TR 1633 0.365 0.472 TR 0.774 16.2 B SB I-per 132 0.000 0.542 123 B L ro 194 0.024 0.108 L 0.129 7.4 A TR 1634 0.276 0.472 TR 0.585 12.6 B Intersection:Delay= 15.0 sec/veh Int.LOS=B Xc 0.63 *Critical Lane Group 2:(v/s)Crit=0.49 SIG/Cinema v3.03 Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results Existing Plus Site Conditions BAXTER/N 19TH AVE R MARVIN 03/15/2003 PEAK PM Case: BAXTER EXISTING PLUS SITE Queues Spillback in Per Lane Average Worst Lane Lane Avg/Max Speed (%of Peak 890 App Group (veh) (mph) Period) 28 140 EB L 2/ 3 7.6 0.0 TR 1 / 2 18.9 0.0 t— 62 42 All 14.3 0.0 � 1 ', 75 WB L 1 / 3 7.4 0.0 ....... TR 2 / 3 15.5 0.0 78 t �22 I All 13.3 0.0 120 —z NB L 1 / 3 12.2 0.0 TR 51 8 15.8 0.0 1 1141 40 1176 All 15.6 0.0 SB L 0/ 2 15.3 0.0 1 2 3 ; TR 4/ 7 1 17.0 0.0 --..r � i r. •+ 12 2 2 6 1 4 0 27 2 2 All 16.9 0.0 Intersect. 15.7 SIG/Cinema v3.03 Page 2 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst D.J. Clark Intersection Agency/Co. Marvin &Associates Judsdiction Date Performed 411412004 Analysis Year 2004(Existing)plus site Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project Description East/West Street: Burke Street North/South Street: N. 19th Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 251 1078 0 0 708 70 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0,04 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 264 1134 0 0 745 73 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- — 0 — — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration L T T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 0 0 227 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 238 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 1 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 Configuration R �Dela , Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach NB SIB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L R (vph) 264 238 C (m) (vph) 806 592 v/c 0.33 0.40 95% queue length 1.43 1.93 Control Delay 11.6 15.1 LOS B C "\pproach Delay — — 15.1 "\pproach LOS — — C Rights Reserved 'CS2000TM Copyright©2003 University of florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c Version 4.1d ile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\dj_2\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2kD.tmp 4/28/2004 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of l TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst D.J. Clark Intersection Agency/Co. Marvin &Associates Jurisdiction Date Performed 411412004 Analysis Year 2004(Existing)plus site Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project Description East/West Street: Catron Street North/South Street: Valley Center Road Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 229 265 0 0 195 31 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 241 278 0 0 205 32 Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 -- — 0 (Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration L T T TR lJ stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 61 0 321 (Peak-Hour Factor. PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 (Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 0 0 64 0 337 (Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 4 (Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 IRT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR u (vph) 241 401 C (m) (vph) 1313 715 ✓lc 0.18 0.56 95% queue length 0.67 3.52 Control Delay 8.4 16.3 LOS A C ,Approach Delay — — 16.3 Approach LOS — — C HCS200drm Copyright©2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1( :ile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\dj_2\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2kl l.tmp 4/28/2004 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst D.J. Clark Intersection Agency/Co. Marvin &Associates Jurisdiction Date Performed 411412004 Analysis Year 2004 (Existing)plus site Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project Description East/West Street: Catron Street North/South Street: Max Street Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 12 99 100 27 68 165 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 12 104 1 105 28 71 1 173 Proportion of heavy _ vehicles, PHv 2 4 Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R U stream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 28 55 78 205 50 5 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 29 57 82 215 52 5 Proportion of heavy 0 3 0 0 3 0 vehicles, PHv Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration I I LTR LTR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 -ane Configuration LTR LT LTR LTR olume, v (vph) 12 28 168 272 rapacity, can(vph) 1322 1350 617 488 /c ratio 0.01 0.02 0.27 0.56 Queue length (95%) 0.03 0.06 1.10 3.36 :ontrol Delay (s/veh) 7.7 7.7 13.0 21.3 LOS A A B C approach delay (s/veh) — — 13.0 21.3 kpproach LOS B C HCS2000TM Copyright m 2003 University offlorida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c le://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\dj-2\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k27.tmp 4/28/2004 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst D.J. Clark Intersection Agency/Co. Marvin &Associates Jurisdiction Date Performed 411412004 Analysis Year 2004(Existing)plus site Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project Description East/West Street: Valley Center Road North/South Street: Davis Lane Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 42 0 5 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 44 1 0 1 5 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 -- — 0 — — IMedian Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LTR LR .Upstream Signal 0 0 (Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 3 255 0 0 185 24 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 3 1 268 0 0 1 194 1 25 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 4 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 IRT Channelized 0 0 (Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT I I I I TR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service [Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound ,Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LT TR v (vph) 44 271 219 C (m) (vph) 1610 779 805 v/c 0.03 0.35 0.27 95% queue length 0.08 1.56 1.10 Control Delay 7.3 12.1 11.1 LOS A B B Approach Delay — - 12.1 11.1 Approach LOS — — B B Rights Reserved rCS2000TM Copyright©2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c Version 4.1d ile:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\dj_2\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2kl7.tmp 4/28/2004 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst D.J. Clark Intersection Agency/Co. Marvin &Associates Judsdiction Date Performed 4/14/2004 Analysis Year 2004(Existing)plus site Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project Descri tion r- ��}^^I^ct Street: Hulbert Road North/South Street: Davis Lane ,-aauvvGS Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound IVlovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 45 5 0 23 9 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 47 5 0 24 9 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Nledian Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR TR U strearn Signal D 1 0 (Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 8 0 15 0 0 0 (Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0,95 0.95 (Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 8 1 0 1 15 0 1 0 1 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 0 1 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound (Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LR v (vph) 23 C(m) (vph) 986 v/c 0.02 95% queue length 0.07 Control Delay 8.7 ILOS A Approach Delay — — 8.7 Approach LOS — — A Rights Reserved YCS2000TM Copyright©2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c Version 4.ld :ile:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\dj_2\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2klA.tmp 4/28/2004 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst D.J. Clark Intersection Agency/Co. Marvin &Associates Jurisdiction Date Performed 411412004 Analysis Year 2004(Existing)plus site Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project Description East/West Street: Catron Street North/South Street: Davis Lane Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound K/lovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 37 5 0 23 8 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.— 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 (Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 38 1 5 0 24 1 8 (Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- — 0 — -- Median Type Undivided IRT Channelized 0 0 ILa nes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR TR ,Upstream Signal 0 1 0 (Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 8 0 13 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 8 1 0 1 13 0 1 0 1 0 [Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 [Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LR u (vph) 21 C (m) (vph) 996 ✓/c 0.02 95% queue length 0.06 Control Delay 8.7 LOS A 4pproach Delay — — 8.7 approach LOS — — A Rights Reserved CS2000T'"' Copyright C 2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1( Version 4.Id le://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\dj_2\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2klD.tmp 4/28/2004 APPENDIX C — SPOT SPEED STUDIES Marvin &Associates it SPOT SPEED STUDY ANALYSIS (Counter) SITE : Station#8 Valley Center Road @-M.P. 6.3 DIRECTION: Westbound DATE: 05/24/02 TIME: 25 hours SPEEjj 5'F?-EER- CIJMUL `RELATIVE 'CUIVlULA7�NE' RANGE VALUE FR�Q. .�% _Q' FREQ.(% FREQ (%) 21 to 25 25 2 2 0.07% 0.07 26 to 30 30 10 12 0.33% 0.40 31 to 35 35 62 74 2.07% 2.47% 36 to 40 40 307 381 10.25% 12.72% 41 to 45 45 996 1377 33.24% 45.96 46 to 50 50 1094 2471 36.52% 82.48% 51 to 55 55 389 2860 12.98% 95.46 56 to 60 60 108 2968 3.60% 99,07% 61 to 65 65 24 2992 0.80% 99,87% 66 to 70 70 2 2994 0,07% 99.93% 71 to 75 75 2 2996 0.07% 100.00% TOTAL VEHICLES = 2996 MEAN SPEED = 48.08 mph 85TH PERCENTILE = 50.97 mph PACE SPEED = 41 m h TO 50 mph SIGMOID CURVE 100% --- —.—.---- --- --�— fio% w I J t U I r' 60% - LL O W FQ... 40% W W n. 20% I -. 1 0% - 25 30 35 40 d5 60 65 60 66 70 76 l SPEED(MILES/HOUR) 1 SPOT SPEED STUDY ANALYSIS (Counter) SITE : Station #8 Valley Center Road @--M.P. 6.3 DIRECTION: Eastbound DATE: 05/24/02 TIME: 25 hours SPEED Si'EED^ CUMU,L :,'RELA`TIU CUMULA"fIVE F I/�AL.iJE FRE=,Q. F: ',F E,, °`at FREQ 21 to 25 25 1 1 0.03% 0.03 26 to 30 30 4 5 0.14% 0.17% 31 to 35 35 17 22 0.58% 0.75% 36 to 40 40 148 170 5.04% 5.79 41 to 45 45 530 700 18.04% 23.83 46 to 50 50 1080 1780 36.76% 60.59% 51 to 55 55 758 2538 25.80% 86.39% 56 to 60 60 317 2855 10.79% 97.17% 61 to 65. 65 63 2918 2.14% 99.32% 66 to 70 70 13 2931 0.44% 99.76 71 to 75 75 7 2938 0.24% 100.00% TOTAL VEHICLES = 2938 MEAN SPEED = 51.31 mph 85TH PERCENTILE = 54.73 mph PACE SPEED = 46 mph TO 55 mph SIGMOID CURVE 100%--- -- —-------- - ----- fn 80% . . - w J i U W LL w / Z w U w -- a 20% f o% r---i-- t- 26 30 36 40 46 60 66 80 66 70 76 SPEED(MILES/HOUR) SPOT SPEED STUDY ANALYSIS (Counter) SITE : Station #9 Valley Center Road @—M.P. 6.6 DIRECTION: Westbound DATE: 05/24/02 TIME: 25 hours SPEED $RE,>=D GUMIIL RELATII/:E C_U.MULATIUE RANGE VALUE R' FREQ'. FREQ;(%) FREQ'(°lo) 21 to 25 25 1011 1011 40.09% 40.09% 26 to 30 30 206 1217 8.17% 48.26% 31 to 35 35 521 1738 20.66% 66.91% 36 to 40 40 574 2312 22.76% 91.67% 41 to 45 45 147 2459 5.83% 97.50% 46 to 50 50 23 2482 0.91% 98.41% 51 to 55 55 2 2484 0.08% 98.49% 56 to 60 60 14 2498 0.56% 99.05% 61 to 65 65 9 2507 0.36% 99.41% 66 to 70 70 6 2513 0.24% 99.64% 71 to 75 75 9 2522 0.36% 100.00% TOTAL VEHICLES = 2522 MEAN SPEED = 32.93 mph 85TH PERCENTILE = 38.53 mph PACE SPEED = 21 mph TO 30 mph SIGMOID CURVE 100% - - - (n 80% J U i 60%- O W Z W W a 20% i 2C- 00 36 40 46 60 65 60 66 70 75 SPEED(MILES/HOUR) SPOT SPEED STUDY ANALYSIS (Counter) SITE : Station #9 Valley Center Road @—M.P. 6.6 DIRECTION: Eastbound DATE: 05/24/02 TIME: 25 hours SPEEQ SPEED . GUMU4, RELATIVE CUMULATIVE RANGE VALUE` FREQ FlE�Q FREQ 21 to 25 25 397 397 14.11% 14.11 26 to 30 30 193 590 6.86% 20.97% 31 to 35 35 583 1173 20.73% 41.70 36 to 40 40 947 2120 33.67% 75.36 41 to 45 45 524 2644 18.63% 93.99 46 to 50 50 106 2750 3.77% 97.76% 51 to 55 55 20 2770 0.71% 98.47% 56 to 60 60 10 2780 0.36% 98.83% 61 to 65 65 8 2788 0.28% 99.11 66 to 70 70 11 2799 0.39% 99.50% 71 to 75 75 14 2813 0.50% 100.00 TOTAL VEHICLES = 2813 MEAN SPEED = 38.01 mph 85TH PERCENTILE = 42.59 mph PACE SPEED= 31 mph TO 40 mph SIGMOID CURVE too - ---•—_•_-- —.,...-------- --- --- cn 80% r U ! ! > cost 0 w H 40% Z W U w _ a zo^s0%..L i 26 30 A 40 46 60 65 Go 65 70 76 SPEED(MILES/HOUR) APPENDIX D — COLLISION DIAGRAM Marvin &Associates NO. MILEPOST DATE TIME WEATHER ROAD LIGH1 SEV REMARKS 1 7/2&01 1340 CLEAR DRY DAY PDO 2 5/18,00 1445 CLEAR DRY DAY INJ 2 3 1124/00 1030 CLOUDY ICE DAY PDO 4 12/12/97 1535 CLEAR DRY DAY PDO 5 527i99 1105 CLEAR DRY DAY INJ 2 6 1249A99 1154 CLEAR DRY DAY PDO 7 2,13,98 2110 CLEAR DRY DARK—LIT PDO 8 9/S99 1655 CLEAR DRY DAY PDO 9 98% 1440 NO ADV DRY DAY INJ 2 10 516,00 1255 RAIN WET DAY INJ 1 11 't25101 1200 BLOW SNOW ICE DAY PDO 12 3r7i99 1000 SNOW ICE DAY PDO 13 1""9 1130 NO ADV DRY DAY PDO 14 &7i01 1852 CLEAR DRY DAY PDO 15 5,12/01 1431 CLOUDY DRY DAY INJ 2 16 12W1 1814 CLEAR DRY DARK—LIT PDO 17 3/M2 1655 SNOW ICE DAY PDO 18 528,02 1619 CLOUDY DRY DAY PDO 19 4/H2 0813 CLEAR DRY DAY PDO W Z w Q x o z NOT TO SCALE 19 4,5,6,15,18 14 11,13,16 10 = 17 12 VALLEY CENTER DRIVE TO REST AREA 2,3,7,8 w D Z II w Q C 9 cr- Z 1 ACCIDENT DIAGRAM VALLEY-19.DGN