HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 - Traffic Impact Study - Legends at Bridger Creek II TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
for
LEGENDS at BRIDGER CREEK II SUBDIVISION
Bozeman, Montana
Prepared for
EDGEFIELD, L.L.C.
Prepared by
°
a ° RO[iERT R.
�.
ro : M. Nrr
MARVIN & ASSOCIATES 3
1300 North Transtech Way .
Billings, MT 59102
P.T.O.E. #259
October 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION 1
SITE LOCATION & DESCRIPTION 1
EXISTING CONDITIONS 3
Streets & Intersections 3
Traffic Volumes 6
Capacity 6
Speeds 9
Accident History 9
Traffic Signal Warrants 10
Turn Lane Warrants 12
TRIP GENERATION 12
TRIP DISTRIBUTION 14
TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT 16
FULL BUILDOUT (2010) IMPACTS 18
Traffic Volumes 18
Capacity 20
FUTURE (2025) IMPACTS 21
IMPACT MITIGATION 22
Site Access 22
Turn Lane Warrants 22
Traffic Signal Warrants 23
RECOMMENDATIONS 24
APPENDIX A - TRAFFIC VOLUMES
APPENDIX B - CAPACITY CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX C - SPOT SPEED STUDY WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX D - TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX E - TURN LANE WARRANT WORKSHEETS
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 1. Existing PM Design Hour Capacity Analysis Summary 8
Table 2 The Legends II Subdivision TIS Trip Generation Summary 12
Table 3 Full Buildout PM Design Hour Capacity Analysis Summary 21
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
Figure 1. Site Location Map 2
Figure 2. Proposed Site Layout and Access 4
Figure 3. Existing PM Design Hour Volumes & ADTs 7
Figure 4. Trip Distribution Summary 15
Figure 5. Traffic Assignment Summary 17
Figure 6. 2010 Buildout Traffic Volume Summary 19
Figure 7. Legends Access Left Turn Lane 27
ii
1.
_j The Legends at Bringer Creek I I Subdivision TIS
INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the findings of a traffic impact study (TIS) completed in
regards to the proposed Legends at Bridger Creek II Subdivision (heretofore
referred to as Legends II) in Bozeman, MT. Marvin & Associates was retained by
Edgefield L.L.C. to provide the TIS per the requirements of City of Bozeman
ordinances pertaining to land use developments which have the potential to
impact traffic operations on the surrounding street system. Therein, the primary
purposes of this study were to address specific impacts of the new development
and provide recommendations regarding the mitigation of any identified impacts.
Having reviewed the proposed land use development plan, Marvin & Associates
completed an extensive analysis of existing conditions, addressed trip
generation, trip distribution and traffic assignment, and evaluated the resulting
capacity and safety impacts, before making recommendations regarding the
mitigation of impacts.
The study methodology and analysis procedures used in this study employed the
most contemporary of analysis techniques, referencing only nationally accepted
standards in the areas of site development and transportation impact
assessment. Recommendations made within this report are based upon those
standards and the professional judgment of the author.
SITE LOCATION & DESCRIPTION
The development site for this project is located north of Bridger Canyon Road, on
the northeast fringe of Bozeman's city limits (see Figure 1, next page). To the
west of the project site lays the Legends at Bridger Creek Subdivision. To the
east is the proposed Creekwood Subdivision, for which Marvin & Associates
completed a traffic impact study in February of 2005. To the south lay the Mount
Baldy and Vogel Subdivisions, while Bridger Creek bounds the property to the
north.
AIW� The Legends at BHdger Creek 11 5ubdivision TIS Page 1
i 1 F i
f
i - � ? �'►,` Ilia-• .I
A
IWO
' 1 s
4A
i i
LZ
Psi
T
_ Wet
Figure 1 . Site Location Map
(� The Legends at Bridger Creek II Subdivision T!S Page 2
Figure 2 (next page) shows an aerial photograph of the area, with Legends II
superimposed, to illustrate the proposed layout and access locations. The
preliminary plat for Legends II proposes the development of 125 single-family
dwelling unit lots and a community park/neighborhood center. Access to the
subdivision would be achieved via a direct approach to Bridger Canyon Road
(through the Mount Baldly Subdivision) and through single connections to the
neighboring subdivisions east and west. The proposed direct access to Bridger
Canyon Road is currently a farm access permitted by MDT that aligns with an
access to the Headlands Subdivision. An application to change it to a public
street access will be made to MDT.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Streets &Intersections
Adjacent and potentially impacted public streets include: Bridger Canyon Road
(Bridger Drive), N. Rouse Avenue, Griffin Drive and Story Mill Road. The existing
intersections of Griffin Drive and Story Mill Road with N. Rouse Avenue/Bridger
Drive have the greatest potential to be impacted by Legends II. The intersection
of Bridger Canyon Road with the Headlands Subdivision access, which will be
aligned with the newly constructed Legends II access, also has the potential to
be impacted.
Bridger Canyon Road is designated as Primary Highway 86 (P-86) by the
Montana Department of Transportation and was classified throughout its urban
continuity as a principal arterial in the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation
Plan 2001 Update. P-86 begins as N. Rouse Avenue at its intersection with Main
Street (P-50) in downtown Bozeman and continues north, passing under
Interstate 90 and intersecting with Griffin Drive, where it turns east and continues
as Bridger Drive. P-86 then becomes Bridger Canyon Road somewhere in the
area of the project site. To the north and east, Bridger Canyon Road winds
The Le en s�."_. 9 d at Bridger Creek 11 Subdivision TIS Page 3
x o
m
�c
H
V
V
Q
i =
v a
m �
� - O
m
a
a o
o �
V L N
c19 G y
OA�
� p C {nW
oe = O
y c �
H ° m L
m N
ii
o
V
� Y a
d �
E! E
� M
rz 3�a
The Legends at Bridger Creek 11 Subdivision TIS Page 4
through the Bridger Mountains, providing access to the Bridger Bowl Ski area
and other residential and commercial destinations, before terminating in the
community of Wilsall, approximately 35 miles away. N. Rouse Avenue is
approximately 40' wide and carries two lanes of traffic at its intersection with
Griffin Drive. The roadway narrows to approximately 32' at its intersection with
Story Mill Road and to approximately 28' in the area adjacent to the project site.
Griffin Drive is a minor arterial street that connects N. Rouse Avenue/Bridger
Drive with N. 7t" Avenue, a parallel principal arterial that is located approximately
3/4 of a mile to the west. Griffin Drive carries two lanes of traffic throughout its
length.
Story Mill Road is classified as a collector within Bozeman's city limits. To the
north of Bridger Drive, Story Mill has a paved width of approximately 26' and
carries two lanes of traffic, one each north and south and provides access to the
City Landfill, as well as the Bridger Creek Golf Course and several local
subdivisions. South of Bridger Drive, Story Mill is a gravel road with a width of
approximately 25'. Also to the south, Story Mill intersects with L Street, which
eventually provides access to Main Street, before winding south and east as Big
Gulch Road.
The intersections of Griffin Drive and Story Mill Road with N. Rouse/Bridger Drive
are currently stop controlled. At the Griffin Drive intersection, auxiliary turn bays
on Rouse Avenue provide storage for left-turn movements onto Griffin, while the
eastbound approach of Griffin to the intersection provides a channelized,
exclusive right-turn lane that is yield-controlled. The Story Mill Road intersection
does not provide any additional dedicated lanes for minor approach turning
movements, although the pavement is wide enough so that de-facto movements
"f L The Legends at Bridger Creek 11 Subdivision TIS Pd Je 5
do occur occasionally. The Headlands Subdivision access approach to Bridger
Canyon Road is also currently stop-controlled.
Traffic Volumes
Twenty-four hour automatic traffic counts were taken in February of 2005 at four
locations along Bridger Canyon Road in the area adjacent to the project site.
The counts provided hourly variations, which were used to determine the peak
hour. The counts also provided average daily traffic (ADT) estimations within the
travel corridor. In addition, am and pm peak hour turning movement counts were
taken on February 1 and 2, 2005. From those counts, it was determined that the
hour between 4:30 and 5:30 pm is the weekday peak at both of the potentially
impacted intersections. Raw count data for that hour was adjusted according to
factors for daily and monthly variations to represent existing design hour
volumes. Figure 3, on the following page, presents existing (2005) pm design
hour turning movement volumes at all of the potentially impacted area
intersections. ADT volumes, estimated from automatic counts and turning
movement volumes, are also presented in Figure 3. Summaries of twenty-four
hour traffic counts can be found in Appendix A of this report.
No pedestrian or bicycle activity was noted during the study's field investigations
and was therefore not indicated on the turning movement diagrams. PM peak
hour heavy truck traffic along N. Rouse Avenue/Bridger Drive, west of Story Mill
Road, was calculated to be approximately 2%, while to the east it was 1% or
less. Truck traffic on Story Mill Road was also calculated to be approximately
2% of total traffic during the pm peak hour.
Capacity
Unsignalized capacity calculations were conducted for the pm design hour period
for each of the potentially impacted area intersections using the HCS 2000
j,, ,, The Legends at Bridger Creek 11 Subdivision TI5 Page 6
B4
�O
�p IAWN A ASSOCIATES
�O
I �
00
I Subd v s
214 1
LWI
r—3
® \ 170 g
I C
O
1'9
1'9
® y 203
2 12
i--i I l l
�) 6 J/ '--5
1 5— +-13
II87�` ,-12
IIa 0 80 1 ,5
IN
164
Legendi 1 Access c
oc
m
[1800] —� [1800]
STORY MILL ROAD [600]
O
O
2005 PM Design Hour (4:30-5:30)
;b
2 8
/300
/i24� ADT (TYP•)
III 14 [8100]
249 N.ROUSE AVENUE
1271 177i O G
7 144
oe
t9
Figure 3. Existing PM Design Hour Volumes & ADTs
Ek, The Legends at Bridget Creek 11 Subdivi5ion TI5 Page 7
software package. Table 1 below presents the results of those calculations.
Measures of effectiveness in the table include control delay (s/veh), level of
service (LOS), volume to capacity (v/c) ratio, and 95% queue length (vehicles).
The calculation results showed that the eastbound approach left-thru movement
on Griffin Drive currently operates at a LOS "F" during the pm design hour, with
an average control delay of approximately 161.5 seconds/vehicle, and a 95%
queue length of 8.2 vehicles. In addition, the westbound approach operates at
an unacceptable LOS "E", exhibiting 39.2 seconds/vehicle of average control
delay and a 95% queue length of 0.7 vehicles. All other approach movements at
both intersections currently operate at or above an acceptable LOS "C" during
the pm design hour. Observations made during the pm peak hour period
indicated that capacity calculation results may slightly overestimate the severity
of operational problems at the N. Rouse/Griffin intersection. However, a
substantial number of conflict occurrences were witnessed during the peak hour,
which could be indicative of a reduction in minimum gap acceptance for drivers
executing eastbound left-turn maneuvers. Thus, actual queue formation and
delay are less than calculated due to aggressive driver behavior. Capacity
calculation worksheets for existing and impacted conditions can be found in
Appendix B of this report.
Table 1. Existing PM Design Hour Capacity Analysis Summary
Intersection MOE NB SB EB WB
Movement Group L L LT R LTR
N. Rouse Avenue Control Delay(s/veh) 9.2 7.9 161.5 11.7 39.2
and LOS A A F B E
VIC Ratio 0.21 0.00 1.08 0.23 0.20
Griffin Drive Queue Len th 95% 0.8 0.0 8.2 0.9 0.7
Movement Group LTR TR LTR LTR
Bridger Drive Control Delay(s/veh) 18.4 11.4 7.9 7.7
and LOS c B A A
Story Mill Road VIC Ratio 0.15 0.18 0.08 0.01
y Queue Len th 95% 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.0
Movement Group LR TR LT
Bridger Canyon Road Control Delay(s/veh) 10.7 7.6
and LOS B A
VIC Ratio 0.01 0.00
Headlands Sub Access Queue Length 95510 0.0 0.0
The Legends at Bridyer Creek 11 Subdivision TIS Page 8
Speeds
In conjunction with the Creekwood Subdivision TIS, a spot speed study was
conducted along Bridger Canyon Road, to determine if operating speeds are
consistent with posted speed limits. Speed data was collected at four locations
within a half-mile roadway segment near Creekwood. Study results showed that
85th % speeds at the location of the shared access with Creekwood are
approximately 55 mph eastbound and 56 mph westbound, although the posted
non-truck speed limit for that location is 45 mph for both travel directions. To the
west, the speed zone changes from 45 mph to 35 mph at approximately the
location of the proposed access approach for Legends II. Based upon
information from the spot speed study, 85th % speeds of approximately 50 mph
could be expected for that location.
Accident History
MDT provided accident statistics for the N. Rouse Avenue/Bridger Drive/Bridger
Canyon Road corridor from milepost 0.000 to milepost 15.000, for the five-year
period from October 1, 1999 to September 30, 2004. In that time, 23 accidents
were reported for the stretch of roadway between (but not excluding) the Griffin
Drive intersection and the eastern boundary of the Creekwood Subdivision
property. Five injuries and one fatality resulted.
Six of the accidents occurred at the Griffin Drive intersection, although no injuries
or fatalities were reported. Based on existing daily traffic volumes, an
intersection accident rate of 0.312 accidents/million vehicles entering (MVE)
would result. Of the six accidents at the intersection, all occurred during daylight
hours. Four were reported to occur on wet or icy roads. Three were right-angle
accidents, two were rear ends, and one was a sideswipe.
The Legends at Bridger Creek 11 Subdivision TIS Page 9
Three accidents were reported for the Bridger Drive — Story Mill Road
intersection, with no injuries or fatalities. An accident rate of 0.298
accidents/MVE would result based upon the existing daily intersection volume
demand. All three accidents occurred during daylight hours and two of the three
occurred on wet or snowy roads. One accident was classified as a rear-end,
another as a right-angle incident and the third went unclassified.
Traffic Signal Warrants
As a part of the aforementioned Creekwood Subdivision study, the eight traffic
signal warrants contained within the 2003 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD) were investigated for the purpose of determining the current
justification for signalized traffic control at the Rouse Avenue — Griffin Drive
intersection. Appendix D of this report contains the representative traffic signal
warrant worksheet for the intersection.
The following warrants were found to be met under existing (2005) traffic demand
conditions:
Warrant #1, Eight-hour Vehicular Volumes — Since the speed limit on N. Rouse
Avenue is posted at 35 mph in the area of the Griffin Drive intersection, 100%
warrant volume standards represent the required minimums for all three volume
warrants. Warrant calculation results showed that during the eighth highest
traffic hour, under warrant condition A, which is "intended for application where a
large volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a
traffic control signal," existing volumes were found to comprise 104.4% of the
required minimum volume.
Warrant #2, Four-hour Vehicular Volumes — The Four-Hour Vehicular Volumes
warrant is also intended for application where volume of intersecting traffic is the
The Legends at Bridger Creek 11 Subdivision TIS Page 10
principal reason for consideration of installation of a traffic signal. For the
intersection of N. Rouse and Griffin, during the fourth highest traffic hour, the
minor leg volume was found to comprise 106.0% of the required minimum value
under existing (2005) traffic demand conditions.
Warrant #3, Peak Hour— The Peak Hour warrant is intended for application at a
location where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of 1 hour of an
average day, the minor-street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or
crossing the major street. For the Peak Hour warrant, the need for a traffic signal
shall be considered if either of two conditions is found to be met. For this
intersection, condition A warranted a signal based upon existing traffic volumes
and minor-street delay. Regarding Condition A.1, which considers the total
stopped-time delay for the higher volume minor approach, the eastbound
approach of Griffin Drive provided 113.4% of the necessary minor approach
stopped-time delay. Condition A.2, based upon the higher minor street peak
hour volume, was also met at 278.0%. Condition A.3, based upon the total
entering intersection volume during the peak hour, exceeded warrants minimums
at 144.8%. In addition, Condition B minimum volume demands were also met at
109.4%.
Warrant#8, Roadway Network— The Roadway Network warrant may be justified
when the concentration and organization of traffic is necessary on a roadway
network. It states that the need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if
an engineering study finds that the common intersection of two or more major
routes meets one or more of a list of criteria which is based upon entering
volumes and the functional classification of each route. For the intersection of N.
Rouse Avenue with Griffin Drive, the warrant was met at 115.8% of the minimum
entering volume criteria.
'�' The Legends at Bridger Creek 11 Subdivision TIS Page 11
Turn Lane Warrants
Due to the substantial number of eastbound left-turn movements at the Bridger
Drive — Story Mill Road intersection during the existing pm design hour, MDT
guidelines for the justification of an auxiliary left-turn lane were investigated for
the intersection. Criteria regarding a design speed of 70 km/h (45 mph) was
referenced and it was found that based upon the advancing and opposing design
hour volumes, an eastbound advancing left-turn proportion of 31% would not
justify an auxiliary left-turn turn treatment. Appendix E of this report contains the
representative left-turn lane warrant worksheet for the intersection.
TRIP GENERATION
Table 2 below presents a summary of trip generation projections made for
Legends II. Within the table, trip generation rates and resulting trip projections
for the average weekday and the pm peak hour are illustrated. Trip generation
calculations for the development were based upon the specific land use
information that was provided by the developer. Trip generation rates were taken
from ITE's Trip Generation Report, 7th Edition. ITE land use code 210,
representing single-family dwelling units, was used to predict generation totals for
the proposed development.
Table 2. The Legends II Subdivision TIS Trip Generation Summary
ITE Land Use: Single Family Detached Housing (210)
Ind. Variable: 125 DUs
Weekday P.M. Peak Hour
Equation Ln(T) = 0.92 Ln(X)+2.71 Ln(T) = 0.90 Ln(X)+0.53
Total Trips 1277 131
Entering - 83 (63%)
Exiting 48 (37%)
The gross number of average weekday trips (AWT) for the development was
projected to be approximately 1277. The p.m. peak period would account for
approximately 131 (10.3%) of those trips, with 63% entering (83 trips) and 37%
exiting (48 trips) the development.
ruil� The Legends at Bridger Creek 11 Subdivision TIS Page 12
Land use developments typically produce multi-modal trips that include
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips, in addition to non-transit-related vehicular
trips. When evaluating vehicular impacts, they can be removed from the
generated trip total that is applied to the external street system via subdivision
access points. In the case of Legends II, because of the lack of close-proximity
commercial development and/or other attractor-type facilities, pedestrian trip
activity would likely be minimal. Also, because Bozeman does not currently have
a public transit system relevant to this site, no trips could be attributed therein. In
terms of bicycle traffic, the location of the development would not lend itself to a
substantial amount of bicycle traffic to or from significant employment or
recreational generators.
Trip generation potential can be further refined by determining the number of
"new" external trips that would appear, as vehicular traffic, at development
access points. It is common that, for developments which contain multiple land
uses and/or complementary facilities, a portion of trips that would have origins or
destinations at such facilities are captured internally. These trips are part of the
total trip generation number, but do not have origins or destinations external to
the development site, and as such, do not have an impact of the traffic network
external to the development. These types of trips are known as "Internal Capture
Trips" (ICT). The ITE Trip Generation Handbook contains information regarding
procedures for estimating ICT. In the case of Legends II, because only
residential development is expected, there would be no substantial internal
capture of trips.
External trips can be further categorized as primary purpose, diverted link, or
passerby purpose trips. Primary purpose trips are trips for which the
development is a primary destination from any particular origin. Diverted link
trips are trips made to a development as a secondary destination that must be
diverted from a path between the origin and primary destination. Passerby trips
AMp The Legends at Bridger Creek 11 Subdivision TIS Page 13
are also trips made to a development as a secondary destination, but without a
diversion from the primary trip path (i.e., a stop on the way home from work).
Passerby trips do not represent "new" trips added to the adjacent street system.
Thus, site generated passerby trips must be considered as new external trips
(movements) at the site approach or approaches, but should not appear as new
trips on the adjacent street system, which constitutes the original trip path. The
ITE Trip Generation Report provides methods for estimating passerby trips for a
variety of facilities. In this case, because there would be no significant passerby
trip attractors (restaurants, retail stores, etc.) included in the development,
passerby trips would be negligible.
For Legends II, no adjustments regarding pedestrian, bicycle, transit, internal
capture, or passerby trips would be appropriate. As such, the net number of
"new" external trips that would be added into the traffic stream would equal the
gross totals indicated in Table 3.
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
There are various methods available for determining the directional distribution of
trips to and from site developments. For developments within a large urbanized
area, the task is best accomplished through the creation of a computerized
transportation model of the urban street system, which includes the proposed
development changes. When the creation of a model is not feasible, realistic
estimates can be made by calculating the distribution of existing traffic volumes
on the surrounding street system. The existing distribution can then be applied
to newly generated trips, with concessions made based upon the likely trip
origins and destinations associated with the particular development land use or
uses. For Legends II, a distribution was developed based upon existing volumes
and an area of influence method, which considers the least travel time routing to
major trip attractors with the community. Figure 4, on the following page, shows
a graphical summary of the projected directional trip distribution. As is shown in
AWI, The Legends at Bridger Creek 11 Subdivi5ion TIS Pdge 14
10
411 Amok
8% MANA ASSOCIATES
I- �%
PO
I Subd v s Sl
L — —
ITM
LEI
19%
II �
I1® �0%
i
Io�c
2%' II 90%
UW'
Legendi I Access m
<1%
2%
STORY MILL ROAD
5%
85%
4%
�O
0%
55%
N.ROUSE AVENUE
m
26% c
z
o�
t�
Figure 4. Trip Distribution Summary
The Leyen$at Bridyer Creek II Subdivi5ion TIS Page 15
the figure, approximately 90% of net "new" trips would be distributed to/from
Bridger Canyon Road (Bridger Drive), west of the development. Approximately
8% would be attributable to areas east of the development along Bridger
Canyon, and the remaining 2% would have origins or destinations to the north
along Story Mill Road and would bypass Bridger Canyon Road, instead
accessing Story Mill via the Legends I Subdivision. To the east of the
development, the primary segment of trips would then be disseminated to N.
Rouse Avenue, Story Mill Road, Griffin Drive and various local
production/attraction facilities, proportionately, based upon existing traffic
patterns, as indicated in Figure 4.
TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT
The assignment of site traffic to a development's street system and site access
points is dependent upon several factors. Two such factors are external
directional distribution and localized operational site conditions (i.e., the
subdivision layout of streets). Distribution proportions are used to provide
subdivision access traffic demand estimates. The estimates represent traffic
movements to and from the site that would occur if street operations and internal
site circulation had no effect on the direction of arrival or departure, other than in
relation to the chosen access point. The combined calculation of demand and
least time accessibility are then used to estimate likely movement volumes at
each individual access point. Turning movements at each access point can then
be calculated through the application of the distribution to full development
vehicular trip generation totals.
For Legends II, the aforementioned external access points on Bridger Canyon
Road and Story Mill Road would serve to distribute traffic to and from the
development via three access routes. Figure 5, on the following page, illustrates
the results of pm design hour and average weekday site-generated traffic
�� The Legends at Bridger Creek I I Subdivision TIS Page 16
40.
[102] roc AMML
� KWN &ASSOCIATES
5
• i loo
or 3
Subd v s 814
— ' [238]
8
0 —0
35
61f 0�
14
0 41
0�� ��4
0 — — 0 [20]�� [1155] owl 0—� r— 0
Legend$IIi I Access m I
[6] 0 f I0
71
[26]/ STORY MILL ROAD 4:30-5:30 PM
[64]
11085]
[51]
/0� J f 0 [1034] c�o� [0]
27
13
0 [702] —AWT
1 r~1
22 46� 0 � N.ROUSE AVENUE
0 0 [332] c
z
o�
0
Figure 5. Traffic Assignment Summary
A�p The Legends at Bridger Creek I I Subdivision TI5 Page 17
assignment for the subdivision's external access points, as well for both of the
potentially impacted external area intersections.
FULL BUILDOUT (2010) IMPACTS
Traffic Volumes
Since the Legends at Bridger Creek Subdivision is currently under construction,
and the Creekwood Subdivision would likely be constructed simultaneous to
Legends II, a full buildout traffic volume projection was made in order to evaluate
area impacts. A five-year (2010) buildout period was assumed. Background
traffic with the potentially impacted corridors was increased by 11.5%, based
upon the interpolation of recent historical volume data for Rouse Avenue.
Background traffic was then combined with traffic assignment volumes from the
Legends at Bridger Creek, Creekwood and Legends II Subdivisions in order to
arrive at full buildout (2010) traffic volumes. Figure 6 on the following page
illustrates the results of full buildout and background increase traffic assignment
for the four intersections that have the potential for substantial impact by
Legends II site traffic. The intersections of Story Mill Road with either of the
Legends at Bridger Creek access points were not included in the analysis, since
Legends II would contribute only a miniscule fraction of traffic to those
intersections. The intersection of Bridger Drive with Story Mill Road would have
the highest potential for impact due to its proximity to each of the three
developments included in the analysis. Figure 6 also illustrates existing plus site
traffic ADTs and percentage increases, relative to existing ADT, along key project
area corridors.
Site traffic assignments give an indication of what volume of traffic could
potentially be added to the street system during the average weekday (AWT).
Yet the percent change in AWT can only be used to identify general locations
where impacts could be significant. It is the determination of volume changes
AIN�,� The Legends at Bridger Creek 11 Subdivision TIS Page 18
f - 17% ��P A L 3864
[ ] / 6 250 s
IS
I
I \O�/ 4
201
I Subd v s 20 34
- - Cri1
265
® 1 -1 -3
0 0 0
Cl) 35�� /— 9
w
C }
® � 61 115
231
►-+ 287
�® 6 j 16
II ; 9--,-' '*-12
II c �o
8— —16
W 04 120---,,,, �—13 I
Legend i I Access �\
°° 131117
[2708] 50% 286
[2728] 52% STORY MILL ROAD [799] 33% 4:30-5:30 PM
n
Co
n
P
/2/4 moo? �.ab o°
1 / /6 �✓ �O C
3891��
166 ` ° ADT
16�
` [10413] 29% — % Increase
/j 369 4 N.ROUSE AVENUE
191 197 j N
8 161 p
c
of Z
U.
e�
t9
Figure 6. 2010 Buildout Traffic Volume Summary
,jjjNj °Z The Legends at Bridger Creek 11 Subdivision T15 Page 19
during peak traffic flow periods that provides specific information on the type and
location of impacts that could potentially occur.
In almost all cases, it is very difficult to determine ADT on any section of street to
within 10% accuracy. Thus, impact analyses on streets with relative percentage
increases less than 10% are not normally considered critical. For the 2010 full
buildout scenario, all of the potentially impacted corridors would realize
substantial increases in ADT, with the exception of Griffin Drive, east of Rouse
Avenue. Increases would range in magnitude from 17% (Bridger Canyon Road,
east of Creekwood Subdivision) to 61% (Bridger Drive, west of Legends II).
Capacity
Table 3, on the following page, presents a summary of full buildout (2010) pm
design hour capacity calculation results for the four aforementioned potentially
impacted area intersections. MOEs in Table 3 include control delay, level of
service (LOS), v/c ratio, and vehicle queue length. Peak hour factors for each
approach were held the same as for existing conditions, with the exceptions of
for the westbound approach of Griffin to Rouse and the northbound approach of
Story Mill to Bridger. For those two approaches, the existing count PHFs were
found to be extremely low (0.54 for WB Griffin and 0.62 for NB Story Mill). As
such, for the full buildout year capacity calculations, the PHFs for those two
approaches were approximated based upon the averages of the other three
approaches for the particular intersection. For the Legends II access
intersections, PHFs of 0.90 were used for all approaches. Calculation results
showed that both of the Legends II accesses to Bridger Canyon Road (Bridger
Drive) would operate acceptably upon full buildout, with all movements at both of
the intersections operating at or above a LOS "B." The Rouse Avenue — Griffin
Drive intersection would have the left-thru lane on its eastbound approach
continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS T" during the pm design hour,
regardless of the addition of site-generated and background increase traffic. In
'\ The Legends at BHdger Creek 11 Subdivision TIS Page 20
Table 3. Full Buildout (2010) PM Design Hour Capacity Analysis Summary
Intersection I MOE NB SB EB WB
Movement Group L L LT R LTR
N. Rouse Avenue Control Delay(s/veh) 10.2 8.4 935.8 13.4 77.3
and LOS B A F B F
VIC Ratio 0.27 0.00 2.83 0.30 0.28
Griffin Drive Queue Len th 95% 1.1 0.0 22.1 1.2 1.0
Movement Group L TR L I R LTR
Bridger Drive Control Delay(s/veh) 35.5 16.5 8.4 8.1
and LOS E C A A
VIC Ratio 0.30 0.35 0.14 0.02
Story Mill Road Queue Len th 95%1 1.2 1.6 0.5 0.1
Movement Group LTR LTR LTR LTR
R
Bridger Canyon Road Control Delay(s/veh) 15.3 10.3 8.0 7.7
and LOS C B A A
Headlands Sub Access VIC Ratio 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.00
Queue Length 95% 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0
Movement Group - LR LT TR
Bridger Canyon Road Control Delay(s/veh) - 10.4 7.9
and LOS B A
VIC Ratio - 0.04 0.03
Creekwood Sub Access Queue Length(95%) 1 0.1 0.1
addition, LOS for the westbound minor approach would degrade to "F," although
the approach volume for that leg would be unlikely to increase substantially. The
intersection of Bridger Drive with Story Mill Road would also realize a
degradation in level of service, for its northbound, minor approach. That
approach would operate at a LOS "E," exhibiting a control delay of 35.5
seconds/vehicle, a v/c ratio of 0.30 and a 95% queue length of 1.2 vehicles. The
minimal v/c ratio and queuing are indicative of the low volume demand for the
approach, even during the design hour. Capacity calculation worksheets for
existing design hour plus site conditions can be found in Appendix B of this
report.
FUTURE (2025) IMPACTS
To provide an assessment of future operations for the Legends II access points
on Bridger Canyon Road, background volume increases for the corridor were
projected for the year 2025. Historical volume data from the Rouse Avenue
corridor was once again used to project background traffic growth. By the year
2025, an increase in background traffic of approximately 64.4% would result.
The projected background traffic volumes were then combined with site traffic
`� The Legends at Bridger Creek II Subdivision TIS Page 21
approach turning movements from the Creekwood and Legends II Subdivisions,
and unsignalized capacity calculations were conducted. Calculation results
showed that both of the subdivision access intersections would continue to
operate acceptably, with all movements exhibiting a LOS "C" or better and
nominal approach delays.
IMPACT MITIGATION
Site Access
For MDT to grant an access approach on a state highway, it is critical that
adequate intersection sight distance (ISD) be available at that location. As such,
sight distance measurements and ISD calculations were made for the proposed
primary Legends II access. A 50 mph (80 km/h) design speed was assumed for
the major roadway based upon existing speed zones and the results of the
aforementioned spot speed study. Since the subdivision would be residential in
nature, a passenger car was chosen as the design vehicle. Calculation results
showed that a sight distance of approximately 560' (170 m) would be necessary
for both right and left-turning vehicles at each approach. That distance would
also be adequate for thru-movement vehicles, since the roadway is only two
lanes. Since the access in question would exist within a tangent section of
roadway, with substantial sight distance (>1000 ft) in either direction, additional
calculations were not necessary. Appropriate design sight distance would be
available for the approach in both travel directions.
Turn Lane Warrants
Through an increase in background traffic and the assignment of site-generated
traffic from Legends at Bridger Creek Subdivision, buildout year (2010) pm
design hour eastbound left-turn movements at the Bridger Drive — Story Mill
Road intersection would increase by approximately 64% over the existing design
hour and would comprise 30% of the eastbound approach volume. As such,
The Legends at Bridger Creek 11 Subdivision TIS Page 22
auxiliary turn lane warrants were again investigated for the approach. It was
found that based upon the increases in advancing and opposing design hour
volumes, consideration of an auxiliary left-turn turn treatment would be
warranted. A similar investigation was conducted for the eastbound approach of
Bridger Drive to the proposed primary Legends II access (and Headlands
Subdivision access) approach. For that approach, left turn movements comprise
approximately 20% of the approach demand. Investigation results showed that
consideration of an auxiliary left-turn lane would be warranted based upon the
projected buildout year (2010) volume demand. The eastbound approach of
Bridger Drive to the shared access between Legends II and the Creekwood
Subdivision was also investigated in terms of auxiliary left-turn lane warrants.
Calculations showed that the approach would not have a volume demand that
would warrant a left-turn treatment in 2010. A similar analysis for the year 2025
showed that consideration of an eastbound left-turn lane treatment for that
location could only be marginally justified, based upon a left-turn demand of
approximately 10%. Appendix E of this report contains the representative full
buildout (2010) and future (2025) year left-turn lane warrant worksheets for the
analyzed intersections.
Traffic Signal Warrants
As was demonstrated in the Creekwood Subdivision TIS, four of the eight
MUTCD traffic signal warrants are currently met under existing traffic volume
demand conditions for the intersection of N. Rouse Avenue with Griffin Drive. IN
addition, MDT is currently in the design process of the reconstruction of N. Roues
Avenue and it is anticipated that operational deficiencies at the Griffin Drive
intersection would be addressed through that project. Therefore, additional traffic
signal warrant investigations for buildout year (2010) conditions at the
intersection were not necessary.
The Legends at Bridger Creek II Subdivision TIS Page 23
For the intersection of Bridger Drive with Story Mill Road, the addition of site-
generated traffic from the Legends at Bridger Creek, Creekwood and Legends II
Subdivisions would cause a degradation in level of service for the northbound
intersection approach, that would result in a buildout year (2010) LOS "D."
Although an eastbound left-turn lane would be warranted by 2010, the addition of
such a lane would not improve the northbound approach LOS. The investigation
of all-way stop control indicated that the intersection would operate acceptably
with buildout year (2010) traffic demands in place and a reasonable amount of
reserve capacity would remain. An all-way stop control capacity analysis
worksheet can be found in Appendix B of this report. An investigation of traffic
signal warrants was conducted for the intersection, based upon projected daily
buildout year volume demands. Results of the warrant investigation indicated
that no warrants would be met in 2010.
RECOMMENDATIONS
As it is currently proposed, the development of the Legends II Subdivision would,
in combination with the Legends at Bridger Creek and Creekwood Subdivisions,
have a substantial effect on corridor traffic and intersection turning movement
volumes within the surrounding area. Increases in ADT of 61% could be
expected west of the project site upon full buildout, which is projected to be
complete by approximately 2010. In terms of intersection capacity, the addition
of full buildout site and background traffic would also cause a degradation in pm
design hour LOS for the northbound approach of Story Mill Road to Bridger
Drive. The addition of an auxiliary left-turn lane for the eastbound approach,
which would be warranted based upon 2010 volume demands, would not
mitigate the projected LOS deficiency. However, all-way stop control would
adequately mitigate all capacity issues at the intersection through full buildout
(2010), with substantial reserve capacity. Note that an eastbound left-turn lane
would not be required, based upon previously discussed warrants, if all-way stop
control was implemented. If signalization of the intersection is warranted at some
point in the future, the developer of Legends II should be held responsible for
The Legends at Bridget Creek I I subdivision TIS Page 24
improvement costs commensurate only with the relative traffic volume demand
attributed to Legends II.
Regarding the N. Rouse Avenue - Griffin Drive intersection, existing capacity
problems would be further magnified through the addition of site-generated
demand from Legends II. However, it is assumed that the planned
reconstruction of that intersection would mitigate the existing intersection
deficiencies in advance of the construction of Legends II. A full buildout year
(2010) signalized capacity calculation was performed for the intersection of N.
Rouse Avenue and Griffin Drive, without any geometric improvements, using the
SigCinema 2000 software package. Calculation results showed that the
intersection would operate acceptably under existing plus site pm design hour
traffic volume demands, with a substantial amount of reserve capacity. The
intersection as a whole would operate at a LOS "B", with 14.8 seconds/vehicle of
average intersection delay, and a v/c ratio of 0.66. All individual approach
movements would operate at or above a LOS "C," or better. Appendix B
contains a signalized capacity calculation worksheet for the intersection.
Although a traffic signal would mitigate any operational concerns regarding traffic
control at the N. Rouse Avenue — Griffin Drive intersection, additional concerns
regarding safety may be introduced through the implementation of signalized
control. Because the intersection exists within a substantial horizontal curve,
sight distances are not ideal for driver recognition of signal changes and/or the
type of legal, conflicting minor street movements (right turns on red for example)
that repeatedly occur at signalized intersections. As such, a reduction in
accidents may not occur as a result of signalization. Therefore, it is
recommended that a roundabout be considered as an alternative to signalization.
The intersection's unusual orientation lends itself more readily to a roundabout
configuration than a signal. The sight distance issue would be negated, since
approaching vehicles would be forced to greatly reduce their speeds to negotiate
The Legends at Bridget Creek 11 subdivision TIS Page 25
the roundabout. In addition, roundabouts are widely renowned for reducing the
frequency and severity of accidents when compared with signalized control.
Regarding the proposed primary access approach for Legends II, sight distance
availability was investigated and found to be more than adequate, based upon
current MDT standards. The projection of future (2025) background volumes
was not found to have a substantial negative effect on capacity at either of the
subdivision access approaches to Bridger Drive. However, the investigation of
mainline auxiliary left and lanes for the approaches showed that the eastbound
approach to the Legends II primary access (shared with Headlands Subdivision)
would experience a left-turn demand that would warrant consideration of a left-
turn lane treatment by the year 2010. A similar investigation showed that
consideration of a left-turn lane would be only marginally warranted for the
shared Legends II/Creekwood access, based upon project 2025 traffic volumes.
As an eastbound left-turn treatment would be only marginally justifiable 20 years
from the present, it may not be cost-effective to construct such a lane for that
approach, since it is likely that future thru traffic increases will eventually warrant
construction of a continuous left turn lane section throughout the entire corridor.
For the primary Legends II approach, the auxiliary left turn lane should be
constructed prior to the full development of the subdivision.
Figure 7, on the following page, illustrates the minimum geometric requirements
for construction of a left-turn lane for the main Legends II access street to Bridger
Canyon Drive based on a 50 mph design speed. An opposing westbound left-
turn lane, which would be a mirror image of the eastbound left-turn lane would
normally be desirable. However, there are numerous driveway approaches
entering Bridger Canyon Road from the north, east of the intersection, that would
require conflicting left-turn movements within the dedicated eastbound left-turn
lane. As a design option, it is suggested that the east side of the intersection be
�� 9enc s at The Le Brig er Creek I I Subdivision TIS Page 26
9
wow
AVIRVIN a<ASSOCUUSS
Either Mirror Image of West Side
or Use Optional Configuration
f As Shown
50:1 Tapers 300'
o
90'-100'
LEGENDS II APPROACH Existing Street Access
q
q
A
Shl Thru L urn Thru Shid
' 4' 12' 12' 12' 4'
475'
Widen Won Each Side q
of Bridger Canyon Road o
80'
Total Length
15:1 Taper One Side =825'
50:1 Taper—
NOTE:
If widening is only possible on one 01W
side,trasition tapers will extend an
additional 300'on each end of the project. z 300
c�
oe
W Design Speed = 50 mph
t9
G
oe
m �
Figure 7. Legends Access Left Turn Lane Layout
The Legends at Bridger Creek II Subdivision TIS Page 27
tapered back to match the existing roadway section. This would allow relatively
unconflicted eastbound left-turns into the driveway approaches from the
eastbound thru-lane. Since there is currently no traffic demand associated with
the westbound left-turn to the existing street south of Bridger Canyon Road and
future development is not expected to create a significant demand, the optional
design would provide an operating environment more commensurate with
projected traffic movements.
From the foregoing analysis, it is concluded that both of the proposed
approaches to Bridger Canyon Road would operate in an acceptable manner in
terms of level of service under existing conditions and well into the future. The
combined developments of the Legends at Bridger Creek, Creekwood and
Legends II Subdivisions would have an adverse impact on LOS for the Bridger
Drive — Story Mill Road intersection, which would eventually warrant
signalization. However, as an interim improvement measure, all-way stop control
would reasonably mitigate capacity concerns through and beyond the projected
full buildout of all three subdivisions. When the time comes to construct a traffic
signal for the intersection, Edgefield L.L.C. should be held responsible only for a
proportionate share of improvement costs, as background traffic increases and
site-generated traffic from additional area development will also contribute to the
operational degradation of the intersection.
AN The Legends at Mdgev Creek II subdivision TIS Page 28
APPENDIX A - TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Bridger Canyon Rd. - Station #1 - Eastbound Volume Distribution
Hour 2/1/2005 2/2/2005 Average %of
Begin Tuesday Wednesday Day Day
1 3 3 0.2%
2 5 5 0.3%
3 4 4 0.2%
4 3 3 0.2%
5 8 8 0.5%
6 35 35 2.1%
7 94 94 5.6%
8 126 126 7.5%
9 118 118 7.0%
10 105 105 6.2%
11 114 114 6.8%
12 117 117 6.9%
13 148 148 8.8%
14 117 117 6.9%
15 112 112 6.7%
16 155 155 9.2%
17 158 158 9.4%
18 81 81 4.8%
19 59 59 3.5%
20 53 53 3.1%
21 37 37 2.2%
22 17 17 1.0%
23 12 12 0.7%
24 3 3 0.2%
Total 952 732 1684 100.0%
Bridger Canyon Rd.=Station #1 - Eastbound
10.0%-
9;0%- -....._._..........__......_................_.........
__...
A8.0%" ------._..........W..._...,_---- __ _.. _.........._.. ._...... __.._..._ _.._.
7.0°6 ......_._..__...r.. _ ......_.__ .._.................. ____....
6.0% ....... .»__..._ _ _ _ .............
_...»...w._.._....»....
5.0°b ._... _..... _.........____ __. .. _
a3.0% ...... ... ..__. ..... .....................
i2.0°6 _.................F
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18'19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour of Day(Beginuing)_
0 Hourly%of Volume
Bridger Canyon Rd. - Station #1 -Westbound Volume Distribution
Hour 2/1/2005 2/2/2005 Average %of
Begin Tuesday Wednesday Day Day
1 4 4 0.2%
2 2 2 0.1%
3 5 5 0.3%
4 6 6 0.3%
5 15 15 0.9%
6 46 46 2.6%
7 132 132 7.5%
8 129 129 7.4%
9 93 93 5.3%
10 97 97 5.5%
11 122 122 7.0%
12 103 103 5.9%
13 144 144 8.2%
14 163 163 9.3%
15 165 165 9.4%
16 235 235 13.4%
17 138 138 7.9%
18 84 84 4.8%
19 31 31 1.8%
20 13 13 0.7%
21 9 9 0.5%
22 12 12 0.7%
23 4 4 0.2%
24 2 2 0.1%
Total 1000 754 1754 100.0%
Bridger Canyon Rd.- Station #1 -Westbound
16.0%
W' 14.0% -.. - »». __.. _..__ »...__....»... ».»....».................._. ..._».. ... _.
Q
12.096 ».»».......». . .............»......»................... ..... _. .».. __..._.....-
a,
c 8:0% .................__.»..._........._..._......._._».. _ »......._..._...
........_-_... ..__»..
aW� 4.0°6 _»_..__.. _ ...............I..........
w 2.096
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1314 t.5i16 17-i8 18 20,21 22 23 24
Hour of Dny.(ftinnipgJ
0 Hourly%of Volume
Bridger Canyon Rd. - Station #1 - Both Directions
Hour 2/1/2005 2/2/2005 Average %of
Begin Tuesday Wednesday Day Day
1 7 7 0.2%
2 7 7 0.2%
3 9 9 0.3%
4 9 9 0.3%
5 23 23 0.7%
6 81 81 2.4%
7 226 226 6.6%
8 255 255 7.4%
9 211 211 6.1%
10 202 202 5.9%
11 236 236 6.9%
12 220 220 6.4%
13 292 292 8.5%
14 280 280 8.1%
15 277 277 6.1%
16 390 390 11.3%
17 296 296 8.6%
18 165 165 4.8%
19 90 90 2.6%
20 66 66 1.9%
21 46 46 1.3%
22 29 29 0.8%
23 16 16 0.5%
24 5 5 0.1%
Total 1952 1486 3438 100.0%
Bridger Canyon Rd. - Station #1
12,0
aEE,
8.0% . ...................._..__-----------------_..._._.------.....................- - ------...._._.....__..W..._-------..........
do 6.0% ........._....._......_.._ _... .._..... ... _ ... ._ll ... .. _..
o ,
q
a
11
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1b it'12 i31d t5';46`17 48�f 20:2t 22 2324
Hour of Day(Beginuin�►J
■Hourly%of Volume
APPENDIX B - CAPACITY CALCULATIONS
Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site OM!on
'lyst D.J. Clark Intersection BridgerCanyon/Headlands
nyency/Co. Marvin &Associats Appr.
Date Performed 101512005 Jurisdiction EXISTING
Analysis Time Period PM Design Hour Analysis Year 2005
Project Description The Legends II Subdivision TIS
East/West Street: Brill er Canyon Road North/South Street: Headlands Sub Access Approach,
Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Im
Major Street I Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume veh/h 0 170 5 1 214 0
Peak=hour ,factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0:90 0.90 0-90
Hourly Flow Rate veh/h) 0 188 5 1 237 0
Proportion of heavy
vehicles, PHv 0 - -- 0 -- -
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 1 _ 0
Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
Configuration TR LT
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
�^,,vement 1 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 3 0 1 0 0 0
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0,90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 3 0 1 0 0 0
Proportion of heavy
vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 2 2 2
Percent grade(%) 0 0
Flared approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
Configuration LR
Control.Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
Volume, v (vph) 1 4
Capacity, cm (vph) 1398 637
v/c ratio 0.00 0.01
Queue length (95%) 0.00 0.02
Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 10.7
A B
Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 10.7
Approach LOS -- -- B
Copyright®2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.ld
file://C:\Documents and Settings\dj_2\Local Settings\Temp\u2k62.tmp 10/18/2005
Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Inform" n
Analyst D.J. Clark Intersection Rouse/Griffin
icy/Co. Marvin &Associats Jurisdiction EXISTING
Date Performed 101512005 Analysis Year 2005
Analysis Time Period PM Design Hour
Project Description The Legends II Subdivision TIS
East/West Street: Griffin Drive North/South Street: Rouse Avenue
Intersection Orientation North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 1 6
L T R L T R
Volume 177 249 14 1 300 124
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.87 1 0.87 1 0.87
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 226 _ 319 17 1 344 142
Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 - -- 2 -- --
Median Type Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 1
Configuration L TR L T R
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 5 8 2 127 7 144
r *-Hour Factor, PHF 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.88 0.88 0.88
, irly Flow Rate, HFR 9 14 3 144 7 163
Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2
Percent Grade(%) 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized 0 1
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1
Configuration LTR LT R
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration L L LTR LTA
v(vph) 226 1 26 151 163
C (m) (vph) 1077 1223 131 140 I 699
v/c 0.21 0.00 0.20 1.0811 0.23
95% queue length 0.79 0.00 0.70 8.24 0.90
Control Delay 9.2 7.9 39.2 161.5 11.7
LOS A A E F B
Approach Delay -- -- 39.2 83.7
Approach LOS -- -- E F
P 'its Reserved
h......000TM Copyright C 2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version•l_1 d
Version 4.1 d
file:HC:\Documents and Settings\dj_2\Local Settings\Temp\u2klC.tmp 10/17/2005
Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
A^alyst D.J. Clark Intersection Bridger/Story Mill
:ncy/Co. Marvin &Associats Jurisdiction EXISTING
Date Performed 10/5/2005 Analysis Year 2005
Analysis Time Period PM Design Hour
Project Description The Legends Ill Subdivision TIS
East/West Street: Bridger Drive North/South Street: Story Mill Road
Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adiastments 47
Major Street I Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume veh/h 80 164 15 12 203 2
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.74 0.74 1 0.74 0.84 0,84 0.84
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 108 1 221 20 14 241 2
Proportion of heavy
vehicles, P 0 -- — 0 — --
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 1 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
ime veh/h 12 13 5 6 5 87
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.62 0.62 0.62 0,80 0.80 0.80
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 19 20 8 7 6 108
Proportion of heavy
� 0 0 0 2 2 2
vehicles, P
Percent grade (%) 0 0
Flared approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Control Dellay,Queue Len-th Level of Service
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR
Volume, v (vph) I 108 14 I 47 121
Capacity, cm (vph) 1335 1360 316 679
v/c ratio 0.08 0.01 0.15 0.18
Queue length (95%) 0.26 0.03 0.52 0.64
Control Delay (s/veh) 7.9 7.7 18.4 11.4
1 ^S A A C B
,roach delay (s/veh) -- -- 18.4 11.4
Approach LOS -- - C 19
lics10o0I" Copyright®2003 University ofFlorida,All Rights Reserved Version,t Id
file://C:\Documents and Settings\dj_2\Local Settings\Temp\u2klF.tmp 10/17/2005
Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
'lyst D.J. Clark Intersection BridgerCanyon/Headlands
,-,yency/Co. Marvin &Associats Appr.
Date Performed 101512005 Jurisdiction FULL BUILDOUT
Analysis Time Period PM Design Hour Analysis Year 2010
Project Description The Legends lI Subdivision TIS
East/West Street: Brid er Canyon Road North/South Street: Headlands Sub Access Approach
Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period hrs : 0.25 77d
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 1 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume veh/h 61 231 15 3 265 2
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 67 256 16 3 294 2
Proportion of heavy 0 -- -- 0 — --
vehicles, PHv
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 1 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
_ L T R L T R
Volume (veh/h) 9 0 3 1 0 35
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 090
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 10 0 3 1 0 38
Proportion of heavy
vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 2 2 2
Percent grade (%) 0 0
Flared approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Control Dela . Queue Len th Level of Service -
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR
Volume, v (vph) 67 3 13 39
Capacity, cm (vph) 1277 1321 363 721
v/c ratio I 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.05
Queue length (95%) 0.17 I 0.01 I 0.11 I I 0.17
Control Delay (s/veh) 8.0 7.7 I 15..3 I I I 10.3
A A I C 8
Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 15.3 10.3
Approach LOS -- -- C B
Copyright C 2003 Unrversm of Florida,Ali Rights Reserved %1(,Twn 4 id
file:HC:\Documents and Settings\dj_2\Local Settings\Temp\u2k59.tmp 10/18/2005
Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
tlyst D.J. Clark Intersection Bridger Canyon/Creekwood
Agency/Co. Marvin &Associats Appr.
Jurisdiction FULL BUILDOUT
Date Performed 101512005 Analysis Year 2010
Analysis Time Period PM Design Hour
Project Description The Legends II Subdivision TIS
East/West Street: Brid er Canyon Road North/South Street: Creekwood Sub Access Approach
Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 1 5 6
L T R L I T R
Volume veh/h 34 201 0 0 250 6
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 1 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate veh/h) 37 223 0 0 277 6
Proportion of heavy
vehicles, PHv 0 - 0
Median type T Undivided
RT Channellzed? 1 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LT TR
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
�"-vement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume veh/h 0 0 0 4 0 20
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 090 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 4 0 22
Proportion of heavy
vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 2 2 2
Percent grade (%) 0 0
Flared approach N IN
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
Configuration d LR
Control Dela ueue Length, Level of Service
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
Volume, v (vph) 37 26
Capacity, cm (vph) 1291 691
v/c ratio 0.03 0.04
Queue length (95%) 0.09 0.12
Control Delay (s/veh) 7.9 10.4
A _� B
Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 10.4
Approach LOS -- -- B
Copyright C 2003 Universit> ofllorida,All Rights Resetved :, Version 4 1d
file://C:\Documents and Settings\dj_2\Local Settings\Temp\u2k78.tmp 10/19/2005
Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
'alyst D.J. Clark Intersection Bridger/Story Mill
�ency/Co. Marvin &Associats Jurisdiction FULL BUILDOUT
Date Performed 101512005 Analysis Year 2010
Analysis Time Period PM Design Hour
Project Description The Legends 11 Subdivision T1S
East/West Street: Brid er Drive North/South Street: Story Mill Road
Intersection Orientation: East-West Stud Period hrs : 0.25
Vehicle VoYumes and Adjustments
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume veh/h 131 286 17 16 287 6
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.84 0.84 0.84
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 177 366 22 19 341 7
Proportion of heavy
vehicles, PHv 0 — — 0 — —
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 1 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Upstream Signal 0 1 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 1 8 1 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
_,ume veh/h 13 16 12 9 8 120
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.79 0:79 0.79 0.80 0.80 0.80
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 16 20 15 11 9 149
Proportion of heavy
vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 2 2 2
Percent grade (%) 0 0
Flared approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service
Approach EB WB I Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 =8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR
Volume, v (vph) 177 19 I 51 169
Capacity, cm (vph) 1222 1184 168 480
v/c ratio 0.14 0.02 0.30 0.35
Queue length (95%) 0.51 0.05 1.21 1.57
Control Delay (s/veh) 8.4 8.1 35.5 16.5
' ^S A A E C
,roach delay (s/veh) -- -- 35.5 16.5
Approach LOS -- -- E C
HCS:000rM Co1wrighl',i_"200311ntvetsity oCFhorida.All Rights Ruse rved Version Id
file://C:\Documents and Settings\dj_2\Local Settings\Temp\u2k28.tmp 10/18/2005
Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information . ..- Site MR
"nalyst D.J. Clark Intersection Bridger/Story Mill
ancy/Co. Marvin &Associats Jurisdiction FULL BUILDOUT-EB Left
Date Performed 101512005 Analysis Year 2010
Analysis Time Period PM Design Hour
Project Description The Legends 11 Subdivision TIS
East/West Street: Brid er Drive North/South Street: Story Mill Road
Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Ad'ustments
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume veh/h 131 286 17 16 287 6
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.84 0.84 0.84
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 177 386 22 1 19 341 7
Proportion of heavy
vehicles, P. 0 _ - 0 —
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 1 0
Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration L TR LTR
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L I T R L T R
,,ume (veh/h) 13 16 12 9 8 120
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.79 O.79 0.79 0.80 0.80 0.80
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 16 20 15 11 9 149
Proportion of heavy
vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 2 2 2
Percent grade (%) 0 0
Flared approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Control Delay, Queue Len th Level of Service
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration L LTR LTR LTR
Volume, v (vph) 177 19 51 169
Capacity, cm (vph) 1222 1184 175 489
v/c ratio 0.14 0.02 0.29 0.35
Queue length (95%) 0.51 0.05 1.15 1.53
Control Delay (s/veh) 8.4 8.1 33.8 I 16.2
' '`S A A D li C
, ,,proach delay (s/veh) -- -- 33.8 16.2
Approach LOS -- — D C
/1c32000TM Copyright®2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version,; I d
file://C:\Documents and Settings\dj_2\Local Settings\Temp\u2k81.tmp 10/19/2005
Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information .,_ Site Informat o
Pnalyst D.J. Clark Intersection Rouse/Griffin
:ncy/Co. Marvin &Associats Jurisdiction FULL BUILDOUT
Date Performed 101512005 Analysis Year 2010
Analysis Time Period PM Design Hour
Project Description The Legends 11 Subdivision TIS
Eastf West Street: Griffin North/South Street: Rouse
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 197 369 16 1 389 166
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.78 0.78 0.7& 0.87 0,87 087
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR ' 473 1 20 1 1 447 190
Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 —
Median Type _ Undivided
RT Channelized 0 0
Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 1
Configuration L TR L T R
,Upstream Signal 0 ! 0
Minor Street Westbound Eastbound
Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume 6 9 2 191 161
-ik-Hour Factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.68. 0.88 0.88
. .,urly Flow Rate, HFR 7 110 1 2 i 217 9 182
Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2
Percent Grade (%) I 0 0
Flared Approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized I 0 1
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1
Configuration LTR LT R
Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration L L LTR LT R
v (vph) 252 1 19 226 182
C (m) (vph) 947 1071 68 80 612
v/c 0.27 0.00 0.28 2.83 0.30
95% queue length 1.07 0.00 1.00 22.09 1,24
Control Delay 10.B2 A 7F3 935.8 B.8 13.4
LOS
Approach Delay -- -- 77.3 I 524.3
Approach LOS -- -- F F
hts Reserved
I, 20001�{ Copyright C 2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version.t Id
Vernon 4.1d
file://C:\Documents and Settings\dj_2\Local Settings\Temp\u2k2B.tmp 10/18/2005
All-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1
ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS
General Information Site Informatio i
Analyst D.J. Clark Intersection Bndger/Story Mill
-cy/Co. Marvin&Associates Jurisdiction FULL BUILDOUT
_,a Performed 10/19/2005 Analysis Year 2010
Analysis Time Period PM Design Hour
Project ID The Legends 11 Subdivision TIS
East/West Street Story Miff Road North/South Street: Bridger Dove
Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics
Approach Eastbound Westbound
Movement L T R L T R
Volume J 131 286 17 16 287 6
%Thrus Left Lane 50 I 50
Approach Northbound Southbound
Movement L T R t_ T R
Volume 13 16 12 9 8 120
%Thrus Left Lane 50 50
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
1_1 L2 L1 1_2 L1 L2 L1 L2
Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR
PH F 0.74 1 0.84 0.79 0.80
Flow Rate 585 1 367 51 169
%Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0
No Lanes 1 1 1 1
Geometry Group 1 1 1 1
Duration,T _ 0,25
Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet
ir Left-Turns 0.3 1 0.1 0.3
,.Right-Turns 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.9
Prop. Heavy Vehicle
hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 I 0.2 1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 0.6 -0.6 -0.6
ihHV-adj I 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1 7
hadj,computed 5.22 5.22 5:22 5.22
Departure Headway and Service Time
hd,initial value 3.20 3.20 3,20 1 3.20
x,initial 0.52 0.33 0.05 0.15
hd.final value 522 5,22 5.22 5.22
x.final value 0.85 I 0.56 0.10 0.28
Move-up time,m 2.Q 1 2.0 2.0 2.0
Service Time 1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
Capacity and Level of Service
Eastbound Westbound I Northbound Southbound
L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2
Capacity 682 617 301 419
Delay 30.23 15.16 10.44 11.27
LOS D C B B
Approach:Delay 30.23 15.16 10.44 11:27
LOS D C B B
1r",rsection Delay 21.92
;ectton LOS I C
IIC'S20001'�'t Copyright C 2003 University of-Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4 Id
file://C:\Documents and Settings\dj_2\Local Settings\Temp\u2k86.tmp 10/19/2005
HCM Analysis Summary
2010 Full Buildout Griffin Drive/N. Rouse Avenue Area Type:Non CBD
D.J. Clark 10/19/2005 Analysis Duration: 15 mins.
PM Design Hour Case: GRIFFIN-ROUSE SIGNAL
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 1 1 LTR 12.0
NB 2 1 L 12.0 TR 12.0
SB 2 1 L 12.0 TR 12.0
East West North South
Data L-T T R L T R L T R L T R
Movement Volume h 191 12 161 6 9 2 197 369 16 1 389 166
PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.87 0.87 0.87
%Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Lane Groups LT R LTR L TR L TR
Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
RTOR Vol h 50 1 5 50
Peds/Hour 0 0 0 0
%Grade 0 0 0 0
Buses/Hour 0 0 0 0
Parkers/Hour(LeftIRight) II --- I --- I --- - --- -- I ---
Si nal Settin s:Actuated Operational Analysis Cycle Length: 53.0 Sec Lost Time Per Cycle: 8.0 Sec
Phase: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ped Only
EB LTP LTP
WB LTP
NB LTP
SB LTP
Green 6.0 8.0 28.0 0
Yellowl All Red 1 3.01 0.01 3.01 1.01 3.0 L 1.0
Cain) itv Analysis Results Approach:
Lanet20
v/s g/C Lane v/c Delay Delay
EB * LT per 0.021 0.226 16.1 B
* LT pro 0.113 0.113 LT 0.443 17.0 B
R 0.080 0.321 R 0.248 14.4 B
WB
LTR 238 0.012 0.151 LTR 0.080 20.0 B 20.0 B
NB
* L 315 0.424 0.528 L 0.803 29.4 C 16.5 B
TR 980 0.263 0.528 TR 0.497 9.8 A
SB
L 388 0.001 0.528 L 0.003 5.9 A 11.6 B
TR 950 0.322 0.528 TR 0.611 11.6 B
Intersection:Delay= 14.8 sec/veh Int.LOS=B Xc 0.66 *Critical Lane Group 2(v/s)Crit=0.56
SIG/Cinema v3.03 Page I
NETSIM Summary Results
2010 Full Buildout Griffin Drive/N. Rouse Avenue
D.J. Clark 10/19/2005
PM Design Hour Case: GRIFFIN-ROUSE SIGNAL
=j
Queues Spillback in
Per Lane Average Worst Lane
Lane Avg/Max Speed (%of Peak 389
App Group (veh) (mph) Period) 166 11II
+ 4
EB LT 3 / 4 15.8 0.0
R 1 / 2 19.5 0.0 L 2
All 16.8 0.0 9
1'�l �- 6
WB LTR 1 / 1 10.2 0.0 - —
—z 1I
All 10.2 0.0
191
2 ` ,I �
161 —Z
NB L 12/ 19 1.1 36.6
TR 7/ 16 5.9 14.9 t
197116
369
All 4.0 36.6
SB L 0/ 0 0.0 0.0 - 2 - - s
TR 4/ 6 17.8 0.0 r
6 + 3 0 8 + 3 1 28 i 3 1
All 17.8 0.0
Intersect. 7.6
SIG/Cinema v3.03 Page 2
Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Site Information
tlyst D.J. Clark Intersection Bridger Canyon/Creekwood
Appr,yency/Co. Marvin &Associats
Jurisdiction FUTURE
Date Performed 101512005 Analysis Year 2025
Analysis Time Period PM Design Hour
Project Description The Legends // Subdivision TIS
East/West Street: Brid er Canyon Road North/South Street: Creekwood Sub Access Approach
Intersection Orientations East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 2 3 5 6
L T I R L T R
Volume veh/h) 34 293 0 0 366 6
Peak-hour factor. PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 ' 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate(veh/h) 37 325 0 0 406 6
Proportion of heavy
vehicles, PHv 0 — — 0 --
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 1 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LT TR
Upstream Signal 1 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
�'-vement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume veh/h) 0 0 0 4 0 20
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 0 4 0 22
Proportion of heavy 0 0 0 2 2 2
vehicles, PHv
Percent grade (%} 0 0
Flared approach N N
Storage I 0 0
RT Channeiized? I 0 0
Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0
Configuration LR
Control Delay, Queue Length, Levi101 ervice
Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LT LR
'Volume, v (vph) 37 26
Capacity, cm (vph) 1158 564
v/c ratio 0.03 0.05
Queue length (95%) 0.10 0.14
Control Delay (s/veh) 8.2 11.7
3 A 8
Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 11.7
Approach LOS -- -- B
Copyright®2003 Utuversity of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4 1 d
file://C:\Documents and Settings\dj_2\Local Settings\Temp\u2k7E.tmp 10/19/2005
Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information Mi e• nformation
Ilyst D.J. Clark Intersection Bridger Canyon/Headlands
r,gency/Co. Marvin &Associats Appr.
Jurisdiction FUTURE
Date Performed 101512005 Analysis Year 2025
Analysis Time Period PM Design Hour
Project Description The Legends It Subdivision TIS
East/West Street: Brid er Canyon Road North/South Street: Headlands Sub Access Approach
Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25
WhIcle=Volumes and Ad'ustments
Major Street Eastbound Westbound
Movement 1 1 2 3 4 5 6
L T R L T R
Volume veh/h 61 323 15 3 381 2
Peak-hour factor. PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Hours Flow Rate veh/h) 67 358 16 3 423 2
Proportion of heavy
vehicles, PHv 0 0 -
Median type Undivided
RT Channelized? 1 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Upstream Signal 0 0
Minor Street Northbound Southbound
N"nvement 7 8 9 10 11 12
L T R L T R
Volume veh/h 9 0 3 1 0 35
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
'Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 10 0 3 1 0 38
Proportion of heavy
vehicles, PHv 0 0 0 2 2 2
Percent grade(%) 0 0
Flared approach N N
Storage 0 0
RT Channelized? 0 0
Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0
Configuration LTR LTR
Control Delay, Queue Len evel of Service =
Approach I EB WB Northbound Southbound
Movement I 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12
Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR
'Volume, v (vph) 67 3 13 39
Capacity, cm (vph) 1145 1212 254 603
v/c ratio 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.06
Queue length (95%) 0.19 0.01 0.16 0.21
Control Delay (s/veh) 8.3 8.0 I 19.9 11.4
A A I C B
Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 19.9 11.4
Approach LOS -- -- C I B
Copyright®2003 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4:1d
file://C:\Documents and Settings\dj_2\Local Settings\Temp\u2k7B.tmp 10/19/2005
APPENDIX C - SPOT SPEED STUDY WORKSHEETS
SPOT SPEED STUDY ANALYSIS (Counter)
SITE : Station 01 -Bridger Canyon Road
DIRECTION: Eastbound
DATE: February 1-2,2005
TIME: 24 hours
SPEED SPEED SPEE I " t:PM0=-VE RELATIVE CUMULATIVE
RANGE VALUE FREQUENCY FREQUENCY FREQ (%o) FREQ (%)
21 to 25 25 8 8 0.48% 0.48%
26 to 30 30 5 13 0.30% 0.78%
31 to 35 35 18 31 1.07% 1.85%
36 to 40 40 81 112 4.84% 6.69%
41 to 45 45 398 510 23.76% 30.45%
46 to 50 50 630 1140 37.61% 68.06%
51 to 55 55 350 1490 20.90% 88.96%
56 to 60 60 143 1633 8.54% 97.49%
61 to 65 65 31 1664 1.85% 99.34%
66 to 70 70 9 1673 0.54% 99.88%
71 to 75 75 2 1675 0.12% 100.00%
TOTAL VEHICLES= 1675
MEAN SPEED= 50.30 mph
85TH PERCENTILE = 54.05 mph
PACE SPEED= 41 mph TO 50 mph
SIOMOID CURVE
120.00%
100.00x ..__ .............. .»..... ...... ........
..._..............«_..«.....«...... :..»_.. _»,_.......I
p
LLJ
40.00% I '
LU
a.
20AOx ... ..« ....... I __..._»...�.....«............ «... -
I
0.00%
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 s0 OS TO 75
SPEED(MILESMOUR)
SPOT SPEED STUDY ANALYSIS (Counter)
SITE : Station 91 -Bridger Canyon Road
DIRECTION: Westbound
DATE: February 1-2,2005
TIME: 24 hours
SPEED' SPEED' SPEED CUMULATIVE RELATIVE CUMULATIVE
RANGE VALUE FREQU,, CY FREQUENCY ,E'f,�;(?,) FREQ
21 to 25 25 7 7 0.40% 0.40%
26 to 30 30 11 18 0.63% 1.03%
31 to 35 35 17 35 0.97 o 2.00%
36 to 40 40 137 172 7.83% 9.83%
41 to 45 45 526 698 30.06% 39.89%
46 to 50 50 646 1344 36.91% 76.80%
51 to 55 55 247 1591 14.11% 90.91%
56 to 60 60 114 1705 6.51% 97.43%
61 to 65 65 36 1741 2.06% 99.49%
66 to 70 70 8 1749 0.46% 99.94%
71 to 75 75 1 1750 0.061 100.00%
TOTAL VEHICLES= 1750
MEAN SPEED= 49.11 mph
85TH PERCENTILE 52.90 mph
PACE SPEED= 41 mph TO 50 mph
SIOMOID CURVE
120.00'/
I I
i
Y 60.00% .......-......................»_:.... ........... _........... ............+.........__}..............................................
W60.00% ... ......_..__....._.._... _......._._.._.�.... ........_.._.....__.....................i...............I........_....................
40.00% »».............................._.._.. _.. ........._..__...._..............._._..._•............._......_......7...............
I E
20.00% _..- -
i
0.00%
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
SPEED(MILESIHOUR)
SPOT SPEED STUDY ANALYSIS (Counter)
SITE : Station#1 -Bridger Canyon Road
DIRECTION: Both Directions
DATE: February 1-2,2005
TIME: 24 hours
SPEED AN_
0, SPEED CUMUr�LATIVE- RELATIVE CUMULATIVE
RANGE FREQU��11�'r2if" � `U11i�2Y' FREQ(%o) FREQ (%)
21 to 25 25 15 15 0.44% 0.44%
26 to 30 30 16 31 0.479/6 0.91%
31 to 35 35 35 66 1.02% 1.93%
36 to 40 40 218 284 6.36% 8.29%
41 to 45 45 924 1208 26.98% 35.27%
46 to 50 50 1276 2484 37.26% 72.53%
51 to 55 55 597 3081 17.43% 89.96%
56 to 60 60 257 3338 7.50% 97.46%
61 to 65 65 67 3405 1.96% 99.42%
66 to 70 70 17 3422 0.50% 99.91%
71 to 75 75 3 3425 0.09% 100.00%
TOTAL VEHICLES= 3425
MEAN SPEED= 49.69 mph
65TH PERCENTILE = 53.58 mph
PACE SPEED= 41 mph TO 50 mph
SIOMOID CURVE
120.00% _-
I
100.00% ................_.».„..�Y.__....»». ...._».....' _.._»._..�........._... .........» .�....
u
u e0.0ac i
40.00% ._»_.._..........
..............»........_...»......... ... .._.»....._..�.._.. ........_...._.........»...._....... .._..«..
20.00% .__.._...I ...._ ._....._._..L............ ..........._...._»»_..�__. .....W.�..
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 s0 s5 70 75
SPEED(MILES/HOUR)
APPENDIX D - TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT WORKSHEETS
Intersection: Bridger Drive and Sto Mill Road
Case: Full Buildout(2010
Date: October 18,2005
Major Street: Bridger!hive Minor Street 1: Story Mill Road Minor Street 2:
Major Street Dirt(N•S or 1•;"'): E-'N Nlinor Street I Dir.(N S or E-W): N-S Minor Street 2 Dir.(N-S or
A) roach Dir.(NB or SB) NB Approach Dir.(E:B or 1V6)
Major Sheet Speed Limit. ®mph Major Street 851h%Speed: ®mph Total Intersection Approaches:
Hour Beginning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Bridger Drive EB 7 12 9 7 19 82 220 295 276 246 267 274
Bridger Drive WB 6 3 8 10 24 74 212 207 149 156 196 165
Story Mill Road NB 1 1 1 1 2 8 22 30 28 25 17 28
Story Mill Road SB 2 4 3 2 6 28 76 101 95 84 92 94
Major Approach Totals 13 16 17 17 43 156 432 502 1 425 401 462 439
Max Minor Approach Vol. 2 4 3 1 2 1 61A 28 76 101 95 84
Total EntermL Volume 17 20 22 1 20 51 192 1 530 633 548 511 581 661
Hour Bet!innini, 13 14 IS 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24
Brid(;er Driyc Eli 346 274 262 362 369 189 138 124 87 40 28 7
Bridger Drive WR 231 262 265 377 221 135 50 21 14 19 6 3
Story Mill Road NB 35 28 27 37 38 19 14 13 9 4 3 1
Story Mill Road SB 119 94 90 125 127 65 47 43 30 14 10 2
Nla'or A>troach Totals 577 535 527 740 591 324 188 145 101 59 34 10
Max Minor Approach Vol. 119 1 94 90 125 127 65 47 43 30 14 10 2
Total Enterine Volume 731 1 657 643 901 756 409 249 200 1 140 1 77 47 13
Condition A Condition B
Volume Warrants Values I Minimums Values Minimums
Ma/or(Total Entering,) Minor Major(Total Entering) Minor Mainr Minor Major Minor
8th Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 462 92 105 439 94 525 53
4th Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 535 94 535 116
Peak Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant (901) 125 (800) 100 740 125 740 131
Crash Experience Warrant 462 92 400 120 439 49 600 60
Roadwav Network Warrant 901 1000
Warrant#1-Eight-hour Vehicular Volume Warrant#2-Four-hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 1 Condition A Met NO 87 6°A Warrant 2 Conditions>1ct NO flc,8°L:
Warrant 1 Condition B Met NO 83 8%
Warrant 1 80%Condtions A&B Met NO 73.2%
Warrant#3-Peak Hour Warrant#4-Pedestrian Volumes
Warrant 3 Condtion A.1 Met NO 26.2% Warrant 4 Condtion A Stet NIA N/A
Warrant 3 Condtion A.2 Met YES 125.0% Warrant 4 Condition B J1ct NIA NIA
Warrant 3 Condtion A.3 Met YES 112.60A
Warrant 3 Condtion B Met NO 99.3%
Warrant#5-School Crossing Warrant#6-Coordinated Signal System
Warrant 5 Condtions Met NIA WA Warrant 6 Condtions Met NO 0 0%
Warrant#7-Crash Experience Warrant#8-Roadway Network
Warrant 7 Condtion A Met NIA N/A Warrant 8 Condtions N1ct NO
Warrant 7 Condtion B Met NJA NIA
Warrant 7 Condtion C Met NIA N/A
Warrant Number and Title Met PereentMet
1 Eight-hour Vehicular Volume NO 871%,
2 Four-hour Vehicular Volume NO 96.6%
3 Peak Hour NO 99.3%
4 Pedestrian Volumes NIA NIA
5 School Crossing NIA NIA
6 Coordinated Signal System NO 0.0%
7 Crash Experience WA NIA
8 Roadwav Network NO 90.1%
Total Number of Warrants Met 0
APPENDIX E - TURN LANE WARRANT WORKSHEETS
28.4(8) INTERSECTIONS AT-GRADE November 2000
Z o
i z Z4
u � �O o
F- 0 3 = K L.J W {, W
J O? W Z
00 0 S W~ r
Z
I.- V} 4 W ~ W � 06
J O W >cr
~
� i � =
W (90 f- Q J Jr 3
d LJ
N W W OJ a' W Z f-
C� 2: ZOZ N ~ a Z
Z f- V LLJ
f-
, .. W Z W
W K ~ y Z = W
La via W J V a J
W W j ; _ = W'M� G
> ~ Z , f•- ~ o ~ N
0 .
> w W x ,- w C W �
O F W f- ZO v V J Q
(.� V O J f- W Q to p Z
< U.O 6 = 00 O OOWO co C,
z Jg : ZW �d3 W WO~ > Z Y
FO 2 V O 'Q F W ~W J w p �
La 0
W W F, 1- f- r W m O 2 s J s-►- _
p to N M1
aZ �a z W4 VUJ .�
W J =
o LL
Z W co
- - J — ~ - - o H Z IN
W 20 W / LO
J V) -�
°n / > O 0
LLILL N
p,-
}�_4�7 , p —i Z H
�0 7 7�s� .7 hxti7 M O V
p pis :,7•?dr`ti th^..;!?:..iw! > W W
N xa? < 2 ty:tea: .
M E J•7.ir•7Gi�i#.r YcYr {,t+�•��ka�''•i$t7iC'Ja•,'+,"k1'�,,il �r � M �`J
G r., o .•a . r _
s• �,.;.s. .Yt 4t`%!;s• ? 7� W ;tsrs p0 Z W L1
I`�t,`I��l A�+1�1�, P•,' q'{y,y.S ',� ,r 1g.. - .,- ..-. U /R
,,,• ,';,-.' �x ! 4:`'i "4",��4, �.�'"�•�.}".M Si' 3•`t:•`17r,Y,` N Z V Z
,d�S7?`i.'hs.7s g.�e �,u:;r�h = ?�l 7? l.7 ?•s��• 7t yi•.; W aY..�i7i, t
a fy 'i7a7�F'4c7c c4c4ch ' 4� 'te. cYr•! c h:. 7 Z � �>,
x ,:x, ,;,"7;;�7- x7 zqx}�",x7??•x'�k3?•7I7•��r-�7:::7i7-<. "" s•�7�7s'` Q � tv
7? 7 k3� 7�s4as7 7 ks7 ?7ss7s 7s 7s�u 77 7= =7:7?s7.7F s t �•}Ys.s71.7i.7: Z ;7:7x7s'' >
.4-T,h�.k'rZ•k"r,!•a,ate'F 4' 4%41.Yya 4i.�.Tr75i.fhyYe.Y�7.?,•�aA�if47.hyY?
` i F-
A f � p
p aaJ
`t��i7.G`�-547�4"4�,7,`,J,Yi.7L`r37s7 7.7s.r:G7.,7`•i4;�als "Ys7s 9.;v„•`ry�: ytiy4Z:Y,,,7;,f.�y•4Y'.�Cth�`�.i';..�i.�: H Q4T`U
4rj7-:7='7•i 7?'7•�jf Y.,4i4 i S ,"{, a.f ,}. C44. ,{?�`'J,: 4,{ `i'4:r;.,a4.Yy 4 . S i} LL F� `c..
b� d,'•7?'�7 7-• 7•�i:t ! 7 ,,. x7_ ii rF'1.'ti l?,. ^,r 7s•ti•?•�:• 7 7r ' W sd 7:7?•, Q
r• V} •tL't t?'7sYs x:7?•fd'7 7•{'Y-•PF•�1Fnh�.4t�, r.r.`ra .• ,47- k Y .. '47 4i i.4Y r4
'41-`��,�,. ,.� "d `l! �L.71 ,3.. S. •L`t!S'i•`,t}",•<-:tka-7y�!'.,_�L:, W m O i`r3 f•7s• >
7s'7`,�r4a s7 757s•,t•rs'7;7i7 7'1 r» tr7s 7� Yh 7.7s7 7`t k`Z ' r;1.7 hsy}. 4i {.h,,�. J F— Z
r•17 i �2';• !7 7 7 7 s`:a ;F i„?'x ?:•• 7?•7;:,x�•7' 7�,�?• ,
•1.3'7����•� x?•+ •;x4 h.'�?•�{•7t7s'7%7_s•7s7•i�ts7�f r"s.4•�i7.4s.7,,.M?.4s r?•�7i•7a7x7�;.•7?•x�x7s�1=•7.,,x,_ '�7x7?7�,
ihi •t:7_7s7 7::7>yi�7x7?•T 7-Y•7s•: 4s4 7.7'7'.
•7?'�x i.�x x7r "•7:7 a-•`�,',?•7s•7 •Zs ?�rx,3,•,,, 7.:7 -•7 7- s ��,s si.a, .fi y x•>;
•r..s•7:•�r'sa,.7.`;•.4s.7..�'s7r7 7sa_:t.as 1.7%7s s.7y7s.;tc.7..ti.7s.s7-.7s.73.`�s7s,y s.7s7i.;t'ry7si rtirti.7s45•tii•7st?�4L7s s•7s4s
O O O O O O
00 1— to ul w Pn (4f
O
HnOH NOIS30 ONidna (HdA) 3Wf110A ONISOddO—On
28.4(8) INTERSECTIONS AT-GRADE November 2000
Z Z
0
� � _ -i Z boo
r V 3 = N J 4 4 W
- O y) a:
W W W
W -ia. F F J J m
J O > W Z W a
O O ~ o = r0 W H
_ 1A
i.- Nli W W � O �
cr J
F
W CZ9G -- C) J JF 3
a W U W U i
W Z
= O a f =ZO N r a Z
K
F• =
Z L) O F" H H WLLP 9J
.: W W _
D: '�d W J 0. L W
O
a" WOE Q: S = WK� 1,�1 i
O th Q ONE"
W W W Z W F-• ZO W J
M O H W H � ZO L.U J Q
U � Q W �00 rW <W O Z
0O Zo � = Zoo o BBOW aoo
N J aO R' Z W a 3 = 2 = W� Z
O W 7 y) Q W 1- F (A Z - i0 (0,•\\ 7
QLLJ ~ WLLJ = O H W li ZQW J{Wi, __ Q O Cl) 'V
W W ix 1- Z H r W D; O Z J H ce / O V/
Q Q Z N M N
LLw Z z ?�
� U
U 0 V a
z Z LLI
O
� m z — U.
Z W co
�- 5 o z N Iot,
-i(n -i J L E
� 1
Io W N R
u) 0 > O LL
o�° W O z 1
D W - e
oho o ; s' in O
° ion c £ 3,'hk ri7 i71�.7kka�'�x; > W w
N O Q c i.�.,li4�(h:1 �U rS!• r yti k'l�hr co� ,�;}' ,1��•�y17�k���f'�$;�1�,;.,4 �tiY.k:W^�y �,r, O �_ � r`�
�'r•+',"5,h`%!,y;.'tfr 1.;1 J,♦'iY Y•,ttW"t Y'. W Y� ".�ir� Q Z_ = W N
''h"';�' `:5.`�yt=:r:`�..y ` (�,!4"V'J•+'y' ♦17��%i:7a, — 1•�S� 't.•' N V ~ ,•�`
r +i; 1,r� +Sr"�' wgk:,'•i.t+. i•,if•' b i..�'tr•
5,; ,a, d °:X ''!•�'ah%r,- 1'y!•,.5f:7 ,1 _,.7rtt371,;7i + z f- = r.;� ,�x W Z
k 71-
7- K S,i ty71'7s
.y, kti;.ti_.�y 3. ;�y `if y� if471 k7}t4"7.kY, 'a''�ti hx S♦fyti"..f. z I� k'.7t: >
it.y5i.45hy rk�.lf�{45.hi +St.4. 4�gkyk.`:S.k,{.yk +�yy9`ty,,+.r 1. +V•.yt��jrh,.,.t!.f�14rhr, a(y(��r.��`j, l.r hiti. � W lfI ..47.+�!.41.
t!5 .4w�}4. "�,?t�Xt '1.�,C1� t ,wl ^�tn Yt7. �. C•• {.47:t- .(.: ,,yy�}ir �f✓{ rh.4�{v,y
'hx td Sty fY ��'ts 1. r ♦ d't4 f , t f.. 1r,,. til• yf:'''f.f Li � F-• -) ?t7 ,t 0
Li '1'+iS,S4• i:.. F" Q i•♦tt'"i.."ri4%+ 0 I OrfY i�'f.1 • , t^: �S. tiy, y • 1, - LL I--• C +.fQ ,•.k'4�', f: •aj�"k5h 5,{ vl 1,'t_7 .3 At ':r'ti ?� W '!•�1•r1•�'t Q,yt+ 1'�fii{, •!'t'?a'77'w�x `'�{,l•7J.`,�•r�;'r •y7yk1� 1 a`f�+.. !,::'! W Oi:•7.•,:73k � " � � ."f,•ki'i ., H ZS4� yr.,_ ,_ + wi,..xn,aaa; 7w7•.iSysa [ 1 =ytrw.`(,1"..f.!.�'1:�'1 ty fi�1.4 �,SX i,,y1S.5:.yz`!.yf rJ�7.:a•71.yZ7;y':'%'hn�-'„'[57!-�1',i'•i�.7sf'.b`!.`fJ.+frh:•'y y4s,j 4yi!,MS.byf!•'y 71.gS.ty`fi,:ty1•k! s`fy rr•c k!.4 "lti y!.{s,s y .=.hy!.h.+tyk 7!.y,1.yyy..�1.y7s+f!. .rytiy4s
O O O O O O O O
CD ti W LO w PM N r
dnOH NOIS30 ONi?jnG (Hdn) 3v4nlOA ONISOddO—On
&-twaae (Zvo) �P-e-�- - well, 44(--,414z,
AASHTO Table IX-15.
Guide For Left Turn Lane
700
600 50 mph �--
E 5% LT
0 500 .� --®--
> 10% LT
=400
v
15% LTO
0300
-E
200
20% LT
100
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Opposing Volume
.z 0 •�e�� .Ge v�ru�� w c J� do CSC
Z.,0 -P4 4,t
AASHTO Table IX-15.
Guide For Left Turn Lane
700
600 50 mph -e
d 5% LT
0 500
> 10% LT
0 400 - -
._ -.-
_ 15% LTO
300 -�_
V --a -
Q 200 20% LT
100 -- - - -
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Opposing Volume
�7 I��, �� �c :a ,a,/�u..-�4 f�c-�a=�<-.i- -cc�G.t•cL� . .c�,ew� /
��
i
D"iA i2F•..ised Sii;�r95
STATE OF MONTANA-DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
HELENA, MONTANA 59620-1001
DRIVEWAY APPROACH APPLICATION AND PERMIT
-To be filled In by Department of Transportation Personnel-
F.A. ROUTE NO.: APPROACH STATION:
DISTRICT: NO.: MILEPOST:
COUNTY: PROJECT:
DRAINAGE AS DETERMINED BY DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION:
Type: Size: Length:
Approach Recommended by Date Approach Application Date
District Traffic Engineer or Approved by
Traffic Unit District Administrator
APPLICANT(Property Owner) T
Name: Fcl6 e C-l e-JJ L•L-C c4 J &Jkic1cCQ J'iC ,hone: 4 06' 0
Address: —i3D ,J Opt'leyM.7 H M f S$OL(ic'J M T 59$O 2_
herein termed the applicant,requests permission to construct approach(es)described and shown on
attached plot plan or plan and profile and hereby made a part of this application,
Please indicate if permits or approaches are required from units of government other than the Department of
Transportation. Write the number of permits required in the box:
❑Federal Government ❑ State ❑ County L&City ❑ N/A
Private: (� Public: -- , .11,le, , Z! - �u61,a r>re#"
Use of Property or Facility: A«s Leo Pr1A Ir GLAbcl iV151i7W-1
(Residence,11railer Court,Gas Station,Field Access,
Type of Business,etc.)
LOCATION:
City or Town: 13oze man, jya hfan a
(If rural,direction&approx.distance from nearest
�+ city or town)
Street Name,if any: RN/dael'ln r1 KQ�1f aje[-; I ijt FBrM App.
ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY:
Sight Distance: Left: Z��� 1 Right: 1 ZDO t
p r
Surfacing: $17i LIW'1nQUS Width: 3Z.
APPROACH: Q rr
Estimated number of trips per day: Lego,,d-�. T I.S -
r �
Width: Bra Flare: -0_ Side of Roadway: 4or+k-
(N.E.S,W)
DRAINAGE: See above as determined by Department of Transportation.
INSTRUCTION CONCERNING USE OF THIS FORM
Applicant will complete and deliver this form in duplicate to the District Administrator serving the area in
which the Approach Permit is requested.
The District Administrator,in conjunction with the District Traffic Engineer,is delegated authority to approve curb cuts,
public and private approaches serving businesses,residences and agricultural uses in rural or urban areas without
further consultation if the traffic conditions are not congested. In congested areas,usually urban situations,the
District Administrator and District Traffic Engineer can request the Manager,Traffic Unit in Helena for additional
technical assistance. If this is necessary,the approach should be scaled onto existing plan and profile sheets
showing the highway right-of-way and sent to Helena.
0:1NI'GurD:112A neviaed 3/101M
-APPROACH PERMIT-
Subject to the following terms and conditions,the penult applied for upon the reverse side hereof,Is hereby granted:
1) TERM. This permit shall be In full force and effect from the date hereof until revoked as herein provided.
2) RENTAL. Rental shall be
3) REVOCATION. This permit may be revoked by State upon giving thirty(30)days notice to Permittee by ordinary mall,directed
to the address shown in the application hereto attached,but the State reserves the right to revoke this permit without giving
said notice in the event Permittee breaks any of the conditions or terms set forth herein.
4) COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. No work shall be commenced until Permittee notifies the District Administrator,shown in
application,when he proposes to commence work.
5) CHANGES IN HIGHWAY. If the State changes the highway,or there are other changes to adjoining streets,alleys,etc.,which
necessitate alterations in structures or Installations Installed under this permit,Permittee shall make the necessary alterations
at Perrmillee's sole expense or in accordance with a separate agreement
6) STATE SAVED HARMLESS FROM CLAIMS. In accepting this permit the Permittee,its/hls successors or assigns,agree to
protect the State and save it harmless from all claims,actions or damage of every kind and description which may accrue to,or
be suffered by,any person or persons,corporations or property by reason of the performance of any such work,character of
materials used,or manner of installations,maintenance and operation,or by the improper occupancy of said highway right of
way,and in case any suit or action is brought against the State and arising out of,or by reason of,any of the above causes,
the Permittee,Its/his successors or assigns,will upon notice to lUhlm of the commencement of such action,defend the same at
its/hls sole cost and expense and satisfy any judgment which may be rendered against the State in any such suit or action,
7) PROTECTION OF TRAFFIC. Insofar as the interests of the Slate and the travelling public are concerned,all work performed
under this permit shall be done under the supervision of the District Administrator of the Department of Transportation and his
authorized representatives,and he/they shall indicate barriers to be erected,the lighting thereof at night,placing of flagmen
and watchmen,manner in which traffic is to be handled,and shall specify to Permiltee how road surface is to be replaced if It is
disturbed during operations,but said supervision shall in no way operate to relieve or discharge Permittee from any of the
obligations assumed by acceptance of this permit,and especially those set forth under Section 6 thereof.
8) HIGHWAY DRAINAGE. If the work done under this permit Interferes in anyway with the drainage of the State Highway
affected,Permittee shall,at Its/his own expense,make such provisions as the State may direct to lake care of said drainage.
9) RUBBISH AND DEBRIS. Upon completion of work contemplated under this permit,all rubbish and debris shall be immediately
removed and the roadway and the roadside left in a neat and presentable condition satisfactory to the State.
10) WORK TO BE SUPERVISED BY STATE. All work contemplated under this permit shall be done under the supervision of and
to the satisfaction of the authorized representative of the Slate,and the State hereby reserves the right to order the change of
location or removal of any structure or installation authorized by this permit at any time,said changes or removal to be made at
the sole expense of the perrmitlee.
11) STATE'S RIGHT NOT TO BE INTERFERED WITH. All such changes,reconstructing or relocation shall be done by Permittee,
In such a manner as will cause the least interference with any of the State's work,and the State shall In no wise be liable for
any damage to the Permittee by reason of any such work by the Slate,Its agents,contractors or representatives,or by the
exercise of any rights by the State upon the highways by the installations or structures placed under this permit.
12) REMOVAL OF INSTALLATIONS OR STRUCTURES. Unless waived by the Slate,upon termination of this permit,the
Permiltee shall remove the installations or structures contemplated by this permit and restore the premises to the condition
existing at the time of entering upon the same under this permit,reasonable and ordinary wear and tear and damage by the
elements,or by circumstances over which the Permittee has no control,excepted.
13) MAINTENANCE AT EXPENSE OF PERMITTEE. Permittee shall maintain,at its/his sole expense the installations and
structures for which this permit is granted,In a condition satisfactory to the State.
14) STATE NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGE TO INSTALLATIONS. In accepting this permit the Permittee agrees that any damage or
Injury done to said installations or structures by a contractor working for the Slate,or by any State employee engaged in
construction,alteration,repair,maintenance or Improvement of the State Highway,shall be at the sole expense of the
Permittee.
15) STATE TO BE REIMBURSED FOR REPAIRING ROADWAY. Upon being billed therefor Permittee agrees to promptly
reimburse State for any expense incurred In repairing surface or roadway due to settlement at Installation,or for any other
damage to roadway as a result of the work performed under this permit.
16) OTHER CONDITIONS AND/OR REMARKS.
a. All approach side slopes will be constructed on not less than 6 to 1 slope,unless otherwise approved.
b. No private signs or devices etc.,will be constructed or Installed within the highway right-of-way limits.
c. This permit is valid only if approach construction is completed within months from date of issue.
Dated at ,Montane,this day of ,is=
The undersigned,the'Permittee'mentioned in the aforegoing instrumenl, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
hereby accepts this permit,together with all of the terms and conditions
set forth(herein By:
District Adminlslrator
Completed Approach Inspected by:
Permittee
Dale
-One copy of permit to District Administrator for rile
-One copy of permit to Applicant Title
:Q:MTC: