Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 - Traffic Impact Study - Cattail Creek Ph 2 TRAFFIC IMPACT ST I npARWENi OF PLANNING �nm i'.OMMUNITY�FVEI(1Ph4FNT CATTAIL. CREEK SUBDIVISION PHASE 2 Bozeman, Montana prepared for SANDAN L.L.C. prepared by MARVIN & ASSOCIATES Traffic,Transporiaiion & Civil Engineers TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CATTAIL CREEK SUBDIVISION PHASE 2 BOZEMAN, MONTANA PREPARED FOR SANDAN, L.L.C. PREPARED BY �•` �.0N •ROBERT R. MVVIN MARVIN & ASSOCIATES . 369z 1001 S. 24m Street West#111 RfG,, Al Billings, MT 59102 ' AL 1 uuuts � • April8, 2002 Professional Traffic Operations Engineer#259 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 SITE LOCATION & DESCRIPTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS Streets 3 Traffic Volumes 6 Traffic Operations 6 Speeds 9 TRIP GENERATION 9 TRIP DISTRIBUTION 13 TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT 15 TRAFFIC IMPACTS Traffic Volumes 18 Capacity Impacts 18 CAPACITY CONSTRAINED REASSIGNMENT 22 ACCESS & INTERNAL CIRCULATION 24 IMPACT MITIGATION & RECOMMENDATIONS 25 Signal Warrants 25 Alternate Mitigation Measures 25 Recommendations 26 APPENDIX "A" Traffic Volumes 29 APPENDIX "B" Capacity calculations 30 APPENDIX"C" Speed Study 31 APPENDIX"D" Internal Capture Rates 32 APPENDIX"E" Signal Warrants 33 LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1. Site Location Map 2 Figure 2. Site Layout&Access 4 Figure 3. Existing Intersection Traffic Counts 7 Figure 4. Existing AADT & Design Hour Traffic 8 Figure 5. Phase 1 & 2Trip Distribution 14 Figure 6. Average Weekday Trip Assignment By Phase 16 Figure 7. Peak Hour Traffic Assignment Total Development 17 Figure 8. Peak Hour Existing Plus Site Traffic 19 Figure 9. Peak PM Hour Traffic Reassignment Impacts 23 Figure 10. Peak PM Hour Traffic Reassignment With Deadmans Gulch Connection 27 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Cattail Creek Subdivision Trip Generation Summary 10 Table 2. Trip Mode & Classification Summary 12 Table 3. Capacity- Level of Service, V/C& Delay 20 CATTAIL CREEK SUBDIVISION PHASE 2 Traffic Impact Study INTRODUCTION This report summarizes existing conditions,trip generation characteristics,trip distribution,traffic assignment, and impact analysis within the structure of a traffic impact study. The study was completed for a proposed development to be located between Gallatin Center Subdivision and Davis Lane, north of Baxter Lane and south of Valley Center Road near the North 19'h Avenue/ 1-90 Interchange in Bozeman, MT (see Figure 1). This study was prepared for SANDAN, LLC who is the developer of this project. Thomas Dean & Hoskins Engineering is preparing the subdivision documents for the developers and has provided background information for this study. The property is known as the Cattail Creek Subdivision. Because of local laws and ordinances pertaining to subdivision platting and development for land uses with potential for traffic impacts on the surrounding street system, a traffic impact study is required prior to subdivision plat approval. Two previous traffic studies were completed for this subdivision. A study by Kimley-Horn and Associates was submitted June 12, 2000, which addressed both the Gallatin Center Subdivision and the Cattail Creek Subdivision. That report outlined a number of street and intersection improvements that would need to be completed prior to full development of the Gallatin Center property. That report combined both phases of Cattail Creek Subdivision into the analysis. On March 21, 2002 Thomas Dean &Hoskins submitted a traffic study for Cattail Creek Subdivision Phase 1. That report determined trip generation and traffic assignment for Phase 1 development based on interpolation of the earlier Kimley-Horn report. The TD&H analysis indicated that Phase 1 development would not key anticipated improvements outlined in the Kimley-Horn study. Marvin & Associates was retained by SANDAN, LLC to provide a traffic impact study for Phase 2 of the proposed development. Having reviewed the proposed subdivision,land use development plan,and previous studies Marvin&Associates completed an extensive analysis of existing conditions;trip generation and traffic assignment;capacity and safety impacts;and mitigation measures for Phase 2 of the development. All of those efforts are summarized within this report. The primary purpose of this study is to address specific impacts of the new development with regard to street system access and circulation,and to provide mitigating measures to reduce or eliminate identifiable impacts. Study methodology and analysis procedures within this study employ the latest technology and nationally accepted standards in the area of site development and transportation impact assessment. Recommendations made within this report are based on accepted standards and the professional judgement of the author, with consideration of the traveling public's interests as a primary objective. Page 1 Lq (BEY CFI TF. 99 O ZONING/lANO USE NEY �95�. .90 mmmiz n,nn,� COSTCO I ��p PHASE II PHASE I WHNWTE L.U - ,t �� - .Gt w� St sl CATRON STI Restaurant y nL 11 TARGET Bank lu n.t f •� BOB WARDS Y GALLATIN St CENTER _ w ,U - st st Z lu LnLL.::. :A IF .�. a �t t J' n = PHASE I --- oeAnnuw•s GULCH IF nl Z PHASE TI BARTER LANE r 1 Figure 1. Site Location Map Page 2 SITE LOCATION & DESCRIPTION The proposed development's western boundary would be located east of and adjacent to Davis Lane, a principal arterial roadway within the Bozeman Area Transportation Plan. The eastern boundary is approximately 0.5 miles east of Davis Lane and adjacent to the Gallatin Center Subdivision, which is west of and adjacent to North 19`h Avenue. The northern boundary is just north of an extension of Catron Street.The southern boundary is approximately 2000 feet south of Catron. The existing property is currently farm land with a few houses and out-buildings. Utilities and roadway infrastructure for Phase 1 is currently under construction. Land use for phase 1 has been identified in the Phase 1 TIS. Phase 2 of this subdivision would contain 248 apartments, 16 duplexes and 42 single family housing units. Phase 1 residential dwellings compliments the office and commercial/industrial land uses being constructed in Phase 1 of this subdivision. Proposed access to Phase 2 development would include 3 street approaches to Davis Lane (see Figure 2.). Other access is provided by street connections to Phase 1 development. Those streets would be Catron Street and Cattail Street. Catron Street,which is a local street,is the only initially planned access to the east. Future access connections would use a future collector street(Deadmans Gulch) alignment, which would intersect with North 191h Avenue. Also, 3 other subdivision streets would connect to future developments north of the property. EXISTING CONDITIONS Streets Adjacent and potentially impacted public streets are: Davis Lane, Valley Center Road, Catron Street, Burke Street and North 19'h Avenue. The intersections of Valley Center Road &Catron Street, Valley Center Road & North 19`h Avenue, Catron &Max Street, and Burke Street&North 19"Avenue have the greatest potential for impact. Page 3 J 3nN3AV H16L'N v W m 7 Y U x Z d� �� z = L o y �P 1331i1S XVV4 F:. LC V H V J Z Q a Q w g m ii i� it gi i� QR Qi oY Q1I W I I a;t a a i QYI r i a; • H i i y a ° y= — i,i: •� — 7'- e� Yi Ct Kt iG a •Y '^ U6 W O Y a `Y e1 it sR et ne .5 "� V! Q �r rvi •.ti wv rvti rv9 `-I Q C!t rtC iI ea at a� a arvY 1!i Ota ti °&IY• •i CC ,t rt i wY tiY tiY MY tiY 10 ¢°•(� Y II� RHa1 3NVI SIAVC3 to (C r � N N 4 4L J V Y, Page 4 Davis Lane is a north-south street, which is classified as a principal arterial in the Bozeman Area Transportation plan. It is currently a 20'wide gravel road which extends from Baxter Lane south of the site to Valley Center Road, north of the site. There are plans to pave Davis Lane in the summer of 2002. North 19`h Avenue is a principal arterial street which extends from Spring Hill Road, approximately 0.5 miles north of Valley Center,to a point approximately 8.0 miles south of Valley Center Road. At its intersection with Valley Center Road, North 191h Avenue is approximately 56'wide with 2 thru lanes, center left turn lanes and 10'wide parking/bike lanes. Valley Center Road is an east-west principal arterial roadway,which extends from North 19"Avenue to Thorpe Road, approximately 8.0 miles west of North 19`h Avenue. Adjacent to the site, it is 40'feet wide providing two travel lanes and 2 parking lanes. Between its intersections with Catron Street and North 19`h Avenue,it widens to 64' providing for left turn lanes at both intersections. The intersection of Valley Center and Catron is stop controlled with control being on Catron. The intersection of North 19`h and Valley center is signalized. Catron Street is a local commercial street with variable width. At its intersection with Valley Center Road (a T intersection)it has a paved width of approximately 44 feet providing a left and right turn lane on its approach to Valley Center Road. Catron Street serves as the primary access to Costco discount warehouse and the Wingate Hotel. It also serves as one of two accesses to Target,Bob Wards,Carinos restaurant and a drive-in bank. Catron extends from its intersection with Valley Center past Costco to a dead-end at the eastern property line of Cattail Subdivision (phase 1 currently being constructed), a distance of approximately 1300 feet. Continuation of this street through the subdivision is planned so that Catron Street will connect Valley Center and Davis Lane. Max Street is a local commercial street within the Gallatin Center Subdivision. It serves as a north-south connector road for the commercial land uses within Gallatin Center. Burke Street is a local street,which provides alternate access from the Gallatin Center to North 19`h Avenue. At its intersection with North 191h Street,eastbound left-turn movements onto North 191h Avenue are prohibited by a divider island. This intersection only accommodates southbound right-turns,eastbound right-turns, and northbound left turns. Page 5 Traffic Volumes Traffic counts were taken on key area streets at various time periods, Automatic recording counts were taken for a 24 hour period on Catron and on Valley Center Road during the third week of March 2002. Counts on North 19`h Avenue were taken in November 2000. Hourly count summaries can be found in Appendix"A"of this report. Turning movement counts were taken at the four key intersections during the peak AM and PM hours,between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. and between 4:30 and 5:30 p.m.in October 2001,January 2002,and April 2002. Figure 3, illustrates the raw count data at the key intersections. There were no significant pedestrian movements at any of these intersections, during the counting periods. Heavy trucks were approximately 5% of AADT on North 19`h Avenue and between 1%and 3%of AADT on Valley Center Road. No truck traffic was noted on Catron Street during the peak hour counting periods. The most significant feature of traffic volumes illustrated in Figure 3 is the directional split on Valley Center and North 19"Avenue. During the peak p.m. hour, 60% of the traffic is northbound/westbound and 40% is south bound/eastbound. In the a.m. peak hour the directional split is opposite in direction with a much greater split(25%/75%). However,volumes on Catron Street are much lower during the a.m, peak hour. Annual Average Daily Traffic(AADT)was calculated from peak hour volumes and automatic recording counts and average urban type permanent count station records published by MDT. Figure 4 presents the calculated AADT volumes and design hour turning movement volumes at the key intersections, Design hour volumes were calculated by adding a factor of approximately 10% to turning movement counts to compensate for monthly and daily variations in traffic volumes. The design hour volumes represent traffic levels that would exist during the 301h to 50" highest hour traffic periods of the year. Design hour volumes are used to evaluate capacity impacts within the study's analysis. Traffic Operations Capacity calculations were performed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 procedures for all intersections using calculated design hour traffic volumes. Capacity calculations for existing conditions and impact conditions can be found in Appendix B of this report. All lane movements and intersection approaches currently operate at level of service(LOS)"C"or better at all intersections during the peak a.m.and p.m.hours. Peak a.m. LOS is better than the p.m, hour and overall delay is also less. During the peak p.m. hour,the left turn movement from Catron Street to Valley Center is very close to LOS "Y even though demand for that Page 6 Lo M O N N JIB JIBLO a N pp 10 �'Q7 I,.—N CM `M 00 n M C N coco to CD 0cq N M M d M Lo 11 � M M I �� CD M O N 1 N N w — M a CN N � N M V �} N N lA 3nN3AV H16L'N Iu • LL NN �vMj �a'��'P PO m W U = N v g V 133U.LS XVW Z •� N 1� LU �M g z a a W F 3 � U LO CO L, M w ir, 1 - 00 cc qi qi y/ qi •s _ ` ' �f N� Q `W N ° � • •� LL'Y M f0 L i 1 r 'r • W onow now T L6 :dXw 3NVl SIAVa _ w z Page 7 0 JIB JIBLoQ Lo M —� `N N lL7 CD N �—1� N1 a Lo � _Lo v m 00 00 O— a r co ��N �N� V / cn M I M 1 �� O O Lo N O �j 0.. CD 01 cn ^ N Q a CO / Lo n N N g QQbo Ln A3nN3AV H16L'N a. 0 49, 2m m/ 01/ to o L a $ 009L o / 133H1S XVW Z �— co o '000r_ M M LU "'- Cl) 2 F- Z LJJ y IIIII JI \ _a ^Lo 1 qi - Q O N !n Lo q, bb JIB _ N� LU O M O ow 34 n .� 0 ' o 3NVl SIAVa� � V V N �Q U N Page 8 movement is very low. Observations during the peak hour period indicate that the LOS calculations accurately represent actual conditions except for the northbound left-turn movement on Catron Street, which operates much better than the calculated LOS due to large traffic gaps created by the signal at N. 19`h Avenue. This same situation is true at the Burke Street approach,where eastbound right turn movements are aided by the signal at Valley Center and North 191h Avenue. Speeds Appendix C contains a spot speed summary conducted for eastbound and westbound traffic on Valley Center Road,west of the Catron Street intersection at a distance of approximately 500'west of the Catron intersection. This study resulted in 851h percentile speeds of 54 mph in the eastbound direction and 51 mph in the westbound direction. TRIP GENERATION Table 1., on the following page, presents trip generation estimates for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed development with the land uses assumed to be a business park, offices, and residential land uses. ' Trip generation rates were taken from the ITE Trip Generation Report, Sixth Edition. Phase 1 trip generation was included in this analysis to insure that a common base was used in calculation of trip interchange between { phased development. Total trip generation for Phase 1 is reasonably close to that found in the TD&H report. Rates and total trips are shown for the average weekday and for peak a.m. and p.m. hours. i i The total projected average weekday trips AWT of 2224 for Phase 2 area approximately 45% of trips P J 9 Y P � ) PP Y p generated by Phase 1 and are only 38% of Phase 1 trips during the peak hour periods. Phase 2 trip generation potential would account for 31% of the combined total trips calculated for the Cattail Creek Subdivision. Not all of these trips will be vehicular trips nor will all of the trips result in new traffic on the street system. Thus, it is important to know the type of trips to properly evaluate traffic impacts. At this point, it can be assumed that transit would not play a substantial role in modal trip exchange. Therefore,minimal trips could be attributed to that mode. Some percentage of trips could also be assigned to pedestrians and bikes. This number would probably not be significant during winter months, but could be during summer months. For purposes of analysis,a conservative estimate of approximately 2%of all trips generated was used to account for transit, pedestrians and bike modes. Page 9 X � LO Cl) N O Co N � � � M � '`-' ti M � L O N Co M M M CD = C CO N C) Q) M (� W M a .Y _ .N r- N — O M � to O w O O LO CD LO M O e- ti IL F0— H N N to Y N ti d N LO Oo 00 co co 0, O O N � N M I� V) N O O N O V' N M co 00 —+. o rn kZCkk � k W M N {� C C C C C O O O + eJ- N N O W I� CO C X ) `, (A � O O Cl) Co U O O N 00 O O O O O O 2 c M v M N W N M ` O C C C C II C Y W CL N r � r CA CO N O ti CD d CO C LO LO ,ItG N U') s- O O o h co )o E d O '� 0�0 O I� G> (O M CO N yo o + +. o3i - m Cl) N 5 J J J J ^ — M " N ll') Op N + + + + O o0 �- Cf cm 0) O) n k R h ♦- �4+ ` w N 0 06 0 ^ � � M i (D m> N M *D N CA C7 �= O O D D D C O O Q Q Q Q Y Y Y Y Y Y EL O O V d O co CD N _ co W C CoW � N w. N Q O Q V O d Y 2 H 2 N F- c Q� IZ V- a =3 O N O oca N U N a 0) r 3 E m o c a c o co a f- a� a) t U E E o c J aci `° a o 2: c 2 m C� Q Q U to 'a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a d rl- I` N N N N N '0 _0 'O cc H U U U U U U 0, Page 10 Since the total development would incorporate industrial, commercial, offices and residential land uses, trip interchange between complementary land uses will likely occur. It is known that developments which are built adjacent to complimentary facilities,such as those found in shopping centers and office parks,tend to capture trips from and to adjacent developments. These trips are part of the total trip generation number, but do not involve trips with origins or destinations external to the site. They are known as"Internal Capture Trips" (ICT). The ITE"Trip Generation Handbook",October 1998 contains information and procedures used to estimate ICT. Appendix D contains I.C. calculations for both Phase 1 and Phase 1 and 2 combined. It was determined that internal capture trips for Phase 1 would be 114 trips or 17% of all trips during the peak p.m. hour. The combination of Phase 1 and Phase 2 developments would also produce 114 I.C. trips or 13% of total subdivision trips during the peak p.m. hour. There are also three classifications of trip types related to use of the street system: 1) Primary purpose trips are trips for which the development is a primary destination from any particular origin. 2) Diverted linked trips are trips made to the development as a secondary destination and are diverted from a path between an origin and a primary destination. 3)Passerby trips are also trips made to a development as a secondary destination, but the primary trip path is on the adjacent street system, ie. stop on the way home from work. The ITE Trip Generation report provides methods of estimating passerby trips for various facilities. It was determined that the appropriate percentage of passerby trips would be 10% of the business park trips during the average weekday and 15%during the peak hours. None of the other land uses would have potential to attract passerby trips. Table 2., on the following page, is a summary of the various trip types and mode reductions that can be expected with this development. The net number of vehicular trips at the site access points is equal total trip generation less transitlpedestrian trips and internal capture trips. The number of new vehicular trips using the existing street system would be all of the primary and diverted linked trips or net vehicular trips less the number of passerby trips. Thus, on the average weekday, there would be approximately 6117 more vehicle trips to be assigned to the surrounding street system. There would be an additional 546 trips during the peak a.m. hour and 646 trips during the peak p.m. hour. Page 11 Table 2. Trip Mode & Classification Summary TIME PERIOD Total Ped/Bike Net Veh. Internal Net Exter. Passerby Net New Trips Trips Trips Capture Trips Trips Trips AVERAGE WEEKDAY" Phase 1 Totals = 4950 99 4851 674 4177 194 3983 Phase 2 Totals = 2224 22 2202 68 2134 0 2134 AWT Totals = 7174 121 7053 742 6311 194 6117 PEAK AM HOUR** Phase 1 Totals = 479 10 469 65 I 404 28 376 Phase 2 Totals = 177 2 175 5 'I lu 0 .1 iu AM Totals = 656 12 644 70 574 28 546 PEAK PM HOUR** Phase 1 Totals = 560 11 549 76 473 33 440 Phase 2 Totals = 215 2 213 7 206 0 206 PM Totals = 775 13 762 83 679 33 646 * 10%of Business Park Trips assummed to be passerby *`15%of Business Park Trips assummed to be passerby Page 12 TRIP DISTRIBUTION There are various methods of determining the directional distribution of trips to and from site developments. For large and complex developments within the middle of a large urbanized area,the task is best accomplished by creating a computerized transportation model of the urban street system and including the proposed development changes. Trip distribution for moderate sized developments may be completed by manipulation of data provided by a current transportation plan. Smaller developments or developments on the fringe of a small urban area can be easily handled by using existing traffic volumes on adjacent streets or by an area of influence method, or both. Since this development is rather complex due to multiple access points, and an extensive system of internal roads and alternate routes on the surrounding street system, an existing QRS II transportation model was used. The localized street system was added to the model, and area wide demographics were updated until the street system within the immediate vicinity of the development was calibrated with existing traffic volumes. Because Phase 1 and Phase 2 land use developments would provide substantially different trip origin and destination potential, a model run was completed for Phase 1 alone and then Phase 2 was added to Phase 1 in a separate model run. Figure 5., on the following page, is a graphic summary of directional trip distribution calculated from the QRS 11 model runs for Phase 1 and Phase 1 and 2 combined. The model distribution results illustrates the following trip distribution aspects of this site: Trip exchange between Cattail and the Gallatin Centerwould be increased from 10%of Phase 1 trips to 12% of Phase 1 &2 trips due to an increased number of residential units. Trips to and from North 19"Avenue would be decreased with the addition of Phase 2 residential development since the Gallatin Center would capture a higher number of residential shopping trips than competing facilities, which are located farther from the site. Multiple accesses to the site from Davis Lane would increase trip demand on Davis and reduce the number of trips on Valley Center to and from the west. Page 13 0 0 ' MOO N / NN \ \° o� ✓ �� � 0 CD y anN3A`d H16L'NCl) co co o o CL a o o L n LO w LO m LU _ I I Y U r- _ LO M 919 2 r u Z Q 133d1S X` W _Z ~ H g Z •- LLJ a m O N Q m a— %— IF Q Al i1 9e iR a� pi N -3ww TM ?� p, _ ad oa LU Oa pY pa aY o<! 'w w .3 s uj LU o • _ i Qc • �r «i «i i «i i Y oa L6 ac as iY CL d. �a .a oe• ee .� a=' nY= L iL • n� i a a• Y a? nyf nY Q Q .ga QYY a5r a� _ r� _jI .s. � - 'QVd : ai jci 3NK1 SIAVO .— z k CV) (+M Ln ; D Page 14 TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Assignment of site traffic to the street system and site access points is dependent upon several factors. Two of them are, directional distribution and operational site conditions. Directional distribution was discussed in i the previous section. These proportions are used to provide traffic access demand which represent traffic movements to and from the site which would occur if street operations and internal site circulation had no effect on the direction of arrival or departure other than the access point used. Thus,traffic distribution model is an unconstrained estimate of directional travel demand and can be further refined by calculating potential travel times within the sites and at ingress and egress points. The combined calculations of demand and least time accessibility are used to estimate the optimum traffic volumes at each access point. Figure 6., presents the results of traffic assignment analysis for average weekday site trips for Phase 1 and Phase 1 &2 combined. The differences between these two traffic assignments represent the contribution of Phase 2 development to average weekday traffic on the surrounding street system. The highest site traffic volumes would be on Catron Street. Figure 7 illustrates the results of peak hour traffic assignment analysis at key intersections and the new street approaches on Davis Lane. Turning movement traffic volumes were calculated by applying primary and passerby trips distributions to full development (Phase 1 and 2) vehicular trip generation. Proportional trip generation attributable to each land use in geographic perspective and least travel time for each access to and from each of the site lots were used to assign traffic to each possible turning movement. Not shown in Figure 7 is trip interchange within Gallatin Center, except for turning movements at the Catron & Max Street intersection, which accounts for the 12% trip distribution between Gallatin Center and Cattail Creek Subdivision. Page 15 N O 00 LO LC) N co r' p e^- N 3nN3AV H16l'N co co p I M Y x I O M O c cn LL m y p000 JLU � �O a� o00 I= o0o a �PPO in fo CDCC00N o m G N M� u� Ey L 'I � 133!!1S XVW ^'•' Z 000 ~QLU c°�� UN (Dln (OOOuON J H °M �M Q LU U o p0 d0' � R m F °m _y C i! ii _J _J _J J •� is ji iR J n9 }^ qJ of pJ of <� ¢i < . 4i of W W v' Q `; o a o t,• a :: W uj Q i 3 aR o f Qi CL a i `� ir3 t • :II ^a a' � � t na' «Y na «a hi ha ¢f� ¢L rtII iII ai it ' 7J iII nJ nYR nJ° ii < �V • '[ ''[ e� um ¢y1 a _ si xa axe � <az iza QA cee iq� I 3NV9 SIA` O _ 1—► t-u �--� OOO W O OlnLI) NL1� M OOOCO OtMCM N � 1V MCOM o k � 2 O u Q Q U f� Page 16 coo Q I Io0IO - a o Q o o a o �^—� 'e— m a m o m cq cC. o c a( "00— N C PP E d 3nN3AV H16L'N O a �co w � M w m N �tiP w _ Ic o m o N _ cc a MINE 133H1S XVW Z o N �— W �, a W u V U M M camc}} /� N g $ d M fG i U. N N m 1L }m N a N— Y N fn C X O N N 000 W W �- V N Ib 49 m .,•• o lse a ' � F ,� ^� . L on 04 CL O „ N A N 3NV1 SIAVO • N I^ M I 1!1 N IL n' a 11. 1-4 O m Y Y 7 m l0 CO�� a a a Lo m N cn Il J Il J Il Y ` N Y ` � m M— N �— N �� m M IL a a Page 17 TRAFFIC IMPACTS Traffic Volumes Traffic volume impact for site development can be found simply by determining the change in traffic volumes expected. Site traffic assignments indicate what volume of traffic could potentially be added to the street system during the average weekday and during the peak hour periods. The percent change in AWT is used as an indicator to identify locations where impacts could be significant. Determination of volume changes during peak traffic flow periods provides specific information on the type of impacts that could potentially occur. In almost all cases, it is very difficult to determine AADT on any section of street to within 10% accuracy. Because of that fact, impact analysis on streets with relative percentage increases less than 10% are not normally considered critical. Street sections thatwould experience an increase in AADT greaterthan 10%are: Davis lane(135%), Catron Street(85%), Valley Center east of Catron(45%), Max Street(44%), Burke Street (35%) and North 19"Avenue north of Burke (12%). Figure 8. illustrates the assignment of full development site traffic in the peak a.m. and p.m. hours combined with existing design hour turning movement volumes at the key intersections and access points. These volumes represent conditions that would result if the development existed today. None of these volumes or conditions will probably occur due to the dynamics of background traffic growth and other unknown development schedules. Capacity Impacts Appendix B contains capacity calculations for existing conditions along with existing plus site traffic. Table 3., on the page following, presents a summary of capacity calculation in terms of level of service (LOS), volume to capacity ratio(VIC), and delay in seconds per vehicle for two different conditions:existing and existing plus site traffic. Page 18 o g JIB JIB `NO nLD a � U, OLo N� a r�00 O y co (LL'!O im a C C, a N � Yrq [f O 0 N V N M 4) r n M M a i Y 3f1N3AV H16L'N V w M � a " LO m i9 Ln J Y m � d 133VIS XVWco Z C, N �.. LU M N N 00 O L r g U N r, N g __ CO IN N C,j� a �00 ^ W v IL cLono cli O i 1 y nl nl �i LO 00 ni ni : Jd �I V. O y N . . . .a . .°u 4 d : .L • O 0 /—N co 3NVl SIAVa N 1m I\ O NI` N� y m� a a ` N m O n cc ��M M�� N 07 N�� Q ��a N d r N ' M CL in Or l[1 O N M N a r Y oar nm d m 00 a a Page 19 N N;O) M ce) CD 0 cil) N tp?N N 0 J t Na 0 N 0 o N � ) )04 ?X4 cM CO V rNN (V N VrN N N rr ODOON�it^ r--� O 43) tin O i'� a V N0) 04 (0 Nrn OOovq* M0) M 0) ONO1 NO o N OO MCR O1- 00 0 Ot� O O O O O O O O O O - O O O O O r Ul N wo UomUUUU � mUmU � m0 ¢ Uum ¢ ¢ o as > N LnNLn00000 (qrr coCf) V LnOA000C mN OOD 0N04 O � N N N N N N r N r r N r r r N �` � r d a a � I w' V LO N 0 0 h - 0 C0 00 co r- C r co (0 0 r r (p Ntt r r N OOr M y >I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 x W 0 UUmUUUUmUm ¢ m0 coU ¢ mUm ¢ ¢ mm r� M d: � -f r 0 (D LO 1n 0) � LO V) Oo m Ln Ln In r*,� 0 0) M Q > d rMM 0 (� CC) 040N ~ 0y N cM N N N N V.- r N r 0 CA L000 v00 NOO � � N OOO NrCp ISM a ; (9l1) 00 MCOrJ 011) � `- M r OM p0rO 00 C O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N x } w o UUUUUUm ¢ mooamm mo ¢ mUm a ¢ mm as Q W (OI- r rOR OR NOrO NN (DO OOO CA O U 6 6 6 (0 N M N NN OOOOCA � M � � � � OO � � CA r-_ r- 00) V Q � W � C) 04 0 0 0 r 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 _0 0 0 0 0 0 C V N ; M � 00 N M O ((D (0D r7 O 00 0000 x O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 w W W N v) 0 UUUUUUaaam ¢ mm mU aroma aaa ¢ U. O J W �o > c %= W (° J = c N c Im F- a V = > v � J J 'JcJ> 2) 0 � �Q N > � c c) c d c Jco Q � 0 _ N _0 O c O .0 d 0 -a -D - pC � � (� WJ � � JHZJHU) -j C ?ZW dWZJ0 W > Z (q � U) c w cc M O c O > p c m as J9 O O O F _ > m U U U Page 20 It was determined that none of the existing intersections would be impacted by the added site traffic in the a.m. peak hour,except for the right turn movement from Burke Street onto North 19`h Avenue. Capacity calculations indicate that this movement would be reduced from LOS "C" to LOS "U. Since the theoretical LOS at this intersection doesn't reflect actual conditions due to gaps created by the signal at Valley Center,the actual LOS would most likely be better than LOS "D". In the peak p.m. hour all four key intersections would experience LOS reductions on one or more lane movements. At the Valley Center - North 191h intersection both the northbound and eastbound left turn movements would be reduced from LOS"C"to LOS"D". Even though the total intersection LOS would remain at LOS "C", the v/c ratio for these movements would be dangerously close to 1.0. This indicates that the left turn lane movements could become somewhat unstable and saturated flow conditions could result with only slight variations in operating conditions. Spill back from saturated movements could also affect other movements at this intersection. A similar degradation in LOS at the Burke Street intersection would occur during the peak p.m. hour as was noted for the peak a.m. hour. Again, the LOS "Y calculation could probably not be substantiated by actual operating conditions due to gaps created by the Valley Center signal. LOS for the Catron street left-turn movement onto Valley Center Road would be degraded from LOS"C"to LOS "F", but the northbound approach's overall LOS would remain at LOS "B". Degradation of the left-turn movement LOS would be caused by additional traffic on Valley Center and by increased traffic in the northbound left-turn lane. The v/c ratio would increase by a factor of 5 and delay differences between existing and existing plus site traffic conditions would be approximately 43 vehicle minutes during the peak p.m. hour. LOS at the Catron & Max intersection would be degraded on the Costco/Wingate approach and on the northbound approach from Gallatin Center. Current LOS of"B"would drop to LOS "F"for southbound traffic and LOS "D"for northbound traffic. Considering the minimal throat depth at the Costco entrance to Catron Street, queue storage would also likely impact traffic circulation within the parking lot. Page 21 CAPACITY CONSTRAINED REASSIGNMENT The procedures used to determine trip distribution were based on a QRS II model, which used existing travel speeds within an unconstrained street system. Thus,trip distribution and traffic assignment analysis reflects unconstrained traffic demand on the street system. Capacity impact analysis indicates that key intersections would suffer LOS reductions and increased delay. Since this development has multiple routing alternates, it was necessary to rerun the model with intersection delay constraint inputs to determine balanced flow conditions on the surrounding street system. Delay inputs from the capacity analysis were input to the QRS II model and revisions to trip distribution and traffic assignment were calculated. Figure 9 illustrates the results of peak p.m.hour traffic assignments based on the constrained system. The volumes in Figure 9 represent full subdivision development traffic added to existing background traffic. Major changes in this assignment can be seen by comparing Figure 9 to Figure 8. On 191h Avenue south of Burke Street, total traffic volume is reduced by over 100 vehicles per hour and Davis Lane traffic south of Cattail is increased by a similar volume. Most of this traffic reassignment is due to lower travel times associated with Baxter Lane routing for developments on the western 2/3 of the subdivision. This reassignment results in substantial decreases in northbound left-turn movements at the intersection of Valley Center and North 19`h Avenue. The reassignment reduces right-turn volumes from Catron to Valley Center and from Valley Center to North 191h Avenue. Some thru traffic reductions on Catron are also realized at its intersection with Max Street. Capacity calculations(Appendix B)were completed for peak p.m.hour conditions based on the reassignment volumes shown in Figure 9. The following changes in intersection capacity occurred due to the traffic reassignment: North 19"Avenue & Valley Center- Northbound LOS was increased to "C", but eastbound left-turn remained at LOS "D". Total intersection delay was decreased by only 0.9 seconds. North 19'h Avenue &Burke-The eastbound right-turn movement returned to LOS "C". Page 22 o O� A ,O NN�� W `lC)O N/ �N M �� f0 00 1Ncq CD t � CO C14 I co( � a M w T O wo C 1�- N N cof0 ym, O co a/N N N co W N 3nN3AV HUM*N CL + .0 cn to fo E In c / 133H1S XVWco IS uj Z 3 LL a Mmc N V g �r a •— c CN 00 w v x i � LU — + —a N c 'x o n�\ �� O uw w F- Lo LO �.,� o, o N N N IL N L si'+ •2 N- I--' -N :� �: $ � � ai m m ai N O O i IA O A• 3NV1 SIAVa V` M IN\ 111 I\ ^ Imo\ w, J Mn x `` / y `` �W M� + `('� i0� w ` N p� W `N Ln ul N M N LoLo n 00� H �� N • eN- N 00 00 fn M N 11J Page 23 Valley Center& Catron-The northbound left-turn movement improved from LOS "F"to "E". Catron&Max Street-Max Street approaches showed substantial improvements with the northbound approach at LOS "C and the southbound approach at LOS "D". Even though the traffic reassignment improved capacity at all of the key intersections, 3 of the 4 intersections would still not meet the City of Bozeman minimum standard of LOS"C". Thus, the combined development of Phase 1 and 2 would still create capacity impacts on the surrounding street system. ACCESS & INTERNAL CIRCULATION Capacity calculations(Appendix B)for the new intersections on Davis Lane indicate that all street approaches would operate at LOS "B"or better with a single approach lane. These calculations were based on existing plus site traffic volumes. Since Davis Lane is a principal arterial road, the subdivision streets should be constructed to current City of Bozeman standards and stop signs be installed to reinforce the right of way rules. AASHTO and MDT guidelines were checked to determine if auxiliary turn lanes are warranted for any of the intersections on Davis Lane. From this reference material, it was determined that the volume of turning traffic at these approaches would not justify construction of turn lanes. Catron Street would become a local street carrying traffic volumes in the range of collector street status if improvements are constructed, as proposed. Future construction of Deadman's Gulch and other connecting streets would reduce the level of traffic demand on Catron, if the future street improvements are not completed prior to full subdivision development,alternate intersection traffic control devices may be necessary on Catron Street intersections. Page 24 IMPACT MITIGATION & RECOMMENDATIONS U, Development of this property,as proposed,would generate a substantial volume of traffic. The most significant impacts would be at 3 key intersections: North 19`h Avenue & Valley Center Road, Valley Center Road and Catron Street, and Catron Street and Max Street. Alternate impact mitigation measures were investigated as a part of the study analysis. Due to rapid and continued traffic growth on North 191h Avenue, the addition of 2 thru traffic lanes on this street will be inevitable. Capacity calculations (Appendix B)were completed with the assumption that these lanes would be in-place. The results indicate that substantial capacity improvement would be realized and all movements would be LOS "C" or better with full site development traffic added. However,this mitigation measure would not improve capacity at the other two Catron Street intersections and may even add to traffic demand on Valley Center Road. Signal Warrants Traffic signal warrants for the intersection of Catron and Valley Center Road were completed and summaries for existing conditions and site development conditions can be found in Appendix E. It was found that existing conditions do not warrant a traffic signal. The addition of full development traffic along with the improvements being proposed would increase warrant values to a level which would trigger Warrant#1 (Category B)"Eight- hour Traffic Volumes". Thus, installation of a traffic signal would be required to maintain an acceptable level of service at this intersection, Specific warrant values for the Catron & Max Street intersection were not calculated, due to the difficulty of obtaining reliable 24 hour traffic counts at this location. In addition,geometric modifications required to install a signal at this location would be of such magnitude that it would be more cost effective to relocate the Costco approach farther to the west, Alternate Mitigation Measures An alternative to widening North 1911 Avenue,constructing a signal at Catron and Valley Center,and relocating the Costco approach would be construction of Deadmans Gulch Road from Cattail Creek Subdivision to North Page 25 19`h Avenue. An additional trip distribution model run and traffic assignment routine was completed using this new street link. Figure 10 presents the resulting peak p.m. hour traffic assignments. This connection would accommodate a very large percentage of Cattail Creek Subdivision Traffic and would draw a significant volume of traffic from the Gallatin Center Subdivision. The negative numbers shown on figure 10 represent redistribution of existing traffic. The redistribution would substantially impact eastbound left-turn movements at the Valley Center and North 191h intersection by providing an alternate means of egress from the site to the south. The traffic demand volumes on the Deadmans Gulch connection would be sufficient to warrant a traffic signal at its North 19`h Avenue intersection. Capacity analysis was completed for key intersections and volumes shown in Figure 10(Appendix B). It was found that all intersections and all lane movements would operate at LOS "C"or better without changing the geometry or existing operations at any of the other intersections. The Catron & Valley Center intersection would actually experience a LOS improvement from existing conditions. Recommendations Two alternate mitigation measures were investigated. The first alternate involves widening North 19"Avenue through the Valley Center intersection area, installing a signal at Catron and Valley Center, and relocating the Costco approach along with related parking lot modifications. The second alternate involves construction of Deadmans Gulch from Cattail Creek Subdivision to North 191h Avenue and installing a signal at thei North 191h Avenue intersection. From an operational perspective, the Deadmans Gulch alternate is far superior to the first alternate for the following reasons: Most physical construction would be on virgin ground with minimal disruption to existing traffic operations on public streets. The alternate route would delay the need for future improvements on North 19`h Avenue. Deadmans Gulch would carry the majority of traffic volumes as a designated collector street and provide a more balanced flow on internal subdivision streets and allowing Catron Street to function as a local access street, Page 26 o 00o M ^ o N� W � �La � � N/ �o v� H _o v� + — w V N M N = I N X = 04 Lf) w air C� f � _ a) _ M -� Nr N o LO / V N / 00 w 3nN3AV KIWN V l y LO \o °° CJ=7 N W E m W �� ry cn u LO o � N � � ^ 133U1s xVw Z l\\ C W \ ct •� co ° g H m 3 c1 J Z Q LU m N �� 1l co N g � W CN CN In r, « LLn n lyl ':' I rn � .J� G tti i a N N wQa Ri =S L N� �O n W , O E-4 R N — lA 3W sIAVO Il Il L XLLI \ J X \ —J + `w w + ` ^ O� W `N w� N N fM 2 f+l 2 O N `M � (n Q M n W n N c co y ao " In .m co (n L6 Page 27 There are many economic considerations which will affect decisions regarding mitigation of traffic impacts related to this subdivision, For either alternate there are questions of shared access facilities with a number of different property owners. It is beyond the scope of this traffic study to investigate the economic consequences of each alternate,but it would appear that economic benefits would favor the Deadmans Gulch connection and costs related to implementation may be relatively equal, depending upon the length of North 1911 widening that would be required. The recommendation to construct the Deadmans Gulch street connection to North 19`h Avenue makes sense when one considers that the only full movement access to Gallatin Center that currently exists is Catron Street and Caron Street was not designed to operate as a collector street. Construction of Deadmans Gulch as a collector street (Bozeman Area Transportation Plan) would not only provide access to Cattail Creek Subdivision, but would provide immediate access improvements for the Gallatin Center Subdivision. A substantial volume of existing Gallatin Center traffic would use this connection and its existence would be essential to any further development within the Gallatin Center. Page 28 APPENDIX "A" TRAFFIC VOLUMES Page 29 Valley Center Rd. -W. of Catron Westbound Hour 03/25/02 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 100% Valley Center Rd. - West of Catron Westbound 14% I I Co 12% 0 10% j 4- O CD C � V 5% L a 4% 0% - - - ir 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 131415 16 1718 192021222324 Hours of the Day ,4AoT = •�� 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 5.3% 11 1444 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% 12% O I 10% 4- O 6% C U6% (L) 4% j 2% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2122 23 24 Hours of the Day - - 44127' 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 16% -- 14% 75 12% O 10% O 6% C U6% a 4% 2% 0% �_--mill'A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2122 23 24 Hours of the Day A4a7- — •94'- 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% ram+ 12% 0 10% j 4- 0 6% C U6% L) d 4% z% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12131415161718192021 222324 Hours of the Day Aaor- .96 NORTH 19TH AVENUE NORTHBOUND North of Deadmans Hour 11/02/00 11/03/00 Avg. % of Begin THU FRI Weekday Weekday 1 27 27 0.3% 2 15 15 0.2% 3 19 19 0.2% 4 38 38 0.5% 5 83 83 1.0% 6 141 141 1.8% 7 269 269 3.4% 8 294 294 3.7% 9 333 333 4.1% 10 446 446 5.6% 11 530 530 6.6% 12 552 552 6.9% 13 500 500 6.2% 14 559 559 7.0% 15 615 615 7.7% 16 633 633 7.9% 17 732 732 9.1% 18 554 554 6.9% 19 474 474 5.9% 20 449 449 5.6% 21 401 401 5.0% 22 187 187 2.3% 23 108 108 1.3% 24 68 68 0.8% Total 5280 2747 8027 100% GRAPH 14% 13% 12% 11% 10% F- 9% �„j 7% Weekday 6% V 5% L Q� 4% I1 3% 2% 1% Hours of the Day NORTH 19TH AVENUE SOUTHBOUND North of Deadmans Hour 11/02/00 11/03/00 Avg. % of Begin THU FRI Weekday Weekday 1 21 21 0.2% 2 32 32 0.3% 3 16 16 0.1% 4 29 29 0.3% 5 99 99 0.9% 6 293 293 2.6% 7 903 903 8.0% 8 920 920 8.2% 9 658 658 5.8% 10 804 804 7.1% 11 843 843 7.5% 12 862 862 7.6% 13 664 664 5.9% 14 783 783 6.9% 15 828 828 7.3% 16 709 709 6.3% 17 693 693 6.1% 18 625 625 5.5% 19 515 515 4.6% 20 372 372 3.3% 21 304 304 2.7% 22 158 158 1.4% 23 96 96 0.9% 24 45 45 0.4% Total 5792 5480 11272 100% GRAPH 14% 13% 12% 11% O 9% O B% ■ a--0 7% C 8% Weekday V 5% 4% 11. 3% 2% 1% 0% Hours of the Day NORTH 19TH AVENUE NB & SB North of Deadmans Hour 11/02/00 11/03/00 Avg. % of Begin THU FRI Weekday Weekday 1 48 48 0.2% 2 47 47 0.2% 3 35 35 0.2% 4 67 67 0.3% 5 182 182 0.9% 6 434 434 2.2% 7 1172 1172 6.1% 8 1214 1214 6.3% 9 991 991 5.1% 10 1250 1250 6.5% 11 1373 1373 7.1% 12 1414 1414 7.3% 13 1164 1164 6.0% 14 1342 1342 7.0% 15 1443 1443 7.5% 16 1342 1342 7.0% 17 1425 1425 7.4% 18 1179 1179 6.1% 19 989 989 5.1% 20 821 821 4.3% 21 705 705 3.7% 22 345 345 1.8% 23 204 204 1.1% 24 113 113 0.6% Total 11072 8227 19299 100% Day Factor= 1.09 Month Factor= 0.96 AADT= 21912 GRAPH 14% 13% 12% 11% Cu 4- 10% 0 9% O 8% 1 7% { C 6% U5% I 4% a 3% 2% 1% I �a j asiu..t{ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2122 23 24 Hours of the Day APPENDIX "B" CAPACITY CALCULATIONS Page 30 HCM Analysis Summary EXISTING CONDITIONS - VALLEY CENTER/N 19TH AVErea Type: Non CBD I R MARVIN 03/23/2002 Analysis Duration: 15 mins. _ PEAK AM_H_OUR _ Case: 19THVALLEYam Lanes - Geometry:Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) -v .. _ .. _ _..__..-_._ --r e 3 Lane 4 1 Lane 5 Lane 6 Approach Outbound Lane 1 � Lane 2 Lan EB 2 1 LT 12.0 R y 12.0 i WB 2 1 L 12.0 TR 12.0 NB 2 - -1 L -i 12.0 i TR i 12.0 ---i- -- -- -- = - SIB 2 1 L 12.0 TR ( 12.0 East West North South Data L T R L T I R L T R L T R Movement Volume v h 90 0 330 1 0 3 ! 80 285 2~ 1 _ 625 30 PHF 0.90 0.90 t 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 i 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.90 %Heavy Vehicles _... . _ ._.. _ 0 1 0 0 4 _ 1 _ 5 - 1-- _ 4. _ - 5----- 1 Lane Groups LT I R L TR i L TR L TR - Arrival Type .._3 �_. 3 3 3 V 3 :. ,._. RTOR Vol (yph) 100.--- 0 -- ___0 - 5- Peds/Hour 0_ 0 _ 0 0 -% - �- Grade . -- - - 0 -0.-___ _ _ 0 1 _ Buses/Hour �- -- 0 10 0 __ 0 -- Parkers/Hour(LcftJRlght) - Signal Settings:Actuated _ Operational Analysis Cycle Length: 80.0 Sec_- - Lost Time Per Cycle: 8.0 Sec Phase: li 2 3 4 i 5 6 7 T 8 Ped Only - EB W B LTP -- ' -- - - NB ( L LTP �--.-.,.------+-• -------- - S B I L _ i LTP Green _- _ 16_._0 _5.0_ ,-- --47.0 � -• -.� _ _ ...._ _..... .. O -;---- -- Yellow All Red 4.0 0.0 , 4.0 0.0 2.3 1 1.7T` Capacity Analysis Results _ Approach: _ Lane �C���a�pT� v/s g/C j Lane v/c Delay Delay App Group .---�v�ni-_--. ----RaS Q_ Ratio Group__4 Rati4__ _LOS- (sec/veh) LOS_ EB LT 284 0.070 0.200 1 _ LT 0.352 30.9 C 27.4 C * R 500 0.156 0.313 t- R - 0.506 26.0 C WB L - 263 -0.001 0.200 L ,0.004• 25.6_ C 25.7 C _ TR 311 - _ 0.002 0.200 TR 0.010 25.7 C NB Lper - - 291 - 0.000 0.637 _ ,, -- -._ _ _ __. 8.8 A Lpro 112 0.050_ 0.063 _ L _ 6.2_21 _ __ 8.0 A TR 1062 0.176 -- 0.587 �� TRY- 0.300 9.0 A SB Lper 569 0:000 _-_ - 0.637 _ _. 14.1 B Lpro 109 0.0 I 0.063 _ _L - _ 3.9 :\ " TR 1056 0.382 0.587 - TR 0.650 14.1 B Intersection: Delay= 15.8 sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.60 * Critical Lane Group = (v/s)Crit= 0.54 SIG/Cinema v3.03 Page I NETSIM Summary Results EXISTING CONDITIONS VALLEY CENTER/N 19TH AVE R MARVIN 03/23/2002 PEAK AM HOUR Case: 19THVALLEYam Queues I Spillback in ~I Per Lane Average Worst Lane Lane Avg/Max Speed (% of Peak App Group (veh) (mph) Period) 625 _— ----- - — y 30 1 1 EB LT 3 �-5 -•_ -__10.2 0.0 J R- .. .._ 51 6 1 13.2 _.. ._ 0.0 -+ 3 M i i4 0 All _ 12.3 0.0 N ► 1 W B L 0 / 0 0.0 T_ 0.0 - -_TR --__0 / 1 8.5 1 0.0 _ All 8.5 0.0 -f �0 4 �► NB L 1 / 3 17.2 1 0.0 330 —TR 2 / 3 19.9 0.0 . ' 80 2 285 ^` ---All _ _- 19.2 0.0 SB L 0 / 0 _ 0.0 _ 0.0 - 2 3 —i _16 4 O 5 4 Q47 2 All 16.6 0.0 Intersect. 15.5 1 SIG/Cinema v3.03 Page 2 : HCM Analysis Summary EXISTING PLUS SITE TRAFFIC VALLEY CENTER/N 19TH AVErea Type: Non CBD - R MARVIN 03/23/2002 Analysis Duration: 15 mins. PEAK AM HOUR __ Case: 19THVALLEY CAMPLUS 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__ 1 L_-12.0 TR I 12.0 1 NB 1 2 L 12.0 TR 12.0 SB 2 1 L 12.0 TR 12.0 1 East West North _ Data_ - L Y T R L T R L T R -L T R _. Movement Volume(vph) ; 208 1 _0 I 448 1 1 0 3 122 285 1 2 _-1 -_407 148 PH_F _- - 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 I 0.92 0.90 0.90 ;_0.95 0.90 -%_Heavy Vehicles �- 1 _0 1 - 0 0 .j- 4 l �- 5 1 - 4 5 -1 - Lane Groups _- LT R L TR i L TR i L TR Arrival ape 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 f 3 3 RT _- RTOR Vol�vph)__ i 150 0 i 0 ' 20 Peds/Hour 0 0 _ 0 Q %Grade 0 0 j 0 0 Buses/Hour 0 i 0 0 Q i 0 Parkers/Hour(LeftIRight) Signal Settings_Actuated �-- Operational Analysis- - -Cycle Length: 84.0 Sec Lost Time Per C c1e: 12.0 Sec Phase: I Z 3 i 4 ; 5 ! 6 7 8 Ped Only EB LTP R WB LTP --NB L LTP - --, SB L LTP Green_ 20.0_ 5.0 47.0 0 Yellow All Red~ 4.0 0.0 ; 4.0 0.0 ' 2.3 1 1.7 CapacitAnalysis Results - `--- --- - - Approach: Lane Cap v/s g/C i Lane f v/c Delay Delay App. _. Croup_..... __ .Yph)--..- --.RBtIR-_ .-SAtl4 ,-StLQIt�. ----RaSi2.- - --.(sec/veh)--- LOS (sec/veh) . LOS, EB * LT 339 0.162 -0.238_�! _ LT _ _ 0.681 33.7 C 27.7 C - - -- -- -- R _ 552 0.196- 0.345 _ _ R 0.569 23.3 C WB L 203_ 0.001 _0.238 �_- L _T 0.005 _24.4 C 24.4 C TR -__ 370 0.00- 2 -T- 0.238 TR 0.008 24.4 _C NB Lamer- _ 341_ 0.053 _ 0.607 10.1 B * _Lpro _ _106 0.059 0.060___ L_ 0.304 _ 8.9 _A TR 1012 0.173 0.560 TR 0.308 10.6 B i SB Lper _ 537 0.000 0.607 - 14.5 B _ Lpro _103 0.001 0.060 L_ 0.002 5.0 __- _A * TR 984 0.324 0.560 TR 0.579 14.5 B Intersection: Delay= 17.9 sec/veh Int. LOS=B Xc= 0.64 *Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit-- 0.55 SIG/Cinema v3.03 Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results EXISTING PLUS SITE TRAFFIC VALLEY CENTER/N 19TH AVE R MARVIN 03/23/2002 PEAK AM HOUR Case: 19THVALLEY CAMPLUS ` Queues Spillback in Per Lane Average Worst Lane Lane , Avg/Max Speed (% of Peak App Group (veh) (mph) Period) i 407 148 1 1 I � i EB : LT 6 / 8 1 9.8 0.0 I R 4 / 7 f 15.5 0.0 3 I � ` � r All 12.4 0.0 0 M WB L 0 / 0 0.0 0.0 TR 0 / 0 24.1 ' 0.0 i — 208 141 j►j All --24.I .— 0.0 0 448 NB L 1 / 2 18.5 0.0 TR_._... 3 / 4 . - 19.1 i 0.0 - 1222 285 All 18.9 0.0 SB - L 0 / 0 - -0.0 0.0 2 - 3— -- TR 6 / 9 15.0 t 0.0 20 4 0 5 4 0:47 2 2 All 15.0 0.0 Intersect. 14.6 I SIG/Cinema v3.03 Page 2 HCM Analysis Summary y � j EXISTING CONDITIONS VALLEY CENTER/N 19TH AVKrea Type: Non CBD R MARVIN 03/23/2002 Analysis Duration: 15 mins. _ PEAK PM HOUR Case: 19THVALLEY Lanes Geometry:Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) iApproach Outbound' Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 i Lane 4 -Lane 5 -� _ _Lane 6 EB 2 ! LT 12.0 R ; 12.0 _WB 2 1 L ! 12.0 TR 12.0 T -I 1- ! - NB 2 1 L I 12.0 TR 12.0 _ SB_ _ 2 1 L 12.0 1 TR 12.0 East i West I North _ _South ` Data L T I R L T R L T j- R L__ Movement Volume(vph) 155 2 260 1 1 30 340 655 5 I 25 400-i l20 PHF_----- 0.90_: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 %Heavy Vehicles i 1 0 1 0 0 4 1 5 i 1 _ 4_ _ 5 1 Lane Groups LT R L TR L TR L TR -- ------ -------- - -! -- I---;----I-...--- --- - - - - - -- j Arrival Type _i 3 I 3 --3 1_ 3 �_- 3 �3 ; -3_ 3 _RTOR Vol (yo) 100 12 I 0 25 Peds/Hour_ 0 0 0 0 -%Grade - -- _ -.-� 0 __ 0 0 _ - - - --0._...._-- Buses/Hour 0 0 I 0 0 Parkers/Hour(LeftlRight) --- - Signal Settings:- Actuated Operational Analysis Cycle Length: 70.0 Sec - Lost Time Per Cycle:.. 13.0 Sec T -------- -- --- - erat --- -- -- _.._.....--•---- Phase: ( 2 _�--_3 4 5 - -6-- 7 _ 8_ Ped Only EB LTP R W B LTP NB - -- L LTP ---- S13 L i LTP --- -_ Green 15.5 ~-- 8.9 32.6 I 0 Yellow All Red 4.0 0.0 j 4.0 j 0.01 3.3 1 1.71 1 I I ! Capacity Analysis Results Ap7roaCh• - Lane Cap v/s g/C ' Lane v/c Delay Delay Aplz---_.Group (Ypb)- _ GXQUP- --BAtiQ---_:;-(30Q1v0h)_---LOS _. (scc/vch)--- .LO5--- EB ' LT 297_ _ 0.130 0.222_ LTy _ 0.586 -26.4�-� C 20.1 C_ _ R 6d9 0.111 0.406 -� R 0.274 14.0 B WB L .. 240 0.001 0.222 L _ 0.004 _ 21.2_ C 21.5 C __. TR �- 347 _ _ v_0.013 0.222 TR r� 0.061 _21.5 4 C NB Lper -_- 260 _ _ 0.311 0.537 --- - _- 25.8 _ --C * Lpro 227 0.127 0.127 _ i L 0.776 19.9_ B * TR 842 0.406 0.466 TR 0.872 28.8 - ___C i S13 I-per 119 0.000 0.537 18.2 B - Lpro 221 ._.r_.:..0.016 0.127 I La- -0.082 -._ -:9.4-- -'_-A _ TI< 827 0.310 0.466 I TR ;_00665 _ _-18.7 _ - B Intersection: Delay= 22.7 sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.81 * Critical Lane Group 77(v/s)Crit= 0.66 SIG/Cinema v3.03 Page l NETSIM Summary Results EXISTING CONDITIONS VALLEY CENTER/N 19TH-AVE R MARVIN 03/23/2002 PEAK PM HOUR Case: 19THVALLEY Queues Spillback in Per Lane Average Worst Lane Lane Avg/Max . Speed I (%of Peak App Group (veh) (mph) ; Period) 400 --- -- — - 120 125 1 -- --1 -— N 4 i 1 EB LT 4 / 6 9.7 0.0 ; R 2 / 3 20.2 0.0 1 - 30 All 13.6 0.0 I - - — — - t' WB L 0 / 0 0.0 0.0f- - TR 0 / 1 15.8 0.0 All 15.8 0.0 2 _ --- _-- -- — 260 — NB L 4 / 6 14.7 i 0.0 ^ TR 8 /_12 12_4! ! ` 0.0 -� 340 5 I 655 All 13.2 0.0 SB L 0 / 2 _ 17.2 0.0 3..� .-. TR 6 / 8 14.3 - - - 0.0 --; r 1 16 4 01 9 4 0; 32 3 2 - I All 14.5 0.0 — f Intersect. 13.6 E j SIG/Cinema v3.03 Page 2 HCM Analysis Summary Y EXISTING PLUS SITE TRAFFIC VALLEY CENTER/N 19TH AVXrea Type: Non CBD R MARVIN 03/23/2002 Analysis Duration: 15 mins. PEAK PM HOUR Case: 19THVALLEY CPMPLUS Lanes _ - Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet)_ _Approach Outbtituld': Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB 2 _ 1 LT I 12.0 R 12.0 WB 2 1 L 12.0 TR 12.0 - i I _NB _ 2 1 L 12.0 TR ! 12.0 SB 2 1 T L - -- 12.0 z-TR 12.0 ! _ --East _ West ------ North -� - - South -.-- Data -- L T R L T R I --T--�R L _T- -R- Movement Volume v h 247 2 ,350 ] 1 3-0 T 442 _ 655 -5 25 417 191 0:90-j 0.90 0.92 0.90� 0.90 0.90 L 0_955 0.95 _0.90 0.90 _ 0.95 0.92 Heavy Vehicles 1 _0 1 i 0 1 0 - 44 1 1 - 5 i- 1-- 4 5 I A Lane Grou_ - LT ? R L TR ! L TR L TR _Arrival Typc - -- L 3_ 3 3 3 3 3 ; -- `. 3 - 3 -RTOR Vol(yph) 12 0_-_.-•_-.�_ -_.-50-__- ` Peds/Hour 0 _ _ _ 0 0 0 - %Grade _ 0 0 0 0 Buses/Hour^ _ - -- 0 M_ 0 0 _ 0_ Parkers/Hour(LeftIRight) Signal Settings:Actuated -OLxmtional Analysis Cycle Length: 90.0 Sec -- Lost Time Per Cycle: 8.0 Sec_ Phase: l _- 2__- 3 1 4 5 6 7 8 Ped Only EBLTP R -- - R .�_-..-.____,_ ___ �_.____-.._____--_--_-,- ••- -- _ •- WB - LTP i NB - ! L LTP LTP �_- ---_- _ SB L LTP Green _ 21.5__ 7.0 5.0 40.5 0 ---- ---- Yellow All Red 4.0 1 0.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 0.01 2.3 ! 1.7 1 ! - -- __- - - --------- Capacity Analysis Results AP_Proach: Lane Cap v/s g/C Lane v/c Delay Delay App .... Group- --(Vh)_-.•,.-- RatiQ---_-patio metro v..... -Rub (soc/veh)____.LOS .__(sec/veh) LOS,- EB ; * L 334 0.196 0.239 L _ _ 0.820 46.4 D 32.6 C R 738 0.136 0.461 R 0.294 15.2 B WB L 454 _ 0.001 0.239 L _0.002 26.1 C 26.4 C TR 374 0.013 0.239 TR 0.056 26.4 C NB __LPef_.._._ 186 - 0.390 - 0.494 - - --- _ _28.2 C 318 0.178 0.178 L 0.923 - TR 994 -0.385 0.550 TR �0.699 18.9 B SL3 Lper _ 196 0.000 _-_ 0.450 __. __- _.._.__._ _ 26.3 C L_pro 135 0.016 _0.078 L 0.085 12.3 B TR 790 0.337 0.450 TR 0.749 27.0 C Intersection: Delay= 28.6sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.84 *Critical Lane Group - (v/s)Crit= 0.76 SIG/Cinema v3.03 Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results EXISTING PLUS SITE TRAFFIC VALLEY CENTER/N l9TH AVE — R MARVIN 03/23/2002 PEAK PM HOUR Case: 19THVALLEY CPM•PLUS I Queues Spillback in I Per Lane Average Worst Lane Lane Avg/Max Speed (% of Peak i App Group (veh) (niph)�y Period) 417 -- --- - 191 ; 2 5 M EB L � 7 /10 9.2_- 0.0 R 4 / 8 1 15_4 ( --- -- --- - -- ---•--. 0.0 0.0 . 30 All 11.4 0.0 1 - W B L 0 / 0 0.0 0.0 TR 1 / 1 13.0 0.0 —�- - -- -- - -- - - -f- ^All - 13.0 1! 0.0 2 27 . 350 NB L 11 / 16 6.5 0.0 i TR 8 / 11 13.6 0.0 442 ' 5 — -- -- — - -- -- 655 _ —All -- ' 9—.22 = -=0� TR 9/ 70 12.0 0.0 ; j 22 4 0' 7 4 0 5 4 0 40 2 2 - - -All 12.3- --E.-- 0.0 I Intersect. -..— 10.5 it � SIG/Cinema 0.03 Page 2 I HCM Analysis Summary EXISTING PLUS SIT RAFFIC VALLEY CENTER/N 19TH AVeErea Type: Non CBD ^- R MARVIN FAS'51 Qffl 03/23/2002 Analysis Duration: 15 mins. PEAK PM HOUR Case: 19THVALLEY CPMREASS Lanes_ _ _ Geometry:Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feet) _ - Approach Outbound Lane I _Lane 2 Lane 3 - F_ Lane 4 Y Lane 5 _ Lane 6- EB 2 I I LT 12.0 R 12.0 ' WB -- 2 - --- I _ L 12.0 TR 12.0 NB 2 1 L 12.0 TR 12.0 ' SB 2 1 L 12.0 TR 12.0 -- - - :: •- _ _----__. .._�Wiz.-�.:_�.._._.._ _---_-_.__________..__� __--_-..-:.,,. ,_, -• -- -- East West_ _ North South Data • --.._.__.L...._E-T-_ R_ i L -�T _R ~t L T R L _ .. T - R. -Movement Volume(vpq_�_ 248 '- 2 j 316 1 1 30 368 655 5 25 422 191 P. -_ 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.92 _ %Heavy Vehicles 1 0 1 0 0 4 1 5 1 4 5 l Lane Groups _LT__-,._ R -_L TR! - L TR L TR Arrival T e 3 3 31 3 1 3 3 3 3 _RTOR Vol_(vph) __ -150 - 12� _ 0 _ 50 Peds/Hour 0 0 -- 0 Y 0 %Grade 0 0 1 0 0 Buses/Hour _ 0 0 1 _ 0 0 ~-Parkers/Hour(Left�Ri$tt[) -. .�.--...__ _..�.._ .._._.. . ._-.. ._.. _ - Time Per Cycle. 12.0 Sec-Signal Settings: Actuated Operational Analysis C cle Length: 90.0 Sec Lost Phase: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -8 -Ped Only --- - EB -_ LTP R R ' WB LTP -. __. .. .. NB L ^--� LTP LTP SB L LTP Green 24.0 7.0 j 5.0 38.0 0 f Yellow All Red 4.0 0.0 4.0 0.01 4.0 I 0.0 2.3 , 1.7 Capacity Analysis Results Approach: Lane Cap v/s g/C Lane v/c Delay Delay App Group _-(vph) Ratio______-__Ratio_ -Group--- '-_-_Ratio. (sec/veh) . . LOS. . _(sec/veh) LOS _. EB L 373 0.197 0.267 L 0.740 36.9 D 27.6 C R 782 0.113 0.489 R i 0.230 13.3 B WB _ L 507 0.001 - 0.267 ---L---- --0.002 24.2 C 24.5 C TR 418 0.013 0.267 TR 0.050 24.5 C NB Lper _148 0.217 -_ 0.466 25.8 C * Lpro 318 _ 0.178 -- 0.178 `v L 0.830 33.1 C TR 944 0.385 0.522 TR 0.736 21.8 C SB Lper 163 0.000 - 0.422 _ - 31.0 C Lpro _ 135 0.016 0.078_-_ - L 0.094_-- 13.9 13 ' TR 742 0.340 0.422 TR 0.805 31.8 C Intersection: Delay= 27.7sec/veh Int. LOS=C Xc= 0.82 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.72 SIG/Cinema v3.03 Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results EXISTING PLUS SITE TRAFFIC VALLEY CENTER/N 19TH AVE R MARVIN Q� �''N£� 03/23/2002 PEAK PM HOUR 1\ J SS J Case: 19THVALLEY CPMREASS Queues Spillback in Per Lane Average Worst Lane Lane Avg/Max Speed (% of Peak App Group (veh) (mph) Period) 422 191 125 EB L 7 / 8 9.0 0.0 R 3 / 5 17.7 0.0 ; 30 All 11.8 0.0 WB L 0 / 0 0.0 0.0 TR I / 1 14.2 0.0 All 14.2 0.0 248 --? ► 2 —--• 316 - NB L 7/ l0 10.7 0.0 TR 8 / 13 13.0 0.0 . ► 368 5 655 All 12.0 0.0 SB L 0 / 2 19.6 0.0 —2 3 4 —— - — TR 10/ 12 10.6 0.0 24 4 u / 4 U 5 4 0 38 2 2 All 10.9 0.0 Intersect, 1 1.6 SIG/Cinema v3.03 Page 2 NETSIM Summary Results p- 1 EXISTING PLUS SITE 19th WIDENED VALLEY CENTER/N 19TH AVE R MARVIN 03/23/2002 PEAK PM HOUR Case: 19THVALLEY CPMPLUS Queues Spillback in Per Lane Average Worst Lane I Lane Avg/Max Speed (% of Peak App Group (veh) (mph) - Period) 417 - 191 125 I EB L 51 6 _ 13.1 0.0 I-��- R 1 / 4 23.7 t 0.0 30 All ] WB L 0 / 0 0.0 0.0 TR 0 / 1 16.6 0.0 J ----- 247 A11 =__-- 16.6 0.0 2 NB L — 6 / 1 1 10.8 0.0 350 TR 3 / 6 16.2 _ 0.0 I �' • 442 . 5 _—_ - - ---- ---1 655 All 13--6 ----�=0 SB L 0 / 2 11.7 ! 0.0 - .._ . - ------------- I 2 �3 4 TR 3 / 6 14.5 0.0 - - y l9 4 Oi 5 4 0- 5 a U I5 2 2 All 14.4 0.0 Intersect. 14.5 SIG/Cinema v3.03 Page 2 HCM Analysis Summary EXISTPLUS SITE WITH DEADMANS C07VALLEY CENTER/N 19TH AVArea Type: Non CBD - R MARVIN 03/23/2002 Analysis Duration: 15 mins. PEAK PM HOUR Case: 19THVALLEYDEAD Lanes_ _ Geometry: Movements Serviced by Lane and Lane Widths (feel) Approach Outbound' Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5 Lane 6 EB 2 LT 12.0 R 12.0 j �_- . WB - - 2 .-.- 1 L 12.0 i TR I 12.0 _NB -._Z 1 L 12.0 TR ' 12.0 I �--:-•---=--�--•-----• - --- - ---- SB -..-..2L 1 12.0 TR _I12.0 ---- - - _ _East _T- _ West North _ -_� South Data L I T -R L T R L_ (^ T - �^ R L- T R Movement Volume(vph)_ 124_ _ 2 260 1 1 28 353 655 5 _^ 25 452 u160 PHF _ _ T_0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 i 0.90 0.90 0_90_' 0.90 i 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90_ - -- -_-�-- - - %Heavy Vehicles _-- 1 0 1 0 0 4 I 1 _____5 - 1 4 5 1 Lane Groups _ _ LT R L TR , _L TR_ L TR Arrival Type_._ -3 3 3 I 3 _ 3 3 I 3 3 - RTOR Vol 100 ^_ T- 12 1 -'--0 ___--- 40 - Peds/Hour 0 0 0 0 %Grade 0 - 0 0 0 Buses/Hour_ 0 0 0 0 Parkers/Hour(LeRlRight) --- --- --- --- -.- --_ Signal Settings:Actuated Operational Analysis Cycle Length: 73.0 Sec - Lost Time Per Cycle: 12.0 Sec Phase: 1 2 I 3 4 I 5 6 7 8 Ped Only I EB LTP R - --- ---- -- - - - WB LTP NB - _ L I _LTP SB _ L ► - LTP ---.- _ -�- - •- -. _ __ -----._.___ . Green 14.0----- -9.4-- �---37.6--•--•--• •i-- ---- ----- - --- - 0 Yellow All Red 4.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 2.3 . 1.7 Capacity Analysis Results_ __ _ Approach: Lane Cap v/s g/C Lane v/c Delay Delay App_ Group- ------(yphl-- - Ratio---• -Rmti ----Raab- = -(-s-ec/Yeh)--------LOS . _ _.(sec/veh) LOS _ EB LT 258 0.104 0.192 1 LT 0.543 _, 27.9 _ C 2.1.3 C R 600 0.111 0.375 R 0.297 16.1 B WB L 226 0.001 0.192 L 0.004 23.8 C 24.1 C _ TR 301 0.012 0.192 TR 0.063 24.1 C NB Lper 243- _ _ 0.379 0.570 _ _ 22.4 C -- * -Lpro _ _ 230 - 0.129 I 0.129 .� L 0.829 --- 24.6 --- C - * TR 931 0.406 0.515 TR 0.788 21.2 C SB Lper -166 0.000 0.570 - 17.3 [ Lpro_ 223 0.016 _ 0.129 _L _-_-_ -0.072 8.0 A TR l912 0.359 0.515 TR 6.696 17.8 B Intersection: Delay= 20.7sec/veh Int. LOS=C xc 0.76 * Critical Lane Group (v/s)Crit= 0.64 SIG/Cinema v3.03 Page 1 NETSIM Summary Results EXISTPLUS SITE WITH DEADMANS CON VALLEY CENTER/N 19TH AVE R MARVIN 03/23/2002 PEAK PM HOUR Case: 19THVALLEYDEAD Queues Spillback in Per Lane Average i Worst Lane Lane Avg/Max Speed (% of Peak 452 App Group (veh) (mph) - ! Period) - -, —- 160 125 EB LT 4/ 6 11.2 0.0 R 3 / 5 17.5 I 0.0 28 All 14.2 0.0 1 WB L 0/ 0 0.0 0.0 -- - --- - - - - . . TR 1 / 1 16.2 0.0 _ All -- - 16.2 0.0 124 _ _ 2 -NB - -L- - 5 / 11 — 11.3 0.0 260 - TR 8 / 10 13.7 0.0 �: • -- 353 5 _ - 655 All 12.6 0.0 SB L 0 / 2 19.9 - 0.0_-� 2 3 TR 6 / 7 15.7 0.0 --- - 14 4 W 9 4 & 38 2 2 All 15.9 0.0 Intersect. 13.9 SIG/Cinema v3.03 Page 2 Two-Way Stop Control Pagel of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R MARVIN Intersection BURKE-N 19TH Agency/Co. MARVIN&ASSOCIATES Jurisdiction BOZEMAN Date Performed 0410512002 Analysis Year EXISTING Analysis Time Period PEAKAM Project Description CATTAIL SUB PHASE 1&2 East/West Street: BURKE North/South Street: N 19TH AVE 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 70 365 0 0 945 20 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.94 1.00 --oor 0.97 0.86 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 80 388 0 0 974 23 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — -- IMedian Type Undivided IRT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration L T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 (Minor Street Westbound Eastbound IMovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 0 0 35 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 40 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 Configuration R IDela , Queue Len at and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound IMovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L R V (vph) 80 40 C (m) (vph) 702 308 VIC 0.11 0.13 '95% queue length 0.38 0.44 Control Delay 10.8 18.4 LOS B C Approach Delay -- -- 18.4 Approach LOS -- — C 7771 Copyright®2000 University or Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4 1 a file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2k1 B 1.TMP 04/06/2002 Two-Way Stop Control Pagel of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R MARVIN Intersection BURKE- N 19TH Jurisdiction BOZEMAN Agency/Co. MARVIN&ASSOCIATES EXISTING PLUS SITE Date Performed 0410512002 Analysis Year TRAFFIC Analysis Time Period PEAK AM Project Description CATTAIL SUB PHASE 1&2 East/West Street: BURKE North/South Street: N 19TH AVE 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 78 409 0 0 1063 27 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.89 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.85 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 88 430 0 0 1095 31 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — -- 0 — — Median Type Undivided IRT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration L T T R 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 86 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 96 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 IRT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 Configuration R Delay. Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L R v (vph) 88 96 C (m) (vph) 628 262 rlc 0.14 0.37 95% queue length 0.49 1.61 Control Delay 11.7 26.5 LOS B D Approach Delay -- -- 26.5 Approach LOS -- -- D file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2k1 B 1.TMP 04/06/2002 Two-Way Stop Control Pagel of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R MARVIN Intersection BURKE- N 19TH Agency/Co. MARVIN&ASSOCIATES Jurisdiction BOZEMAN , Date Performed 0410512002 Analysis Year EXISTING YEAR 2002 Analysis Time Period PEAK PM j Project Description CATTAIL SUB PHASE 1&2 i East/West Street: BURKE North/South Street: N 19TH AVE Intersection Orientation: North-South Stud 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 225 1000 0 0 615 50 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 247 1 1111 0 0 1 683 55 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration L T T R 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 0 170 (Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 (Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 187 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 Configuration 1 1 1 R IDela , Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound IMovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 I'-ane Configuration L R v (vph) 247 187 C (m) (vph) 877 453 v/c 0.28 0.41 95% queue length 1.16 1.99 Control Delay 10.7 18.4 ILOS B C Approach Delay -- 18.4 Approach LOS — -- C Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4 ]a file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2kl B 1.TMP 04/06/2002 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R MARVIN Intersection BURKE-N 19TH Agency/Co. MARVIN &ASSOCIATES Jurisdiction BOZEMAN Date Performed 0410512002 Analysis Year EXISTING PLUS SITE Analysis Time Period PEAK PM TRAFFIC Project Description CATTAIL SUB PHASE 1&2 ' No East/West Street: BURKE rth/South Street: N 19TH AVE Intersection Orientation: North-South ]Study 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 248 1102 0 0 705 67 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 275 1 1224 1 0 0 783 74 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration L T T R 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 0 213 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 236 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 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 1 Configuration R IDela , Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L R v (vph) 275 236 C (m) (vph) 792 397 v/c 0.35 0.59 95% queue length 1.56 3.71 Control Delay 11.9 26.5 LOS B D ,Approach Delay -- -- 26.5 4pproach LOS -- -- D file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2k1 B 1.TMP 04/06/2002 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R MARVIN Intersection BURKE- N 19TH Agency/Co. MARVIN&ASSOCIATES Jurisdiction BOZEMANEXISTING PLUS Date Performed 0410512002 Analysis Year REASSIGN Analysis Time Period PEAK PM Project Description CATTAIL SUB PHASE 1&2 East/West Street: BURKE North/South Street: N 19TH AVE Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound (Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 16 L T R L T R Volume 248 1028 0 0 673 67 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 275 1142 0 0 747 74 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 (Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration L T T R U 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 0 0 210 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.89 (Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 235 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 Configuration R IDelay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L R v (vph) 275 235 C (m) (vph) 817 416 vlc 0.34 0.56 195% queue length 1.49 3.39 Control Delay 11.6 24.3 LOS B C Approach Delay -- -- 24.3 Approach LOS -- -- C file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2kl B l.TMP 04/06/2002 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst jR MARVIN Intersection VALLEY CENTER- N CATRO Agency/Co. MARVIN&ASSOCIATES Jurisdiction CAT RO N Date Performed 03/23/2002 Analysis Year 2002 EXISTING ,Analysis Time Period PEAK AM DESIGN HOUR Project Des cri tion CATTAIL SUB East/West Street: VALLEY CENTER North/South Street: CATRON 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 0 380 15 55 55 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.91 0.83 0.87 0.87 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 417 18 63 63 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 1 — -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T iU stream Signal 1 0 (Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 3 0 30 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 3 1 0 1 35 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 1 0 0 0 (Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delay. Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound (Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 (Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 63 3 35 C (m) (vph) 1191 509 781 v/c 0.05 0.01 0.04 95% queue length 0.17 0.02 0.14 Control Delay 8.2 12.1 9.8 LOS A B A Approach Delay -- — 10.0+ Approach LOS -- — B file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2k61F0.TMP 04/05/2002 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Intersection VALLEY CENTER- nal st R MARVIN CATRON enc /Co. MARVIN&ASSOCIATES .Jurisdiction BOZEMAN Date Performed 0312312002 Analysis Year YEAR 2002 EXISTING Analysis Time Period PEAK AM DESIGN HOUR PLUS SITE Project Description CATTAIL SUB East/West Street: VALLEY CENTER [North/South Street: CATRON STREET Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 'Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street I Eastbound Westbound [Movement 1 1 2 3 4 5 _ 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 380 22 125 55 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.91 0.83 0.89 0.87 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 417 26 140 63 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 1 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T U stream Signal 1 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 28 0 266 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.85 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 32 1 0 1 298 0 1 0 1 0 (Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 (Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Dela , Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ILane Configuration L L R ✓ (vph) 140 32 298 C (m) (vph) 1182 362 776 v/c 0.12 0.09 0.38 ,95% queue length 0.40 0.29 1.82 Control Delay 8.5 15.9 12.5 LOS A C B Approach Delay -- -- 12.8 file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2kl 81.TMP 04/05/2002 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R MARVIN Intersection VALLEY CENTER - Agency/Co. MARVIN&ASSOCIATES CATRON Jurisdiction BOZEMAN Date Performed 03/23/2002 Analysis Year 2002 Analysis Time Period PEAK PM DESIGN HOUR Project Des cri tion East/West Street: VALLEY CENTER North/South Street: CATRON STREET Intersection Orientation: East-West [Study 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 0 201 26 180 292 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.90 0.85 1 0.89 0.92 1.00 Hourly Flow-Rate, HFR 0 223 30 202 317 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — -- 1 — — IMedian Type Undivided IRT Channelized 0 0 Banes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 1 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 36 0 228 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.86 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 41 1 0 250 0 1 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 1 0 0 0 (Percent Grade (%) 0 0 (Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delay. Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 202 41 250 C (m) (vph) 1270 251 848 v/c 0.16 0.16 0.29 95% queue length 0.57 0.57 1.23 Control Delay 8.4 22.1 11.0 LOS A C B .Approach Delay -- -- 12.6 4pproach LOS -- — B file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2k18 LTMP 04/05/2002 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Intersection VALLEY CENTER - Analyst R MARVIN CATRON Agency/Co. MARVIN &ASSOCIATES Jurisdiction BOZEMAN Date Performed 0312312002 1 Analysis Year 2002 PLUS SITE Analysis Time Period PEAK PM DESIGN HOUR TRAFFIC Project Description CATTAIL PHASE 1&2 East/West Street: VALLEY CENTER North/South Street: CATRON STREET Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound I Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 _ 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 195 44 358 275 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.93 0.82 0.95 0.95 1.00 (Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 209 53 376 1 289 t 0 (Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- — 1 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 1 0 IMinor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 55 0 403 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 61 1 0 1 415 0 1 0 1 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 1 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 (Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delay, Queue Lencith, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 (Lane Configuration L L R (vph) 376 61 415 C (m) (vph) 1270 120 848 v/c 0.30 0.51 0.49 95% queue length 1.25 2.35 2.74 Control Delay 9.0 62.6 13.2 LOS A F B Approach Delay — - 19.6 G file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2kC353.TMP 04/05/2002 Two-Way Stop Control Page I of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Intersection VALLEY CENTER- Analyst R MARVIN CATRON Agency/Co. MARVIN &ASSOCIATES Jurisdiction BOZEMAN Date Performed 0312312002 Analysis Year 2002 PLUS Analysis Time Period PEAK-PM DESIGN HOUR REASSIGNED (Project Description CATTAIL PHASE 1&2 East/West Street: VALLEY CENTER (North/South Street: CATRON 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 0 195 33 284 275 0 (Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.91 0.82 0.94 0.94 1.00 (Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 214 1 40 302 292 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 - I — 1 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 1 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 49 0 369 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.89 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 (Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 55 1 0 1 384 0 1 0 1 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 1 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 302 55 384 C (m) (vph) 1270 168 848 v/c 0.24 0.33 0.45 95% queue length 0.93 1.33 2.38 Control Delay 8.7 36.5 12.7 LOS A E B Approach Delay -- -- 15.7 file:HC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2k52B0.TMP 04/06/2002 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Intersection VALLEY CENTER- Analyst R MARVIN CATRON Agency/Co. MARVIN &ASSOCIATES Jurisdiction BOZEMAN Date Performed 0312312002 Analysis Year 2002 PLUS nal sis Time Period PEAK PM DESIGN HOUR w/DEADMANS Project Description CATTAIL PHASE 1&2 East/West Street: VALLEY CENTER North/South Street: CATRON STREET Intersection Orientation: East-West I'Study 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 0 195 33 198 275 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.91 0.82 0.92 0.94 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 214 40 215 292 1 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 1 — I -- Median Type Undivided IRT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration TR L T Upstream Signal 1 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 49 0 189 0 0 0 (Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.89 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 55 1 0 1 205 0 1 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 1 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration I L I R Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (vph) 215 55 205 C (m) (vph) 1270 248 848 v/c 0.17 0.22 0.24 95% queue length 0.61 0.83 0.95 Control Delay 8.4 23.6 10.6 ILOS A C 8 Approach Delay -- -- 13.3 13 file:HC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2k6304.TMP 04/06/2002 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R MARVIN Intersection CATRON & MAX Agency/Co. MARVIN&ASSOCIATES Jurisdiction BOZEMAN Date Performed 0410512002 Analysis Year EXISTING Analysis Time Period PEAK AM Project Description CATTAIL SUB PHASE 1&2 ,East/West Street: CATRON North/South Street: MAX STREET Intersection Orientation: East-West [Study 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 0 3 0 15 5 50 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.87 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 3 0 17 1 5 1 57 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — IMedian Type Undivided IRT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 2 10 20 2 0 (Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 (Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 2 1 11 23 1 2 1 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LT LTR LTR v (vph) 0 17 13 25 C (m) (vph) 1554 1632 1027 929 vlc 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.03 95% queue length 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.08 Control Delay 7.3 7.2 8.6 9.0 LOS A A A A Approach Delay -- -- 8.6 9.0 Approach LOS -- -- A A HCS2000TM Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4 la file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2k8141.TMP 04/05/2002 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R MARVIN Intersection CATRON& MAX enc /Co. MARVIN&ASSOCIATES Jurisdiction BOZEMAN Date Performed 04/05/2002 Analysis Year EXISTING PLUS SITE TRAFFIC Analysis Time Period PEAK AM Project Description CATTAIL SUB PHASE 1&2 East/West Street: CATRON North/South Street: MAX STREET Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments IMa'or Street Eastbound Westbound (Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L I T R L T R volume 0 360 102 15 82 50 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.87 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 423 119 17 96 57 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — -- (Median Type Undivided IRT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound (Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 29 2 10 20 2 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 34 2 1 11 23 1 2 1 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 IRT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LT LTR LTR ✓ (vph) 0 17 47 25 C (m) (vph) 1440 1037 417 389 v/c 0.00 0.02 0.11 0.06 95% queue length 0.00 0.05 0.38 0.21 Control Delay 7.5 8.5 14.7 14.9 LOS A A B B Approach Delay - -- 14.7 14.9 Approach LOS -- -- B B file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2k8141.TMP 04/05/2002 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R MARVIN Intersection CATRON- MAX Agency/Co. MARVIN &ASSOCIATES Jurisdiction BOZEMAN Date Performed 0410512002 Analysis Year EXISTING Analysis Time Period PEAK PM Project Description CATTAIL SUB PHASE 1&2 East/West Street: CATRON North/South Street: MAX STREET Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments IMa'or Street Eastbound Westbound (Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 10 20 5 20 25 165 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 23 5 23 29 183 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 5 45 65 170 40 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.90 0.85 0.85 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 52 74 188 47 1 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR IDela , Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound (Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LT LTR LTR v (vph) 11 23 131 240 C (m) (vph) 1370 1599 796 686 v/c 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.35 195% queue length 0.02 0.04 0.59 1.57 Control Delay 7.6 7.3 10.4 13.0 LOS A A B B Approach Delay -- -- 10.4 13.0 Approach LOS -- -- B B HCS2000TM Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4 1 a file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2kF224.TMP 04/05/2002 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R MARVIN Intersection CATRON- MAX Agency/Co. MARVIN &ASSOCIATES Jurisdiction BOZEMAN Date Performed 0410512002 Analysis Year EXISTING PLUS SITE Analysis Time Period PEAK PM TRAFFIC Project Description CATTAIL SUB PHASE 1&2 East/West Street: CATRON North/South Street: MAX STREET Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments IMa'or Street Eastbound Westbound _ (Movement 1 2 1 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 12 210 85 22 217 167 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.85 0.90 0.89 0.85 0.91 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 14 233 95 25 1 238 185 (Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — IMedian Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R "Upstream Signal 0 0 (Minor Street Northbound Southbound (Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 85 47 78 172 42 7 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.89 0.88 0.89 0.91 0.87 0.85 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 95 53 87 189 48 1 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 (Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 IPT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Dela , Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LT LTR LTR r (vph) 14 25 235 245 C (m) (vph) 1147 1243 394 304 vlc 0.01 0.02 0.60 0.81 95% queue length 0.04 0.06 3.73 6.58 Control Delay 8.2 8.0 26.8 51.9 LOS A A D F Approach Delay -- -- 26.8 51.9 Approach LOS -- -- D F file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2kF224.TMP 04/05/2002 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R MARVIN Intersection CATRON- MAX Agency/Co. MARVIN&ASSOCIATES Jurisdiction BOZEMAN Date Performed 0410512002 Analysis YearAnalysis Time Period PEAK PM Project Des cri tion CATTAIL SUB PHASE 1&2 East/West Street: CATRON 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 7 170 85 22 154 167 ,Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.85 0.90 0.89 0.85 0.91 0.90 (Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 8 1 188 1 95 25 1 169 1 185 (Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound (Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 85 47 78 172 42 7 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.89 0.88 0.89 0.91 0.87 0.85 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 95 1 53 1 87 189 1 48 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 ILanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delav, Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LT LTR LTR v (vph) 8 25 235 245 C (m) (vph) 1216 1291 469 377 vlc 0.01 0.02 0.50 0.65 95% queue length 0.02 0.06 2.75 4.40 Control Delay 8.0 7.8 20.1 30.6 I'LOS A A C D Approach Delay -- -- 20.1 30.6 Approach LOS -- -- C D HCS2000TM Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4 la file:HC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2kC201.TMP 04/06/2002 Two-Way Stop Control Pagel of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information nal st R MARVIN Intersection CATRON- MAX enc /Co. MARVIN&ASSOCIATES Jurisdiction BOZEMAN Date Performed 0410512002 Analysis Year EXISTING PLUS Analysis Time Period PEAK PM w/DEADMANS Project Description CATTAIL SUB PHASE 1&2 East/West Street: CATRON North/South Street: MAX STREET Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound iMovement 1 2 3 4 5 =6 L I T _ R L T I R Volume 12 29 55 22 78 167 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.85 0.90 0.89 0.85 0.91 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 14 32 61 25 85 185 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 _ Median Type Undivided IRT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound (Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 55 47 65 172 42 7 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.89 0.88 0.89 0.91 0.87 0.85 (Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 61 53 1 73 189 48 1 8 (Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 ILanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LT LTR LTR v (vph) 14 25 187 245 C (m) (vph) 1305 1514 659 579 v/c 0.01 0.02 0.28 0.42 95% queue length 0.03 0.05 1.17 2.10 Control Delay 7.8 7.4 12.6 15.7 ILOS A A B C Approach Delay -- -- 12.6 15.7 Approach LOS -- -- B C file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2k8354.TMP 04/06/2002 Two-Way Stop Control Pagel of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R MARVIN Intersection CATRON-DAVIS Agency/Co. MARVIN &ASSOCIATES Jurisdiction BOZEMANYEAR 2002 PLUS SITE Date Performed 0410512002 Analysis Year TRAFFIC nal sis Time Period PEAK AM Project Description CATTAIL SUB PAHSE 1&2 East/West Street: CATRON North/South Street: DAVIS Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs): 0.25 'Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments IMa'or Street Eastbound Westbound (Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 35 0 10 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 0 1 0 41 1 0 1 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 19 2 11 40 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 22 2 12 1 47 1 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR TR LT v (vph) 41 24 59 C (m) (vph) 1636 800 798 v/c 0.03 0.03 0.07 95% queue length 0.08 0.09 0.24 Control Delay 7.3 9.6 9.9 LOS A A A Approach Delay -- 9.6 9.9 Approach LOS -- -- A A file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2kC291.TMP 04/05/2002 Two-Way Stop Control Pagel of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst R MARVIN Intersection CATRON DAVIS Agency/Co. MARVIN&ASSOCIATES Jurisdiction BOZEMANEXISTING PLUS Date Performed 0410612002 Analysis Year REASSIGN Analysis Time Period PEAK PM Project Description CATTAIL PHASE 1&2 East/West Street: CATRON North/South Street: DAVIS 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 1 0 44 31 31 29 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 (Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 51 36 36 1 34 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 _ _ Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT IJ stream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound (Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 21 0 31 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 24 1 0 1 36 0 1 0 1 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration LTR Delay, Queue Lencaith and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LTR v (vph) 36 60 C (m) (vph) 1522 909 r/c 0.02 0.07 95% queue length 0.07 0.21 Control Delay 7.4 9.2 LOS A A Approach Delay - -- 9.2 approach LOS — - A file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\u2kE233.TMP 04/06/2002 r APPENDIX "C" SPOT SPEED STUDY Page 31 SPOT SPEED STUDY ANALYSIS (Radar) SITE : VALLEY CENTER ROAD, 500'West of Catron DIRECTION: EASTBOUND DATE: 03/28/02 TIME: 3:15 to 4:00 p.m. SPEED SPEED CUMUL. RELATIVE CUMULATIVE RANGE VALUE FREQ FREQ. FREQ (%) FREQ(.%) 30 to 32 32 1 1 0.70% 0.70% 33 to 35 35 2 3 1.41% 2.11 36 to 38 38 8 11 5.63% 7.75% 39 to 41 41 12 23 8.45% 16.20% 42 to 44 44 20 43 14.08% 30.28 45 to 47 47 25 68 17.61% 47.89% 48 to 50 50 29 97 20.42% 68.31% 51 to 53 53 20 117 14.08% 82.39% 54 to 56 56 16 133 11.27% 93.66% 57 to 59 59 6 139 4.23% 97.89% 60 to 62 62 3 142 2.11% 100.00% TOTAL VEHICLES = 142 MEAN SPEED = 48.58 mph 85TH PERCENTILE = 54.16 mph PACE SPEED = 45 mph TO 54 mph SIGMOID CURVE 100% - - r cn 60% w J U = r w > 60% w O w r c9 40% z w U r w w d 20% 32 36 36 41 44 47 60 63 66 69 62 SPEED(MILES/HOUR) SPOT SPEED STUDY ANALYSIS (Radar) SITE : VALLEY CENTER ROAD, 500' West of Catron DIRECTION: WESTBOUND DATE: 03/28/02 TIME: 3:15 to 4:00 p.m. SPEED SPEED CUMUL. RELATIVE CUMULATIVE RANGE VALUE FREQ FREQ. FREQ (%) FREQ (%) 30 to 32 32 3 3 2.38% 2.38% 33 to 35 35 4 7 3.17% 5.56% 36 to 38 38 8 15 6.35% 11.90% 39 to 41 41 13 28 10.32% 22.22% I 42 to 44 44 21 49 16.67% 38.89% 45 to 47 47 29 78 23.02% 61.90% 48 to 50 50 25 103 19.84% 81.75% 51 to 53 53 14 117 11.11% 92.86% 54 to 56 56 6 123 4.76% 97.62% 57 to 59 59 3 126 2.38% 100.00% 60 to 62 62 0 126 0.00% 100.00% TOTAL VEHICLES = 126 MEAN SPEED = 46.55 mph 85TH PERCENTILE = 51.46 mph PACE SPEED = 45 mph TO 54 mph SIGMOID CURVE 100% _ r' v� 80% w J U 2 W ■ > 60% O W (7 40% Z W U w W d 20% ■ 32 35 36 41 44 47 50 53 56 59 62 SPEED(MILES/HOUR) I APPENDIX "D" INTERNAL CAPTURE RATES Page 32 t� u c w 4z E Q � � � . aQ � � :fit c� of u 1 cr w � ld w m lb E E 'm \ e \ E N 'm m ¢ cT CJ 2 ~ w m N m O (�i l m F- M ill m ° N N M o N ° o N M , g J m x ;g W w ~ 'W' W W ~ CLCD J ti e E G o N W Z =N a � �� 4 N 4 N b m d a0W a E a d a o y UHw v N cg ° M ° o J p Q� ° LU = <J W � l�a a pr a U 0 QZQ c 1n c e ii 0 lo r Z V, m° m e 4 a m° ° 0 W U a m yO NUJ � � a � n. Z a a m c a o N a t o e c V Jew ti $ a e oa R W c c.0 \ C Z C �O a ca m X Z \ *s p W o E a v w z � w a ° m '� � m n► \ 4 � o ' 1 W N W Z A o f \ m E Z J b N Fo N N \0 N 1� 1 co +�. k h U � cW 'oW N � c W Fo a d .� a 0 e rz v e v c m ` E w w w` w 104 ITE ■ Trip Generation Handbook Chapter 7 u c � E �E „ v e �� .I? ,1 W W k Y 1v c .4j > m J w N w m m p b b Z f' E N 0 E NMN �_ ° m Z Z N ►- \ IQ � O ~ W W ~ o A ~ W x p l _ c w ° CL M z > W aa N � 55 m b O Q ` z m N y1 a c U)O b W CDa. W a e a c - E N E o E v� � Hw N ° M O b e o O a M U LLJ W M = (0 L> Wa. N 1 ca OZQ m N � � E w Lu m N ° b m m 4_ W N a. cz E Ell co m � c m F" F.. f.�, `� e o aFi E e \' o m J W IE4 r�° ^^ ° ° 0 Z x z _ W E Q — E � � o E G� J \ O V w Z *a x — L � Z) 04 _ cn uj q� - o .� � M � N � \ Q '� p E = E Z Q ti a ti E o M ° m Q m E i d ' w w m !4 A ° \ E E E O� Q W w e 6 W w 104 ITE ■ Trip Generation Handbook Chapter 7 mow..,.,. _. ....,:�•:; APPENDIX "D" TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Page 33 V) O O O O O m U O � N � (ND ° m OC (co C N � 0) 04 C � C Y � � O !} � � 0000r � M � N 0) N O 3 U N N M = 0 p y O aY E co E N � NN0M j Uv� U N 2 c C W ' II II II II C aC �N. [] C •� U_ C O 16 N N � m C) M N L Q y � � 'in W N M (n 00 N = ` _ (� O t m 2 0 0 �# O " " O — ro ZF- t Uo O 0 0 i CF- xo 7 N0 'd rnOmO O C C � 0m NN � r' i � � � � W N � W 0 (DN (D000m � , c c C LO40U C N �. CD QO N r- 3 = O m y (n N cn U) m X 'X m rNr- O)M Lo O (mDN W W W ° 0 3 U O U N Q m m c Z W w O O m (DmLo00 (D � ,_ � 4= Chan. f M N � M y II II II II O U C m N m . U O cn � C � C co LID Oo 0 0 o m _r. V r _ � � (D °pOM � (D O N ro C O 0 T'� N (U O O> '7 ,I L 40MM o 0 M 0\°\° \ \ o o U) O 0) � m CV00 IT r L0 N M 04 (MD �O WO a J a a o o Q Lo co O qT 0 Nr M M II II II II O v- M (n (D � M wN N N J 7 r- N v � � � � 0) � O � 0 Y +' rn m m ((Ors o O ul) m a� aJ a� a� o o'p p .- N M mmmm II II II II II II # d Z N V- qTtid' Nit oONO (D -M ` 3 S '°'o L a) cy) 3 c E rn � O V- wmr- O (na0 o\° OLoLoCY) w :3 W Y '7 FD Q U � M co co N M O (n O N Lo a CS m m Q m U (M ^ M (n 0) 0 0) 0) v o Y � � o a � CQ Q OMMcMO � M Ov00 C 04 F_ rN `M- � NN Lo m 14, II II II II C6 V CV (D J ? O � ON CD II II II QQmm � � m � ao01` � M I� O � O i C C C C r- N O co ti (o a.Z a O_ O O O Q 0 N _0 w0 � N CY) Lo� M 0 '0 O O O O II II II II II II II II II II II II J 0 > UUUU mQ r. rna000mm ' DOrn v v o 0 o m.E '(a.E �'�. O c O O W J (U aF_ F- i- F- � � � � W '- °) m .5g O co.5 rno) 0) or IL O m N 41 C CA U w � o N �° W c o my c c mmmm to F- W o LL OMI- (DOMM aOMm Q' QCS cr c m N s •M W M Z Lo ( v O N 0) O w 0) p o (0 X .� x 'X (LI O Z Q-' Q-' Q' � a' I- o V W LLBo W W O WE 't 0P-- of-- (gyp 00a0 �• ONO (D J W II II II V V W ` r. D � J ( Ch O (D 41 0 N 0 z 00 (D (n q 00 0 0 L o N a N�? M ` O � � o � y � � o II II II II Z > > 0 0 0 a o p W ti � 0 0 N O M qT O r- O C C C H > n n n n n u u u N n if if Q Q m m � CD Z w a) a ., o (nr- 0N0 Q O c c c c N Y rn rn Z W a m m 0 V U U U U 222 C7 0 0 U .� 0 C .. ., J � Zo mmmm o o Ys .c :* mm oo00 CA ago m m ° N s L W L +J O 7 'N = 7 'N �j . X a m > 0 m m m m o •� v °° ro X X cn /ro� U a� ° x a) ° U A W 0 W Q = U » CF- 2 ►- W W � U2a' o W a' o 3. Q .-. N 0 0 0 00 0 a 7 G cn N (D U) N O O c .k- 1- � � � � C � C Y M O V Na) N0 N � (D ~ a) O a) L 3 k U N M N (D *+ U a = d O N O O x E t;r14 O � CU N 0 (0 O E N `- � NO � � > > V y V O N O � C y COL , II II II II ID = Q N 'C 'y W U O LO- LL I L. r., 9 ¢ 7 ' N LO I- N R3 C y O L N L U O .y '0 3 `O ` i ZF CH X00 •C � � W rn � c CD W N N � 0 0 � N tTv N ? r N M v m t"-n C L o) In o N to W W o O 3 ° ° U � � � N CID W Q 2 to rooms Z W vj c4 O 0 LO NI I I II I I U UN �C C N ` N O E C O` N ~ NO � mOC) O � o \ 0_ 0 � C) rn .. V E U N E ;; Nu7 00 OLO •V• O O R N N ro C C C p '` F- . O •� N C co O > l7) r ti 0) 0 O � O o 0 0 0 (n U) 7ju a) NCO 00 mv LO Co t- t0 � 0 0 O .O r, tAI- q;tNO (DI- ^ ONO e- (D 11 II II II :+ N M (D c !F CO f� 00 0 0O +- +- +- O O o 0 0 � � Nce) (D 00 0 � � � � � 01 � O � O CD •y O c H p r' 0000 V 0 mtbmm II II II II II II p 1 N N Z c0 000o C C Z `� N LO C) 0 LO o CD q a) � (ON0 N (D o0N0 (D L E MM (D 00 IQ' 0 � � � SE E L m ° CT O e- Q7 00 CD O M o\°\° O LO In cM a • C 'C O U_ U A- LOLON CID U') OLOONU) d2 c OY a) � } tL NN t* nM ln a Nm � �N/ mo Y IL (� d Li O OT LL O CQ � T Qr- M ornl- LO (D ' .0 T- CM LO (D CM 0 �- O 0 N NT 00 (D (D II II II II W C 0 O C:) 0, (DLO t01- QQmm 000 ° I- 0 ° 0U") � 00 � � (n Q � � N � II II II c C C C OD 00 � ti (O LO q00 W .` O O O O w ++ Y • ' F_ Q w 00tiMMO (Dti 0 � � � r N (np .- M� (O � � O_ O_ O O O O O II II II II II II II II II II II II W ° �° c3 UUUUU N O > . Q 2i J � Q NC) M00N0 J17V `) . 0 a 0 N cDo o00 � C WFa = 222 < O � o o Q F- W im c rnmrn QU Qd coo � oo LL pU E E orn0 �m�m m m m m Q o o � ' N A (,) (.) WmU LL O 7 7 7 7 a) V (L) � NH 0v0 � I- ((DDtLOOo N N a) N 0m ro 'x Co x .x ° o 0 o Z W o Zti (p � � � � �' Ho UWLiO W W S0 W E vNOOOooN ro 0000 a/ ? N (� O NC (D(D Q J Q W J W 0vo0 (D U') I,- rvo (Doo L J to a) U') (D a) -o Z > > O O O ' 0 � O N ~ Oti k c � 0 I^ 1111 II Q O O W p 0 NOLogq- o00 a e_ C_ _ _ ,C QQmco H �; II II II II II II II II N II 11 II 0 W 'a (o M. a) 0)� C O �` Q � �O � �OZ W Z a Uo >. ° U - O a) U�O p ao cu oO O C UUU U . N oOOo C mm o o Y L C O _j Z Zm cu a' ° m.S o.aE = ° a) W c�•c 00 a)p a ro 00 2 iro iro a)ii ro U) o or Q 0-d 0 a) x a) a)x m > p N D a cu o W 0 W Q = U » C W W U2 Woo ) Ww � < * o 0' W'